• 265 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 270 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 272 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 275 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 275 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 276 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 278 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 278 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 282 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 282 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 283 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 285 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 286 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 289 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 290 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 290 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 292 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
  • 293 days Europe’s Economy Is On The Brink As Putin’s War Escalates
  • 296 days What’s Causing Inflation In The United States?
  • 297 days Intel Joins Russian Exodus as Chip Shortage Digs In
  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

Investors Should Not Aid Investment Banks

Recently, there have been some calls in the City for companies to pay higher dividends. Under the old system of Advanced Corporation Tax ("ACT") this would have made a lot of sense, because the tax rate fell as pay-outs rose.

Under ACT, a company which distributed all its profits suffered an effective rate of tax of only 14%, compared with just over 30% for those which paid no dividends. When Gordon Brown abolished ACT, however, the tax rate rose to 30% for all companies.

Dividends are no longer tax efficient. They are often inefficient for tax paying investors. This is particularly true when markets have fallen a lot.

Companies can return cash to shareholders in one of two ways. They can pay dividends or they can use "buy-backs". When companies buy their own shares in the stock market there is no tax liability on the sellers, unless they have made a profit on their investments.

Companies might, of course, increase dividends and still buy-back as many shares as before. But this would either mean lower investment or higher borrowing. It is hard to believe that either of these would benefit investors.

Corporate investment in the UK is low by international standards. Fund managers are not to blame for this - the Chancellor is the number one villain, for increasing the effective rate of corporation tax and driving up the exchange rate.

Nonetheless, reducing the amount that companies invest even further will not help the stock market. In the short-term it is more likely to hurt. Lower investment must be matched by a fall in profits, unless some other offsetting change occurs elsewhere in the economy.

In the long run these offsets will happen, but they take time. Fund managers can hardly want profits to fall, even in the short-term.

Companies could still pay out higher dividends by increasing debt. But this doesn't look too smart at the moment either. Some companies are already going bankrupt because of too much debt; others are cutting back on employment and investment, while others are trying to raise new equity.

If companies shouldn't increase their debts, which seems the case today, then higher dividends will either mean less investment or more equity issues.

More equity issues would mean recycling money from one lot of companies to another in a tax and cost inefficient way. The beneficiaries would the Chancellor and the investment banks. Both of them badly need help, but fund managers shouldn't advocate such aid at the expense of investors.

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment