Share buybacks look foolish in retrospect

The Wall Street Journal's 'Heard on the Street' column reports (subscription required) on the less than impressive results of recent stock buybacks at public companies.

When a company buys back its stock, it pays cash to shareholders for their shares, and the retires them -- in a market where the vast majority of stocks are trading well of the highs the market reached last year, many recent buybacks are looking poorly-timed. The Journal writes that "General Electric (NYSE: GE) bought back $29 billion dollars of stock, paying an average of $36 and change for each share, according to regulatory filings. This week, it sold $12.2 billion worth for $22.25 each (before fees) and put $3 billion worth of warrants, with the same strike price, in Mr. Buffett's pocket."

The column goes on to argue that dividends "make for better financial discipline and more transparency." Of course that's easy to say right after the market has tanked, but it's a pretty illogical conclusion.

The main argument against dividends is that they're incredibly inefficient, adding an extra 15% cost. A company that pays out a large portion of its income as a dividend is effectively lowering its margins by 15% -- a move that seriously hampers long-term value.

Of course it's unfortunate that GE bought back so much stock only to sell it again at a lower price, but it's a mistake to form general theories about corporate governance based on anecdotal evidence culled from a once-in-a-generation credit meltdown. Given that shareholders of publicly companies presumably feel that their stocks represent a good value, it makes much more sense for corporate brass to hand them more stock with buybacks instead of cash to pay an extra tax on.