In our previous blog on dividend investing, we offered some of our dividend research and a general theory on how to think about the importance of both dividend yield and dividend growth. In this edition, we will share some of our insights into how different combinations of dividend yield and growth act in various kinds of stock markets.
When most people think of dividend-paying stocks, often they
incorrectly think that such companies are unusual. The truth is among the 500 stocks in the
S&P Index, nearly 400 of them pay a dividend. What makes a company valuable, according to our research, is that
it has raised its dividend persistently and consistently over a long time. We do not place hard limits on these descriptors because we do not want to eliminate companies that have persistently and consistently raised their dividends but not on a calendar basis. United Technologies (UTX), for instance, increases its dividend every six quarters; thereby, having years where it does not increase its dividend on a calendar basis. The every-six-quarters approach is consistent and persistent, but UTX does not make the lists of dividend stars because of the occasional calendar miss.
Our research in the dividend world began with the utility sector in the late 1980s. That early research revealed some
surprising results.
Over any longer period, say five to ten years, the companies with the lowest dividend yields and the highest consistent dividend growth were the top performers. For example, Company A had a current dividend yield of 6% and long-term average annual dividend growth of 4%; Company B had a current dividend yield of 7% and long-term annual dividend growth of 2%; and Company C had a current dividend yield of 8% with no recent dividend growth. In almost every period we studied, Company A would outperform Companies B and C on a total return basis, even though on a dividend yield basis, it did not appear to be as attractive as the other two companies. In essence, the market was willing to pay for dividend growth -- if it was consistent and visible.
Over any longer period, say five to ten years, the companies with the lowest dividend yields and the highest consistent dividend growth were the top performers. For example, Company A had a current dividend yield of 6% and long-term average annual dividend growth of 4%; Company B had a current dividend yield of 7% and long-term annual dividend growth of 2%; and Company C had a current dividend yield of 8% with no recent dividend growth. In almost every period we studied, Company A would outperform Companies B and C on a total return basis, even though on a dividend yield basis, it did not appear to be as attractive as the other two companies. In essence, the market was willing to pay for dividend growth -- if it was consistent and visible.
We found the same phenomenon worked in almost all the major
industry sectors, including those with low dividend yields. It did not always work on a one or two year
time frame, but given enough time, it was clear that investors were willing to
pay up for a faster growing dividend, as long as the growth was consistent and enduring. As a result of this, in the early-1990s, we restructured our main dividend investment strategy away from a focus on high dividend
yield with modest dividend growth and partitioned the portfolio into three
separate sub-portfolios. Today our Cornerstone
Portfolio (our main dividend strategy) is not one monolithic portfolio where all the stocks have similar
features. It contains three different
kinds of dividend companies, which we call sub-portfolios A, B, and C. The division into three sub-portfolios has made Cornerstone more of an all-season investment style.
Dividend Yield
|
Dividend Growth
|
|
Sub-Portfolio A
|
Near the average yield of
S&P 500
|
Dividend growth higher than
S&P 500
|
Sub-Portfolio B
|
Yield much higher than S&P
500
|
Dividend growth at approximately
the rate of inflation.
|
Sub-Portfolio C
|
Above average dividend Yield
|
Dividend growth approximately the same as
the S&P 500
|
Sub-Portfolio A
Sub-Portfolio A stocks (average yield, above average
dividend growth) possess a characteristic that has dramatically improved
Cornerstone’s annual returns over the last 15 years: Portfolio A stocks tend be driven more by their own results and less by what is going on in the overall markets. As long as Portfolio A companies are hitting their earnings and dividend growth targets, they will normally outperform the average stock when
the markets are trending sideways or are in a bull market. These stocks normally fare poorly in bear markets.
Sub-Portfolio A stocks most often come from Consumer
Cyclical, Tech, and Industrial sectors.
Sub-Portfolio B
Sub-Portfolio B stocks are just the reverse of Sub-Portfolio
A stocks. Portfolio B stocks have a much higher
than average dividend yield combined with dividend growth at about the rate of
inflation. Inclusion of these stocks in
the portfolio helps us in two ways:
- They often have a dividend yield twice the rate of the average stock.
- They almost always perform well relative to the average stock in slow growth environments or in bear markets. .
Sub-Portfolio B normally lag the average stock in strong bull markets. Portfolio B stocks are mostly filled with Utilities, Telecommunications, REITs, and Energy stocks
Sub-Portfolio C
Sub-Portfolio C stocks are our favorite stocks of the three portfolios,
but they are the rarest. They combine a
higher than average dividend yield with at least an average annual dividend growth
rate. These stocks are usually the most
undervalued of all stocks in the portfolio from the perspective of our
valuation models. That is because these companies
are usually facing some sort of headwinds or
uncertainties.
Our models are good at finding these companies, but their attractiveness is always clouded by a big question mark hanging
over them. That is where our investment
strategists become critical. It is their
job to dig deeply into the company and determine if the headwinds are temporary
or permanent. Portfolio C companies can do well in any kind of market, especially if the question mark is removed.
Weighting the Three Sub-Portfolios
The weightings of each of the sub-portfolios within the
total portfolio are not left to chance.
We increase or decrease the weightings of each sub-portfolio based on a
combination of the readings from our valuation models and how the markets are
reacting to unfolding fundamental and economic data. The table below shows how much we have shifted portfolio weightings over the last twelve months.
Sub-Portfolio Weightings
July 2012 vs. July 2013
July 2012
|
July 2013
|
|
Sub-Portfolio A
|
22.0%
|
39.0%
|
Sub-Portfolio B
|
41.0%
|
23.0%
|
Sub-Portfolio C
|
37.0%
|
38.0%
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
We made these shifts because we recognized that continued U.S. economic growth, even though it has been modest by historical standards, had finally led to significant increases in investor
confidence. Investors were no longer
rushing indiscriminately in and out of stocks as each round of new bad news
(Europe is crashing!) or good news (Employment numbers are up!) hit the
headlines. Instead, their increased
confidence was causing them to differentiate their investing based more on the
fundamentals of each company, which was favorable for Sub-Portfolio A
companies and modestly unfavorable to Sub-Portfolio B companies.
The sizable shift that we made in cutting back on the high
dividend yield, low dividend growth stocks in Sub-Portfolio B and adding to the above average dividend growth companies in Sub-Portfolio A has already proven itself
to be the right move. It was not
something, however, that we did overnight.
We saw the trends, we read our models, and we began a gradual shift that
speeded up in March and April of this year.
Constructing a portfolio of three different types of rising
dividend companies allows us to stay true to a high-quality, rising dividend
strategy, while rebalancing the dividend growth versus dividend yield weightings in the overall portfolio in recognition of changing market conditions.
Back to that Pony
Last time we said some people have accused us of having a "one trick pony" investment strategy. We hope what we have shared here answers that accusation. In addition, dividends in one form or another have been around as long as
investing itself. We are not at all
worried that companies will stop paying dividends. True, over the years, the percentage of companies paying dividends has waxed and waned. But there have always been hundreds of solid, dividend-paying stocks somewhere in the world.
In our next edition of the ABC's of Dividend Investing we will discuss some basic general investing principles we have learned over the years, as well as some of our buy and sell criteria.
Clients, officers, and directors of DCM own UTX.