In the data update posts this year, I have wended my way from the macro (equities collectives, the bond market and other asset classes) to the micro, starting with hurdle rates and returns in posts five and six and the debt/equity choice in my seventh post. In this post, I will look at the decision by businesses on how much cash to return to their owners, and in what form (dividends or buybacks), and how that decision played out globally in 2025. I will argue that dividend policy, more than any other aspect of corporate finance, is dysfunctional both for the firms that choose to return the cash and the investors who receive that cash. It is also telling that there are many who seem to view the very act of returning cash as a sign of failure on the part of firms that do so, even though it is the end game for every successful business.
The Dividend Decision
I start my corporate finance classes with a description of three core decisions that every firm has to make in the course of business, starting with the investment decision, where you try to invest in projects and investments that earn more than your hurdle rate, moving on to the financing decision, where you decide on the mix of debt and equity to use in funding those investments, and ending with the dividend decision, where firms decide how much cash to return to their owners. In the case of privately owned businesses, this cash can be withdrawn by the owners from the business, but in publicly listed companies, it takes the form of dividends or buybacks. In keeping with the notion that these are the cashflows to equity investors, and that those cash flows should represent what is left after (residual) after all other needs have been met, dividends should reflect that status and, at least in principle, be set after investing and financing decisions have been made:
That utopian view of residual cash being returned to shareholders is put to the test by two real-world realities that often govern corporate dividend policy:
Inertia: In many companies, dividend policy is set on auto pilot, with dividends this year set equal to dividends in the last year. It is for that reason that the word I would use to describe dividend policy, at least when it comes to conventional dividends, is 'sticky', and you can can see that stickiness at play at US companies, if you track the percentage of companies that increase dividends, decrease dividends or leave them unchanged every year.
In every single year, from 1988 to 2025, the percentage of companies that pay the same dividends that they did in the previous year outnumbers companies that change dividends, and when dividends are changed, they are more likely to be increased than decreased.
Me-tooism: In most companies, managers look to peer group dividend policy for guidance on how much, if any, to pay in dividends. Thus, if you are a bank or a utility, it is likely that you will pay high dividends, because everyone else in the sector does so, whereas technology companies will pay no or low dividends, because that is industry practice. While there are good reasons why some industry groups pay more dividends than others, including more predictable earnings and lower growth (and investment needs), hewing to the peer group implies that there will be outliers in each group (fast-growing banks or a mature technology companies) that will be trapped into dividend policies that don't suit them.
When maintaining or increasing dividends become the end game for a business, you unleash dividend monsters, where investing and financing decisions are skewed to meet dividend needs. Thus, a firm may turn away good investments or borrow much more than it should because it feels the need to sustain dividends.
I have long argued that dividends, in their sticky form, are unsuitable as cash returns to shareholders, but for much of the last century, they remained the primary or often only way to return cash to shareholders. While buying back stock has always been an option available to US companies, its use as a systematic way of returning cash picked up in the 1980s, and in the years since, stock buybacks have become the dominant approach to returning cash for US companies:
As you can see, in the last decade, more than 60% of cash returned to shareholders took the form of buybacks. The primary reason, in my view, is that buybacks, unlike dividends, are flexible, with companies often reversing buybacks, if macro circumstances change, as was the case in 2008 and 2020. There are other reasons that have been offered for the explosive growth in buybacks, but none of them are as significant. There are some who have argued it is stock-based compensation for managers that is pushing them away from dividends to stock buybacks, but that rationale makes more sense for stock options, where stock prices mater, than for restricted stock. In fact, even as more companies shift to restricted stock as their stock compensation mechanism, buybacks have continued to climb, and they are just as high at companies that have no or very low stock based compensation as at companies with high stock-based compensation. Investor taxes are alway in the mix, since investors are often taxed at different rates on dividends and capital gains, but changes in tax law in the last two decades have reduced, if not eliminated, the tax disadvantages associated with dividends, cutting against this argument.
I know that there are many investors, especially in the value investing camp, and quite a few economists, who believe that the shift away from dividends to buybacks is unhealthy, albeit for different reasons. I will return to many of the myths that revolve around buybacks later in this post.
A Rational Cash Return Policy
If you were designing a sensible cash return policy, it has to start with an assessment of how much cash there is available for a firm to return. Since that "potential dividend" should be the cash left over after taxes are paid, reinvestment has been made and debt repaid, it can be computed fairly simply from the statement of cash flows, as free cashflow to equity:
Note that free cash flow to equity starts with equity earnings, converts those earnings to cash flows by adding back depreciation and other non-cash charges, and then netting out capital expenditures and changes in working capital, with increases (decreases) in working capital reducing (increasing) cash flows. It is completed by incorporating the cash flows from debt, with debt issuances representing cash inflows to equity investors and debt repayments becoming cash outflows. Can free cash flows to equity be negative? Absolutely, and it can happen either because you are a money-losing company, too deep in the hole to dig yourself out, or even a money-making companies, with large reinvestment needs? Obviously, paying out dividends or buying back stock when your free cash flows to equity is violating the simple rule that if you are in a hole, you need to stop digging.
If your free cash flow to equity is positive, you can choose to return it to shareholders, either in the form of dividends or buybacks, but you are not obligated to do so. In fact, if you have positive free cashflows to equity and you choose to return none or only a portion of that cash flow, the difference accumulates into a cash balance. If you choose to return more than your free cashflow to equity, you will either have to deplete an existing cash balance, or if you run out of cash, go out and raise fresh capital.
A company that systematically holds back on cash that it could have returned will, over time, accumulate a large cash balance, but that, by itself, may not trigger a shareholder response, if shareholders trust the company's managers with their cash. After all, cash invested in liquid and riskless investments, like treasury bills and commercial paper, is a neutral (zero NPV) investment, and leaves shareholders unaffected. If you don't trust management to be disciplined, though, you may punish a company for holding too much cash, effectively apply a "lack-of-trust" discount to the cash. The picture below provides a framework for thinking through the cash return decision, and how it will play out in markets.
As you look at the interplay between earnings, investment needs and potential dividends, you can already see why you should expect cash return policies to change over a company's life cycle:
The cash returns you see in this graph should largely map on to common sense, with start-ups and very young companies, often money-losing and requiring substantial reinvestment to grow, having negative free cash flow to equity (thus requiring equity infusions). Young growth companies are usually self-funding because internal cash flows may rise to cover reinvestment, but these cash flows are not enough to pay dividends. Mature growth companies have enough cash to return, but stick with buybacks, because they value flexibility. Mature stable companies represent the sweet spot for dividend paying, since they have little in reinvestment needs and large predictable earnings and cash flows. As with everything else in the aging process, companies that refuse to act their age, i.e., young companies that choose to pay dividends or buy back stock or mature companies that insist on holding on to cash, damage themselves and their shareholders.
Dividends in 2025
I will start the assessment of how much companies returned to shareholders in 2025 by looking at conventional dividends paid by companies, using two metrics. The first metric is the dividend payout ratio, where I divide dividends paid by net income, but only if net income is positive; if net income is negative, and dividends get paid, the payout ratio is not meaningful:
As you can see the median payout ratio is about 35% (59%) for US (global) companies, but in both samples, most companies do not pay dividends. There is a sizable subset of companies (12% of US and 14% of global companies) that pay out more than 100% of earnings as dividends, with multiple reasons for that oversized number including a bad earnings year, a desire to increase financial leverage and partial liquidation plans all coming into play.
The second metric is the dividend yield, computed by dividing dividends paid by market capitalization, or dividends per share by the market price per share. In the graph below, I look at the distribution of dividend yields across companies in the graph below, in 2025:
Again looking at only dividend paying firms in the US and global samples, the median dividend yield was 1.10% for the former and 2.43% for the latter, with major divergences across sub-regions; note that the percent of dividend paying firms in the United States has dropped below 30% and even globally, less than half of firms pay dividends. The dividend yield ties into the cost of equity discussion that I initiated in my fifth data update, where I described the cost of equity as the rate of return that investors expect to make on their equity investments. In the United States, for instance, that expected return was about 8.50% at the start of 2026, which would indicate that if you are an equity investor, it is price appreciation that you are dependent on, for the bulk of your equity return.
The dividend yield for equities has declined over time, with the drop off being most noticeable in the United States. The graph below looks at the dividend yield on the S&P 500 from 1960 to 2025, and how that number has become a smaller and smaller portion of the overall expected return on stocks (which I compute with the implied equity return approach):
In 1960, about half of your expected return on stocks came from dividends and that statistic has trended downwards for the last few decades, and in 2025, it represented less than 15% of the total return on stocks.
As a final part of this analysis, I looked at dividend yields and payout ratios, broken down by sector, for both US and global companies:
As you can see, the sectors with the highest percentage of firms paying dividends are financials, real estate and utilities, for both US and global companies, and consumer product companies join in that group, for global companies. In terms of payout ratios, the same three sectors dominate, with energy and real estate returning more than 200% of net income as dividends, in 2025, and posting dividend yields in excess of 6%. Technology companies and communication services have the lowest percent of dividend paying companies and the lowest dividend yields and payout ratios.
The drop in dividend yields over time for the market, the decline in dividend paying firms and the concentration of dividend paying firms in some sectors has put old time value investing to the test. Ben Graham's strategy of principal protection was built around buying large dividend paying firms and holding on for the long term and it has hit a wall. Any investing strategy built around dividends will result in a portfolio composed of mature and declining firms, and even if you accept that reality, those firms are increasingly concentrated in real estate, banking and utilities.
Buybacks - Myths and Realities
As buybacks have soared in the United States, misconceptions and myths about buybacks have also surged, with some myths used to back up the argument that buybacks are unhealthy and should therefore be banned and others presented as the basis for buybacks as good, representing cannot-lose strategies to beat the market. I will start with the myths that are used to argue against buybacks first, before moving on to those that are used to justify it:
1. Myths in favor of the argument that buybacks are bad and should be restricted or stopped
Myth 1.1: Buybacks are a US phenomenon
Reality 1.1: Buybacks are becoming a global phenomenon
When US firms first started buying back stock in the 1980s, it is true that is was almost entirely or primarily a phenomenon restricted to the US, with large parts of the world restricting or banning the use of buybacks to prevent price manipulation by companies. That is no longer the case, and companies around the world have taken to buybacks, as a flexible alternative to dividends, have adopted the practice. In 2025, I looked at dividends and buybacks from companies around the world:
Companies in the United States are still in the lead in the buyback race, buying back $1.153 trillion in stock in 2025, close to 60% of overall cash returned. Canada, the UK, and Japan are not far behind with more than 35% of cash returned taking the form of buybacks, and the EU and environs, often the slowest to adapt to change, saw almost 29% of cash returned in buybacks. For a variety of reasons, including poor corporate governance and regulatory restrictions, Africa & the Middle East, Eastern Europe and much of south and southeast Asia return relatively little in buybacks.
Myth 1.2: Buybacks are wasteful and reduce corporate investment
Reality 1.2: Buybacks redirect corporate investment from mature companies to growth businesses
The argument that buybacks are wasteful often come from using a firm as a self-contained economic unit, and noting that money used on buybacks cannot be reinvested back into the firm. That is absolutely true, but the cash that goes into buybacks goes to investors and mostly goes back into the market, as investments in other companies. While there are clearly exceptions, where companies that should be investing back into their businesses use that cash to buyback stock, the companies that are the biggest buyers of their own stock are mature firms with insufficient investment opportunities and the companies that have the cash redirected into them need that cash to fund their growth. You can see this play out, when you look at stock buybacks broken down, by age decile (based upon corporate age) for US and global companies:
As you can see, younger companies are not only less likely to buy back stock, but also return less cash in dividends and buybacks, at least as a percent of market capitalization than older companies. Using the life cycle perspective, this suggests that cash is rotating out of older, more mature businesses into younger businesses. I would argue that the difference between geographies where buybacks are rare and geographies where buybacks are common is not in how much corporate investment there is, but in where that investment is directed, with the former investing investing back into declining businesses and the latter funding higher growth and newer businesses.
Myth 1.3: Buybacks are funded with debt are are making companies too highly levered
Reality 1.3: Buybacks are primarily funded with free cash flows to equity and even as buybacks have surged, debt ratios have decreased.
I am not a great believer in case studies precisely because anecdotal evidence is spun into backing priors and preconception.s There are, of course, firms that have dug themselves into a hole by buying back immense amounts of stock, and funding those buybacks with debt, but the aggregate debt ratios for US non-financial service firms, with debt to capital ratios measured against both book and market, have declined over the last four decades, even as buybacks have surged.
If your response is that not all companies buy back stock, and that debt ratios has risen at companies that buy back stock, a comparison of debt ratios (debt to EBITDA and debt to capital) for US firms that bought back stock in 2025 versus those that do not dispels that argument:
If firms are borrowing money to fund buybacks, it is clearly not showing up in the statistics, since companies that bought back stock had much lower debt loads than the companies that did not, a simplistic comparison, but one that carries heft.
Myth 1.4: Buybacks are value-destroying because companies tend to buy back their own stock when prices are too high
Reality 1.4: Buybacks, at any price, can neither add nor destroy value. They can just transfer value
Warren Buffett was late to the buyback party, but when he initiated buybacks at Berkshire Hathaway, he introduced a constraint, which is that he would do buybacks only if he believed that the company's stock price was less than intrinsic value. He, of course, had the credibility to make this assertion, but most companies don't impose this constraint and there is evidence that they often buy back their shares when stock prices are higher than they are lower. That does seem like value destruction, but a cash return can neither add nor destroy value, but it can transfer wealth. In the case of stock buybacks at too high a price, wealth is transferred from those who remain loyal shareholders in the firm to those who sell their shares. While there is hand wringing about this, you have a choice, as a shareholder, in a buyback, to sell or hold on, and if you believe that the buyback is at too high a price, you should sell your shares back.
2. Myths in favor of the argument that buybacks are good and generate excess returns for investors
Myth 2.1: Buybacks are value-adding because companies that buy back their own stock when prices are lower than fair value are taking positive net present value investments.
Reality 2.1: Buybacks, at any price, can neither add nor destroy value. They can just transfer value.
This is the inverse of the argument that buybacks are value destroying and they are both grounded in a misclassification of buybacks as projects, rather than cash return, competing with investment projects for the company's dollars. The truth again is that a stock that buys back stock at lower than fair value is transferring wealth from those who sell back to those who remain, and here again, if you are on the wrong side of wealth transfer, it was your choice to sell back that made you the loser.
Myth 2.2: Buybacks are almost always good for stock prices, since there are fewer shares outstanding after buybacks, and that should increase the price per share.
Reality 2.2: A buyback can increase, do nothing or decrease value per share, depending on the price at which it is done and its effects on leverage.
Buybacks reduce share count (the denominator) but the cash that leaves the firm also reduces fir value (the numerator). A fair-value buyback will create offsetting effects, leaving value per share unchanged, though there can be a secondary effect on value, if the buyback, by reducing equity, changes the debt to capital mix and cost of capital for a company:
It is true that empirical evidence backs up the notion that stock prices benefit from buybacks, but that may be from the selection bias of under levered firms with large cash balances being the biggest players in the stock buyback game.
In general, almost all of these myths come out of treating buybacks as something new and different, rather than a variant on dividends. In general, companies that should not be paying dividends, either because they lack the cash or the future is uncertain, should not be buying back stock either.
Dividend Dysfunction
At the start of this post, I noted that dividend policy is dysfunctional at many firms, driven by inertia (we've always paid dividends or we've never paid dividend before) and the desire to hew to peer group policies. As a result, there are many companies around the world that adopt dividend policies that, at least of the face of it, take explaining including:
Money-losing companies that pay dividends: While there are some companies that offer justifications grounded in worries about sending bad signals or hopes of a bounce back in earnings, many get stuck with dividend policies, because of inertia or peer group pressure, that can drive them into ruin.
Money-making companies that refuse to pay dividends: Here again, there can be good reasons for holding back including concerns about whether you can sustain earning and expectations that you will need to invest more in the future, but in some cases, it can unwillingness to initiate dividends in an industry where no one else pays dividends.
Negative FCFE companies that return cash (dividends or buybacks): In addition to hopes for a bounce back in FCFE, companies may continue to return cash, even with negative FCFE, because they are trying to increase debt ratios or shrink their businesses over time.
Positive FCFE companies that return no cash: Companies that have positive FCFE that don't return cash may hold back that cash because of the desire to reduce debt ratios or because they ahve investment plans.
The graph below lists out the number of companies in each group, broken down by geography:
Across the globe in 2025, almost 18% of money-losing companies paid dividends, as did about 70% of money-making companies. With FCFE as your indicator, about 37% of companies that returned cash (in dividends and buybacks) in 2025, had negative FCFE, as did 66% of companies with positive FCFE.
Conclusion
There are a whole host of misalignments between what companies return to their shareholders, either as dividends or in buybacks, and what they can, as potential dividends. That suggests to me, and perhaps I am wrong, that investment strategies that are built around cash return, whether they be dividends or buybacks, are likely to go off the tracks. Furthermore, any strategy that is built entirely around dividends, as is the case with strategies where you load up on high dividend yield stocks or buy a handful of heavy dividend payers, such as the Dogs of the Dow, misses the essence of equity investing. A stock is not a bond, where dividends replace coupons, and you get some price appreciation on top, and treating it as such will only create disappointment.
In my ninth (and last) data post for 2025, I look at cash returned by businesses across the world, looking at both the magnitude and the form of that return. I start with a framework for thinking about how much cash a business can return to its owners, and then argue that, in the real world, this decision is skewed by inertia and me-tooism. I also look at a clear and discernible shift away from dividends to stock buybacks, especially in the US, and examine both good and bad reasons for this shift. After reporting on the total cash returned during the year, by public companies, in the form of dividends and buybacks, I scale the cash returned to earnings (payout ratios) and to market cap (yield) and present the cross sectional distribution of both statistics across global companies.
The Cash Return Decision
The decision of whether to return cash, and how much to return, should, at least in principle, be the simplest of the three corporate finance decisions, since it does not involve the estimation uncertainties that go with investment decisions and the angst of trading of tax benefits against default risk implicit in financing decisions. In practice, though, there is probably more dysfunctionality in the cash return decision, than the other two, partly driven by deeply held, and often misguided views, of what returning cash to shareholders does or does not do to a business, and partly by the psychology that returning cash to shareholders is an admission that a company's growth days are numbered. In this section, I will start with a utopian vision, where I examine how cash return decisions should play out in a business and follow up with the reality, where bad dividend/cash return decisions can drive a business over a cliff.
The Utopian Version
If, as I asserted in an earlier post, equity investors have a claim the cash flows left over after all needs (from taxes to debt payments to reinvestment needs) are met, dividends should represent the end effect of all of those choices. In fact, in the utopian world where dividends are residual cash flows, here is the sequence you should expect to see at businesses:
In a residual dividend version of the world, companies will start with their cash flows from operations, supplement them with the debt that they think is right for them, invest that cash in good projects and the cash that is left over after all these needs have been met is available for cash return. Some of that cash will be held back in the company as a cash balance, but the balance can be returned either as dividends or in buybacks. If companies following this sequence to determine, here are the implications:
The cash returned should not only vary from year to year, with more (less) cash available for return in good (bad) years), but also across firms, as firms that struggle on profitability or have large reinvestment needs might find that not only do they not have any cash to return, but that they might have to raise fresh capital from equity investors to keep going.
It also follows that the investment, financing, and dividend decisions, at most firms, are interconnected, since for any given set of investments, borrowing more money will free up more cash flows to return to shareholders, and for any given financing, investing more back into the business will leave less in returnable cash flows.
Seen through this structure, you can compute potential dividends simply by looking for each of the cash flow elements along the way, starting with an add back of depreciation and non-cash charges to net income, and then netting out investment needs (capital expenditures, working capital, acquisitions) as well as cash flow from debt (new debt) and to debt (principal repayments).
While this measure of potential dividend has a fanciful name (free cash flow to equity), it is not only just a measure of cash left in the till at the end of the year, after all cash needs have been met, but one that is easy to compute, since every items on the list above should be in the statement of cash flows.
As with almost every other aspect of corporate finance, a company's capacity to return cash, i.e., pay potential dividends will vary as it moves through the corporate life cycle, and the graph below traces the path:
There are no surprises here, but it does illustrate how a business transitions from being a young company with negative free cash flows to equity (and thus dependent on equity issuances) to stay alive to one that has the capacity to start returning cash as it moves through the growth cycle before becoming a cash cow in maturity.
The Dysfunctional Version
In practice, though, there is no other aspect of corporate finance that is more dysfunctional than the cash return or dividend decision, partly because the latter (dividends) has acquired characteristics that get in the way of adopting a rational policy. In the early years of equity markets, in the late 1800s, companies wooed investors who were used to investing in bonds with fixed coupons, by promising them predictable dividends as an alternative to the coupons. That practice has become embedded into companies, and dividends continue to be sticky, as can be seen by the number of companies that do not change dividends each year in the graph below:
While this graph is only of US companies, companies around the world have adopted variants of this sticky dividend policy, with the stickiness in absolute dividends (per share) in much of the world, and in payout ratios in Latin America. Put simply, at most companies, dividends this year will be equal to dividends last year, and if there is a change, it is more likely to be an increase than a decrease.
This stickiness in dividends has created several consequences for firms. First, firms are cautious in initiating dividends, doing so only when they feel secure in their capacity to keep generate earnings. Second, since the punishment for deviating from stickiness is far worse, when you cut dividends, far more firms increase dividends than decrease them. Finally, there are companies that start paying sizable dividends, find their businesses deteriorate under them and cannot bring themselves to cut dividends. For these firms, dividends become the driving force, determining financing and investment decisions, rather than being determined by them.
This is, of course, dangerous to firm health, but given a choice between the pain of announcing a dividend suspension (or cut) and being punished by the market and covering up operating problems by continuing to pay dividends, many managers choose the latter, laying th e pathway to dividend madness.
Dividends versus Buybacks
As for the choice of how to return that cash, i.e., whether to pay dividends or buy back stock, the basics are simple. Both actions (dividends and buybacks) have exactly the same effect on a company’s business picture, reducing the cash held by the business and the equity (book and market) in the business. It is true that the investors who receive these cash flows may face different tax consequences and that while neither action can create value, buybacks have the potential to transfer wealth from one group of shareholders (either the ones that sell back or the ones who hold on) to the other, if the buyback price is set too low or too high.
It is undeniable that companies, especially in the United States, have shifted away from a policy of returning cash almost entirely in dividends until the early 1980s to one where the bulk of the cash is returned in buybacks. In the chart below, I show this shift by looking at the aggregated dividends and buybacks across S&P 500 companies from the mid-1980s to 2024:
While there are a number of reasons that you can point to for this shift, including tax benefits to investors, the rise of management options and shifting tastes among institutional investors, the primary reason, in my view, is that sticky dividends have outlived their usefulness, in a business age, where fewer and fewer companies feel secure about their earning power. Buybacks, in effect, are flexible dividends, since companies, when faced with headwinds, quickly reduce or cancel buybacks, while continuing to pay dividends: In the table below, I look at the differences between dividends and buybacks:
If earnings variability and unpredictability explains the shifting away from dividends, it stands to reason that this will not just be a US phenomenon, and that you will see buybacks increase across the world. In the next section, we will see if this is happening.
There are so many misconceptions about buybacks that I did write a piece that looks in detail at those reasons. I do want to reemphasize one of the delusions that both buyback supporters and opponents use, i.e., that buybacks create or destroy value. Thus, buyback supporters argue that a company that is buying back its own shares at a price lower than its underlying value, is effectively taking an investment with a positive net present value, and is thus creating value. That is not true, since that action just transfers value from shareholders who sell back (at the too low a price) to the shareholders who hold on to their shares. Similarly, buyback opponents note that many companies buy back their shares, when their stock prices hit new highs, and thus risk paying too high a price, relative to value, thus destroying value. This too is false, since paying too much for shares also is a wealth transfer, this time from those who remain shareholders in the firm to those who sell back their shares.
Cash Return in 2024
Given the push and pull between dividends as a residual cash flow, and the dysfunctional factors that cause companies to deviate from this end game, it is worth examining how much companies did return to their shareholders in 2024, across sectors and regions, to see which forces wins out.
Cash Return in 2024
Let's start with the headline numbers. In 2024, companies across the globe returned $4.09 trillion in cash to their shareholders, with $2.56 trillion in dividends and $1.53 trillion taking the form of stock buybacks. If you are wondering how the market can withstand this much cash being withdrawn, it is worth emphasizing an obvious, but oft overlooked fact, which is that the bulk of this cash found its way back into the market, albeit into other companies. In fact, a healthy market is built on cash being returned by some businesses (older, lower growth) and being plowed back into growth businesses that need that capital.
That lead in should be considered when you look at cash returned by companies, broken down by sector, in the table below, with the numbers reported both in US dollars and scaled to the earnings at these companies:
To make the assessment, I first classified firms into money making and money losing, and aggregated the dividends and buybacks for each group, within each sector. Not surprisingly, the bulk of the cash bering returned is from money making firms, but the percentages of firms that are money making does vary widely across sectors. Utilities and financials have the highest percentage of money makers on the list, and financial service firms were the largest dividend payers, paying $620.3 billion in dividends in 2024, followed by energy ($346.2 billion) and industrial ($305.3 billion). Scaled to net income, dividend payout ratios were highest in the energy sector and technology companies had the lowest payout ratios. Technology companies, with $280.4 billion, led the sectors in buybacks, and almost 58% of the cash returned at money making companies in the sector took that form.
Breaking down global companies by region gives us a measure of variation on cash return across the world, both in magnitude and in the type of cash return:
It should come as no surprise that the United States accounted for a large segment (more than $1.5 trillion) of cash returned by all companies, driven partly by a mature economy and partly by a more activist investor base, and that a preponderance of this cash (almost 60%) takes the form of buybacks. Indian companies return the lowest percentage (31.1%) of their earnings as cash to shareholders, with the benign explanation being that they are reinvesting for growth and the not-so-benign reason being poor corporate governance. After all, in publicly traded companies, managers have the discretion to decide how much cash to return to shareholders, and in the absence of shareholder pressure, they, not surprisingly, hold on to cash, even if they do not have no need for it. It is also interesting that buybacks seems to be making inroads in other paths of the world, with even Chinese companies joining the party.
FCFE and Cash Return
While it is conventional practice to scale dividends to net income, to arrive at payout ratios, we did note, in the earlier section, that you can compute potential dividends from financial statements, Here again, I will start with the headline numbers again. In 2024, companies around the world collectively generated $1.66 trillion in free cash flows to equity:
As you can see in the figure, companies started with net income of $6,324 billion, reinvested $4,582 billion in capital expenditures and debt repayments exceeded debt issuances by $90 billion to arrive at the free cash flow to equity of $1.66 trillion. That said, companies managed to pay out $2,555 billion in dividends and bought back $1,525 billion in stock, a total cash return of almost $4.1 trillion.
As the aggregate numbers indicate, there are many companies with cash return that does not sync with potential dividends or earnings. In the picture below, we highlight four groups of companies, with the first two focused on dividends, relative to earnings, and the other two structured around cash returned relative to free cash flows to equity, where we look at mismatches.
Let's start with the net income/dividend match up. Across every region of the world, 17.5% of money losing companies continue to pay dividends, just as 31% of money-making companies choose not to pay dividends. Using the free cash flows to equity to divide companies, 38% of companies with positive FCFE choose not to return any cash to their shareholder while 48% of firms with negative FCFE continue to pay dividends. While all of these firms claim to have good reasons for their choices, and I have listed some of them, dividend dysfunction is alive and well in the data.
I argued earlier in this post that cash return policy varies as companies go through the life cycle, and to see if that holds, we broke down global companies into deciles, based upon corporate age, from youngest to oldest, and looked at the prevalence of dividends and buybacks in each group:
As you can see, a far higher percent of the youngest companies are money-losing and have negative FCFE, and it is thus not surprising that they have the lowest percentage of firms that pay dividends or buy back stock. As companies age, the likelihood of positive earnings and cash flows increases, as does the likelihood of dividend payments and stock buybacks.
Conclusion
While dividends are often described as residual cash flows, they have evolved over time to take on a more weighty meaning, and many companies have adopted dividend policies that are at odds with their capacity to return cash. There are two forces that feed this dividend dysfunction. The first is inertia, where once a company initiates a dividend policy, it is reluctant to back away from it, even though circumstances change. The second is me-tooism, where companies adopt cash return policies to match their peer groups, paying dividends because other companies are also paying dividends, or buying back stock for the same reasons. These factors explain so much of what we see in companies and markets, but they are particularly effective in explaining the current cash return policies of companies.
This is the last of my data update posts for 2023, and in this one, I will focus on dividends and buybacks, perhaps the most most misunderstood and misplayed element of corporate finance. To illustrate the heat that buybacks evoke, consider two stories in the last two weeks where they have been in the news. In the first, critics of Norfolk Southern, the corporation that operates the trains that were involved in a dreadful chemical accident in Ohio, pointed to buybacks that it had done as the proximate cause for brake failure and the damage. In the second, Warren Buffet used some heated language to describe those who opposed buybacks, calling them “economic illiterates” and “silver tongued demagogues “. Going back in time to last year’s inflation reduction act, buybacks were explicitly targeted for taxes, with the perspective that they were damaging US companies. I think that there are legitimate questions worth asking about buybacks, but I don’t think that neither the critics nor the defenders of buybacks seem to understand why their use has surged or their impact on shareholders, businesses and the economy.
Dividend Policy in Corporate Finance
To understand where dividend policy fits in the larger context of running a business, consider the following big picture description of corporate finance, where every decision that a business makes is put into one of three buckets - investing, financing and dividends, with each one having an overriding principle governing decision-making within its contours.
In my fifth data update for 2023, I focused on the investment principle, which states that businesses should invest in projects/assets only if they expect to earn returns greater than their hurdle rates, and presented evidence that using the return on capital as a proxy for returns and costs of capital as a measure of hurdle rates, 70% of global companies fell short in 2022. In my sixth data update, I looked at the trade off that should determine how much companies borrow, where the tax benefits are weighed off against bankruptcy costs, but noted that firm often choose to borrow money for illusory reasons and because of me-tooism or inertia. The dividend principle, which is the focus of this post is built on a very simple principle, which is that if a company is unable to find investments that make returns that meet its hurdle rate thresholds, it should return cash back to the owners in that business. Viewed in that context, dividends as just as integral to a business, as the investing and financing decisions. Thus, the notion that a company that pays dividends is viewed as a failure strikes me as odd, since just farmers seed fields in order to harvest them, we start businesses because we plan to eventually collect cash flows from them.
Put in logical sequence, dividends should be the last step in the business sequence, since they represent residual cash flows. In that sequence, firms will make their investment decisions first, with financing decisions occurring concurrently or right after, and if there are any cash flows left over, those can be paid out to shareholders in dividends or buybacks, or held as cash to create buffers against shocks or for investments in future years:
In practice, though, and especially when companies feel that they have to pay dividends, either because of their history of doing so (inertia) or because everyone else in their peer group pays dividends (me-tooism), dividend decisions startthe sequence, skewing the investment and financing decisions that follow. Thus, a firm that chooses to pay out more dividends than it should, will then turn out and either reject value-adding projects that it should have invested in or borrow more than it can afford to, and this dysfunctional dividend sequence is described below:
In this dysfunctional dividend world, some companies will pay out far more dividends than they should, hurting the very shareholders that they think that they are benefiting with their generous dividends.
Measuring Potential Dividends
In the discussion of dysfunctional dividends, I argued that some companies pay out far more dividends than they should, but that statement suggests that you can measure how much the "right" dividends should be. In this section, I will argue that such a measure not only exists, but is easily calculated for any business, from its statement of cash flows.
Free Cash Flows to Equity (Potential Dividends)
The most intuitive way to think about potential dividends is to think of it as the cash flow left over after every conceivable business need has been met (taxes, reinvestments, debt payments etc.). In effect, it is the cash left in the till for the owner. Defined thus, you can compute this potential dividend from ingredients that are listed on the statement of cash flows for any firm:
Note that you start with net income (since you are focused on equity investors), add back non-cash expenses (most notably depreciation and amortization, but including other non-cash charges as well) and net out capital expenditures (including acquisitions) and the change in non-cash working capital (with increases in working capital decreasing cash flows, and decreases increasing them). The last adjustment is for debt payments, since repaying debt is a cash outflow, but raising fresh debt is a cash inflow, and the net effect can either augment potential dividends (for a firm that is increasing its debt) or reduce it (for a firm that is paying down debt).
Delving into the details, you can see that a company can have negative free cash flows to equity, either because it is a money losing company (where you start the calculation with a net loss) or is reinvesting large amounts (with capital expenditures running well ahead of depreciation or large increases in working capital). That company is obviously in no position to be paying dividends, and if it does not have cash balances from prior periods to cover its FCFE deficit, will have to raise fresh equity (by issuing shares to the market).
FCFE across the Life Cycle
I know that you are probably tired of my use of the corporate life cycle to contextualize corporate financial policy, but to understand why dividend policies vary across companies, there is no better device to draw on.
Young companies are unlikely to return cash to shareholders, because they are not only more likely to be money-losing, but also because they have substantial reinvestment needs (in capital expenditures and working capital) to generate future growth, resulting in negative free cash flows to equity. As companies transition to growth companies, they may become money-making, but at the height of their growth, they will continue to have negative free cash flows to equity, because of reinvestment needs. As growth moderates and profitability improves, free cash flows to equity will turn positive, giving these firms the capacity to return cash. Initially, though, it is likely that they will hold back, hoping for a return to their growth days, and that will cause cash balances to build up. As the realization dawns that they have aged, companies will start returning more cash, and as they decline, cash returns will accelerate, as firms shrink and liquidate themselves.
Of course, you are skeptical and I am sure that you can think of anecdotal evidence that contradicts this life cycle theory, and I can too, but the ultimate test is to look at the data to see if there is support for it. At the start of 2023, I classified all publicly traded firms globally, based upon their corporate ages (measured from the year of founding through 2022) into ten deciles, from youngest and oldest, and looked at free cash flows and cash return for each group:
As you can see, the youngest firms in the market are the least likely to return cash to shareholders, but they have good reasons for that behavior, since they are also the most likely to be money losing and have negative freee cash flows to equity. As firms age, they are more likely to be money-making, have the potential to pay dividends (positive FCFE) and return cash in the form of dividends or buybacks.
Dividends and Buybacks: Fact and Fiction
Until the early 1980s, there was only one conduit for publicly traded companies to return cash to owner, and that was paying dividends. In the early 1980s, US firms, in particular, started using a second option for returning cash, by buying back stock, and as we will see in this section, it has become (and will stay) the predominant vehicle for cash return not only for US companies, but increasingly for firms around the world.
The Facts
Four decades into the buyback surge, there are enough facts that we can extract by looking at the data that are worth highlighting. First, it is undeniable that US companies have moved dramatically away from dividends to buybacks, as their primary mode of cash return, and that companies in the rest of the world are starting to follow suit. Second, that shift is being driven by the recognition on the part of firms that earnings, even at the most mature firms, have become more volatile, and that initiating and paying dividends can trap firms into . Third, while much has been made of the tax benefits to shareholders from buybacks, as opposed to dividends, that tax differential has narrowed and perhaps even disappeared over time.
1. Buybacks are supplanting dividends as a mode of cash return
I taught my first corporate finance class in 1984, and at the time, almost all of the cash returned by companies to shareholders took the form of dividends, and buybacks were uncommon. In the graph below, you can see how cash return behavior has changed over the last four decades, and the trend lines are undeniable;
The move to buybacks started in earnest in the mid 1980s and by 1988, buybacks were about a third of all cash returned to shareholders. In 1998, buybacks exceeded dividends for the first time in US corporate history and by last year, buybacks accounted for almost two thirds of all cash returned to shareholders. In short, the default mechanism for returning cash at US companies has become buybacks, not dividends. Lest you start believing that buybacks are a US-centric phenomenon, take a look at global dividends and buybacks, in the aggregate, broken down by region in 2022:
Note that while the US is the leader of the pack, with 64% of cash returned in buybacks, the UK, Canada, Japan and Europe are also seeing a third or more of cash returned in buybacks, as opposed to dividends. Among the emerging market regions, Latin America has the highest percent of cash returned in buybacks, at 26.90%, and India and China are still nascent markets for buybacks. The shift to buybacks that started in the United States clearly has now become a global phenomenon and any explanation for its growth has to be therefore global as well.
2. Buybacks are more flexible than dividends
If you buy into the notion of a free cash flow to equity as a potential cash return, companies face a choice between paying dividends and buying back stock, and at first sight, the impact on the company of doing either is exactly the same. The same amount of cash is paid out in either case, the effects on equity are identical (in both book value and market value terms) and the operations of the company remain unchanged. The key to understanding why companies may choose one over the other is to start with the recognition that in much of the world, dividends are sticky, i.e., once initiated and set, it is difficult for companies to suspend or cut dividends without a backlash, as can be seen in this graph that looks at the percent of US companies that increase, decrease and do nothing to dividends each year:
Note that the number of dividend-paying companies that leave dividends unchanged dominates companies that change dividends every single year, and that when companies change dividends, they are far more likely to increase than cut dividends. The striking feature of the graph is that even in crisis years like 2008 and 2020, more companies increased than cut dividends, testimonial to its stickiness. In contrast, companies are far more willing and likely to revisit buybacks and slash or suspend them, if the circumstances change, making it a far more flexible way of returning cash:
At the core, this flexibility is at the heart of the shift to buybacks, especially as fewer and fewer companies have the confidence that they can deliver stable and predictable earnings in the future, some because globalization has removed local market advantages and some because their businesses are being disrupted. It is true that there is a version of dividends, i.e., special dividends, that may offer the same flexibility, and it will be interesting to see if their usage increases as governments target companies buying back stock for punishment or higher taxes.
3. There are tax benefits (to shareholders) from buybacks, but they have decreased over time
From the perspective of shareholders, dividends and buybacks create different tax consequences, and those can affect which option they prefer. A dividend gives rise to taxable income in the period that it is paid, and taxpayer have little or no way of delaying or evading paying taxes. A buyback gives investors a choice, with those opting to sell back their shares receiving a realized capital gain, which will be taxed at the capital gains tax rate, or not selling them back, giving rise to an unrealized capital gain, which will be taxed in a future period, when the stock is sold. For much of the last century, dividends were taxed in the US as ordinary income, at rates much higher than that paid on capital gains.
While the differential tax benefit in the last century is often mentioned as the reason for the rise of buybacks, note that the tax differential was even worse prior to 1980, when dividends essentially dominated, to the post-1980 period, when buybacks came into vogue. For much of this century, at least in the US, dividends and buybacks have been taxed at the same rate, starting at 15% in 2003 and rising to 23.8% in 2011 (a 20% capital gains rate + 3.8% Medicare tax on all income), thus erasing much of the difference between dividends and realized capital gains for shareholder tax burdens. However, shareholders still get a benefit with unrealized capital gains that can be carried forward to a future tax-advantageous year or even passed on in inheritance as untaxed gains.
Until last year, there were no differences in tax consequences to companies from paying dividends or buying back stock, but the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced a 1% tax rate on buybacks, thus creating at least a marginal additional cost to companies that bough back stock, instead of paying dividends. If the only objective of this buyback tax is raising revenues, I don't have a problem with that because it will help close the budget gap, but to the extent that this is designed to change corporate behavior by inducing companies to not buy back stock or to invest more back into businesses, it is both wrong headed and will be ineffective, as I will argue in the next section.
The Fiction
The fictions about buybacks are widespread and are driven as much by ideological blinders as they are by a failure to understand what a business is, and how to operate it. The first is that buybacks can increase or decrease the value of a business, with buyback advocates making the former argument and buyback critics the latter. They are both wrong, since buybacks can only redistribute value, not create it. The second is that surge in buybacks has been fed by debt financing, and it is part of a larger and darker picture of over levered companies catering to greedy, short term shareholders. The third is that buybacks are bad for an economy, with the logic that the cash that is being used for the buybacks is not being invested back in the business, and that the latter is better for economic growth. The final argument is that the large buybacks at US companies represent cash that is being taken away from other stakeholders, including employees and customers, and is thus unfair.
1. Buybacks increase (decrease) value
Value in a business comes from its capacity to invest money and generate cash flows into the future, and defined as such, the act of returning cash by itself, either as dividends or buybacks cannot create or destroy value. It is true that the way in which dividends and buybacks are funded or the consequences that they have for investing can have value effects, but those value effects do not come from the cash return, but from investing and financing dysfunction. The picture below captures the pathways by which the way dividends and buybacks are funded can affect value:
The implications are straight forward and common sense. While a buyback or dividend, by itself, cannot affect value, the way it is funded and the investments that it displaces can determine whether value is added or destroyed.
Leverage effect: If a company that is already at its right mix of debt (see my last post) choose to add to that debt to fund its dividend payments or buybacks, it is hurting its value by increasing its cost of capital and exposure to default risk. However, a firm that is under levered, i.e., has too little debt, may be able to increase its value by borrowing money to fund its cash return, with the increase coming from the skew in the tax code towards debt.
Investment effect: If a company has a surplus of value-adding projects that it can take, and it chooses not to take those projects so as to be able to pay dividends or buy back stock, it is hurting it value. By the same token, a company that is in a bad business and is struggling to make its cost of capital will gain in value by taking the cash it would have invested in projects and returning that cash to shareholders.
Finally, there is a subset of companies that buy back stock, not with the intent of reducing equity and share count, but to cover shares needed to cover stock-based compensation (option grants). Thus, when management options get exercised, rather than issue new shares and dilute the ownership of existing shareholders, these companies use shares bought back to cover the exercise. The value effect of doing so is equivalent to buybacks that reduce share count, because not issuing shares each year to cover option exercises is effecting accomplishing the same objective of keeping share count lower.
There is an element where there dividends and buybacks can have contrasting effects. Dividends are paid to all shareholders, and thus cannot make one group of shareholders better or worse off than others. Buybacks are selective, since only those shareholders who sell their shares back receive the buyback price, and they have the potential to redistribute value. In what sense? A company that buys back stock at too high a price, relative to its intrinsic value, is redistributing value from the shareholders who remain in the company to those who sell their shares back. In contrast, a company that buys back shares at a low price, relative to its intrinsic value, is redistributing value from the shareholders who sell their shares back to those who stay shareholders in the firm. This is at the heart of Warren Buffet's defense of buybacks at Berkshire Hathaway as a tool, since he adds the constraint that the buybacks will continue only if they can be done at less than intrinsic value, and the assumption is that Buffet does have a better sense of the intrinsic value of his company than market participants. It is true that some companies buy back stock at the high prices, and if that is your reason, as a shareholder in the company for taking a stand against buybacks, I have a much simpler and more effective response than banning buybacks. Just sell your shares back and be on the right side of the redistribution game!
2. Buybacks are being financed with debt
As I noted in my lead in to this section, a company that borrows money that it cannot afford to borrow to buy back stock is not just damaging its value but putting its corporate existence at risk. I have heard a few critics of buybacks contend that buybacks are being funded primarily or predominantly with debt, using anecdotal examples of companies that have followed this script, to back up their claim. But is this true across companies? To address this, I looked companies in the US (because this critique seems to be directed primarily at them), broken down by whether they did buybacks in 2022, and then examined debt loads within each group:
You can be the judge, using both the debt to capital ratio and the debt to EBITDA multiple, that companies that buy back stock have lower debt loads than companies that don't buy back stock, at odds with the "debts fund buybacks" story. Are there firms that are using debt to buy back stock and putting their survival at risk? Of course, just as there are companies that choose other dysfunctional corporate finance choices. In the cross section, though, there is little evidence that you can point to that buybacks have precipitated a borrowing binge at US companies.
3. Buybacks are bad for the economy
The final argument against buybacks has little to do with shareholder value or debt but is centered around a mathematical truth. Companies that return cash to shareholders, whether as dividends or buybacks, are not reinvesting the cash, and to buyback critics, that fact alone is sufficient to argue against buybacks. There are two premises on which this argument is built and they are both false.
The first is that a company investing back into its own business is always better for the economy than that company not investing, and that misses the fact that investing in bad businesses, just for the sake of investing is not good for either shareholders or the economy. Is there anyone who would argue with a straight face that we would be all better off if Bed Bath and Beyond had built more stores in the last decade than they already have? Alternatively, would we not all have been better served if GE had liquidated itself as a company a decade ago, when they could have found eager buyers and returned the cash to their shareholders, instead of continuing as a walking dead company?
The second is that the money returned in buybacks, which exceeded a trillion dollars last year, somehow disappeared into a black hole, when the truth is that much of that money got reinvested back into the market in companies that were in better businesses and needed capital to grow? Put simply, the money got invested either way, but by companies other than GE and Bed Bath and Beyond, and that counts as a win for me.
Watching the debate on buybacks in the Senate last year, I was struck by how disconnected senators were from the reality of buybacks, which is that they bulk of buybacks come from companies that have no immediate use for the money, or worse, bad uses for the monty, and the effect of buybacks is that this money gets redirected to companies that have investment opportunities and operate in better businesses.
4. Buybacks are unfair to other stakeholders
If the argument against buybacks is that the money spent on buybacks could have been spent paying higher wages to employees or improving product quality, that is true. That argument is really one about how the pie is being split among the different shareholders, and whether companies are generating profits that excessive, relative to the capital invested. I argued in my fifth data post that if there is backing for a proposition, it is that companies are not earning enough on capital invested, not that they are earning too much. I will wager that if you did break down pay per hour or employee benefits, they will be much better at companies that are buying back stock than at companies that don't. Unfortunately, I do not have access to that data at the company-level on either statistic, but I am willing to consider evidence to the contrary.
The Bottom Line
It is telling that some of the most vehement criticism of buybacks come from people who least understand business or markets, and that the legislative solutions that they craft reflect this ignorance. Taxing buybacks because you are unable to raise corporate tax rates may be an effective revenue generator for the moment, but pushing that rate up higher will only cause the cash return to take different forms. Just as the attempts to curb top management compensation in the early 1990s gave rise to management options and a decade of even higher compensation, attempts to tax buybacks may backfire. If the end game in taxing buybacks is to change corporate behavior, trying to induce invest more in their businesses, it will be for the most part futile, and if it does work, will do more harm than good.
In every single year, from 1988 to 2025, the percentage of companies that pay the same dividends that they did in the previous year outnumbers companies that change dividends, and when dividends are changed, they are more likely to be increased than decreased.
