Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings


Forum distribution:

Survey comparing buy-side and sell-side analyst views of stock buybacks


Source: IR Magazine, April 15, 2016 article

Buybacks: why buy-siders and sell-siders disagree

April 15, 2016 | By Laurie Havelock

Latest IR Magazine research gathers opinion on the best use for excess corporate cash

More buy-siders than sell-siders believe companies are sacrificing too much to fund expensive share buybacks, according to IR Magazine research into what the investment community thinks about the best way to spend excess cash.

As part of the research for the Investor Perception Study – US 2016, buy-side and sell-side respondents were asked some general questions of interest to the IR community, including: do you think companies are sacrificing long-term organic growth and increasing wages to do buybacks?

Forty-one percent of US buy-siders agree with the statement, compared with just 25 percent of those on the sell side. Correspondingly, the sell side is far more likely to disagree with the sentiment (65 percent) than respondents on the buy side (41 percent).

The reasons for this split in opinion are not entirely clear, though looking at the additional comments provided by those surveyed does add some extra color. One sell-sider, for example, summarizes the situation fairly briefly: ‘Buybacks are acceptable only for companies that have a lot of excess cash, which is not always the case at companies doing them.’

Those who respond negatively often pick out the non-sustainable nature of excessive buybacks. ‘There is a big gap between corporate margins and income growth, which is at an all-time high,’ says one buy-sider, adding that the practice cannot continue, while a sell-sider points out: ‘It is not a good thing in the long term.’

Those who disagree with the question fall into two camps: those who believe buybacks are a good use of excess cash and those who don’t see them in their sector or the companies they cover.

‘This is political bashing: buybacks are being given a bad name,’ notes a buy-side respondent. ‘The anti-buyback message is a red herring. Within a mix of choices for allocation, buybacks provide good shareholder value.’

A third group of respondents – those equivocal about the issue – generally point out that it depends on the individual industry, sector or company as to whether buybacks are appropriate.

So if companies should not be spending cash on buybacks, what would be a better use of the money?

Answers from the buy side and sell side largely align on this: around a third of each camp picks out investment in long-term organic growth as the best use of excess cash, with buybacks, acquisitions and dividends following closely behind.

This question produced only minor differences between buy-side and sell-side responses, however, with many noting that it’s often a company-specific question and others suggesting that a combination of options may be best.

The answer to the question of how to spend excess cash, therefore, remains dependent on a number of factors. For the majority of our respondents, a careful mix of returning shareholder value and investing in a company’s future seems the best approach


Copyright Cross Border Ltd. 1995 - 2016 All rights reserved.


This Forum program was 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 purpose of this public Forum's program was 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 was 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 in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

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.