The Social Costs of Dividends and Share Repurchases

J. B. Heaton
{"title":"The Social Costs of Dividends and Share Repurchases","authors":"J. B. Heaton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3330269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A long-held view in the academy is that shareholders are \"residual claimants\" in the sense that shareholders are paid in full only after the corporation pays its creditors. The reality on the ground is far different. Corporations give assets away to their shareholders long before they have satisfied creditors, both voluntary contract creditors and involuntary tort creditors. In particular, existing U.S. corporate and voidable transfer laws allow corporations to pay dividends and make share repurchases up to the point where the corporation is insolvent or nearly so. Voluntary creditors can limit dividends and share repurchases by contract, but involuntary creditors like tort claimants cannot and unsophisticated voluntary creditors rarely do so. I use a simple Black-Scholes model of a debtor firm to illustrate the incentive that shareholders have to take dividends and share repurchases before debts are repaid. I then present data on the huge payouts of asset value by indebted U.S. publicly-traded corporations from 2010 to 2018. While good for shareholders, the permissiveness of corporate payout rules brings with it substantial social costs. Dividends and repurchases (1) dramatically increase the riskiness of corporate debt, diverting large resources into credit monitoring and speculation, (2) require a larger bankruptcy system to process large and complex corporate failures, (3) makes firms more fragile and less resilient to financial crises, (4) unfairly shifts costs to involuntary and unsophisticated creditors in violation of the implicit social bargain of limited liability, and (5) distorts the supply of securities toward riskier debt that is publicly subsidized through tax deductibility of interest expense, simultaneously reducing the availability of safe assets that are in high demand. It would be socially beneficial to restrict dividends and share repurchases to corporations that are much safer than now is the case, with low debt and adequate insurance against harm to involuntary creditors, and which meet higher thresholds for wages and benefits. Such a rule would still allow corporations to operate without doing those things - they could still have high debt, be underinsured, and pay minimum wages with minimal benefits. But if they did so, they could not pay out assets to shareholders until they first met all their other obligations.","PeriodicalId":372148,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Distributions: Dividends","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Distributions: Dividends","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3330269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A long-held view in the academy is that shareholders are "residual claimants" in the sense that shareholders are paid in full only after the corporation pays its creditors. The reality on the ground is far different. Corporations give assets away to their shareholders long before they have satisfied creditors, both voluntary contract creditors and involuntary tort creditors. In particular, existing U.S. corporate and voidable transfer laws allow corporations to pay dividends and make share repurchases up to the point where the corporation is insolvent or nearly so. Voluntary creditors can limit dividends and share repurchases by contract, but involuntary creditors like tort claimants cannot and unsophisticated voluntary creditors rarely do so. I use a simple Black-Scholes model of a debtor firm to illustrate the incentive that shareholders have to take dividends and share repurchases before debts are repaid. I then present data on the huge payouts of asset value by indebted U.S. publicly-traded corporations from 2010 to 2018. While good for shareholders, the permissiveness of corporate payout rules brings with it substantial social costs. Dividends and repurchases (1) dramatically increase the riskiness of corporate debt, diverting large resources into credit monitoring and speculation, (2) require a larger bankruptcy system to process large and complex corporate failures, (3) makes firms more fragile and less resilient to financial crises, (4) unfairly shifts costs to involuntary and unsophisticated creditors in violation of the implicit social bargain of limited liability, and (5) distorts the supply of securities toward riskier debt that is publicly subsidized through tax deductibility of interest expense, simultaneously reducing the availability of safe assets that are in high demand. It would be socially beneficial to restrict dividends and share repurchases to corporations that are much safer than now is the case, with low debt and adequate insurance against harm to involuntary creditors, and which meet higher thresholds for wages and benefits. Such a rule would still allow corporations to operate without doing those things - they could still have high debt, be underinsured, and pay minimum wages with minimal benefits. But if they did so, they could not pay out assets to shareholders until they first met all their other obligations.
股利和股票回购的社会成本
学术界长期持有的一种观点是,股东是“剩余索取者”,也就是说,只有在公司向债权人付款之后,股东才会得到全额偿付。实际情况却大不相同。公司在清偿债权人(包括自愿合同债权人和非自愿侵权债权人)之前很久就将资产转让给股东。特别是,现行的美国公司法和可撤销转让法允许公司支付股息和回购股票,直到公司资不抵债或濒临破产。自愿债权人可以通过合同限制股息和股票回购,但像侵权索赔人这样的非自愿债权人不能这样做,而且不成熟的自愿债权人很少这样做。我用一个简单的布莱克-斯科尔斯(Black-Scholes)债务公司模型来说明股东在偿还债务之前必须接受股息和股票回购的动机。然后,我提供了2010年至2018年负债累累的美国上市公司巨额资产价值支出的数据。虽然对股东有利,但企业派息规定的宽松性带来了巨大的社会成本。股息和回购(1)大幅增加了公司债务的风险,将大量资源转移到信用监控和投机上,(2)需要一个更大的破产体系来处理大型和复杂的公司破产,(3)使公司更脆弱,对金融危机的抵御能力更弱,(4)不公平地将成本转移到非自愿和不成熟的债权人身上,违反了有限责任的隐性社会交易。(5)扭曲了高风险债务的证券供应,这些债务通过利息支出的税收减免得到公共补贴,同时减少了高需求安全资产的可用性。将股息和股票回购限制在那些比现在安全得多、债务低、对非自愿债权人的损害有充分保险、工资和福利达到更高门槛的公司,对社会是有益的。这样的规则仍然会允许企业在不做这些事情的情况下运作——它们可能仍然负债累累,保险不足,支付最低工资和最低福利。但如果他们这样做了,他们就不能向股东支付资产,除非他们首先履行了所有其他义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信