Citation
Companies uses of Dividends and Stock Repurchase Programs

Material Information

Title:
Companies uses of Dividends and Stock Repurchase Programs
Creator:
Huie, Craig
Ryngaert, Michael D. ( Mentor )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Genre:
serial ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text








j.:urrn3al :f i.ird rgra3du3tae Pe 3rh

.',:lune-, -ue 4 . ec:errn',er 211i:1



Companies uses of Dividends and Stock Repurchase Programs

Craig Hule


This paper seeks to determine if companies can offset the negative signals of dropping their dividend levels

by initiating a stock repurchase program. The impetus for this study is the often-cited case of Florida Power and

Light Company (FPL). While the FPL case is instinctive, it is difficult to make an inference on an entire

population from a study of one company. It is possible that FPL is a special case because it was a healthy

company that cut its dividend. If this were true, then the rest of the companies that cut dividends and

announced stock repurchase may have very different results. Lets look at the specific situation of FPL.



It is instinctive to consider revisiting the FPL experience. The two reasons that led FPL to cut its dividend were:

the recent speed of deregulation in the utilities industry that forced FPL to start thinking about the impact of

not being a regulated company, and the fact that the dividend payout had grown to a higher than normal level on

a historical basis. The reason for this is that the dividends recently had been growing faster than the

company's earnings (1). After these issues were taken into account, there were four major factors that led FPL

to simultaneously cut the dividend level and announce a stock repurchase program. First, FPL believed that

the negative signal from lowering the dividend would be somewhat offset by the positive signal from a

stock repurchase program. Second, there was a tax benefit to a stock repurchase because dividend income is

taxed more heavily than capital gains income. Third, a repurchase program provided flexibility in distributing

capital to investors in case earnings were not as high as expected, which stemmed from deregulation within

the utility industry increasing FPL's business risk. Fourth, switching to more repurchases and fewer dividends

would strengthen the flexibility in the level of cash reserves (2).



There are two theories about dividends that are worth explaining in more detail in this paper. Those theories are

the Signaling Hypothesis and the Clientele Effect. The Signaling Theory is based off the idea that managers

have better information about a firm's future prospects than public stockholders do. Since future dividends are

paid out of future profits, and given that managers are reluctant to cut dividends, any change in dividends to be

paid is often viewed as a signal of future profits. Thus, increases in dividends generally result in stock price

increases and cuts in dividends generally result in stock price declines (3).



The other relevant theory is the Clientele Effect. The basic idea is that different clienteles of stockholders

prefer different dividend payout ratios. Firms have different payouts based on their own internal business

needs. Thus, when a firm switches its payout ratio, perhaps due to business imperatives, the current clientele

leaves and another clientele must come in to take its place. If more investors leave or if they leave quicker than

the new clientele enters, this could lead to a temporarily depressed share price (4).



To see why FPL considered stock repurchases as an alternative means to pay cash out to investors, lets look at

the economics of a share repurchase. When a firm's stock is repurchased and management refrains from selling

their holdings as it generally does, the managers are effectively increasing their portion of ownership in the firm.

This willingness to "buy out" other shareholders shows the public that management feels the firm's stock


UP jounial of Undergraduate Research University of Florida





is undervalued. Thus, investors view the announcement of a stock repurchase program as a bullish signal. There

is also a tax advantage to stock repurchases versus dividends. When a stock repurchase is initiated the investor

has the choice to sell the stock back or not. Regardless of the choice, as long as the investor has the stock for over

a year, the capital gains tax liability is small compared to dividends. Also, if the investor decides not to sell he

defers the tax liability until the stock is sold.



Now lets revisit the FPL case to see whether coupling the positive stock repurchase signal with the dividend cut

had any impact on investor opinion. There were interesting market events surrounding the FPL announcement of

the change in dividend policy. On March 3rd, 1994 FPL suggested that it would be difficult to increase the

dividend. Then on May 9th, 1994 FPL announced the dividend cut with the stock repurchase program and the

stock price fell $4.375 to $27.50 (5). Then on May 31st, FPL's stock closed at $32.17, or about 30 cents higher

than the pre-announcement price. One year later, FPL's stock price closed at $37.75, giving stockholders a return

of 23.8%. Finally, almost two years later on April 1, 1996 FPL's stock was trading at $45.25, which

provided stockholders with a post-announcement return of 52.9% (6).



These results support the fact that FPL adapted itself to become more of a growth company in an

unregulated environment from an income company with a monopoly in its market. The significance of this case is

that FPL was the first company to drop the dividend payout without the typical negative reasons, but for

strategic reasons. Also, FPL supplemented the dividend cut with a stock repurchase in order to boost

investors' confidence in the company. Finally, FPL's stock had increased over a long period after the

announcement, and has more than offset the temporary price decline from the dividend cut.



The FPL case has been analyzed and explained in order to have a base to discuss other companies

that simultaneously dropped the dividend and announced a stock repurchase program. The first question to

address: Can a firm adjust its dividend policy for valid business reasons and avoid a significant temporary or

semi-permanent decline in the firm's value with a one time stock repurchase announcement. If the answer is no,

the other question is what reason is there for the drop in the stock price. One explanation would be that the

market effectively over punished the stocks of companies when they announced both a stock repurchase

program and a dividend cut as they did with FPL. Then once they realized that the company made a strategic

move, and signaled to the public that the company's basic earning power was still strong the stock

rebounded. Another possible explanation is that when the company cut the dividend, the clientele of investors

who desire a high dividend payout left and the stock dropped. Soon after the old clientele left, a new clientele

that desired a lower dividend payout replaced them, and the stock rebounded. Another question is

whether companies added an announcement for stock repurchases as they cut the dividend level to appear as if

they were making a strategic move as FPL did. In reality however, perhaps the companies were facing problems

and the management was trying to appear strong to the public in order to protect their firm's stock price.



In this study, a sample of twenty-four American companies that simultaneously announced both a dividends cut

and a stock repurchase program were collected. To begin the research, the daily returns 100 days before and

100 days after the announcement date for each company was recorded. The data was gathered by using the

CRSP database, Yahoo! Finance, and the Bloomberg database. The returns for each stock were compared to

the returns of a proxy for the market index. The difference of the two was calculated to be the net returns of

the stock for any particular day.



The first step was to find the sample's average net return for each day. The average net cumulative returns were

also found, starting with the average net return of the companies' 100 days before the announcement. The

resulting graph is shown in figure 1. The cumulative net returns were also calculated for FPL and shown in figure






2. Notice the downward trend in the sample leading up to the announcement date with a -18.17% cumulative

return is stronger than FPL's negative cumulative return during that period of -14.68%. Also, the drop at the time

of the announcement date for the sample is not as sharp as the FPL's case, -3.26% vs. -12.52% respectively.

In addition, unlike the FPL case where the stock returned to its pre-announcement value, the sample firms'

stock prices did not bounce back at all.


Cum dative Average Return Vs. Market Index

0:96


-110 -8S -W -40 -2 20 40 o0 80 110







E
(0,0 )










Numbbe of DaysA~aeyfrM nounCemerl

Figure 1. Cumulative Average Return Vs. Market Index.


Number of Days Av ay from Announcement

Figure 2. Cumulative Return of FPL vs. Market index.


In addition to the graphical representation, statistical T-Tests were calculated on the data. The first T-Test

was conducted on the average return of the sample for each day. An 11-day range of T-Tests are shown in figure

3. Not much can be concluded from this test, since the only significant results are found in the announcement

date and 3 days after the announcement date. This lack of significance is probably due to the difficulty in

getting conclusive results from such a small sample. Next there was a T-Test conducted on the cumulative

net returns for an eleven-day range that include five days before and five days after the announcement date.

The results are shown in figure 4. This test shows very strong significance of negative cumulative returns within

that range.


Cumulative Return of FPL vs. Market Index









Days from T-Test Results For
Announcement Daily Average Returns
5 1.264057197
4 -0.279112647
3 -2.370646641
2 0.686239546
1 -0.827747391
0 -1.598526647
-1 0.444704145
-2 -1.204962503
-3 0.249363281
-4 -0.632736205
-5 -1.818221729
Figure 3. T-Test Results for Average Daily Returns.


T-Statistic Probability
11 day range -2.1151 Between 95% and 98%
surrounding the (2.069 - 2.500)
announcement date
Figure 4. 11 day range surrounding the announcement date.



In some of the qualitative research conducted on the sample, I found that there were many motives for the firms

to give a stock repurchase and dividend cut simultaneously. A table that gives a basic summary of each company

can be seen at figure 5. These motives include: a competitive environment causing the target payout ratio

to change, bringing the payout ratio in line with the rest of the industry, changing the financial capitalization of

the firm, propping up an undervalued stock price, to have financial flexibility for acquisitions and volatile cash

flows, stock option accretion, and of course there may have been other motives such as those discussed earlier

in this paper.







Figure 5. Basic Company Summary.


Company Name Dividend Cut Share Repurchase


Shares
Outstanding


Companies stated reason


Sempra Energy from $1 56 to $1 00


H&R Block


BG plc




USEC Inc


White Mountain

Insurance


$32to$20

Quarterly

145pto8p



$ 2750 to $ 1375

quarterly


$1 60 to $1


Cavalier Homes Inc $ 01 to $0 00


Dutch Auction of $17 50 to $20 for 36

MM shares to buy $700 MM or 15% of

Outstanding

Plans to buyback 15 mm shares when

it spins off compuserve

less than 10% of shares

additional 20 MM to total of 30 MM

authorized by 6/01 Already

repurchased 9 6 MM in last 6 months

of 99


25 4% of outstanding


authorize 1 4 mm


Strategic Purposes


90 5 MM at 12/31/99


1785mm


7 06/21/00 Equity Inns Inc $ 31 to $ 25


Compuserve wll be spun off and

profits wll not be as high as before

Reduce cost of Capital


wth lower projected n I The

company wants to reallign its payout

ratio and to fund share repurchase


Downturn in industry


a cushion for anticipated and

unanticipated problems in the future


Date of
Announcement


Industry


Late 1/00 and

expired 2/25/00


2 11/25/00


3 04/23/98




4 02/03/00


08/01/00


10/31/00


Energy


Housing


Hotel REIT


$5 MM in stock in 2000 and 20001







09/15/99 Allegheny Teledyne $ 16 to $10


$1 46 to $ 75


$07t $04


13 15 penceto 11 43


9 03/02/99


10 07/16/98


11 07/02/98





12 10/02/97


already 8 5 MM shares and consider

increasing

launch program - 6 6 MM shares or

20% s/o

up to 4 MM shares

asking for 400 MM shares including

warrants




1 8 MM shares - 17% of s/o


company being split up- restructuring Conglomerate


Merging with Unisource and

restructuring

eroding profits

lots of cash before possible

acquisition

free up cash to invest in

nonregulated businesses in a

deregulating industry


IPALCO Enterprises
33% dividend cut 12 MM shares
Inc

Ryland Group Inc $ 15 to $ 04 16 MM shares

LucasVarity 7 pence to 4 5 pence 3% of company stock

Pacific Gas and
$ 49 to $ 30 plans to initiate program
Electric Company

Burnham Pacific
$ 36 to $ 25 1 MM shares
Properties Inc


WR Grace & Co $ 35 to$ 125 up to 10 MM


New York State

Electric and Gas $ 55 to $ 35 plan repurchase


57 MM


new strategy for retail competition Utility


undervalued stock homebuilding

tax efficient payout automotive


deregulating industry


171 MM




97 MM


utilities


move into retail sector REIT



manage balance sheet with growth specialty-chemical

strategies in core businesses business


industry competition


utilities


Florida Power and
$62to $ 42
Light Group Inc

Ametek Inc $ 17 to $ 06

Diamond Shamrock
$1 to $ 40
Corp


Whittaker Corp $ 40 to $15



International Flavors
$38t$15
and Fragrances Inc

Wisconsin Energy cut by 49%


Rank Group PLC 12 75 pence to 8




Connectiv Inc $1 54 to $ 88


Ethyl Corp $ 50 to $ 25


Texas Utilities Co $ 77 to $ 50


plan to repurchase 10 MM



$150 MM or 25% of s/o


up to 25 MM shares



up to 3 MM shares


179 3 MM



44 MM


1176MM



14 5 MM


$100 MM


increase from $200 MM to $400 MM

buyback 15% of capital on top of 10%

previously announced


$350 MM or 14 MM


35 MM


$250 MM


increased competition and
utilities
deregulation

large writedown motor part


use cash to buy oil reserves oil


nearterm impact of Saudi healthcare, energy,

cancellation on earnings chemical, etc

food flavors and
acquiring company
perfume

needs cash for new plants energy


free cash to focus on core divisions leisure



free up cash to become more


competitive


118 MM


wave of future and a possible

acquisition


utility


fuel and lubricant


utilities


UGI Corp


Olsten Corp


GEC


CTG Resources Inc $ 38 to $ 25


Propane, utility


Temp agency


aerospace





utility


13 07/01/97


14 05/01/97

15 04/15/97


16 10/17/96



17 11/30/95




18 10/06/95





19 10/17/94


20 05/10/94



21 11/18/93


22 07/18/96



23 08/24/84




24 09/26/00


25 09/11/00


26 02/25/00




27 05/11/99


28 08/27/97


29 10/14/95






$180 to $1 6 4 MM shares 107 MM


One conclusion from this study is that FPL was a special case in terms of the results when it announced a dividend

cut and a stock repurchase program. FPL was a company that was very strong, and changed its dividends not due

to hurt earnings, but an anticipation of the change in the industry. Comparing the cumulative net returns of FPL

and the sample shows this. The results show that FPL's returns were stronger than the sample up to

announcement, weaker on the day of the announcement, and recovered more than the sample after

the announcement. This information lead me to believe that FPL was a strong company that had a clientele

switch hurting the stock price on the announcement date. Perhaps investors initially overreacted, but with

the positive signal from the stock repurchase, ultimately investors realized that FPL was still a strong

firm. Subsequently, a new clientele of investors came in to restore the stock price to its pre-announcement level.

The sample had different results as shown by the statistically significant negative return present around

the announcement that was not recovered. This shows that the market did not take the announcement for the

stock repurchase seriously, and that the effect of the dividend drop was a permanent share revaluation.

This concludes that on average, the announcement of a dividend drop and a stock repurchase program results in

a permanent drop in the stock price. Also, since the drop in stock price is permanent, the explanation is that

the signal of the dividend overpowers the signal from the stock repurchase and not the switch of the clientele.

The results also indicate that the rest of the companies in this study were financially weak and may have been

trying to appear to be in the same situation as FPL. In my opinion, another study with many companies in the

sample should be conducted to generalize the expected results of companies that simultaneously announce

a dividend cut and a stock repurchase program. Also, companies who do take on these actions should be looked at

on a case by case basis to estimate the effects on the stock price.






REFERENCES



1. Soter, Dennis, Eugene Brigham, and Paul Evanson. "The Dividend Cut "Heard 'Round the World": The Case of

FPL." Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 9.1 (1996): 7-8.

2. Soter, Brigham, and Evanson 8, 13-4.

3. Brigham, Eugene F, and Joel F. Houston. Fundamentals of Financial Management. 2nd ed. Fort Worth: The

Dryden Press, 1999. 502.

4. Brigham, and Houston 502-3.

5. Esty, Benjamin C. "Dividend Policy at FPL Group, Inc. (A) and (B) Teaching Note." Harvard Business School Case

5-296-072 (1996): 17-20.

6. Soter, Brigham, and Evanson 5.





--top--



Back to the Journal of Undergraduate Research




College of Liberal Arts and Sciences I University Scholars Program I University of Florida I| jU1 I UNIVERSITY of
U n FLORIDA
11., - ,ii h -Y-E.' f h,;0 Ti NGi , t- W r


30 06/13/95 Sun Co


restructure to leveraged oil industry