Should Tech Companies Pay Dividends?
from the misuse-of-fiscal-policy dept
It's being reported widely that the Bush administration is planning on trying to stimulate the economy by removing income taxes on dividend payments. Many think that this could cause technology companies (which, historically, have stayed away from paying dividends) to open up their checkbooks. The economic theory from the administration seems to be that without the income tax component, more companies will be willing to pay larger dividends, passing more money into shareholders hands, which will then somehow boost the economy (which they apparently consider to be the equivalent of the stock market). It will also encourage more people to invest in the stock market - since they could (conceivably) get more money back in dividends. This seems to be fairly backwards thinking. As Kevin Werbach points out, the reason technology companies usually don't pay dividends is they believe they can invest that money better than their shareholders. If we take a step back you can see why this is probably a bad idea. Economic growth comes from productivity increases, which are fueled by technology advances. When technology companies are encouraged to pay out dividends instead of investing it in new opportunities, we're encouraging consumer spending over productivity enhancements. It seems like a short-term strategy that does little to help long-term economic growth.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
presidents are always short sighted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech companies don't always re-invest that money
These monies are profits which come _after_ expenses such as R&D, investments, buyouts of smaller companies, etc. These monies are doing nothing but drawing interest (bank interest, bond interest, probably stock value increases, etc) for MS' own interests. They're not being used to increase productivity, develop new products, or push the limits of technology.
I really do think that at least a portion of these profits have to be returned to the investors, or else we run the risk of having the stock market go from partial _ownership_ of a company to a purely speculative arena where future stock price increases are the investor's only incentive to buy a company stock. In that event, you may as well relocate the NYSE to Las Vegas, because it's all about gambling at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so short sighted
The reality is that the policy shift toward removing the dis-incentive to pay dividends will allow companies like Enron to be succseful energy or other commodity companies that pay strong dividends, but don't grow significantly because they are a commodity business. Thus, these companies valuations will be competitive with Tech companies because they are economically sound - just not growing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]