Bio: Daniel Peris is a historian-turned-portfolio manager at Federated who uniquely combines PhD-level expertise in Russian history with two decades of investment experience to challenge modern finance’s dismissal of dividend investing through rigorous historical analysis.
For six decades, academic finance has confidently predicted that dividends would—and should—disappear. Nobel Prize winners built elegant theories proving dividend payments were “irrelevant.” MBA programs taught generations that buybacks and dividends were economically equivalent. The University of Chicago constructed entire frameworks around rational actors in equilibrium markets where cash distributions didn’t matter.
Yet here we are in 2025, and dividends stubbornly refuse to vanish. According to Daniel Peris, a historian-turned-portfolio manager at Federated whose book “The Ownership Dividend” challenges conventional investment wisdom, maybe it’s time to question the theory rather than reality.
The Unnatural State
Dividend-free investing defies the laws of nature and human behavior. Over the past century, dividend-paying companies dropped from 90% of the market to 30-40%, while yields collapsed to a fraction of Treasury bill rates. Most investors today don’t even expect dividend-paying stocks to yield anything meaningful.
This represents what Peris calls an “unnatural state of affairs.” As he explains, “For 5,000 years of financial history, if you were going to be a minority shareholder in a business, you would expect a tangible cash return for your investment as a balancing mechanism for managing agency costs.” The agency cost he refers to isn’t financial—it’s the risk inherent in delegating business management to people who may not view the world exactly as you do.
Yet somehow, modern investors accept trillion-dollar companies generating tens of billions in profits that never send shareholders a penny. The question isn’t why dividends should return—it’s why this bizarre aberration happened in the first place.
Four Decades, Four Reasons
Peris identifies four legitimate factors that enabled dividend-free investing to dominate. First, forty years of declining interest rates—two generations of investors and professionals who knew nothing else. “That’s time for the CFA curriculum. That’s time for the University of Chicago curriculum. It’s time for Goldman Sachs to create lots of products,” he notes. When the hurdle keeps getting lower, cash returns become less compelling.
Second, NASDAQ’s genuine productivity explosion coincided with rate declines. Technology companies started as cash-burning startups and grew to prodigious size. But here’s where Peris gets pointed: “After 40 years, a company with trillions of dollars in value, hundreds of billions in revenue, tens of billions in profits and it doesn’t pay a dividend to a minority shareholder—it’s an unnatural state.”
Third, buybacks. Wall Street loved them, and corporate incentives drove their adoption. As Peris quotes Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett, “Show me what your incentives are and I’ll tell you what the behavior is.” The result? A trillion dollars in buybacks this year—but buybacks provide “liquidity to share sellers,” not cash to shareholders. It’s a crucial distinction most investors miss.
Fourth, the geopolitical paradigm of neoliberalism that emerged around 1980 and “crashed and burned obviously in the last five years in a spectacular way.”
The Turning Point
Here’s Peris’s central thesis: every condition enabling dividend-free investing has stopped, reversed, or matured. Interest rates bottomed in September 2020 and aren’t returning to those levels. Tech companies have matured beyond perpetual reinvestment justifications. Buybacks have reached controversial extremes. The geopolitical environment has fundamentally shifted.
“I think more investors over time will be insisting as minority investors, again facing significant agency costs, that they get a tangible return,” Peris argues. The pendulum that swung toward speculation is moving back toward business fundamentals.
Business Outcomes vs. Market Outcomes
Perhaps Peris’s most valuable framework distinguishes between “business outcomes” and “market outcomes.” A dividend is a business outcome—tangible evidence that the company generates real cash flow. It’s something you control through your investment selection. Capital gains are market outcomes—contingent on share price movements you don’t control.
As Peris observes with characteristic directness, comparing 19th-century industrial companies with modern software firms: “We did a capital-intensive industrial buildout, and companies managed to pay dividends on top of their capital intensity. Now we have software and service companies that have low capital intensity, higher profitability, and they can’t afford to pay a dividend.”
The absurdity becomes clear when stated plainly.
The Joseph Heller Standard
Peris closes with a story about Joseph Heller, author of Catch-22, at a Hamptons party hosted by someone wealthier than Heller could imagine. When asked if he felt jealous that the host made more in a day than Heller’s lifetime earnings, Heller responded: “I have something he’ll never have. I know when it’s enough.”
That, Peris suggests, is the real measure of investment success—not risk-adjusted returns or beating benchmarks, but sleeping well at night, knowing you have enough, and being true to yourself.
After 60 years of being told dividends don’t matter, perhaps it’s worth listening to 5,000 years of human behavior that says otherwise.
Before you go… If this post resonated with you, take a moment, and please share it with anyone in your network who might find it valuable too—this Substack grows entirely through word of mouth from readers like you. Thank you so much!
Podcast Program – Disclosure Statement
Blue Infinitas Capital, LLC is a registered investment adviser and the opinions expressed by the Firm’s employees and podcast guests on this show are their own and do not reflect the opinions of Blue Infinitas Capital, LLC. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice.
Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investments involve risk and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed.
Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives, and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.