Start the conversation
Comment on This Story
Or to contact Money Morning Customer Service, click here.
Corporate stock buybacks are usually touted as good for investors – it's typically one of the top demands that activist investors make when targeting a company.
But while stock buybacks can benefit current shareholders, they tend to distort a company's earnings picture – which can mislead potential investors.
What's more, stock buybacks often are a poor use of cash compared to capital expenditures and research and development – investing in the business. And that type of spending has waned.
Stock buybacks aren't necessarily a bad idea – it often makes sense if a company has a lot of excess cash – but in the past few years, more and more companies have used them to boost their earnings per share (EPS) numbers.
A study by Fortuna Advisers showed that over the past five years, 216 of the companies in the S&P 500 got more of an increase in their EPS from share buybacks than from growing their businesses.
Last year, companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 spent $500 billion on stock buybacks – the most since the record of $589 billion in 2007 – and those companies have spent a staggering $1.7 trillion since 2008.
That's one reason the stock markets have soared despite a weak U.S. economy.
Stock buybacks have magically transformed what would have been an 80% increase in the S&P 500 from the 2009 lows to 178% increase.
"It's game playing – a legitimate, legal form of manufacturing earnings growth," Gregory Milano, the Fortuna Chief Executive Officer, told the Associated Press. "A lot of people [focus on] earnings per share growth, but they don't adequately distinguish the quality of the earnings."
Stock buybacks can mask other problems a company may be having, which also explains their rising popularity. But because the situation varies from company to company, it's up to investors to figure out what's really going on.
"How much credit should a company get earning from share buybacks rather than organic growth?" Brian Rauscher, chief portfolio strategist at Robert W. Baird & Co, told the Associated Press. "I think the quality of earnings has been much lower than what the headlines suggest."
About the Author
Dave has been a journalist for more than 35 years, including 18 spent at The Baltimore Sun. He has worked as a writer, editor, and page designer at different times in his career. He's interviewed a number of well-known personalities - ranging from punk rock icon Joey Ramone to Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Wozniak.
Over the course of his journalistic career, Dave has covered many diverse subjects. Since arriving at Money Morning in 2011, he has focused primarily on technology. He's an expert on both Apple and cryptocurrencies. He started writing about Apple for The Sun in the mid-1990s, and had an Apple blog on The Sun's web site from 2007-2009. Dave's been writing about Bitcoin since 2011 - long before most people had even heard of it. He even mined it for a short time.
Dave has a BA in English and Mass Communications from Loyola University Maryland.
If a company needs new cash it can borrow.
If a company needs new cash it can sell new stock.
If a company has too much cash it can give it back to shareholders as a dividend.
If a company has too much cash it can buy back stock.
I don't think any one of these absent other necessary information is inherently bad or inherently good. I believe that each of those actions in specific circumstances could be a good decision. Not sure why any one of these actions should be singled out as being worse (or better) than the others in general.
Bob,
Thanks for reading Money Morning!
The problem with stock buybacks in recent years is that many companies (though not all) aren't doing it because they have excess cash, they're doing it primarily to inflate their earnings numbers. Even for companies with excess cash, there are better ways to use it. Because it pumps up earnings artificially, we felt it was something investors should be aware of.
-David Zeiler