Sunday, 30 November 2014

Dividends vs Capital Gains

Dividends vs Capital Gains

Companies giving high dividends are somewhat of a controversial topic. There are several debates on whether companies giving dividends are performing well - or whether they are simply signalling to attract investors. In today’s blog I will discuss whether investors would prefer capital gains (therefore meaning dividends are irrelevant) or whether investors value dividends.

In the UK companies pay out 2 dividends throughout their financial year. The first is an interim dividend which is paid half way through the year and is generally the smallest dividend of the two. The second dividend is after their company accounts have been published and is usually larger than the first dividend. According to Porterfield, a company’s dividend policy should aim to maximise shareholder wealth – otherwise what is the point?

Dividends and retained profits are decided by the investment and financing decisions of a company (Watson & Head). They are only payable through any retained profits the company may have whether this be recent profits or historical. Realistically a company should only pay dividends if it creates more wealth. Porterfield created a model for analysing dividend payments which suggested that dividends only create higher shareholder wealth when ‘the cash dividend paid to shareholders’ + ‘the expected ex dividend share price’ > ‘market price before the dividend was announced’.

Just how important are dividends?

The most common theory in relation to dividends is the dividend irrelevance theory. This is derived from Modigliani and Millar’s capital irrelevance and suggests that under perfect market conditions shareholders are indifferent to whether they receive returns on dividends or capital gains (Brennan & Thakor, 1990).  They also argued that share price is determined by future earning potential and not what is paid in dividends now which therefore results in share value being determined in their investment policy – and not the level of dividend paid out. M&M argued that shareholders are more interested in a company who invests in projects with a positive Net Present Value (NPV) and therefore increasing the market value of their shares. Therefore by doing this the company is increasing its wealth generation thus increasing the shareholders capital gains. This results in shareholders not being concerned about any dividends as they are gaining by other means. Is this true in reality?


Bird in the hand…



An alternate theory is the ‘Bird in the Hand’ theory. This idea suggests that investors actually are interested in dividends as they are more certain than capital gains. In other words, dividends are a ‘sure thing’ whereas the future share price of a company is not, therefore due to the certainty of these dividends a company would increase the firm value (Baker et al, 2002). However, Bhattacharya argues that the riskiness of a projects cash flows affects a firms risk and an increase in dividends now will result in a drop in the stocks ex-dividend price. Therefore overall the counter-argument suggests that by increasing the dividend today will not increase a firms value.



Tax Preference Policy



Alternatively, there is the tax preference policy. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than dividends so this is an important factor for investors to take into consideration. Therefore based on this, this could assist with M&M Dividend Irrelevance theory if investors are worried about paying higher taxes on dividends.


Centrica


Centrica's dividends have increased continuously over the past 5 years, however their share price has not reflected this and has been extremely volatile throughout the same period, thus supporting Modigliani and Millars theory that they aren't related. Furthermore the current share price has reacted to market information which would suggest it is at a price determined by future earning potential (share price has dropped in correlation with P.E Ratio of the industry, thus suggesting that due to the market having less confidence in the industry, share price has followed). Therefore this example supports M&M's theory.



Overall…



In conclusion the existing theories appear to suggest that overall investors prefer capital gains as opposed to dividends, with the only problem being the uncertainty of the capital gains on share price. With M&M’s dividend irrelevance theory I appreciate that this theory is based on ‘perfect market conditions’ (which is another debated topic and relates to my previous post of EMH whereby investors question how efficient the market is) and therefore cannot be solely relied on for a thorough conclusion. With the addition of the Tax Preference Policy, my personal opinion is that investors would prefer capital gains as they pay less tax and they are gaining on their investment, but as suggested in the ‘bird in the hand’ theory, capital gains are less certain. Personally I would be indifferent if I received the same returns over a 5 year period from dividends as I would to capital gains, as long as there was a gain overall. My opinion therefore coincides with M&M so I would deem that theory to be most correct whereby under perfect market conditions shareholders are indifferent to whether they receive returns on dividends or capital gains

References

- Baker, H. K., Powell, G. E., & Veit, E. T. (2002). Revisiting managerial perspectives on dividend policy. Journal of Economics and Finance, 26(3), 267-283. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215589529?accountid=12860

- Brennan, M.J. & Thakor, A.V., (1990). Shareholder Preferences and Dividend Policy. The Journal of Finance. 45 (4), pp.993-1018

- Investopedia, https://www.boundless.com/accounting/textbooks/boundless-accounting-textbook/reporting-of-stockholders-equity-12/dividend-policy-80/investor-preferences-364-8369/ retrieved 24/11/14

-Watson. D, Head. A, (2013), Corporate Finance: Principles and Practice, 6th Ed, Chapter 10, pp 317-347

Saturday, 15 November 2014

How valid is Efficient Market Hypothesis and are there any better alternatives?

Throughout this blog I will discuss Efficient Market Hypothesis and will the validity using other theories.

Eugene Fama

Efficient Market Hyposthesis (EMH) was first evolved in the 1960’s by Eugene Fama. It states that all securities prices reflect all information available (due to people acting rationally to the data provided) and therefore it is impossible to beat the market – making the market ‘informationally efficient’. According to this theory there are 3 degrees to:

Weak (this reflects all past information which has been provided and the market has already reacted rationally to this information)

Semi-strong (this reflects all past and current information and market reacts instantly and rationally to new information which is published)

Strong (reflects all information including any information which may not be public - including insider information)

Fama’s EMH theory states that all security prices reflect all known information and the pricing of stocks and bonds are efficient as people have reacted rationally to the information provided and therefore have acted accordingly. In practice, most academics believe in at least the weak form of EMH (including Lars Peter Hansen who also won the Nobel Prize in 2013 alongside Fama - and agrees that markets are efficient) and numerous studies have found that prices do not move in trends based on the past. However, numerous traders dispute this theory and traders such as Michael Steinhardt and Warren Buffet have managed to beat the market which would suggest that markets are not always efficient. Therefore this would lead me to question – how valid is this hypothesis and are there any other theories which could be deemed more valid?


Robert Shiller

Robert Shiller, a third winner of the Nobel Prize in 2013, questioned EMH and stated that asset prices are too volatile to be reconciled by rationality and efficient portfolio theory. His paper "Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends?” challenged Fama’s view of EMH and took a more behavioural approach by suggesting that people act irrationally to information and therefore share prices move accordingly. He also suggested that in a rational stock market people would base stock prices on future returns whilst also taking into account the Net Present Value of their investment.
So which of the above views are ‘more valid’?


The debate…

There appears to be supporting evidence for both theories – as previously mentioned Lars Peter Hansen and other academics believe there to be at least a weak form of efficiency in the market. Furthermore the ‘random walk’ theory supports Fama and states that you cannot predict future movements based on past trends as stock price changes have the same distribution and are independent of each other. This theory also received criticism as investors did find trends over past price movement so therefore Fama’s view of EMH is questionable. As for Shillers view, traders managing to beat the market would suggest that there is more validity in his theory.


Based on the above I think both theories can be used to a certain extent. There is evidence to show that the market reacts to past information so therefore has at least weak form of efficiency – but for traders to be able to beat the market and gain abnormally large returns there must be some inefficiency and that investors are predicting future prices (which could be based on past prices and historic movements).






Best Advice: Fama is the Spur, Money Marketing, May 2007, pg58

Burr, B. B. (2013). Nobel award validates different market viewpoints. Pensions & Investments, 41(22), 28-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1447240436?accountid=12860