What American Companies Get Wrong When Paying Dividends

Business is volatile. Dividends should be, too.

Feb 11, 2014 at 7:58PM

AIG nearly went out of business in 2008. In nine months, the world's largest insurance company lost more money than it made in the previous 18 years combined.

But something strange happened: During most of this meltdown, AIG kept raising its dividend payout. Three times, in fact. In a year that erased nearly two decades of profits, AIG paid its shareholders $2.1 billion in dividends. It wasn't until the company was taken over by the U.S. Treasury that dividends finally ceased, by congressional order.

"We are being asked why we raised the dividend," former CEO Martin Sullivan said during a conference call in May 2008, after reporting a record loss. "The answer is that the dividend increase is a reflection of ... management's long-term view of the strength of the company's business."

I'm picking on AIG, but this kind of thinking isn't unusual among CEOs. Companies will jump through hoops to avoid cutting their dividends. In aggregate, there's only one clear trend in dividends: They usually go up. Since 2004, S&P 500 companies have raised their quarterly dividends 2,854 times, cut them 168 times, and stopped paying them just 46 times, according to Standard & Poor's. Forty one S&P 500 companies raised their quarterly dividends last month. One company cut its dividend. 

This behavior oddly unique to America. Deutsche Bank published a report last decade asking global CEOs how they thought about dividends. Most managers from Europe, Asia, and South America took a pragmatic approach to dividends, and were more than willing to adjust payouts when their earnings were volatile. But American managers responded overwhelmingly that cutting a dividend was to be avoided at almost all costs. The researchers wrote:

After cutting deferrable investment, North American firms would borrow money to pay the dividend, as long as they do not lose their credit rating. Next, they would sell assets at fair value and cut strategic investment. Only if all these actions are insufficient, would they resort to a dividend cut.

It's also a new phenomenon. While reading old finance books, I kept coming across references to investors dealing with the ups and downs of dividends. Yale economist Robert Shiller's database of historical stock returns shows that dividends were wildly volatile. From 1871 through 1920, aggregate dividends fell in more than one-third of all months. From 1920 to 1950, dividends were cut in 23% of all months. Since 1980, they've declined in less than 10% of all months. The era of stable dividends is unique to the last 30 years.

Worse, I think it's destructive to how businesses operate.

I recently came across General Motors' (NYSE:GM) 1925 annual report, which offers a good example of how differently companies use to treat dividends.

GM started paying common shareholders in 1916. Those dividends had more volatility than any company I know of today:


Why were its dividends so wild?

I have a feeling that the conversation among GM's senior leaders in the 1920s went like this: "We made $50 million last year. We need to invest $30 million back into the company to grow. Pay the rest out as dividends." Dividends were volatile based on the profits and needs of the company. It was simple, and it made sense.

Today, given the stability in dividends, I have a feeling the board-room conversations are switched, and are more like this: "We made $50 million last year. We need to pay out $30 million in dividends. Invest the rest back into the business."

The priority used to be investing back in the company, with dividends coming second. Today it's dividends (and, to be fair, buybacks) as a first priority, investment if there's anything left over.

Which does two things.

One, it likely makes overall dividend payouts lower than they'd otherwise be over time. Companies' fear of cutting dividends means payouts must be kept low enough to allow room for variability in earnings. That's why the dividend payout ratio in the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX:^GSPC) is near an all-time low.

Two, it gives investors a false sense of stability, which skews people's perception of risk. I'm sure there were thousands of AIG investors who thought the company was in decent shape in 2008 only because they kept receiving their dividend checks. Had dividends been cut as soon as AIG's business began to deteriorate, investors may have been more attuned to the risk they were accepting. There are several theories in economics linked to the idea that stability is destabilizing, because it gives people a false perception of safety, which causes them to take on too much risk. Stable dividends probably fit that category.

Investing is supposed to be volatile. I wish more companies today looked like GM did 90 years ago. 

More from the Motley Fool 

Our top analysts put together a free list of nine high-yielding stocks that should be in every income investor's portfolio. To learn the identity of these stocks, click here now.

Morgan Housel has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends American International Group and General Motors. The Motley Fool owns shares of American International Group and has the following options: long January 2016 $30 calls on American International Group. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

A Financial Plan on an Index Card

Keeping it simple.

Aug 7, 2015 at 11:26AM

Two years ago, University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack wrote his entire financial plan on an index card.

It blew up. People loved the idea. Financial advice is often intentionally complicated. Obscurity lets advisors charge higher fees. But the most important parts are painfully simple. Here's how Pollack put it:

The card came out of chat I had regarding what I view as the financial industry's basic dilemma: The best investment advice fits on an index card. A commenter asked for the actual index card. Although I was originally speaking in metaphor, I grabbed a pen and one of my daughter's note cards, scribbled this out in maybe three minutes, snapped a picture with my iPhone, and the rest was history.

More advisors and investors caught onto the idea and started writing their own financial plans on a single index card.

I love the exercise, because it makes you think about what's important and forces you to be succinct.

So, here's my index-card financial plan:


Everything else is details. 

Something big just happened

I don't know about you, but I always pay attention when one of the best growth investors in the world gives me a stock tip. Motley Fool co-founder David Gardner (whose growth-stock newsletter was rated #1 in the world by The Wall Street Journal)* and his brother, Motley Fool CEO Tom Gardner, just revealed two brand new stock recommendations moments ago. Together, they've tripled the stock market's return over 12+ years. And while timing isn't everything, the history of Tom and David's stock picks shows that it pays to get in early on their ideas.

Click here to be among the first people to hear about David and Tom's newest stock recommendations.

*"Look Who's on Top Now" appeared in The Wall Street Journal which references Hulbert's rankings of the best performing stock picking newsletters over a 5-year period from 2008-2013.

Compare Brokers