It's Time to Get Our Minds Right About Stock Buybacks

A professor of mine in law school used to yell, literally yell, at students if they answered a question incorrectly, saying they needed to "get their mind right." The display was all in good humor, but I've always heeded his point: You can't answer a question correctly if you don't understand the context.

This is how I feel about share buybacks.

Pitched as a "capital return to shareholders," these are almost universally applauded by analysts and investors alike. Given this, it's no surprise that companies have responded in kind. As my colleague Morgan Housel noted earlier this year:

There's been a big shift over the last few decades: Companies are using share buybacks to reward shareholders, rather than dividends. Buybacks are now the chief method of returning money to shareholders. S&P 500 companies spent $375 billion on share buybacks over the 12 months ended October 2012, versus $277 billion on dividends.

But there's a problem: Companies are resoundingly inept when it comes to executing them. And as a result, in an anecdotal nine times out of 10 (if not more), share buybacks actually destroy value instead of creating it.

The destruction of value
Fellow Fools Matt Koppenheffer and David Hanson discussed this recently in a video about Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC  ) particularly egregious destruction of shareholder value on the eve of the financial crisis. As David observed, between 2006 and 2007, the nation's second largest bank by assets bought back $18 billion worth of shares at an average price of $50 per unit. Those shares are worth just over $13 each today.

David also noted a near-identical violation at Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) . Over the same time period, it repurchased $13 billion worth of shares at an average adjusted price of $460 per share. Today, following a 1-for-10 reverse split in 2011, they're trading for an adjusted price of $49 per share.

But, you say, Bank of America and Citigroup were the two basket cases of Wall Street. They're outliers. Surely their ineptitude should not be used to formulate a general rule.

What about JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) , by almost any account the most sophisticated financial company on Wall Street if not in the entire world? There's simply no way that such an advanced and urbane operation would have fallen into a similar trap, right?

Wrong.

In the middle of 2011, it repurchased billions of dollars of its own stock only to then watch as its share price fell more than 25% later in the year. As it CEO Jamie Dimon acknowledged, "Yes, it would have been wise to wait. We're sorry."

Confusing the exception with the rule
To return to the legal profession, there's a common logical error that lawyers are drilled to avoid. It consists of confusing an exception to a rule with the rule itself.

In this case, the rule is that share buybacks are harmful to shareholders. The exception is that they create value.

And when I say exception, think "exceptional." Indeed, off the top of my head I can't name a single repurchase program that would have done more for shareholders than a dividend. Not a single one. Does that mean there aren't any? No. I'm sure there are -- perhaps Berkshire Hathaway  (NYSE: BRK-A  ) could be cited here. But like I said, they're the exception. To reiterate, they are not the rule.

My point is that it's time to get our minds right about stock buybacks. They're bad. They destroy value. And they hurt shareholders. Period. The instances in which this is not the case are so few and far between, they can effectively be ignored.

Many investors are terrified about investing in big banking stocks after the crash, but the sector has one notable stand-out. In a sea of mismanaged and dangerous peers, it rises above as "The Only Big Bank Built to Last." You can uncover the top pick that Warren Buffett loves in The Motley Fool's new report. It's free, so click here to access it now.


Read/Post Comments (4) | Recommend This Article (6)

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 July 01, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Mega wrote:

    "And as a result, in an anecdotal nine times out of 10 (if not more), share buybacks actually destroy value instead of creating it."

    Your thesis would fall apart if you spent 60 seconds gathering data instead of dashing off a lazy anecdote.

    http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/stub.aspx?stubid=22577

    211 out of 268 companies had a buyback ROI over 7% over the last 2 years.

  • Report this Comment On July 01, 2013, at 3:51 PM, devoish wrote:

    Wow.

    Buybacks plus dividends from only 500 companies were enough to write a bonus check of almost $5000 to every working American.

    Not just the employees of those companies, every working American.

    It is also enough to pay all 8,000,000 people who lost their jobs between 2008 and 2011 $80,000 each.

    I think for Mr Dimon, buybacks are a way to compensate yourself little better.

    Best wishes,

    Steven

  • Report this Comment On July 01, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Schneidku40 wrote:

    Point to ponder- if all these analysts and book-writers tell us not to time the market with our stock purchases, why do we create a double standard by lamenting companies who bought their own stock at higher prices?

    Oftentimes these buybacks are authorized for and take place over a year or two. How is a company supposed to know what the market will say their company is worth in a year or two, or whether we will have a financial crisis in the meantime? I doubt there will be very few cases of this questioning about any company who has bought their stock back since March 2009. In a vast majority of cases they have returned double to their investors- (hopefully) higher EPS through increasing sales and lower share count.

  • Report this Comment On July 01, 2013, at 6:29 PM, daveandrae wrote:

    Another point to ponder-

    Which kind of stock would you rather hold over, say, 20 years? One in which the shares outstanding are shrinking, or one in which the shares outstanding are increasing. For I can assure you that the float is most certainly doing either one, or the other.

    "Buybacks", or the lack thereof, are a lot like debt. Over the course of your lifetime, this particular financial line is either going up, or it is going down but it is never, ever, at a constant. The problem most people and businesses have is that it takes a tremendous amount of financial discipline to accomplish the latter, not the former.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2518914, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/16/2014 9:22:57 PM

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