Dividend Growth Investing

Discussion of the Stock portion of the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

tarentola
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:55 am

Re: Dividend Growth Investing

Post by tarentola » Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:12 am

Jeffreyalan wrote:What would be everyone’s opinion here on dividend growth investing? For example, buying 20-25 stocks like MMM and Johnson & Johnson and just holding them forever. Live off of the rising dividend stream and leave the shares for my children. I know it will have more ups and downs than a Balanced portfolio. But if I can ride out the volitility, what are the opinions on this strategy?
DG investing is popular because:
- it provides a discipline: essentially buy and hold, so no trading, no agonising
- it is simple to understand: from a diversity of sectors, buy blue chips with a history of rising dividends, do not sell
- it favours shares in established companies, often household names, whose products are in daily demand (food, drink, tobacco, oil, health, software)
- it provides an income without shareholder intervention: no rebalancing, no decisions, the divs just land in your bank account
- it ignores price volatility: dividends tend to hold up even when share prices crash. For example in 2007-8 the S&P dropped over 50%, but the drop in dividend payments much less marked, and some companies continued to raise dividends during the crash and indeed thoughout the "lost decade". See https://seekingalpha.com/article/294269 ... -recession.

Seekingalpha.com has a lot of information about dividend growth investing, where contributors describe portfolios of individual shares which have been running for years. The results are in general pretty good. However, it seems that DG portfolios provide less total return than multiasset portfolios which are regularly rebalanced (several posts by Larry Swedroe on Bogleheads). Eric@Servo on Seekingalpha started a lively debate with the DG crowd and acquitted himself very well; that discussion is worth looking at for pros and cons. See also David van Knapp's articles, especially https://seekingalpha.com/article/187516 ... -dividends.

Conclusion: DG is probably not the best option for long-term total return, but provides a fairly sure return and requires little intervention (sound familiar?).
tarentola
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:55 am

Re: Dividend Growth Investing

Post by tarentola » Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:46 am

A recent article on Seeking Alpha which provides a good classification of dividend growth shares to consider:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/415331 ... wth-stocks
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:05 am

Jeffreyalan wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:05 am
The main reason to own stocks that pay dividends is management accountability since the commitment to paying a dividend forces efficient capital deployment decision making.

Also, Shareholders like optionality and the payment of a dividend gives the shareholder the option to increase or decrease their exposure to that entity accross time.

Beyond that there are the usual reasons such as dividend stocks surviving market falls better and the majority of stock returns over the last century coming from dividends.
if only that were really true about better responsibility to shareholders .....

case in point .

AT&T paid $100 billion to enter the cable business

AT&T thought it would be a good idea to diversify by paying $100 billion to take on cable company TCI. It was wrong! AT&T broke itself up a few years later and sold off the cable assets.

AT&T tried to elbow its way into the personal computer business with a hostile $7 billion takeover of NCR. It didn't work, and AT&T later spun the company back out at a $4 billion valuation.

Microsoft paid an estimated $500 million for mobile phone company Danger. It was supposed to be working on new phones for Microsoft, but most of the key employees left the company. The end result of the acquisition was the Kin, a social smartphone from Microsoft that totally bombed.

Cisco probably bought Pure Digital, the company that makes the Flip, right at the peak of its value in 2009. Since then high definition video cameras have been built into just about every smartphone making the Flip pretty much worthless in the long run. Which is probably why Cisco killed the $590 million acquisition earlier this year.

After Google bought DoubleClick, Microsoft tried to keep up by buying ad company aQuantive for $6 billion. The acquisition never really worked out. The aQuantive executives left two years after the deal closed and the technology was discarded.
..
AOL-Time Warner is obviously the worst

i can go on and on.

as far as performance ----you keep seeing just invest in the so called dividend aristocrats and call it a day .

however what constitutes this group changes all the time so get ready for lots of selling trying to keep up as they get bumped and replaced AFTER THE FACT THEY DID NOT LIVE UP TO EXPECTATIONS . you could be behind the curve here very easily .

these dividend aristocrats are not somehow immune to all the things that effect company's and stocks . Just like other companies, their outcomes change.

in 2009 there were 52 stocks that met the group’s strict criteria.

As of 2012, there were 51.

But of those 51, 13 were different than the original set. So over the course of just 3 years, there was a 27% change in the group’s composition.

in fact going back to 1989's list :

Of those 26, seven are still on the list today, ten were removed because they either cut or froze their dividend, four were removed for an unknown reason, and the remainder were aquired at some point. So at least ten of the 26 had an outcome that is different from the assumption of dividend growth every year through thick and thin.

dividends can be the worst way tax wise to generate income ... a 4% dividend is taxed on 100% of the dividend .. the same dollars as a portfolio draw is taxed only on the gain portion ...

there is zero difference puling the same dollars as the dividend from a portfolio of non div payers as long as the total returns are the same or greater ..your balance will be identical in both cases . it is all only about total return at the end of the day ....

in both cases the investments need to see at least as much appreciation as the draw or they gained nothing or are behind . every payout by exchange rules has to be subtracted off the value of the investment before it can trade again .... if you don't reinvest the dividend then you have less dollars for markets to compound at the ring of the bell .... if you do reinvest then you have the same dollars back as you had pre ex div .... it is merely them handing you a piece of your value and you putting it back via a lower price and more shares not much different then a mutual fund pay out or a stock split
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am

Re: Dividend Growth Investing

Post by boglerdude » Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:51 pm

If anything, "short" them. I bought consumers staples ETF just before Trumps election, when sentiment was negative and defensive (30 year at 2.33% market predicting low growth/inflation). The ETF got left behind because the narrative changed to "pro-business." The 30 year is still ~3% so now might be a time to buy unloved defensive stuff. But there are better uses of time than portfolio tilting
Post Reply