Forum Topics RMD RMD Divvies

Pinned straw:

Added 4 months ago

One thing I can't quite understand is why RMD bother paying such a small dividend. It's so trivial relative to the share price and surely it would cost a fair bit to administer.

Given they pay out less than 1%pa and in 4 tranches, wouldn't it be more efficient to do it once or twice a year? Or not at all?

Would it be to get it into some ETF's or managed funds which require dividends?


Just seems a waste of time from my perspective.

mikebrisy
Added 4 months ago

@Jarrahman in addtion to @Mujo 's comment, paying a low but increasing dividend is also a way of signalling to the market that the companies sees higher return opportunities in investing in growth - whether organically through R&D (although in $RMD's case, there is a fairly mature model of capital allocation here in terms of $ of revenue) or inorganically.

As part of $RMD's strategy, it aims to keep a decent level of liquidity for bolt-on acquisitions, as a declared part of its strategy.

Next, many US companies also return capital to shareholders via share buybacks, which has also been the case with $RMD. They are going to increase this in FY26. In fact many US companies favour buyback over dividends, because it makes the EPS growth look good.

Finally, in growth stocks, it is common for companies to signal the rate at which they believe EPS will grow into the future by the percentage increase of the dividend (more of less). So, it the case of $RMD the 13.3% increase in dividend FY25 over FY24, is a signal of the rate at which they expect EPS to grow. The idea here is that shareholders value dividend stability and predictability, and a company that pays a reliably increasing dividend - whatever is happening elsewhere in the financials - will retain a higher multiple.

On this final point, I don't think $RMD is there yet, and so I kind of agree with your point. DPS growth over the last several years has been all over the place: 13.3%(FY25), 6.7%(FY24), 7.1%(FY23), 7.7%(FY22), 0%(FY21 - COVID & supply chain uncertainties); 4.0% (FY20); and 5.6% (FY19).

That muted DPS growth level indicates to me that they have preferred buybacks and keep cash for acquisitions over DPS growth.

But as they grow with continuing operating leverage, FCF is going to become preogressively stronger, and so perhaps this year's +13.3% DPS is a sign of things to come.

24

Jarrahman
Added 4 months ago

Absolutely, 100%agree

If they are seeing stronger returns by reinvestment in themselves and buy backs and strategic acquisitions then I would prefer they do that than spending a proportionately trivial amount of money in divvies.

From my reckoning (could be very wrong) they have spend about 100,000,000 in paying divvies in the last year. I’d like to see them do more than pay it out.

In the mean time I’ll happily collect the divvies and treat myself to a burger at hungry jacks! Hahaha

19

thunderhead
Added 4 months ago

Also, the yield may be small, but the perceived “skimpiness” is accentuated because it can’t keep up with the steadily appreciating price.

It is a pretty big yield on my single digit cost basis, and is growing too. I will take that any day.

17
Mujo
Added 4 months ago

US company so pretty common. Financials quarterly and dividends quarterly.

Dividend cuts have negative signalling connotations to the market and yield is just a function of the current share price.

17

Jarrahman
Added 4 months ago

Makes sense.

I would think a strong administration would look consider changing the system. I understand the need to be predictable, but still seems crazy to me!

14