Opinion

The Great Debate

The dark side of bank dividends

In April, U.S. banks dusted off the dividend again, a trick they’d mostly abandoned during the financial crisis. JPMorgan Chase plans an 8-cent-per-share hike. Wells Fargo’s will be 5 cents. Same for Morgan Stanley. Bank of America will raise its dividend a penny. Some might celebrate the move: The banks are back! But there’s more to it. In this fairly anemic economy, dividends are yet another strategic, if counterintuitive, hedge that won’t get our loved and loathed financial institutions lending again anytime soon.

Although good news for shareholders, the payouts don’t mask the reality that banks are still unstable. Executives are scared of looming regulatory schemes, such as the Brown-Vitter bill in the Senate, that could raise equity requirements to cushion the excessive debt of borrowing-prone banks. While earnings are up, balance sheets are deceptive. The big banks still rely heavily on income from the stock market, which overall has been stronger, and take in about $83 billion in subsidies. Their equity and cash reserves are a tiny fraction of their debt.

The banking sector certainly seemed more robust in the first quarter. Take JPMorgan Chase. It was solid enough to purchase $2.6 billion in stocks and $6 billion in buybacks, but its $25.12 billion in revenue was weaker than expected. The bank crowed that is the nation’s No. 1 Small Business Association lender, with a 10 percent increase from the same period last year. But commercial loan growth overall slowed to 1.2 percent in the first quarter compared with 3.6 percent in the first quarter, while consumer loans declined 4.2 percent from the same quarter a year earlier. Mortgage revenue was down 31 percent. According to one estimate, the bank’s $440 million annual subsidy paid 40 percent of its last dividend, which was about $1.1 billion.

That’s where dividends come in handy. As even a novice stock trader knows, they project an aura of confidence and stability. When shareholders are rewarded with swag, the banks signal confidence that operations are back to normal. Like clockwork, shortly after the banks’ announcements, analysts recommended that investors buy JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and other financial stocks.

Dividends help counter news reports of a system in transition. Sure, Citigroup may have sold off liabilities, and it’s still strong enough to spend $1 billion in share repurchases. Credit Suisse might have slimmed down, but it’s strong enough to consider issuing a dividend and is still a worthy competitor to UBS, which is downsizing its fixed income unit as it focuses on private banking. One analyst recently described the end of one-stop “financial supermarkets” that would make these big institutions “un-investable.”

When customers are angry, how do companies justify shareholder payouts?

As tens of thousands in the New York metropolitan area remain powerless amid a massive cleanup campaign after Hurricane Sandy hit the region, Consolidated Edison, the utility that powers about 3.3 million customers in New York City and Westchester County, reported earnings and reaffirmed its guidance for 2012. Kevin Burke, Con Ed’s chairman and chief executive officer, said that the company was devoting all its resources to aiding Sandy’s victims. The company’s bottom line, though, seems secure, despite the costs of cleanup.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has promised that regulators will scrutinize Con Ed’s preparations for Sandy, as well as its subsequent attempts to restore power in the New York City region after the hurricane. Con Ed operates as a regulated monopoly in the region and owns extensive infrastructure that no competitor could duplicate. Not only would it be far too expensive for any potential rival to enter Con Ed’s territory, it would be impossible because of the logistics of ripping up many sections of the city to install new underground lines and then hook them up to every building. The few competitors Con Ed has use the giant’s grid to deliver power.

Regulators currently allow Con Ed about a 10 percent return on its electricity business (the allowable return is tied to interest rates), and the company is about to present a new rate plan for 2013. Barron’s reported last week that Con Ed had delayed its rate requests for months, hoping interest rates would rise so the company could ask for a little more.

Why the bank dividends are a bad idea

On the basis of “stress tests” it ran, the Federal Reserve has given permission to most of the largest U.S. banks to “return capital” to their shareholders. JPMorgan Chase announced that it would buy back as much as $15 billion of its stock and raise its quarterly dividend to 30 cents a share, up from 25 cents a share.

Allowing the payouts to equity is misguided. It exposes the economy to unnecessary risks without valid justification.

Money paid to shareholders (or managers) is no longer available to pay creditors. Share buybacks and dividend payments reduce the banks’ ability to absorb losses without becoming distressed. When a large “systemic” bank is distressed, the ripple effects are felt throughout the economy. We may all feel the consequences.

We are all widows and orphans now

It may seem like a  world turned upside down: stocks are desired for their dividends and bonds are all about capital appreciation, or at least preservation.

It was all so different over much of the past 20 years, when despite steady falls in inflation and rising prices for bonds, the real money was perceived to be in equity price gains.

Dividends were for widows and orphans; those without the knowledge or guts to take the big risks and make the momentum plays.

  •