Another benefit season, another load of mass action ads refund. In recent weeks, we have seen:
• $ 4 trillion boost to GM General Motors, + 2.14% -Plan of repurchase, for a total of $ 9 billion.
• A new $ 4 billion repurchase plan MasterCard MA, + 6.71%
• A new share buyback program by $ 10 billion the oil company Schlumberger SLB hit, + 3.97%
Refund amounts are large, and get larger.
"Of the 1,900 companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, redemptions and dividends amounted to 113% of its capital expenditures, compared with 60% in 2000 and 38% in 1990," he told Reuters in a recent special report mania buyback.
You would think that with all this money being rammed repurchase, investors reap the benefits. But, unfortunately, more often, refunds are simply a waste of money that shares are bought at inflated values diluted by awards from employees and ultimately to the detriment of growth and innovation.
Here's why the repurchase are useless and why companies like Apple AAPL, Cisco CSCO -0.57% + 2.96% and IBM IBM, + 2.10% need to wake up and stop wasting your money on the stupidity redemption.
Buybacks Are Often Inadequate
Interestingly, companies often embark on massive buyback plans after seeing tremendous growth, not before. This means they are particularly sensitive to the purchase of shares at a peak.
And when billions of dollars are implemented, paying even just a bonus of 5% or 10% can add up to serious waste.
A good example is Apple, who has tried to appease Wall Street that its growth slowed in 2012 with the announcement of a share buyback plan. And he began this task by spending almost $ 2 billion between September 30 and November 3, 2012, from about $ 80 to $ 90 per share (adjusted for splits).
Apple then proceeded to plant as low as $ 50 in 2013, and not the mark of $ 90 recovered to mid-2014.
Now, the bulls argue that redemption Apple wisely kept the pedal in these depressions to keep buying its shares, which is about half the price of the current action. However, this is not a determined defense of Apple shares rose essentially nowhere since the beginning of this aggressive buyback program; shares are down about $ 90, it was Apple after launching the system back in 2012.
And besides, that includes accelerated action to repurchase $ 6 billion in May 2015 an average price of $ 124.24 - more than $ 7 billion spent in the second quarter of fiscal 2015 for an average price of 124 $ 11 and $ 4 billion spent in the fiscal third quarter of 2015 for an average price of $ 128.08!
That's a premium of 30% of current investors may not see again in 2016 after a rather ugly report first-quarter results.
As you said Warren Buffett in his 2012 letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway: "Decisions to repurchase, the price is very important value is destroyed when purchases are made above the intrinsic value.".
Apple apparently did not get the memo.
Worse than the repurchase by a large bonus however repurchases aggressively and not actually reduce the amount of shares outstanding.
My favorite phantom shares repurchased example is Cisco. Because while the role of the company seems determined to return capital to shareholders, the reality is very different from the narrative.
"In fiscal 2015, we repurchased 155 million of our common stock at an average price of $ 27.22 per share for an aggregate purchase price of US $ 4.2 billion was withdrawn," Cisco said in its annual report 2015, presented in September.
That's great, right? Logically, that means there are 155 million fewer shares of Cisco in late 2014, right?
False.
In fact, on the first page of its 2015 10-K, Cisco reported 5,061,000 common shares outstanding ... everything in its 2014 10-K reports that 5,099,000 common shares - a reduction of about 38 million dollars, which is less than a quarter of the alleged redemption.
In fact, as Cisco based delivery of shares to employees. In fact, the cost of stock-based compensation in fiscal 2015 were $ 1.44 billion.
So if you are one of those suckers who think reimbursements are for the benefit of juice of action, which should be more skeptical of these press releases of Cisco song on the return of capital to shareholders.
I beef with stock-based compensation in principle, since they receive rewards remain loyal, motivated and deliver value to shareholders, but one look at long-term performance of Cisco seems to strongly disagree with this concept.
The Opportunity Cost Is Real For Companies
If you think the examples of Cisco and Apple may not apply to your specific operations, it is useful to consider all waste rescues across the market as a whole.
Consider that Apple spent $ 110 million in a little over three years. It's a truckload of money! In fact, at current valuations, only 36 companies around the S & P 500 would be too expensive for Apple to buy with that kind of change.
And if you do not like the idea of acquisitions, as they tend to be clumsy in themselves, review all R & D personnel or equipment or that kind of money could have been spent.
Consider a recent Reuters analysis, which estimates that IBM has invested $ 125 million in stock repurchases since 2005, but only $ 111 billion in capital expenditures and R & D. It would be good if IBM was on top of his game, but the stock is down 22% over the past five years compared with an increase of 65% for the S & P 500 as income continues to decline and new products can not roll or generate enough quickly enough money to keep the number of contraction Big Blue.
Of course, it is an act of faith to think IBM would have this money effectively. But $ 125 billion is a lot of dry powder, and any target shareholder must admit that the technology giant has not fulfilled its promise innovation and growth for the last half decade.
Refunds come with a high opportunity cost. And considering the above trends often companies buy back shares at inflated prices and then the allocation of shares to offset the cuts, it is not unfair to ask if those billions would be better spent elsewhere.
