繼續整理學習美國投資書《終極股息投資攻略》第3章，作者來自美國基金評級公司晨星(Morningstar)。
The Jump from Profits to Dividends
ROE describes how a corporation turns the shareholder's investment into earnings, but dividends require another step. For example, 3M Company (MMM) earned a profit of $3.9 billion in 2006, or $5.06 for each of its 761 million outstanding shares. It happens that one of the model portfolios I manage for Morningstar Dividendlnvestor owned 55 shares of 3M during this period, so its share of the company's profit was $278.30. Yet of this profit, only $101.20 found its way back to the Dividendlnvestor account in cash. What gives?
In this we find something of a conflict between a corporation and its shareholders. All else being equal, shareholders would just as soon receive larger dividends. Corporations, however, have interests of their own; virtually all feel the need to expand. By keeping a portion (or all) of profits inside the corporation, management can purchase additional assets, hire more people, develop new products, and--it hopes--generate still greater profits in the future. If capital is the ultimate source of dividends, then retained earnings is the principal engine of dividend growth.
Some of these efforts at growth are perfectly legitimate; if 3M can sell more Post-it Notes (to cite just one of its 55,000 or so products) in 2007 than it did in 2006 , and earn higher profits as a result, it might make sense for 3M to pay smaller dividends than it could otherwise afford, so it can expand the Post-it plant. However, CEOs and other corporate executives may attempt to grow in ways that don't benefit shareholders. Large mergers and acquisitions are a perennial use (or misuse) of retained earnings. They often deliver less than a dollar's worth of business value for each dollar spent. But a bigger business tends to pay its CEO more, regardless of whether the business has become a better one in the process.
The critical variable standing between earnings and dividends is the payout ratio, the proportion of earnings being paid out to shareholders on an annual basis. This statistic is a simple one:
Payout Ratio =
Dividend per Share / Earnings per Share
During 2006, 3M paid out dividends totaling $1.84 per share. Dividing this sum by earnings per share of $5.06, we find that 3M had a payout ratio of 36 percent.
This raises two additional questions:
1. What is a good payout ratio? Higher payout ratios imply larger dividends for shareholders, but a payout ratio that is too high leaves little margin for error--a slight drop in profits could leave the firm with insufficient earnings to cover the dividend. (You'll find much more on this topic in Chapter 6.)2. What happens to the earnings that aren't paid out? The dividend machine actually has two outputs: dividends and future dividend growth. Growth is a (usually pleasant) fact of life for most firms. As more consumers are born and enter the country every day, and as the American public grows wealthier over time, firms in trade need to gear up to handle the additional demand.The key variable is growth. When a corporation turns a profit, that profit results in a higher net worth; the value of the shareholders' equity account grows. And if the ROE stays the same, a higher equity balance will lead to higher earnings.
A formula called the sustainable growth rate can suggest how much earnings growth we can expect, given constant ROEs and payout ratios. Because the payout ratio is presumably fixed, earnings and dividends increase at equal rates. Here's the calculation:
Sustainable Growth Rate = (1 - Payout Ratio) x Return on Equity
Using this statistic, let's run some numbers on our previous examples.
Of the three stocks depicted in Figure 3.7, Westar had the highest yield--a bit over 4 percent on average over the course of 2006. Yet with the lowest ROE and the highest payout ratio, its sustainable growth rate is the lowest of the group. With lower payouts and higher ROEs, Sysco and 3M can offset lower yields (about 2 percent) with higher growth.
For businesses with high ROEs, a lower payout ratio may seem to make sense. The dollars paid out to shareholders as dividends might be able to earn 10 percent or thereabouts over the long run if reinvested in other stocks, but the dollars retained can earn a much higher return.
If we could invest on this basis--using the simple sustainable growth rate formula to project dividend growth--life would be very good indeed. A 24 percent dividend growth rate for 3M in perpetuity represents the kind of opportunity one might sell a kidney to buy. Unfortunately, the sustainable growth rate formula has a few key drawbacks. For one thing, it assumes constant payout ratios and ROEs, when these factors can and do change over time. Much more important, however, is how challenging it can be for a corporation to live up to its sustainable growth potential.
歡迎關注公眾號一起交流學習吧：
