Case Objective:-
The dividend payment decision is an extremely crucial one and a lot of factors need to be
considered before taking a dividend payment decision. Dividend policy of a company has its
effect on both the long term financing and the wealth of shareholders. The objective of this case
is to study all these angles to dividend policy making.
Case Description:-
The case is about the thought process that goes behind a company’s decision to pay or not to pay
dividend. Today many firms pay dividends by suffering cash losses from operations. Because of
the information value of dividends, sometimes the dividends have to be paid to maintain the
value of the share.
Examining annual reports of companies for the fiscal year that ended 31 March, one is
flabbergasted that several large companies paid dividends to shareholders, while sustaining cash
losses from operations.
Clearly, the cash for paying such dividends could have come through investment income or via
borrowings or from new shareholders. While the current law does not prescribe a relationship
between dividend payment and cash generated from operations, such behaviour raises questions
of business sense and propriety.
Does it make business sense for a company to pay dividends to its shareholders while
simultaneously starving for cash to manage its operations? In some of these cases, where the
companies are majority-owned by promoters, questions of propriety and rights of minority
shareholders crop up. Are the boards of directors of such firms discharging their fiduciary
obligations when recommending such dividend payments to shareholders?
Unitech Ltd sustained a net cash loss of Rs143 crore from operations in the fiscal year that ended
31 March, but it paid dividends of Rs47 crore in this period. Since the company additionally
required cash of Rs1,034 crore for investment activities, the only source for cash to pay
dividends was financing activities. Unitech borrowed Rs126 crore and raised cash of Rs215 crore
through sale of securities in this period. Would it not have been better for the company to avoid
the 37% extra borrowing by refraining from declaring dividends?
The argument that the dividends are declared for the previous year is superfluous as the company
sustained an even greater cash loss of Rs1,034 crore from operations and required a further
Rs3,187 crore for investment activities in the previous fiscal year.
DLF Ltd incurred a net cash loss of Rs566 crore from operations in the fiscal year to March, but
it paid dividends of Rs401 crore in this period. This company required cash of Rs4,202 crore for
investment activities. The company’s borrowings went up by Rs4,519 crore. Wouldn’t this
company and its shareholders have been better served by refraining from dividend payments and
reducing their debt burden? In this case too, the argument that dividends are declared for the
previous year falls flat, since the company sustained a cash loss of Rs2,597 crore from operations
and required further cash of Rs6,014 crore for investment activities.
This behaviour does not appear to be restricted to real estate companies. ICICI Bank Ltd incurred
a net cash loss of Rs14,188 crore from operations in the fiscal year to March, but it paid
dividends of Rs1,369 crore in this period. The amount of Rs3,857 crore generated from
investment activities during this period was not sufficient to offset the cash loss from operations,
and the company raised Rs2,949 crore in addition to using funds raised in the previous year for
funding operations and dividend payments.
Could ICICI Bank have avoided the 46% extra debt burden by refraining from declaring
dividends? ICICI Bank, too, sustained cash loss of Rs11,631 crore from operations in the
previous fiscal year and required Rs17,561 crore for investment activities in the previous fiscal
year; so the argument that dividend payments are for a previous year doesn’t hold water.
Were the boards of such companies justified in declaring dividends while staring at massive cash
losses? Parliament is debating the Companies Bill, 2009, whose objective is to modernize the
five-decade-old Companies Act. One of the objectives of the new Bill is the articulation of
shareholders’ democracy with protection of rights of minority stakeholders. The Bill needs to
stipulate that funding of dividend payments through borrowings or by issue of new shares needs
to stop. The rule should be simple: No profit, no dividend; no cash, no dividend.
Comment on the following:-
1) Does it make any sense for a company to pay dividend to its shareholders while simultaneously
starving for cash to manage its operations?
2) In what situation will the shareholder be happy even if he gets lesser dividend?
The dividend payment decision is an extremely crucial one and a lot of factors need to be
considered before taking a dividend payment decision. Dividend policy of a company has its
effect on both the long term financing and the wealth of shareholders. The objective of this case
is to study all these angles to dividend policy making.
Case Description:-
The case is about the thought process that goes behind a company’s decision to pay or not to pay
dividend. Today many firms pay dividends by suffering cash losses from operations. Because of
the information value of dividends, sometimes the dividends have to be paid to maintain the
value of the share.
Examining annual reports of companies for the fiscal year that ended 31 March, one is
flabbergasted that several large companies paid dividends to shareholders, while sustaining cash
losses from operations.
Clearly, the cash for paying such dividends could have come through investment income or via
borrowings or from new shareholders. While the current law does not prescribe a relationship
between dividend payment and cash generated from operations, such behaviour raises questions
of business sense and propriety.
Does it make business sense for a company to pay dividends to its shareholders while
simultaneously starving for cash to manage its operations? In some of these cases, where the
companies are majority-owned by promoters, questions of propriety and rights of minority
shareholders crop up. Are the boards of directors of such firms discharging their fiduciary
obligations when recommending such dividend payments to shareholders?
Unitech Ltd sustained a net cash loss of Rs143 crore from operations in the fiscal year that ended
31 March, but it paid dividends of Rs47 crore in this period. Since the company additionally
required cash of Rs1,034 crore for investment activities, the only source for cash to pay
dividends was financing activities. Unitech borrowed Rs126 crore and raised cash of Rs215 crore
through sale of securities in this period. Would it not have been better for the company to avoid
the 37% extra borrowing by refraining from declaring dividends?
The argument that the dividends are declared for the previous year is superfluous as the company
sustained an even greater cash loss of Rs1,034 crore from operations and required a further
Rs3,187 crore for investment activities in the previous fiscal year.
DLF Ltd incurred a net cash loss of Rs566 crore from operations in the fiscal year to March, but
it paid dividends of Rs401 crore in this period. This company required cash of Rs4,202 crore for
investment activities. The company’s borrowings went up by Rs4,519 crore. Wouldn’t this
company and its shareholders have been better served by refraining from dividend payments and
reducing their debt burden? In this case too, the argument that dividends are declared for the
previous year falls flat, since the company sustained a cash loss of Rs2,597 crore from operations
and required further cash of Rs6,014 crore for investment activities.
This behaviour does not appear to be restricted to real estate companies. ICICI Bank Ltd incurred
a net cash loss of Rs14,188 crore from operations in the fiscal year to March, but it paid
dividends of Rs1,369 crore in this period. The amount of Rs3,857 crore generated from
investment activities during this period was not sufficient to offset the cash loss from operations,
and the company raised Rs2,949 crore in addition to using funds raised in the previous year for
funding operations and dividend payments.
Could ICICI Bank have avoided the 46% extra debt burden by refraining from declaring
dividends? ICICI Bank, too, sustained cash loss of Rs11,631 crore from operations in the
previous fiscal year and required Rs17,561 crore for investment activities in the previous fiscal
year; so the argument that dividend payments are for a previous year doesn’t hold water.
Were the boards of such companies justified in declaring dividends while staring at massive cash
losses? Parliament is debating the Companies Bill, 2009, whose objective is to modernize the
five-decade-old Companies Act. One of the objectives of the new Bill is the articulation of
shareholders’ democracy with protection of rights of minority stakeholders. The Bill needs to
stipulate that funding of dividend payments through borrowings or by issue of new shares needs
to stop. The rule should be simple: No profit, no dividend; no cash, no dividend.
Comment on the following:-
1) Does it make any sense for a company to pay dividend to its shareholders while simultaneously
starving for cash to manage its operations?
2) In what situation will the shareholder be happy even if he gets lesser dividend?
I had the pleasure of working closely with Mr Pedro for several years as business partners. During the time that Pedro and his loan company team served as the Mortgage Representative for my home also for my business financing and he helped me closing off loans which really helped me in my business today, we were consistently far above our goal and this can only be attributable to Mr Pedro's hard work. I appreciate your hard work and also big thanks to your team for helping me with a loan to grow my business. If you are looking for a loan of any kind, contact Mr Pedro on pedroloanss@gmail.com Mr Pedro is an honest loan officer working with a huge number of investors willing to finance any project.
ReplyDeleteThankfully, over time our relationship grew beyond work and I’m still happy to call him a trusted friend.