Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

See related case examples of

Dell Inc.

appraisal rights for intrinsic value realization

and

Walgreen Co.

stock buyback policies

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference

For graphs of specific company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

For graphs of specific company voting for the past 5 years, see

Shareholder Support Rankings

 

 

 

Forum distribution:

Publication for investment advisers reports concerns about stock buybacks

 

For previous Forum attention to issues addressed in the article below, see the "Stock Buyback Policy" section of the reference page for the Forum's 2014 project reviewing a buyback controversy. For plans to initiate a new program on the subject, see the March 18, 2016 Forum Report: Inviting Proposals of Candidates for Analysis of Stock Buyback Policies.

 

Source: Investment News, March 28, 2016 article

 

Stock buyback plans do little for long-term investors

Corporate execs, activist investors get the biggest bang from repurchase plans

Mar 28, 2016 @ 1:25 pm

By Jeff Benjamin

 

Stubbornly low interest rates and a struggling U.S. economy have left a lot of companies with limited options for growth, which helps explain the continued reliance on stock repurchase plans to push share prices higher.

It is a commonly used and often controversial means of boosting both share prices and earnings-per share, but the trend of buying back shares is real and likely to continue.

“What is becoming a major issue is the number of companies buying back more than they need and reducing shares significantly, by more than 4%,” said Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Capital IQ.

At the end of 2015, the cash sitting on the balance sheets of the companies making up the S&P 500 Index was at $1.326 trillion, which is just shy of the record $1.333 trillion reached in 2014.

Because that cash is earning next to nothing, there is pressure from shareholders to put the money to work either in the form of capital expenditures, acquisitions, dividend payments, or stock repurchase plans.

The fact that companies are leaning more heavily on stock buyback plans says a lot about what they see in terms of an economic outlook, and the influence of short-term investors, such as activist shareholders.

“Cash is a healthy thing to have on a balance sheet, but right now companies are not seeing any capital investment opportunities,” said Paul DeNicola, managing director with PwC's governance insights center.

“There is some pretty aggressive shareholder activism out there, and they want the cash returned to shareholders, one way or another,” he added.

According to Mr. Silverblatt, over each of the last eight quarters, 20% of S&P 500 companies reduced their share count by at least 4%, and in the final quarter of 2015, 25% of companies met that mark.

It is too early to know what the count will look like for the quarter ending March 31, but Mr. Silverblatt believes the pattern will continue because it has become one of the most dependable ways of propping up earnings per share, because reducing the number of shares spreads the earnings over fewer shares.

While it's hard to argue against a strategy that boosts share prices and earnings per share, the practice is raising concerns about the short-term versus long-term benefits, and whether it is a strategy that favors corporate executives most of all.

“As an investor, you're only impacted by an increase in the stock price if you decide to sell your shares, because there's no proof that long-term investors see the same benefits as short-term investors,” said Mr. DeNicola. “We know that the average holding period for a significant number of activists investors is less than two years, because their investments tend to be short-term focused.”

Even as the pace of stock buybacks shows no sign of slowing down, there might be some growing resistance from institutional-class investors who are growing tired of the short-term focus.

“There's been a significant change in attitude toward buybacks from institutional investors, because we're seeing a real preference for some of these companies to put their money back to work as opposed to just buying back shares,” said Bob Rice, chief investment strategist at Tangent Capital.

Part of what Mr. Rice described as a “sea change” from institutional investors has to do with the way corporate executives might be benefitting from the buyback programs.

“It's pretty insidious by my way of thinking,” he added. “The executives stand to gain from the buybacks, because as the number of shares outstanding shrinks, the earnings per share goes up and that's where their bonuses are typically tied. It's a hell of a lot easier to buy back stock then it is to build a business.”

Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, also expects institutional investors to put some pressure on repurchase programs.

“Companies are starting to be a little more discriminate about these buybacks, because sometimes the companies that do the most buybacks are not the best-performing stocks,” he said. “In a slow or no-growth environment it might be the best option companies have, but a lot of companies have been fairly broad in their use of buybacks and I think the market is starting to question that wisdom.”

There are at least three exchange-traded funds designed to take advantage of stock-price movements pegged to share buyback plans.

AdvisorShares TrimTabs Float Shrink (TTFS), PowerShares Buyback Achievers (PKW), and SPDR S&P 500 Buyback (SPYB) each represent ways investors and financial advisers can passively participate in the buyback trend.

Todd Rosenbluth, director of mutual fund and ETF research at S&P Capital IQ, explained that the buyback ETFs are a good way to track the activity because they are managed based on corporate actions, as opposed to announcements of repurchase plans that don't always lead to actual buybacks.

“Announcing a buyback isn't necessarily a buyback,” he said. “A company is really just announcing a program that gives them the authorization to buy back stock.”  

 

Copyright © 2016 Crain Communications Inc.

 

 

 

This Forum program is open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the Forum's purpose is to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant is expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices, rather than investor decisions relating to only a single company. The Forum may therefore invite program support of several companies that can provide both expertise and examples of leadership relating to the issues being addressed.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to access@shareholderforum.com.

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.