European Tribune

Display:
I have been thinking about stockholder value, and I don't know when it happened  but there has been a shift from "stockholder value" = "dividends" to "stockholder value" = "share appreciation" at which point running a company for stockholder value becomes like running a PR operation or even a Ponzi scheme, because the "value" becomes decoupled from the firm's ability to generate dividends
or profit, or revenue.

In addition, standard "share valuation" techniques such as "share price equals discounted present value of future dividends" become false.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM EST
Now that markets are arbitraged, a dividend is equivalent to a stock buyback, since the company's valuation decreases by the dividends it gives, right ?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you're right, in which case out the window goes "fundamental analysis".

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Prices are a social construct and like all social constructs are deeply influenced by PR...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Companies' assets decrease when dividends are paid by the amount of the dividend. And there is always a hiccup in pricing for a couple of days when a share goes from being "cum dividend" to "ex dividend".

But in the short, medium and long term the price reflects  investors' expectations of net income=profits, and whether or not this is paid out in dividends is not generally more than a tax issue.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
running a company for stockholder value becomes like running a PR operation

Companies are run like participatory theatre - there's an outline plot, and everyone is supposed to follow that plot, whether or not it makes sense.

Unfortunately different characters have different goals. A common CEO sub-plot involves doing something bold and dramatic - but often rather stupid and financially destructive - in order to Make A Point about one's CEOness.

In the limit this leads to scenes like Iraq.

If there's such a thing as real value, it's going to have more in common with how much people are willing to pay for the tickets which give them a chance to feel part of the show than with any realistic expectation of future returns.

So the PR/story-telling angle creates 'real' value.

How many listed companies have valuations close to the figures that would make sense if fundamentals really mattered?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 12:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The reason for the shift has been, as I understand it - taxation. It is very often more effective taxwise to roll up accumulated profits as reserves.

It is therefore "notional" dividends/ retained profits which underpin market value in the same way as notional property rental values underpin property prices, with "Buy to Let" as the arbitrage.  

There's a big difference between:

(a) making Profits - and not paying dividends for tax reasons; and

(b) making losses - so there aren't any profits to retain.

Most DotComs were profit free zones, some without even GROSS revenues, never mind NET.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 01:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the difference is liquidity. If stock is not very liquid the only profit from it comes from dividends, not from selling the stock.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 06:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here in the US it happened in the mid-80's.  I got my MBA (MS actually) at MIT in 1982 and remember when friends at Harvard started talking about "shareholder value" and "shareholder wealth" in 1983 and 1984 - part of the boom in strategic planning and strategic thinking.  It caught on rapidly.
by cambridgemac on Thu May 22nd, 2008 at 07:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The 1980's? Cue in Gecko's "greed is good".

And note how he extols the gilded age and the robber barons, and the social Darwinist narrative. Maybe in the 1980's the lid was lifted by the fact of the fading memory of the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. After all, in the introduction to his book The Great Crash 1929, J K Galbraith says that it is memory and not regulation that prevents speculative bubbles and crashes.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 23rd, 2008 at 04:38:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
The Purpose of Education
by rdf - Nov 20
23 comments

In Defense of the Electoral College
by danps - Nov 22
1 comment

LQD: NATO as 'convenient threat' for Russia
by marco - Nov 21
20 comments

jitter noise rumble
by emilmoller - Nov 19
18 comments

LQD: The real orgasmic Puritans
by Ted Welch - Nov 20
32 comments

The Puritan Edge
by rg - Nov 20
122 comments

Computational simulations in science
by tiagoantao - Nov 20
20 comments

Early Friday Photography Blog No. 62
by LEP - Nov 20
58 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series