The business community is once again being called to start investing for the sake of the economy as they, in turn, call on policymakers to do more to lure them to spend.
A stark lack of investment has been a point of frustration for policymakers in Australia and throughout the Western world, who need businesses to provide the economic impetus the indebted household and governments can't.
Ultra-low borrowing costs should have spurred at least some businesses to borrow and invest.
But more observers are convinced that the low-interest rate environment is actually reducing investment rather than encouraging it as it rewards management that steers cash back to shareholders in the form of dividends.
"The one thing about companies is they are great at responding to the dog whistle – they will do what they think will make their share price go up," said Schroders portfolio manager Martin Conlon at last week's Portfolio Construction conference in Sydney.
He presented a slide that showed that listed companies have effectively delayed capital investment to support their free cash flows.
The average age of assets of Australian companies, the slide showed, had increased from about 7.8 years to 10.7 years as depreciated assets are replaced at slower rates.
They're doing this, he says, because they are using more cash to increase dividends than to invest in their assets.
"They have been more than happy to starve their assets to get the dividend yield and you can see that in the asset age."
But Conlon says it's unsustainable and companies that have shirked on capital investment will be forced to replace their ancient assets in the future, potentially straining their cash flows and future earnings.
If the trend is going to reverse, there's no sign of it anytime soon, and markets have once again rewarded companies that have increased their dividend payments to shareholders. The yield trade is resurgent again.
And Thursday's capital expenditure data again showed no evidence of enthusiasm for investment among business.
The capital allocation of corporate executives hits on a topic that is the root cause of most things – incentives.
James Montier of Boston-based investment firm GMO wrote a detailed paper walking through the folly of the concept of "shareholder value maximisation" which had become perverted by shortening tenures of chief executives.
A side effect was reduced investment.
The world however is changing – and talk of tax cuts may indeed spur the "animal spirits" that induce a resurgence in investment.
But unless the incentives of the decision makers change, the next wave of investments will be because businesses have to spend, not because they want to.
