INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS
1
Ê INDUSTRY & BUSINESS ISCMIIIUCI VUI3 1 tfSllCU \.IICÎÎII^UI lllStUlll | I#IIIUWIIW4 kWMWi *«t f*«*«* Publicly Reported Cash Dividends (Millions of Dollars) Dividends Fell Back Last Year Chemical firms' cash payments to stockholders dropped 2 % as a result of year-end cuts τ, . HE chemical industry was less gener- ous with stockholders last year. Firms of $904.2 million, 2.3'/> below 1957's record level. You have to go back to 1951—when dividends slipped \Q C ,'< —to find another year-to-year decline. Even so, 1958's total was the second highest ever. Responsible for the drop was a cut- back at year-end. Payments through November were running nearly 2 r A ahead of 1957, latest Department of Commerce figures show. But Decem- ber payments last year fell 15°r below the same month of 1957 to $190.7 mil- lion. That put December dividends at the lowest level since 1953. Chemical firms were not alone in be- ing less openhanded last year. In fact, the industry's record just about parallels !if«r»hir i,hnlr. thonirh np «Λ in I·» /-» Ι Λ oK tnougii chemical firms cuts generally hit harder at the end of the year. Only three major manufacturing industries- food and tobacco, up 39r; electrical machinery, up 19r; and oil refining, up 0.6 c /c—bettered their 1957 dividend record. Biggest drops came among nonferrous metals and textile firms. Totals for all manufacturers show a 2.5 # decline. Despite the over-all record, dividend cuts were not the rule last year among chemical companies. The majority of major producers managed to hold the line. (Notable exceptions: Du Pont, which paid out about $23 million less last year, and Olin Mathieson, whose dividend t>ill ran about $6.5 million lower.) Moreover, many firms, espe- cially ethical pharmaceutical manu- facturers, came through with some rather healthy increases (C&EN, Dec. 8, 1958, page 22). In contrast with last year, the year ahead looks good for stockholders. A year ago, many companies saw earnings rates* others were bar el ν covering Oa v - ments to shareowners. Latest earn- ings reports, however, show most chem- ical companies covering payments with a healthy margin to spare. And profits are expected to show further gains this year. In addition, with many compa- nies curtailing their construction pro- grams below recent peaks, directors will not have to dig so deeply into corporate coffers for capital outlays. Already, boards of some firms ( Stauf- fer and Reichhold, for instance) have indicated that dividends will be hiked this year. Even this early, it's a good bet that final figures will show 1959 div- idends on the upgrade and probably climbing to a new high. 24 C&EN FEB. 16. 1959
Transcript of INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS
Ê INDUSTRY & BUSINESS
I S C M I I I U C I V U I 3 1 tfSllCU \ . I I C Î Î I I ^ U I l l l S t U l l l | I # I I I U W I I W 4 k W M W i *«t f * « * « *
Publicly Reported Cash Dividends (Millions of Dollars)
Dividends Fell Back Last Year Chemical firms' cash payments to stockholders dropped 2 % as a result of year-end cuts
τ, . HE chemical industry was less generous with stockholders last year. Firms
of $904.2 million, 2.3'/> below 1957's record level. You have to go back to 1951—when dividends slipped \QC,'< —to find another year-to-year decline. Even so, 1958's total was the second highest ever.
Responsible for the drop was a cutback at year-end. Payments through November were running nearly 2rA ahead of 1957, latest Depar tment of Commerce figures show. But December payments last year fell 15°r below the same month of 1957 to $190.7 million. Tha t pu t December dividends at the lowest level since 1953.
Chemical firms were not alone in being less openhanded last year. In fact,
the industry's record just about parallels !if«r»hir i,hnlr.
thoni rh n p «Λ i n I·» /-» Ι Λ o K
tnougii chemical firms cuts generally hit harder a t the end of the year. Only three major manufacturing indus t r i es -food and tobacco, up 39r; electrical machinery, up 19r; and oil refining, u p 0.6 c/c—bettered their 1957 dividend record. Biggest drops came among nonferrous metals and textile firms. Totals for all manufacturers show a 2.5 # decline.
Despite t h e over-all record, dividend cuts were no t the rule last year among chemical companies. The majority of major producers managed to hold the line. (Notable exceptions: Du Pont, which paid out about $23 million less last year, and Olin Mathieson, whose dividend t>ill ran about $6.5 million
lower.) Moreover, many firms, especially ethical pharmaceutical manufacturers, came through with some rather healthy increases (C&EN, Dec. 8, 1958, page 2 2 ) .
In contrast with last year, the year ahead looks good for stockholders. A year ago, many companies saw earnings
rates* others were bar el ν covering Oav-ments to shareowners. Latest earnings reports, however, show most chemical companies covering payments with a healthy margin to spare. And profits are expected to show further gains this year. In addition, with many companies curtailing their construction programs below recent peaks, directors will not have to dig so deeply into corporate coffers for capital outlays.
Already, boards of some firms ( Stauf-fer and Reichhold, for instance) have indicated that dividends will be hiked this year. Even this early, it's a good bet that final figures will show 1959 dividends on the upgrade and probably climbing to a new high.
2 4 C & E N F E B . 16. 1 9 5 9
