The low interest rate environment and once in decades
situation where dividend yields were above bond yields for the broad indices
and individual companies has spurred a “new investing philosophy” of “dividend
growth investing”. With interest rates in an up cycle as Warren Buffet said
“when the tide goes up we will see who
is naked.
This “strategy” seems to be all over the blogosphere.e Typical is seeking alpha’s popular “dividends and income section” . Unfortunately, but not surprisingly the financial services industry has fed the bandwagon bring ing out a seemingly endless number of dividend and dividend growth ETFS and actively managed funds. Brokers/Salespeople were happy to feed the frenzy as well without much deep analysis of the pitfalls of such an approach
Since this crew gets pretty abusive when its views are challenged I’ll post this on my own blog
Here for example is a methodology common in the analysis of dividend growth:
investing in the blogosphere :
- Pick a stock and assume
that if one bought a stock and owned it for decades the “dividend growth”
of reinvesting the income will produce a secure income stream for
retirement.
- Make sure when you buy
the dividend stock you hold your dividends and wait till that stock is a
“bargain” which of course you will know and time extremely well. This
means of course that you are not reinvesting the dividend but trading with
the dividend . Thus the growth of
an investment with dividend
reinvestment is not your strategy at all. So those numbers don’t of a long
term position with dividends reinvested and doesn’t match the “dividend growth” strategy at all
certainly not a DRIP strategy.
- In figuring out what
future dividends that will fund the retirement the methodology of calculations is a bit
fuzzy to say the least.
The analysis takes a lump sum purchase at the
beginning of the investment period calculate what the dividend stream will be decades
later at retirmen and presto you have a cash flow to fund retirement.
Of course this assumes that you
have enough cash to purchase that amount of shares decades prior to retirement.
In other words in your 20s you have a massive sum to put into your account. Seems
to me most people I have met are struggling to generate cash flow above their
expenses to cover those massive student loan bills…a massive lump sum ? maybe
for trust fund babies who never had to worry about cashflows in retirement…or
in their 20s.
Oh and that amount used in the
calculation is way to large to put in an IRA so most of the dividends will be
taxed along the way. And if you’re a high earner in NY or Silicon Valley you’re
paying local AND federal tax on those dividends…so knock some more money off
that “dividend growth “ calculation in the real world.
- I could do a similar
argument for a total return investor:
I can assume a lump sum at
retirement equal to the lowest 30 year return of the s+p 500 or even a 60/40
stock bond allocation reinvest the dividends automatically and don’t touch the
principal. Take even the worst 30 year
period since the depression (actually longer ) and you will come up with a
sufficient sum for retirement. In fact a simple present value calculation will
give you that lump sum you need.
At retirement pull your retirement
cash flow out of dividends interest and capital gains you earned over 30
years…all at likely at a lower marginal tax rate than your current rate
…and if you retire to Nevade,
Florida or Texas from say California or
NY you avoid the state tax on interest dividends and capital gains.
In other words there is not magic formula to fund a
retirement need….unless you inherit at 25 or 30 a sum large enough so it will
grow over 30 years to an ample retirement nest egg (add in some savings of your
own along the way) . Otherwise it’s not as easy as “dividend growth investing”.
Its pretty much the same problem for the much disdained “total return investor”
in the view of this group of dividend growth zealots as for them.
I notice that the dividend income section of seeking alpha
has lost regular postings form many of
the fans of dividend growth investing. I think we have the updated version of
the famous shoeshine boy story with Joseph Kennedy and the well know dictum
when it shows up on the cover of Business Week or Time it’s a sure sign of time
to go in the opposite direction, Substitute blogger s that are do it
yourselfers/neophytes and chat rooms for the 2 above and you have the 21st
century equivalent.
As interest rates reverse course and start to provide yields
equal to or higher than equity dividends this dividend growth” strategy will
look less attractive. And there is no way around the fact that future returns
on a stock are low when you buy them at a high valuation The dividend growth favorites,
usually conservative slow growing stocks that trade at low p/es have been
trading at high valuations during this time of “dividend growth investing”.
No surprise then to look at this graph comparing returns of
utility stocks (XLU) a traditional sector bought for its dividends, HDV the
high dividend ETF and VTI the total stock market index and to note that when
interest rates turned abruptly higher in the beginning of May stocks bought for
their dividend suffered the most. It’s actually no surprise to anyone who has
taken a financial markets class and paid attention when the dividend discount
model of stock valuation was taught.
Here is an explanation of the model from investopedia . http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/041404.asp
They note it is..
“…one of the oldest, most conservative methods
of valuing stocks - the dividend discount model (DDM).
It's one of the basic applications of a financial theory that students in any
introductory finance class must learn
And
here’s the chart of HDV high dividend, XLU utilities and XLP consumer staples another favorite of dividend growth investors compared to VTI the overall US market since May 1 when interest rates started their sharp ascent.
No doubt some may argue this short term movement is irrelevant. I view it as a fire drill although the market may stabilize or even recover we know from this move which sectors are most vulnerable to higher rates. Not just are these sectors most vulnerable to higher rates because of the simple math of the dividend discount model, the dividend growth investors bid them up in valuation.
Or one could look it quite simply. If dividends were touted as a bond substitute logically it would mean that if interest rate go up dividend stocks will suffer. After all would you rather own a 4% return on a treasury bond or a stock of a dividend grower" paying the same yield or lower. Back to reality stocks are riskier than bonds....period.
No comments:
Post a Comment