The math is straightforward: when a business consistently generates a Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) of 30%+, every dollar paid out as a dividend is a dollar that cannot be reinvested at that elite rate.

Well, yes, investing internally at high rates is great. But. It hasn't been in this case lately, nor is it seemingly expected soon.

Now maybe there are very good reasons that the capital they have retained and deployed in the last few years has led to no observable [yet] increase in value per share. A rough patch, expensive (and expensable) spending that has yet to pay off, one time loss, whatever.

But, if you can't identify a good reason to defend that thesis, the other viewpoint is that the capital they have deployed internally is perhaps acting as the equivalent of maintenance capex...money they have to spend every year just to stay in place.

As mentioned, I know pretty much nothing about the firm, so I have no idea which view makes the most sense. Really. But one has to come up with reasons to believe they are at a particular point on the spectrum between those two situations. Or conservatively assume the default bad situation, that they are ex growth. Again, I am very much NOT saying that is the case, it seems unlikely at first blush, but then you have to have a well defended explanation for the flat stretch.

Put crudely, if the internal capital allocation is so remunerative and such a great idea, why aren't earnings rising? What has been holding back the bottom line, is it transient, and how good is the evidence that it's transient?

Jim