The Real Effects of Share Repurchases
Posted by Mathias Kronlund, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, on Monday, February 8, 2016
Editor’s Note:
Mathias Kronlund is Assistant Professor of Finance at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This post is based on
an
article authored by Professor Kronlund;
Heitor Almeida, Professor of Finance at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and
Vyacheslav Fos, Assistant Professor of Finance at Boston
College. |
Companies face intense pressure from
activist shareholders, institutional investors, the government, and
the media to put their cash to good use. Existing evidence suggests
that share repurchases are a good way for companies to return cash to
investors, since cash-rich companies tend to generate large abnormal
returns when announcing new repurchase programs. However, some
observers argue that the cash that is spent on repurchase programs
should instead be used to increase research and employment, and that
the recent increase in share repurchases is undermining the recovery
from the recent recession and hurting the economy’s long-term
prospects. Repurchases have also been cited as an explanation for why
the increase in corporate profitability in the years after the
recession has not resulted in higher growth in employment, and overall
economic prosperity.
Is there any
ground for these claims? Do share repurchases have real effects on
other corporate policies such as employment and research and
development (R&D)? Previous studies show a negative correlation
between share repurchases and investment, but the standard
interpretation for this correlation is that it is driven by variation
in growth opportunities. That is, firms with poor growth opportunities
reduce investment and direct resources towards share repurchases. If
this standard interpretation is correct, then claims that repurchases
reduce economic growth are incorrect: the reductions in investment
would have occurred irrespective of the amount of repurchases. To test
whether repurchases have causal effects on firm outcomes, we need to
measure variation in repurchases that is not related to unobservable
variation in growth opportunities.
In our paper,
The Real Effects of Share Repurchases, recently featured in the
Journal of Financial Economics, we propose such a test. The test
exploits a discontinuity in the likelihood of share repurchases that
is caused by earnings management considerations. There is a strong
discontinuity in the probability of accretive share repurchases around
the threshold at which the firm would narrowly miss the analyst
earnings consensus, without conducting share repurchases. Thus,
companies that would just miss their earnings per share (EPS)
forecasts by a few cents absent executing a repurchase are
significantly more likely to repurchase shares than companies that
beat their EPS forecasts by a few cents.
We find that
an increase in share repurchases made by firms that would have a small
negative EPS surprise is associated with significant changes in other
corporate policies. These companies tend to decrease employment, Capex,
and R&D in the four quarters following increases in EPS-induced
repurchases, relative to companies that just meet analyst EPS
forecasts. The effects correspond to approximately 10% of the mean
capital expenditures, 3% of the mean R&D expenses, and 5% of the
average number of employees in our sample. The results support
anecdotal and survey evidence that companies are willing to trade off
employment and investment for stock repurchases.
We further
exploit cross-sectional heterogeneity in the magnitude of the
discontinuity in share repurchases around the zero surprise threshold.
We show that the discontinuity in repurchases is much weaker or absent
among firms that are financially constrained, and among firms that do
not mention “EPS” or “Earnings Per Share” in their proxy statements.
Financially constrained firms are less able to engage in large share
repurchases to manage EPS, and firms that do not mention EPS in their
proxy statement arguably care less about managing EPS. We find that
among these firms that don’t respond as much by doing repurchases,
there is little or no relationship between having a negative
pre-repurchase EPS surprise and future employment/investment.
Finally, we
study the consequences of EPS-induced repurchases for firm valuation
and performance. We find that when firms change the sign of EPS
surprise from negative to positive using repurchases, they experience
a positive and significant cumulative abnormal return (CAR) around
their earnings announcement. This abnormal return is virtually
identical to that for firms that report positive EPS surprises without
repurchasing shares. We find similar results for operating performance
(measured by return on assets (ROA)). Further analysis uncovers
interesting cross-sectional variation in stock price reactions and
operating performance. Firms that cut some type of real investment
(either Capex, employment, or R&D) in the same quarter as they achieve
a repurchase-induced EPS surprise show a stock price reaction that is
on average 0.23% lower than that of firms that change the sign of the
EPS surprise without cutting any real investments (e.g., these firms
could be using internal cash to finance the repurchase). Consistent
with the valuation results, firms that cut investments in the same
quarter as the earnings surprise have lower subsequent operating
performance than firms that finance the repurchase with cash or
internal cash flow.
These results
suggest that EPS-induced repurchases are on average not detrimental to
shareholder value or subsequent performance. The interpretation of the
cross-sectional evidence is a bit trickier because the choice of how
to finance a repurchase may be driven by factors that also influence
performance. With this caveat in mind, the lower returns of firms that
finance repurchases with real investments provide suggestive evidence
that some firms are willing to sacrifice valuable investments to
finance share repurchases.
The full
paper is available for download
here.
Harvard Law School Forum
on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by
their respective owners. Other content © 2016 The President and
Fellows of Harvard College. |
|