Buffett: You Want a Dividend? Go Make Your Own

Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B  ) has paid out a dividend just once under Warren Buffett's watch, a $0.10-per-share payout in 1967. Buffett later joked, "I must have been in the bathroom when the decision was made."

But no one's joking anymore. "A number of Berkshire shareholders -- including some of my good friends -- would like Berkshire to pay a cash dividend," Buffett said in his latest letter to shareholders.

Who's going to win this battle?

In 1998, a student at the University of Florida asked Buffett about dividends. Buffett repeated the question for the crowd. "The question is about evaluating Berkshire when it doesn't pay any dividends," he said. "And it won't pay dividends, either. That's a promise I can keep. All you get with Berkshire stock is that you can stick it in your safe deposit box, and every year you take it out and fondle it. "

So there's that.

But the question keeps popping up. It has become almost ritualistic for a shareholder to ask Warren to pay a dividend at its annual shareholder meeting in Omaha.

In the latest letter to shareholders, Buffett brought up a great rebuttal. You want a dividend? Make one yourself by selling some of your fondled stock certificates. You get the cash you wanted, and it's far more efficient than Berkshire paying an actual dividend.

Buffett used an example of a small business with two shareholders. Imagine a business worth $2 million and earning $240,000 a year. Shares are worth 125% of book value on the open market. Profits can be reinvested back into the business and earn 12% per year, but the two owners want some cash to pay their bills, and opt to take one-third of the company's profits out as a dividend every year.

After 10 years the two owners would own shares worth $2.7 million each, and pull in dividends worth $86,000 per year. "And we would live happily ever after -- with dividends and the value of our stock continuing to grow at 8% annually," Buffett writes.

But another option is available to the two owners:

Under this scenario, we would leave all earnings in the company and each sell 3.2% of our shares annually. Since the shares would be sold at 125% of book value, this approach would produce the same $40,000 of cash initially, a sum that would grow annually. Call this option the "sell-off" approach.

Under this "sell-off" scenario, the net worth of our company increases to $6,211,696 after ten years ($2 million compounded at 12%). Because we would be selling shares each year, our percentage ownership would have declined, and, after ten years, we would each own 36.12% of the business. Even so, your share of the net worth of the company at that time would be $2,243,540. And, remember, every dollar of net worth attributable to each of us can be sold for $1.25. Therefore, the market value of your remaining shares would be $2,804,425, about 4% greater than the value of your shares if we had followed the dividend approach.

Moreover, your annual cash receipts from the sell-off policy would now be running 4% more than you would have received under the dividend scenario. Voila! -- you would have both more cash to spend annually and more capital value.

Over Berkshire's history, Buffett writes, "the sell-off policy would have produced results for shareholders dramatically superior to the dividend policy." Money that would have been paid out as a dividend was invested by the world's greatest investor. By 2012, that $0.10 per-share dividend paid in 1967 while Buffett was in the bathroom would have been worth $0.90 if put in Treasuries, $4.83 if invested in the S&P 500, or $326 if invested in Berkshire.

And at any time, Berkshire shareholders could have sold a portion of the gain, creating their own annual dividend.

Selling shares is also the most tax efficient way to reward shareholders. "Under the dividend program, all of the cash received by shareholders each year is taxed whereas the sell-off program results in tax on only the gain portion of the cash receipt," Buffett wrote.

Back at the University of Florida, Buffett explained when a company should forgo dividends: "The real question is whether we can keep retaining dollar bills and turning them into more than a dollar at a decent rate."

Most businesses can't, at least compared with other investment opportunities. In an interview last year, investor Rob Arnott criticized companies retaining huge portions of their earnings:

There's an arrogance to the notion that our best internal reinvestment opportunity within our company is better than our shareholder's best reinvestment opportunity in the entire world of investing. And that's what tacitly being said by hanging on to all of the earnings.

But that "arrogance" makes sense with Buffett. Berkshire's book value has grown by an average of 11.9% per year over the last decade, compared with a 6.6% average annual return for the S&P 500. In fact, the reason most Berkshire investors own the stock is specifically because they believe in Buffett's ability to compound retained earnings. No one should want to own Berkshire because it owns shares of Coca-Cola. You should want to own Berkshire because Buffett has the wisdom to buy shares of Coca-Cola at the right time and the right price. He needs retained earnings to do that.

So, you want Berkshire to pay a dividend? Great, go sell a portion of last year's capital gains. Most investors won't, because they don't want to sell an investment capable of compounding money year after year. Which is exactly why Berkshire doesn't pay a dividend. 

More on Berkshire
With the Buffett at the helm, Berkshire Hathaway has grown book value per share at a compounded annual rate of 19.8% for nearly 50 years! Despite an incredible historical track record, investors have to understand the key issues to watch moving forward. To help investors, the Fool's resident Berkshire Hathaway expert Joe Magyer has created this premium research report on the company. Inside, you'll receive ongoing updates as key news hits, as well as reasons to both buy and sell the stock. Claim a copy by clicking here now.


Read/Post Comments (8) | Recommend This Article (23)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 04, 2013, at 1:23 PM, XXF wrote:

    Warren's explanation assumes effective leadership and governance and ignores principal/agent problems that plague many listed organizations. The strategy has worked well and been rewarding to stockholders under Warren's leadership but that conclusion cannot be drawn across organizations. At other listed companies that have executed share buybacks (eBay, HP ect) that money has tended to reward either selling shareholders (who got out at the right time) or management who promptly redistributed the purchased shares in the form of stock-based compensation.

    Moral of the story - Warren can do whatever he wants, he's one of very few leaders who have earned that right. Tim Cook and Jamie Dimon and Paul Otelinni and Mike Duke all should be returning capital to the shareholders.

  • Report this Comment On March 04, 2013, at 8:46 PM, kanawha40 wrote:

    I fear that once Buffett is no longer here or active in the company, BRK will fall to the same fate as AAPL after Jobs passed. Once the heart and sole of the company is gone, it is doomed to founder and fall on hard times. And although Munger is an integral part of BRK, he is no Buffett.

  • Report this Comment On March 04, 2013, at 8:54 PM, dfavela wrote:

    This is exactly why I had no problem cashing in on GOOG despite their lack of a dividend.

  • Report this Comment On March 06, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Darwood11 wrote:

    This is exactly why I own no Berkshire stock. My mutual funds provide more than enough exposure, and I prefer to put my money into other companies.

  • Report this Comment On March 10, 2013, at 11:05 PM, whyaduck1128 wrote:

    The Fool regularly fulminates against CEOs whose companies return little or nothing to their shareholders. The it always gives St. Warren of Buffett, whose company has not been that great a performer for some time, a free pass, and in fact worships at the Great Man's feet.

    Why?

    We are told that reinvested dividends are one of the greatest tools to financial success. The the so-called Oracle of Omaha gets a free ride, even high praise, for hoarding his cash.

    Why?

  • Report this Comment On March 11, 2013, at 3:38 PM, SunDevilDon wrote:

    Warren, I see that you don't like companies that pay dividends, but I also couldn't help but notice that your company also holds (by my humble standards) large numbers of shares in dividend paying companies KO, WFC, and IBM, perhaps others. Some of these you have held for a long time. I can't do anything about relieving your pain for all those past years of collecting those nasty dividends from them, but I am happy to help relieve any future pain for you by taking all their future dividend payments off your hands. Some may think you a hypocrite otherwise. No need to send me any thanks, just the checks will do.

    -SunDevilDon

  • Report this Comment On March 12, 2013, at 12:36 AM, shbeavers wrote:

    For virtually all companies but Berkshire Rob Arnett's criticism is valid. WB's argument also relies on always being able to sell shares at a "normal" price when cash is needed by the shareholder. Mr. Market may have other ideas about what he'll pay at the shareholder at that particular moment.

  • Report this Comment On July 23, 2013, at 10:00 PM, Sumflow wrote:

    Buffett's sell-off scenario, shows why receiving income as a stock dividend (KMR) is more optimal for shareholders than receiving cash from a partnership (KMP).

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2291143, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/1/2014 12:52:14 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement