Dividend strategy against Nobel laureates.

24 сентября, 2021 от fake Выкл

«Do you know that gives me the biggest pleasure? See how the dividends come from the effort nested. «

(C) John D. Rockefeller

When speech strategy issues of securities market are led by brokers — they always respond about the dividend strategy very dismissive. As a certain widespread misconception market among newcomers, but it is known for professionals, as far as this error is wrong.

Moreover, very smart and educated brokers begin to refer to certain scientists, which allegedly proven a long time ago (and received the proof of the Nobel Prize) that there are no benefit for investor dividends, and all supporters of the dividend strategy are in illusions and dense ignorance .

Actually, brokers in a different way and cannot treat the dividend strategy — it is deeply unpleasant to them, because it deprives the brokers earnings — the most believed «Commission».

Well, everything is clear with brokers — «their mission is a commission» and they cannot be good for the dividend strategy, they would have happened that there would be a «bee against honey».

But what are these scientists, on which the advanced opponents of dividends are referenced?

Let’s deal with.

In 1961, two outstanding American economists — Franco Modigliani and Marton Miller published an article based on their previous work. The article claimed that the amount of dividend payments does not affect the value of the company’s shares. It was beautifully called the «Indifference of the influence of dividends on the price of shares.»

Simplistic speaking, «the perfect market» (and all conclusions in the article were made only for the conditions of the «perfect market») will lead everything to the Mathematical Balance. And if the action cost a hundred rubles, and on it paid 10 rubles dividends — the action will cost 90 rubles. And no winner from dividends will receive a shareholder.

Actually, with the theory, everything. Now I’ll get courage and try to argue a little with outstanding scientists.

Honestly, at first it seemed to me too risky to try to oppose scientists with a world name. But then I decided that it was quite the opposite — to argue with the Nobel laureate, it’s how to boux with Tyson: it’s not a shame to lose, but you will last a couple of rounds and try one double — already well done)) So I will try to fold about the poor dividend strategy word».

So:

The first and obvious incorrectness in the arguments of opponents of the dividend strategy — Modigliani and Miller did not receive the Nobel Prize for the work of the «Indifference of the influence of dividends on the price of shares.» Both scientists were really laureates of the Nobel Prize — but for other achievements. As you can see — it becomes a little easier to argue with the conclusions of respected scientists about dividends))

Let’s go on the very theory of respected scientists. Their theory works in the model of the so-called «perfect market». Simply put — they explored the «spherical horse in vacuum», and not a real market with real promotions and real buyers on it. That’s the answer from them turned out, reminding me of an old anecdote about a balloon:

«Two travelers in the Bulk Balloon took place in an unknown direction. When the wind is a little verse and the ball declined so much that they could do the ground, they screamed the passage:

Where are we? Where are we?

What passersby them calmly replied: «You are in a balloon.»

The wind carried their ball far from this passerby and here one traveler says to another:

You know, I am sure that this passerby is a mathematician.

«Why are you sure so ???

«He gave an absolutely accurate answer to our question and absolutely useless answer.»

So with a respected scientist economists. They argue that the value of the company’s shares does not depend on dividend paid. It is likely that if robots devoid of emotions were operating on the market — it would be so so it was. But while people buy and sell people in the market — everything is not at all right.

Several simple examples of those factors that do not take into account dear economists.

Emotions of other buyers

The need for money in unexpected moments

It is clear that in the «perfect market» our scientists have robots, and there are no children’s robots, and they do not go to the dental robots — so you can build models and graphics for twenty years, neglecting chances. But the living people are convenient to get some living money from time to time — on solving current problems. And therefore, living people are more convenient to receive dividends, and not just to see the growth of the shares. Accordingly, people want to have stock in the portfolio with dividends and shares with dividends grow in price.

Bankruptcy of the company

In general, it turns out that the idea of respected scientists is purely mathematically understood — if the company paid dividends, the price of shares (the capitalization of the entire company) falls — this phenomenon is known and called the dividend GEP. Mathematically, you can even agree with people who note that when receiving dividends you pay tax, and you will remain this money in the company — they would work for you as a shareholder without decreasing the amount of tax.

But besides mathematics on the market there are also psychology — and it forces many to acquire dividend actions, creating additional demand for them and additional growth factors.

Summing up — it seems to me that the respected scientists once again confirmed the peoples observation of the insurmountable the abyss between theorists and practitioners. Scientists seem that the dividends do not have the values. But Rockefeller and Buffett like to receive them. Yes, and we will not hurt, after all, each received ruble dividends let a little, but bring us to the goal — to become