For Episode 101 of the show, we were joined by Daniel Peris, head of the Income and Value group at Federated Hermes. Dan explains why cash in hand beats contingent gains, why total return is a broken measurement, how the S&P 500 stopped measuring the market and started driving it, and what a historian and former Sovietologist sees in the long decline of Russia.
Benny & The Squirrel is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Show Summary
Dan’s dividend philosophy and its origins
* He came to dividend investing through a historian’s critique of total return as the dominant, quasi-statutory measurement framework.
* Transitioned from academia (Sovietology , later modern Russian history) into financial research in the early 1990s, then migrated toward dividend-oriented portfolio management.
* His core lens is agency costs: as a minority shareholder with no control over CEOs or boards, the dividend is the tangible manifestation of business ownership.
* Focus on cash flows from large companies he does not control is an almost natural historical framing, given recurring human behavioral patterns in markets.
Historical basis: dividends as the norm (Minute 4)
* Until the 1980s, serious issuers came to market with a cash flow attached; stocks without dividends were considered speculative or defective.
* The capitalization ladder was bonds (fixed coupon), preferreds (fixed coupon with priority), and common equity (riskiest, but with a growing dividend). There was effectively no “no dividend” option for credible companies.
* Nineteenth-century railroad stocks are the archetype: entire capital structures were built around the commitment to pay. The business ownership relationship is thousands of years old, and stock-market dividends roughly 200 to 400 years old.
* Dividend investing has fallen out of fashion in the U.S. over about forty years for reasons he acknowledges, but he keeps a plain vanilla business-ownership approach for conservative, often business-owning clients.
Buybacks versus dividends (Minute 7)
* Peris reframes the Kenneth French quip: buybacks divide people who understand finance from people who understand business ownership through the stock market.
* A buyback is a liquidity event for share sellers; a dividend is a business outcome for shareholders. Fundamentally different phenomena that have been “smushed together” for convenience.
* He objects to companies presenting “dividends plus buybacks” as a combined cash return (the “buyback yield” or “shareholder yield” framing).
* Dan cites analysis showing announced buybacks are often far less effective than claimed: investment bank frictions, poor execution prices, and share counts that shrink much less than advertised.
* Exceptions exist: large dividend payers like big energy and phone companies that genuinely and persistently reduce share count, allowing per-share dividend growth without runaway aggregate payouts.
Tax treatment debate (Minute 12)
* The elephant in the room: dividends create taxable leakage versus buybacks. Peris pleads “guilty as charged” but refuses to subordinate investment policy to tax minimization.
* Taxes are a sign of success; the current regime is historically benign since qualified dividends and long-term capital gains have had equalized rates for about two decades, whereas parts of the twentieth century saw dividends taxed far more heavily.
* Some investors organize their entire financial lives around tax avoidance out of anger; that is a business model for some advisers, but not his approach. June 2026 selloff days like this one show that capital-gains-only exposures carry their own risk.
Critique of total return as a measurement (Minute 14)
* His method: ask where the rules came from, whether they were fit for purpose then, and whether they still are. Much of modern investment practice (MPT, the S&P 500, total return) is a product of the 1950s to 1970s.
* History of total return: academic research in 1924, referenced by Ben Graham (1934), T. Rowe Price and Babson’s, Lorie and Fisher (1964), became standard on brokerage materials in the 1960s through 1980s, and was only permitted on documents by the SEC in 1988. It is roughly fifty years old, not a timeless principle.
* Total return is fundamentally a product of daily pricing technology. Without daily prices, the concept would not exist; in the nineteenth century, income streams were the only realistic information investors had.
* The S&P 500’s introduction in 1957 as a daily index was a genuine technological marvel, and combining daily price change with dividend yield was an innovative, useful shortcut at the time.
* The problem: the shortcut conjoins two unrelated phenomena, a market phenomenon (daily price change) and a business phenomenon (a company distributing a share of profits).
Cash returns versus contingent returns (Minute 18)
* Dividends and realized gains are real cash returns; unrealized gains are contingent returns you cannot consume, pay rent with, or reliably borrow much against.
* Economics holds that the ultimate point of investment growth is funding consumption, and only realized cash can do that.
* Acknowledges harvested capital gains count as “real” once sold; the issue is mixing unrealized price moves with actual cash in a single number, which was defensible in the dividend-rich 1960s and 1970s but has become less helpful.
* Brokerage statements routinely show unrealized gains and losses prominently while hiding aggregate income behind toggles, and yield reporting varies.
* He cites the 2022 paper “Reconsidering Returns” by Hartzmark (University of Chicago) and Solomon (Boston College), which found brokerage statements handle this badly and that few even attempt to show total return properly.
* True portfolio total return is genuinely hard to compute because of unrelated cash flows (401(k) contributions, withdrawals, fees, taxes) and the arithmetic versus geometric linking problem; he jokes the word “geometric” kills podcast audiences.
* His reform proposal: statements should distinguish cash returns from contingent returns for the current period and over time.
Siegel’s Stocks for the Long Run (Minute 24)
* A cottage industry of high-end academic debunking of Siegel’s long-run return data now exists (Peris notes Edward McQuarrie at Santa Cruz and financial historians reworking nineteenth-century data), and Siegel has responded responsibly.
* Key challenge: the roughly 10 percent historical equity return implicitly assumes free, frictionless dividend reinvestment, which drives about 90 percent of actual account returns, yet reinvestment was historically hard and expensive, so realized returns were likely lower.
* Modern improvements (no broker charges, near-instant reinvestment, fractional shares) changed this. Any reinvestment delay creates drag, so frequency matters.
The Global Context (Minute 27)
* Large, mature, highly profitable companies paying no or de minimis dividends is a uniquely U.S. phenomenon; European and emerging markets, and historically dominant markets like pre-1917 Russia and pre-1940s Germany, were “all about the coupon.”
* The current U.S. dividend-free culture of the last thirty to forty years is anomalous both against U.S. history and against other developed markets. He concedes the era’s productivity success is real, but his research zigs where the market zags.
* On dual-class and non-voting share structures: his fund avoids them; agency costs become too high given passive investors elect boards and “imperial CEOs.” Missing Tesla, Broadcom, or similar names is an acceptable cost; there are other fish in the sea.
Then versus now: the 1960s profit pool (Minute 31)
* In the early 1960s, despite being an industrial, high-capex economy, companies reliably shared profits with minority shareholders via dividends.
* Today capex as a share of sales is lower yet profitability is far higher, and there is minimal inclination to pay dividends; the money goes to buybacks and acquisitions. Two very different market worlds, and few divi…
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bennysquirrel.tv/subscribe
Altri episodi di "Benny & The Squirrel"
Non perdere nemmeno un episodio di “Benny & The Squirrel”. Iscriviti all'app gratuita GetPodcast.
