
股票回購(gòu)是政治上受到指責(zé)最多的公司策略,。如果你問(wèn)伊麗莎白·沃倫,,她會(huì)告訴你,股票回購(gòu)是赤裸裸的“市場(chǎng)操縱”,,應(yīng)該視為違法行為,。馬薩諸塞州參議員沃倫認(rèn)為,上市公司回購(gòu)自己的股票時(shí),,希望能提高每股收益,,他們的所作所為實(shí)際上是在扼殺創(chuàng)新。本可以用來(lái)興建新工廠(chǎng),、投資研發(fā)或招聘新員工的資金,,卻只是被用來(lái)拉升股價(jià),讓已經(jīng)富裕的股東們和內(nèi)部人士更富,,而這卻是以經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)為代價(jià),。
但伯克希爾哈撒韋(Berkshire Hathaway)董事長(zhǎng)兼CEO沃倫·巴菲特卻是股票回購(gòu)策略的堅(jiān)定支持者,他數(shù)十年來(lái)曾大量使用這種策略,。92歲的億萬(wàn)富翁巴菲特在2月發(fā)布的一年一度寫(xiě)給股東的信中,,直言不諱地反駁了對(duì)這種做法的批評(píng)意見(jiàn)。
他寫(xiě)道:“當(dāng)你被告知所有回購(gòu)都對(duì)股東或國(guó)家有害,,或?qū)κ紫瘓?zhí)行官特別有利時(shí),,注意這個(gè)人要么是經(jīng)濟(jì)文盲,要么是花言巧語(yǔ)的煽動(dòng)者(這兩個(gè)角色并不相互排斥),?!彼J(rèn)為,股票回購(gòu)“在各個(gè)方面都有利于所有股東”。
但現(xiàn)在又有人批評(píng)回購(gòu)策略,,而且巴菲特很難給他打上“經(jīng)濟(jì)文盲”的標(biāo)簽,。資產(chǎn)管理公司Grantham, Mayo, & van Otterloo(GMO)的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人兼首席投資策略師杰里米·格蘭瑟姆上周表示,他也認(rèn)為股票回購(gòu)應(yīng)該被淘汰,。他認(rèn)為,,股票回購(gòu)幫助公司“在一個(gè)亟待不斷發(fā)展的世界中生存下去”,受益的是公司的利潤(rùn),,卻不是整體經(jīng)濟(jì),。
例如,《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,,從2003年到2012年,,標(biāo)普500公司將54%的收益用于回購(gòu)股票,另外37%用于發(fā)放股息,,導(dǎo)致用于投資生產(chǎn)增長(zhǎng)或員工的資金不足,。
格蘭瑟姆在最近一集《億萬(wàn)富翁探究》(We Study Billionaires)播客中表示:“基本上,我們的工人被殘酷壓榨,,從上世紀(jì)70年代以來(lái),,他們就沒(méi)有參與實(shí)質(zhì)性的生產(chǎn)率“增長(zhǎng)”,而罪魁禍?zhǔn)赚F(xiàn)在卻是完全合法的,。根源就是,,股東們脅迫管理層,做管理層也一直想做的事情,,那就是生活在一個(gè)你可以掌控一切然后回購(gòu)股票的世界,。”
在1982年以前,,股票回購(gòu)一直被視為操縱市場(chǎng)的非法行為,。格蘭瑟姆解釋稱(chēng),這是因?yàn)閮?nèi)部人士通常會(huì)基于非公開(kāi)信息決定回購(gòu),。
他說(shuō)道:“因此,,股票回購(gòu)當(dāng)然是在助長(zhǎng)股票操縱。我認(rèn)為,,這種行為肯定是非法的,。”
這位對(duì)沖基金投資者認(rèn)為,,自從上世紀(jì)80年代,,回購(gòu)作為一種“新潮流”開(kāi)始流行以來(lái),美國(guó)的GDP和生產(chǎn)率增長(zhǎng)持續(xù)放緩,,這給了公司內(nèi)部人士錯(cuò)誤的激勵(lì),。如果公司不得不發(fā)放股息,經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況將會(huì)大有改善。
他解釋稱(chēng):“刺激公司回購(gòu)股票而不是新建工廠(chǎng)的一些動(dòng)機(jī)消失,,資本支出將有所增長(zhǎng),。在資本支出方面,上市公司的表現(xiàn)一直非常糟糕,?!?/p>
格蘭瑟姆還批評(píng)了巴菲特,特別是他認(rèn)為股票回購(gòu)與股息沒(méi)有區(qū)別的觀點(diǎn),。被尊稱(chēng)為“奧馬哈先知”的巴菲特認(rèn)為,,股票回購(gòu)只是向股東回饋價(jià)值的另外一種方式而已,但格蘭瑟姆卻認(rèn)為,,一家公司發(fā)放股息,是在對(duì)公司最熱心和最不熱心的股東之間平均分配收益,,但股票回購(gòu)并非如此,。
他說(shuō)道:“股票回購(gòu)是在不斷淘汰對(duì)公司最不熱心的股東。如果你認(rèn)為股票回購(gòu)不會(huì)瘋狂推高股價(jià),,那只能證明你……缺乏想象力,。股票回購(gòu)當(dāng)然會(huì)使股價(jià)上漲?!?/p>
格蘭瑟姆認(rèn)為,,如果CEO們認(rèn)為回購(gòu)等同于股息,而且不會(huì)操縱股市,,那么他們只要發(fā)放股息即可,。
他說(shuō)道:“有人說(shuō)股票回購(gòu)與股息一樣。如果是那樣的話(huà),,那就發(fā)放股息吧,。我會(huì)很開(kāi)心,你也會(huì)很高興,,只是沃倫不得不繳點(diǎn)稅,。”然后他用諷刺的語(yǔ)氣說(shuō)道:“對(duì)此我很抱歉,?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
股票回購(gòu)是政治上受到指責(zé)最多的公司策略。如果你問(wèn)伊麗莎白·沃倫,,她會(huì)告訴你,,股票回購(gòu)是赤裸裸的“市場(chǎng)操縱”,應(yīng)該視為違法行為,。馬薩諸塞州參議員沃倫認(rèn)為,,上市公司回購(gòu)自己的股票時(shí),希望能提高每股收益,他們的所作所為實(shí)際上是在扼殺創(chuàng)新,。本可以用來(lái)興建新工廠(chǎng),、投資研發(fā)或招聘新員工的資金,卻只是被用來(lái)拉升股價(jià),,讓已經(jīng)富裕的股東們和內(nèi)部人士更富,,而這卻是以經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)為代價(jià)。
但伯克希爾哈撒韋(Berkshire Hathaway)董事長(zhǎng)兼CEO沃倫·巴菲特卻是股票回購(gòu)策略的堅(jiān)定支持者,,他數(shù)十年來(lái)曾大量使用這種策略,。92歲的億萬(wàn)富翁巴菲特在2月發(fā)布的一年一度寫(xiě)給股東的信中,直言不諱地反駁了對(duì)這種做法的批評(píng)意見(jiàn),。
他寫(xiě)道:“當(dāng)你被告知所有回購(gòu)都對(duì)股東或國(guó)家有害,,或?qū)κ紫瘓?zhí)行官特別有利時(shí),注意這個(gè)人要么是經(jīng)濟(jì)文盲,,要么是花言巧語(yǔ)的煽動(dòng)者(這兩個(gè)角色并不相互排斥),。”他認(rèn)為,,股票回購(gòu)“在各個(gè)方面都有利于所有股東”,。
但現(xiàn)在又有人批評(píng)回購(gòu)策略,而且巴菲特很難給他打上“經(jīng)濟(jì)文盲”的標(biāo)簽,。資產(chǎn)管理公司Grantham, Mayo, & van Otterloo(GMO)的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人兼首席投資策略師杰里米·格蘭瑟姆上周表示,,他也認(rèn)為股票回購(gòu)應(yīng)該被淘汰。他認(rèn)為,,股票回購(gòu)幫助公司“在一個(gè)亟待不斷發(fā)展的世界中生存下去”,,受益的是公司的利潤(rùn),卻不是整體經(jīng)濟(jì),。
例如,,《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,從2003年到2012年,,標(biāo)普500公司將54%的收益用于回購(gòu)股票,,另外37%用于發(fā)放股息,導(dǎo)致用于投資生產(chǎn)增長(zhǎng)或員工的資金不足,。
格蘭瑟姆在最近一集《億萬(wàn)富翁探究》(We Study Billionaires)播客中表示:“基本上,,我們的工人被殘酷壓榨,從上世紀(jì)70年代以來(lái),,他們就沒(méi)有參與實(shí)質(zhì)性的生產(chǎn)率“增長(zhǎng)”,,而罪魁禍?zhǔn)赚F(xiàn)在卻是完全合法的。根源就是,,股東們脅迫管理層,,做管理層也一直想做的事情,,那就是生活在一個(gè)你可以掌控一切然后回購(gòu)股票的世界?!?/p>
在1982年以前,,股票回購(gòu)一直被視為操縱市場(chǎng)的非法行為。格蘭瑟姆解釋稱(chēng),,這是因?yàn)閮?nèi)部人士通常會(huì)基于非公開(kāi)信息決定回購(gòu),。
他說(shuō)道:“因此,股票回購(gòu)當(dāng)然是在助長(zhǎng)股票操縱,。我認(rèn)為,,這種行為肯定是非法的?!?/p>
這位對(duì)沖基金投資者認(rèn)為,,自從上世紀(jì)80年代,回購(gòu)作為一種“新潮流”開(kāi)始流行以來(lái),,美國(guó)的GDP和生產(chǎn)率增長(zhǎng)持續(xù)放緩,,這給了公司內(nèi)部人士錯(cuò)誤的激勵(lì)。如果公司不得不發(fā)放股息,,經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況將會(huì)大有改善,。
他解釋稱(chēng):“刺激公司回購(gòu)股票而不是新建工廠(chǎng)的一些動(dòng)機(jī)消失,,資本支出將有所增長(zhǎng),。在資本支出方面,上市公司的表現(xiàn)一直非常糟糕,?!?/p>
格蘭瑟姆還批評(píng)了巴菲特,特別是他認(rèn)為股票回購(gòu)與股息沒(méi)有區(qū)別的觀點(diǎn),。被尊稱(chēng)為“奧馬哈先知”的巴菲特認(rèn)為,,股票回購(gòu)只是向股東回饋價(jià)值的另外一種方式而已,但格蘭瑟姆卻認(rèn)為,,一家公司發(fā)放股息,,是在對(duì)公司最熱心和最不熱心的股東之間平均分配收益,但股票回購(gòu)并非如此,。
他說(shuō)道:“股票回購(gòu)是在不斷淘汰對(duì)公司最不熱心的股東,。如果你認(rèn)為股票回購(gòu)不會(huì)瘋狂推高股價(jià),那只能證明你……缺乏想象力,。股票回購(gòu)當(dāng)然會(huì)使股價(jià)上漲,。”
格蘭瑟姆認(rèn)為,,如果CEO們認(rèn)為回購(gòu)等同于股息,,而且不會(huì)操縱股市,,那么他們只要發(fā)放股息即可。
他說(shuō)道:“有人說(shuō)股票回購(gòu)與股息一樣,。如果是那樣的話(huà),,那就發(fā)放股息吧。我會(huì)很開(kāi)心,,你也會(huì)很高興,,只是沃倫不得不繳點(diǎn)稅?!比缓笏弥S刺的語(yǔ)氣說(shuō)道:“對(duì)此我很抱歉,。”(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
Ah stock buybacks, the most politically charged of all corporate manoeuvres. Ask Elizabeth Warren about them and she’ll tell you they’re pure “market manipulation” and should be made illegal. When public companies repurchase their own stock hoping to boost earnings-per-share, what they’re really doing is cannibalizing innovation, the Massachusetts Senator argues. Money that could have been spent investing in new factories, research and development, or hiring new employees, is instead used simply to lift stock prices, enriching wealthy shareholders and insiders at the expense of economic growth.
But Berkshire Hathaway chairman and CEO Warren Buffet is a firm believer in stock buybacks, having used them extensively for decades. And the 92 year-old billionaire didn’t pull his punches when discussing critics of the practice in his annual shareholder letter released in February.
“When you are told that all repurchases are harmful to shareholders or to the country, or particularly beneficial to CEOs, you are listening to either an economic illiterate or a silver-tongued demagogue (characters that are not mutually exclusive),” he wrote, arguing stock buybacks “benefit all owners — in every respect.”
But a new buyback critic has emerged — one that Buffett will have a hard time labeling an “economic illiterate.” Jeremy Grantham, the co-founder and chief investment strategist of Grantham, Mayo, & van Otterloo (GMO), said last week that he, too, believes stock buybacks should go the way of the dodo. Grantham argues that the practice helps companies “l(fā)ive in a world of shortage” that benefits their bottom line, instead of the wider economy.
For example, from 2003 through 2012, S&P 500 companies used 54% of their earnings to buy back their own stock and an additional 37% for dividends, leaving a lack of funds for investing in production growth or employees, according to data from the Harvard Business Review.
“Basically our workers have been royally screwed, they’ve not participated in the substantial productivity [growth] since the 1970s, and the main culprit is now completely legal,” Grantham said on a recent episode of the We Study Billionaires podcast. “That is, stockholders bullying management into doing what management always wants to do anyway — live in a world where you control everything and buy your own stock back.”
Up until 1982, buybacks were illegal and seen as a form of market manipulation. Grantham explained that this is because insiders often base their buyback decisions on non-public information.
“So of course it is facilitating stock manipulation,” he said. “And in my opinion, of course it should be illegal.”
The hedge funder argued that GDP and productivity growth have slowed in the U.S. since the “new fashion” of buybacks began to take hold in the 80s, giving corporate insiders all the wrong incentives, and the economy would be better off if companies were forced to pay dividends instead.
“Then some of the incentive to buy back stock rather than build a new factory disappears, and there will be a little bit more growth in capital expenditure, which has really done badly,” he explained.
Grantham went on to criticize Buffett specifically for claiming that buybacks are no different than dividends. The Oracle of Omaha believes the practice is simply another way to return value to shareholders, but Grantham said that when a company pays a dividend it distributes its earnings between its most enthusiastic and least enthusiastic shareholders evenly and that’s not the case with stock buybacks.
“You are constantly retiring the least enthusiastic shareholders. And if you think that that does not remorselessly push up the price of stocks then you are…unimaginative. Of course, it does,” he said.
Grantham argued that if CEOs believe buybacks are the same as dividends, and don’t manipulate the market, then they should just pay a dividend instead.
“People say it’s the same as dividends. Well, if that’s the case, whoopie, then pay out a dividend. Then I’m happy and apparently you’re happy, and Warren will have to pay some taxes,” he said, adding in a sarcastic tone “I’m sorry about that.”