YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
ASSOCIATED TAGS
berkshire  buffett  business  buybacks  capital  company  dividend  dividends  earnings  growth  income  payout  reinvest  returns  stocks  
LATEST POSTS

What Did Warren Buffett Say About Dividends? The Truth Behind His Dividend Philosophy

We’ve all heard the myth: Buffett hates dividends. That’s lazy thinking. Let’s unpack what he actually said, when he said it, and why context changes everything.

Understanding Dividends Through Buffett’s Lens: It’s About Capital Allocation, Not Income

Dividends are cash payments from a company to its shareholders, usually quarterly. Simple enough. But to Warren Buffett, they’re not about income—they’re about choices. Every dollar paid out is a dollar not reinvested. That’s the core of his philosophy. He evaluates management based on how well they deploy capital, not how much they hand back.

Buffett has often said that if a business can reinvest its earnings at high rates of return—say, above 12%—it should keep every cent. Let it compound. Let it grow. Destroying value by paying dividends when better internal opportunities exist? That’s financial malpractice. Berkshire Hathaway itself has never paid a dividend, despite earning tens of billions annually. Why? Because Buffett and Munger believe they can generate higher returns by redeploying that capital into new ventures, acquisitions, or stock buybacks.

And yet—here’s the twist—Berkshire owns dozens of companies that do pay dividends. American Express, Chevron, Apple. Apple alone sent Berkshire over $775 million in dividend income in 2023. So how does that square with his stance? Because Buffett doesn’t control those companies’ payout policies. But he approves. Why? Because Apple’s growth has matured. It generates enormous cash. It can’t reinvest all of it at 20%+ returns anymore. So returning capital? Smart. Necessary. Responsible.

That’s the key insight: Buffett isn’t dogmatic. He’s pragmatic. He doesn’t care about the form—dividend, buyback, reinvestment. He cares about the outcome. And that’s where most investors get it wrong.

Buffett’s Definition of Owner Earnings

Most people look at GAAP earnings. Buffett looks at owner earnings—his version of free cash flow. It’s net income plus depreciation, minus maintenance capital expenditures. This is the real money available to owners. And that’s what should be evaluated: can the business reinvest this at high returns, or should it be returned?

If yes, keep it. If no, return it. No ideology. Just math. And logic.

Why Berkshire Doesn’t Pay a Dividend

People have begged Buffett for years to split Berkshire’s profits. Even Bill Gates asked. Buffett’s reply? “If we paid a dividend, you’d get $3 billion after-tax. But if we reinvest it, it could become $10 billion in ten years. Which would you rather have?” That changes everything. Because most dividend investors don’t think about opportunity cost. They want yield now. Buffett thinks in decades.

When Buffett Praises Dividends: The Exceptions That Prove His Rule

You’d think an anti-dividend investor would avoid dividend stocks entirely. But Berkshire’s portfolio tells a different story. As of 2024, about 40% of its equity holdings were in companies that pay dividends. That’s not an accident. It’s strategy.

Take Bank of America. Buffett bought a massive stake in 2011 during the post-crisis slump. The bank pays a modest dividend—yield around 2.5% in 2024. But Buffett didn’t buy for the yield. He bought because the bank was undervalued, well-managed, and generating strong returns on equity. The dividend? A bonus. A signal of financial health. A proof that management isn’t hoarding cash with no plan.

Then there’s Coca-Cola. Berkshire owns 9.3% of the company—about $24 billion worth. Coke has raised its dividend for 62 consecutive years. Buffett loves that. Not because he needs the $700+ million in annual cash (though Berkshire does use it), but because it reflects discipline. A culture of shareholder respect. That kind of consistency? Rare. And that’s why, in his 1988 letter, he called Coke “a business I could understand, with a product I knew would be consumed 50 years from now.”

Buffett isn’t blind to the psychological comfort dividends provide. In a 2012 interview, he said, “People like getting checks in the mail. There’s nothing wrong with that.” But he quickly added: “The question is whether the company could have done more with that money.” That’s the filter.

So yes, Buffett owns dividend payers. But only when they meet his criteria: durable moats, rational management, and limited high-return reinvestment opportunities. It’s not about the dividend. It’s about the business behind it.

Dividends vs. Buybacks: Buffett’s Preference Isn’t What You Think

Most investors pit dividends against buybacks. Buffett doesn’t. He sees both as tools. But he has a clear favorite—under the right conditions.

Buybacks, when done at the right price, are more tax-efficient and flexible. A dollar spent buying shares below intrinsic value boosts per-share value immediately. Dividends go to all shareholders—some of whom may reinvest, others who spend. From a compounding standpoint, buybacks often win.

But—and this is critical—Buffett hates buybacks at inflated prices. In his 2019 letter, he warned: “Buying dollar bills for $1.10 is not good business, whether you’re talking about stock or socks.” He praised Apple’s buyback program not because it was large—though it was over $90 billion in 2023—but because Apple bought shares when they were cheap relative to earnings and cash flow.

Dividends, on the other hand, are irreversible. Once paid, the cash is gone. Buybacks can be paused. That flexibility matters. Yet Buffett acknowledges dividends force discipline. A company that hikes its payout yearly must manage cash flow tightly. It can’t waste money on dumb acquisitions. That’s why he respects it—even when he doesn’t use it at Berkshire.

The bottom line? He doesn’t care about the mechanism. He cares about the math, the timing, and the mindset behind it.

Buffett’s Criticism of Dividend Investing as a Strategy: The Yield Trap

There’s a cult around “dividend growth investing.” Buy stocks with rising payouts, hold forever, live off the yield. Sounds safe. Sounds smart. But Buffett sees a flaw: chasing yield can blind you to value destruction.

He’s pointed out that many high-dividend stocks are in stagnant or shrinking industries—utilities, telecoms, old-line industrials. They pay dividends not because they’re thriving, but because they have no place else to put the money. And if they cut the dividend? The stock implodes.

Consider General Electric. Once a dividend darling. Yield hit 5% in 2017. Then the house of cards collapsed. Debt, accounting issues, structural decline. The dividend was slashed in 2018. Shares dropped 80% from 2016 peak. How many retirees saw their “safe” income stream vanish? That’s the risk when you prioritize payout over business quality.

Buffett would rather own a non-dividend payer like Amazon—where every dollar was reinvested into growth—than a dividend stock burning cash on unsustainable payouts. Because in the long run, value comes from earnings growth, not yield. Especially when that yield is a mirage.

And that’s exactly where the average investor gets fooled. They see a 4% yield and think, “That’s better than a savings account.” But they don’t ask: Can the company afford this? Is it growing? Or is it mortgaging its future?

Dividend Stocks in Berkshire’s Portfolio: A Closer Look at the Big Three

Despite his skepticism, Berkshire holds major stakes in three dividend-paying giants: Apple, Bank of America, and American Express. Let’s break them down.

Apple: The Tech Giant That Pays Dividends

Apple started paying dividends in 2012—long after Buffett bought into it. By 2024, Berkshire owned 909 million shares. Annual dividend income: over $775 million. But Buffett didn’t buy for the $11 billion payout. He bought because Apple has a cult-like customer base, massive margins, and pricing power. The dividend? A side effect of maturity. Apple can’t reinvest $100 billion a year at 30% returns. So it returns capital. Smart. Buffett approves.

Bank of America: Yield With Leverage to Recovery

BofA pays around 2.5%. Not high by income-investor standards. But Buffett sees more: a leaner bank post-2008, with a growing digital footprint and vast deposit base. The dividend is modest—payout ratio around 30%. Room to grow. And if rates stabilize, earnings expand. The dividend becomes more secure. That’s the bet.

American Express: Premium Brand, Premium Payout

AmEx yields about 1.4%. But its clientele spends more, defaults less, and pays fees willingly. The business model is resilient. Dividend growth has averaged 10% annually over the past decade. Buffett likes that combination: pricing power, brand loyalty, and capital discipline. The dividend is a bonus—again, not the reason.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Warren Buffett Invest in Dividend Stocks?

Yes—but selectively. He owns Apple, Bank of America, and Coca-Cola, all dividend payers. But he buys for business quality, not yield. The dividend is a feature, not the product.

Why Doesn’t Berkshire Hathaway Pay a Dividend?

Buffett believes he can reinvest retained earnings at higher returns than most shareholders could achieve on their own. Sending cash out would limit future growth. And honestly, it is unclear whether a dividend would serve long-term owners better.

Is Dividend Income Passive?

Not always. Collecting checks feels passive. But picking the right dividend stocks? That’s active. You have to analyze payout ratios, debt levels, and growth prospects. A high yield can be a trap. Data is still lacking on whether dividend-focused portfolios outperform over 30 years—experts disagree.

The Bottom Line

Warren Buffett doesn’t hate dividends. He hates misallocated capital. If a company can grow at high rates, it should keep every dollar. If not, returning cash—via dividends or buybacks—is responsible. His own company proves the first rule. His portfolio proves the second.

I find this overrated: the idea that dividends are inherently safer or smarter. They’re not. A shrinking company with a high yield is riskier than a growing one with none. And that’s exactly where most investors stumble.

My take? Follow Buffett’s framework. Ask: what can this business do with its cash? Not: how much does it give me today? Because in the end, compounding beats cash flow. Growth trumps yield. And discipline beats dogma.

So should you buy dividend stocks? Sure—if they’re great businesses with rational capital policies. But don’t fall for the yield trap. Because we’re far from it being a one-size-fits-all solution. Suffice to say, Buffett wouldn’t.

💡 Key Takeaways

  • Is 6 a good height? - The average height of a human male is 5'10". So 6 foot is only slightly more than average by 2 inches. So 6 foot is above average, not tall.
  • Is 172 cm good for a man? - Yes it is. Average height of male in India is 166.3 cm (i.e. 5 ft 5.5 inches) while for female it is 152.6 cm (i.e. 5 ft) approximately.
  • How much height should a boy have to look attractive? - Well, fellas, worry no more, because a new study has revealed 5ft 8in is the ideal height for a man.
  • Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old? - The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too.
  • Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old? - How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 13

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is 6 a good height?

The average height of a human male is 5'10". So 6 foot is only slightly more than average by 2 inches. So 6 foot is above average, not tall.

2. Is 172 cm good for a man?

Yes it is. Average height of male in India is 166.3 cm (i.e. 5 ft 5.5 inches) while for female it is 152.6 cm (i.e. 5 ft) approximately. So, as far as your question is concerned, aforesaid height is above average in both cases.

3. How much height should a boy have to look attractive?

Well, fellas, worry no more, because a new study has revealed 5ft 8in is the ideal height for a man. Dating app Badoo has revealed the most right-swiped heights based on their users aged 18 to 30.

4. Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old?

The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too. It's a very normal height for a girl.

5. Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old?

How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 137 cm to 162 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/3 feet). A 12 year old boy should be between 137 cm to 160 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/4 feet).

6. How tall is a average 15 year old?

Average Height to Weight for Teenage Boys - 13 to 20 Years
Male Teens: 13 - 20 Years)
14 Years112.0 lb. (50.8 kg)64.5" (163.8 cm)
15 Years123.5 lb. (56.02 kg)67.0" (170.1 cm)
16 Years134.0 lb. (60.78 kg)68.3" (173.4 cm)
17 Years142.0 lb. (64.41 kg)69.0" (175.2 cm)

7. How to get taller at 18?

Staying physically active is even more essential from childhood to grow and improve overall health. But taking it up even in adulthood can help you add a few inches to your height. Strength-building exercises, yoga, jumping rope, and biking all can help to increase your flexibility and grow a few inches taller.

8. Is 5.7 a good height for a 15 year old boy?

Generally speaking, the average height for 15 year olds girls is 62.9 inches (or 159.7 cm). On the other hand, teen boys at the age of 15 have a much higher average height, which is 67.0 inches (or 170.1 cm).

9. Can you grow between 16 and 18?

Most girls stop growing taller by age 14 or 15. However, after their early teenage growth spurt, boys continue gaining height at a gradual pace until around 18. Note that some kids will stop growing earlier and others may keep growing a year or two more.

10. Can you grow 1 cm after 17?

Even with a healthy diet, most people's height won't increase after age 18 to 20. The graph below shows the rate of growth from birth to age 20. As you can see, the growth lines fall to zero between ages 18 and 20 ( 7 , 8 ). The reason why your height stops increasing is your bones, specifically your growth plates.