|
|
|
|
|
by NovemberWhiskey
2249 days ago
|
|
> Companies that intentionally run with razor-thin balance sheets and don't have any buffers built in to withstands shocks, are more fragile than companies with some buffer, all other things being equal. That's true; but it's not at all the statement you made originally, is it? Do you actually have some data that suggests that dividend-paying companies are more likely to be run as you described? Contrary example: AAPL in its Q1 2020 filing reported ~$200bn of cash, equivalents and marketable securities on hand. AAPL also pays a dividend. Moreover: it's absolutely not to the benefit of shareholders to have a company fail just in order to pay a dividend (unless the dividend yield is something ridiculous); shareholders are often interested in a combination of growth and yield, and the value of the stock going to zero as the company fails is a bad outcome. In fact, companies that pay a dividend by definition have a buffer. They can chose not to pay a dividend. |
|
I disagree that companies that pay a dividend by definition have a buffer. If the income plummets (like in non-essential retail at the moment), they have no hypothetical dividend buffer to fall back on, that if not paid out would keep them in business.