6 Comments
Feb 19Liked by Andre Nader

🥑

Expand full comment
Feb 23Liked by Andre Nader

🥑!

Expand full comment
author

🔥

Expand full comment
Feb 19Liked by Andre Nader

I agree with all that and am not a card carrying member of DOD. My sense is that their position comes from a belief that CEOs are bad at recognizing or admitting when they've reached that point where just giving money back to the shareholders is the best use of cash.

Expand full comment

Great post. It's interesting that providing dividends is presumably the reason stock is worth anything at all, else how does one get a return? Selling it, of course, but without the expectation of some future dividends, why would anyone buy it (other than to sell it to some greater fool)?

So, maybe there is a sweet spot in terms of dividend frequency? And the Dividends or Die cult just wants them far more frequently than is tax-optimal?

Expand full comment
author

Sounds like we were both taught that a stock is valued based on the net present value of future cash flows. Without dividends what are the cashflows?

Turns out there are lots of ways that companies can accomplish the same thing. Buying back stock reduces the number of shares outstanding. The company generally investing the money back into itself achieving a higher return through their own growth.

Eventually they reach a point where returning the cash back to share holders in the form of dividends is the best use of their cash.

The amount of dividends most tech is paying (in the rare case they do pay) doesn't normally amount to too much. It is more a caution for those who explicitly jump on the dividend of die camp (which could make sense in retirement, but is terrible for a high earner in their accumulation phase).

Expand full comment