Are share buybacks the rope that will hang the last capitalist?

Fortunately, the saying: “the last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope”, attributed to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, never materialized and communism is now discredited.

However, the capitalist system is exposed to built-in mechanisms that may lead to its demise. One serious candidate to ruin capitalism is the practice of companies repurchasing their own shares.

In 1980 the amount spent buying back shares in the USA reached 80 billion, but in 2018 the companies listed in the S&P500 index alone spent 806 billion in buybacks (and paid another 462 billion in dividends). Indeed, in 1999 buybacks used up to 75% of operating earnings and in 2008 had exceeded operating income by 25%. Although after the financial crisis that number was brought back to 60%, in 2016 buybacks reached 110% again and in 2018 still remain close to 100% of earnings.

Moreover, some well-known corporations (e.g. MacDonald’s and Starbucks) have been so aggressive buying back their stock that they now have negative equity. In the past such companies would be considered insolvent and in serious risk of bankruptcy, but today markets seem to disregard such risk and often value them handsomely.

How did we come to this situation? Basically, through the persistent attack on one key foundation of capitalism - the profit motive. In the past, Marxists, and anti-capitalists in general, were the main critics of profits as a form of exploitation or advantage to capitalists. However, in the 1960s some finance theorists provided a new weapon against profits by proclaiming that firms should aim at maximizing shareholder value rather than profits. This ambiguous metric opened the door to unscrupulous managers to try to manipulate stock prices through share buybacks to cover up their poor performance or to fill their pockets through stock options.

Regulators validated the practice by focusing exclusively on the risk of price manipulation, limiting repurchases to a maximum of 10% of the shares outstanding annually and some rules on how repurchases could be made in the open market. So, buybacks continued to grow for several reasons, including unchecked CEO greed and favourable taxation.

Most investors, seduced by the short-term view that stock prices would rise as the number of shares available for trading were reduced, also embraced the practice enthusiastically.

Among the few doubters, was Warren Buffett who alerted for the danger of adverse selection (buying high and selling low) and the risk of rewarding handsomely mediocre managers, notably on his famous parody of Mr. Fred Futile, CEO of Stagnant, Inc. I shall use his story to show that the danger of buybacks goes beyond rewarding mediocre management and endangers the future of capitalism.

In Buffett’s story, Fred Futile receives as compensation a ten year, fixed-price option, on 1% of the company. Quoting: “Under Fred’s leadership, Stagnant lives up to its name, and in each of the ten years earns $ 1 billion on $ 10 billion of net worth, which initially comes to $ 10 per share on the 100 million shares then outstanding. If the stock constantly sells at ten times earnings per share, it will have appreciated 158% by the end of the option period. That’s because repurchases would reduce the number of shares to 38.7 million by that time, and earnings per share would thereby increase to $ 25.80. Simply by withholding earnings from owners, Fred gets very rich, making a cool $ 158 million, despite the business itself improving not at all”.

Note that in this story, Fred Futile keeps to the regulatory limit of 10% and does not use debt to repurchase the stock. Thus, long term investors, like Mr Buffett, who declined to sell their shares would achieve a compound annual return of 11.11%. This is well below the 20% achieved by Mr. Buffett but is satisfactory to less skilled investors.

Now, let me introduce a variant to the story by assuming that Mr. Buffet owns 1% of Stagnant Inc and does not fear becoming its single shareholder, the regulators drop the 10% rule and that the 10-year borrowing costs of Stagnant Inc are 5%.

What would be now the best options for Fred Futile and Mr. Buffett?

First, Fred Futile should consider how to maximize his return. This could rise to a staggering 2.2 billion if he were to increase the annual repurchases to 40% of the outstanding shares. With this rate of repurchases Stagnant Inc would end up with a single capitalist, Mr Buffett, with 1 million shares, at the end of Fred Futile term as CEO. Now, Fred Futile had three options, to receive cash and leave, to receive 1 million newly issued shares or to receive 1 million shares bought from Mr. Buffett and own the company.

Having realized that Stagnant Inc had lived up to its name, Fred Futile would certainly prefer to cash-in, but the final decision belongs to Mr. Buffett. On the contrary, Buffett’s safest option would be to sell his holding at 10 times earnings to the company (with a compound annual return of 41.8%), because Stagnant Inc would be the only sure buyer of last resort at that price. I will ignore the other two options, because they are riskier for Mr. Buffett.

However, by selling the stock back to the company, Buffett would leave the company with negative equity of 7.5 billion. And, even if Fred Futile was naïve enough to believe that he could find a buyer for his company at 10 times earnings, the value of his stock would then be only 1170 million (i.e. 47% of the cash amount) because of the substantial decrease in earnings to 231 million. So, for Fred to secure a value equivalent to the cash-in amount, the company could only offer to buy Mr Buffett’s stock at a 90% discount (i.e. at 0.9 times earnings). That is, the last capitalist would be “robbed” of his company in exchange for a paltry return of 9.8%.

Still worse, it is questionable whether creditors would allow the company to build such a large negative equity without forcing a liquidation or restructuring. Therefore, the prospects for the last capitalist might be even worse.

Now, since Mr. Buffett is a clever investor one must admit that he would never allow management to “expropriate” the capitalists in just 10 years, or even the 43.7 years needed under the current 10% repurchase limit, but is willing to accept a 5% repurchase program as currently adopted by some of his investee companies (e.g. Apple). At this repurchase rate it would take 89.8 years to eradicate the last capitalist. Is this too far away to be of concern or for capitalists to become aware of the danger? Not really.

To understand why, let us admit that the astute Mr. Buffett decides to sell its holding in Stagnant Inc to Joe Blind, MD of the Workers Retirement Fund. True to his name, Joe lives and retires careless enjoying the bonus received on the rising, but unrealized, value of the fund holdings of Stagnant Inc. The same with Fred Futile, and both leave their jobs to their children who have no reason to doubt the wisdom of their ancestors and continue their policies.

Unfortunately, within two or three generations the Workers Retirement Fund becomes the last capitalist in Stagnant Inc and Joe Blind Junior will have to face the same dilemma as Mr. Buffett in the example above.

However, the consequences are much worse. While Mr Buffett is rich enough to live with a paltry return, the retirees that are the ultimate capitalists of the Workers Retirement Fund would have to survive on that miserable return. That is, the death of the capitalists and the profit motive will condemn workers to misery.

All in all, combining buybacks with stock options is a legalized form of deferred robbery of shareholders by management. And, neither investors’ myopia nor the merits attributed to buybacks justify endangering capitalism. So, its widespread practice and growth may indeed become “the rope that will hang the last capitalist”.