Boston Consulting Group report The Challenge of Growth, released last week, found that "highly acquisitive" companies in the ASX200 "outperformed in value creation" with an average total shareholder return of 17 per cent.

This was "considerably higher" than less aggressive growers, which produced returns between 10 and 11 per cent.

The report also warned that share prices would face an "inevitable crunch" unless companies redirected more profits to growth. ASX200 companies paid 70 per cent of their earnings as dividends in 2013-14, compared to 39 per cent for the rest of the world.

AMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver said other studies showed that, in fact, aggressively acquisitive Australian companies had not performed well. "It does contradict various other studies," said Dr Oliver. "It depends what study you look at."

Dr Oliver called the analysis "a bit ridiculous", noting that the "rest of the world" figure was dominated by American companies. "The US has had very low interest rates and a low US dollar, making it easy for US firms to compete overseas," he said. "Australia has had a mining boom and a high dollar squeezing out investment elsewhere in the economy."

The other matter overlooked by the study was the way that dividends were taxed, he said. "Australia has franking credits which encourages companies to pay dividends [whereas] the US has a high tax on dividends.

"US companies tend to buy back shares when they want return capital to investors rather than pay dividends. They're being disingenuous by not adjusting for that."

Furthermore, "Australian companies, where they need the funding, get it back through dividend reinvestment plans, which the payout ratios don't include."

Dr Oliver said paying dividends in Australia was perfectly reasonable given the state of the non-mining sector. "The economy outside of mining has been pretty depressed now for the past four years," he said. "If companies are feeling uncertain about investing, I'd much rather have that money given to me and other investors rather than having the company retain the earnings and blow it on some hare-brained scheme down the track."

He expected Australian companies to invest more as the dollar fell and conditions improved in the non-mining sector. "I would be concerned in a few years time if we haven't had a pick-up in investment outside of the mining sector and the dividend payout ratio continued to rise and rise," he said. "But I think that's unlikely."

Sydney-based investor and fund manager Peter Morgan dismissed the report's conclusion that aggressive acquisition was best for shareholders. "I don't agree with it ... it's fine to quote the examples of CSL and maybe Ramsay but there's been a hell of a lot of others where capital has been destroyed.

Mr Morgan listed AMP, IAG, QBE, ABC Learning, Fairfax, Newcrest Mining, Rio Tinto and Sims Metal as examples of companies that had pursued dubious acquisition strategies.

"To expand just for the sake of growth by acquisition - it's just been fraught with danger. For each character in the alphabet you could find a company that's failed and dusted a lot of dough by making acquisitions."

He dismissed the report's finding that highly acquisitive companies had outperformed the market. "Statistics can tell you anything," he said.

Mr Morgan said he fully supported Australian companies paying high dividends, especially as franking had worked so well. "If the banks weren't paying out dividends they may well have expanded overseas [before the financial crisis]," he said. "National Australia Bank was bloody lucky it got out of Homeside. Imagine where Qantas would be if it wasn't paying out the big dividends it was paying in the early 2000s. It would have done the stupid thing of trying to get more market share in a market it was getting crucified in."

Charlie Green, the founder of boutique Brisbane broker Hunter Green, backed the findings of the study.

"It's a furphy that if you pay good dividends it makes you a better company," he said. "There are plenty of really good companies that pay poor dividends like CSL and News.

"We're all just used to buying Westpac and NAB and Telstra and getting our 5 per cent fully franked yield and living happily ever after. Arguably these companies would have been better off hanging onto the money and growing their businesses with it.

"They should take a more robust attitude to capital management and paying a big dividend is not always in the best interests of shareholders."

Mr Green said Australia's franking system also explained why the dividend ratio was so high in Australia. He added that companies that hoarded franking credits "should be shot".