DeepSeek Is Good News For The AI Gold Rush

•  In July and August of the past year, I explained the world had entered an AI and tech gold rush. Enormous amounts of money were pouring into building computer models that could extract and interpret golden data.

• Since that time, the number of AI miners and camp followers has exploded, making AI or Nvdia names that even your grandmother knows.

• In those articles, I cautioned that I believed the AI miners would find golden data, but how much of it they would find and how much investors would be willing to pay for it were big question marks.

• The other reality that I saw was that, with AI, we are in the mining phase, not the golden-products phase. No single product or service stands out at present as the game-changing prototype of things to come. 

This past week, a more ecnomical Chinese DeepSeek model caused lots of wild gyrations of most tech stocks. Net, net the tech market ended down only 3-4%. On the surface, DeepSeek, which costs a fraction of that of an NVDA, chip would seem to be a category crushing piece of software.

That many big techs rose sharply, such as GOOGL, AMZN, and Meta reminds us of what stage we are traversing in the gold rush. In short, those stocks rising clearly suggest that we are in the mining stage of the gold rush and not in the ingot stage. 

AMZN may be the biggest benefactor of the AI gold rush of any stock in America. They have millions of employees, millions of products, thousands of warehouses, millions of delivery miles worldwide, and billions of customers. If a better, more efficient, and less costly means of doing business is not in AMZN's future, AI will be the biggest bust since Beany Babies. 

Other giant benefactors of AI will be WMT, COST, the banking and insurance industries, and the industrial sector. If industrial sector companies like Raytheon, Caterpillar, Honeywell, 3M, and GE are to 'reshore', jobs from overseas, they must extract enormous costs from domestic manufacturing. My guess is they can do it, but it will take years, maybe decades, to get it done.

I believe DeepSeek will ultimately be viewed as a boon to the AI industry. It reduces the cost of participating in the AI gold rush and broadens the number of institutions and people who can afford to play.

Greg Donaldson has founded or co-founded four investment advisory firms and two families of mutual funds. He has authored two books, one on investing and a book of poetry published soon after he was out of college.  

This article is not intended as investment advice. You should seek an investment professional's views before making any investment. 

These views I have shared here are my own and not any company I am associated with.

Caution: We Are Entering A "Prove It" Market

 

• In my recently released book, The HIdden Power of Rising Dividends,(available at Amazon) I make the case that dividend growth is highly correlated with price growth for many stocks and indices.

• In the book, I suggest that dividend growth alone is highly correlated with price growth for 25-35% of S&P 500 stocks. For an additional 50% of stocks, dividend growth is the most important indicator of value, but the correlation scores rise when we add some portion of sales and earnings growth, along with changes in interest rates.

• The consensus view of many stock market prognosticators today is that stocks, now trading at 27 time operating earnings, are extremely overpriced and are due for a big correction.

• My S&P 500 valuation model is telling a much more balanced story:

• 
  
• 
• 
  
• The above chart is what I call a Value Bar chart. The green bars show my model's annual predicted price of the S&P 500 going back to 2005. A quick look at the bar farthest to the right on the chart shows the model's current predicted price of the S&P 500. That figure is approximately 5,400. With the current price of the S&P 500 at around 6,000, the model is saying stocks are overvalued by about 10%. That, however, is before we factor in 2024 year end earnings and 2025 forward earnings.

•  Before we take a deeper look at the current predicted price, let's look back over the years to see how the model has fared.

• Simply speaking, if the red line (actual price) is above its corresponding Value Bar, we would say stocks are overvalued. If the the red line is lower that the Value Bar for the same year, we would say stocks are undervalued. For the last 20 years, the red line has stayed very close to the top of the Value Bars. A significant divergence is evident in only 2007, 2008,and 2022. In almost all other years, the Value Bars and actual prices of the S&P 500 are very close.

• Stocks continued to climb heading into the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007. At some point during the year, the model would have issued an overvalued signal. The model clearly signaled the market was overvalued in 2008.

• After the bear market of 2008 and 2009, the Value Bars stayed in fairly-valued or undervalued territory until the end of 2021, when they gave an overvalued reading. That signal correctly foresaw the selloff in 2022.

• That brings us to the current modest overvaluation. Plugging in Wall Street's current estimates of sales, earnings, dividends, and interest rates give us a figure of 6,500. 

• We are now entering what I call a "Prove It" market. This means, tech stocks, where the majority of the growth is coming from, must "Prove It" that they can continue with mid 20% sales and earnings growth. If they do, we should have another pretty good year. If not . . . .
•          

If any of you would like to discuss this article privately, please email me at info@gregdonaldson.com.

AAPL AIN'T CHEAP . . . MSFT IS

• 1. In my recent book, The Hidden Power of Rising Dividends (available at Amazon), I argue that very few individuals or professional investors are confident in how to calculate the intrinsic value of a stock.

• 2. The typical stock investor today has largely become a trend follower. Put another way, they are really momentum investors.  

• 3. I have been in the investment business for nearly 50 years, and I have learned many people who admit to being momentum investors, find that they cannot pull the trigger to buy or sell when the momentum trend changes. In failing to sell at the right time, most of them become "stuckholders."

• 4. In my many years of exploring every classical and "wild hair" investment strategy I could find, I have found that many slow-growing stocks can be valued very precisely. Most companies; however, require a deep dive into their fundamentals, looking for "tell" signals. Finally, valuing very fast-growing companies is always an educated guess at best.

• Last time, I showed valuation guesstimates on PepsiCo (PEP) and Coke (KO). These are both slow growing, high dividend-paying companies with powerful brands. My models predict that Coke (KO) is modestly overpriced and PepsiCo (PEP) is significantly underpriced when using year-ahead estimates.   

• This time I am comparing Microsoft (MSFT) and Apple (AAPL). The valuation correlation metrics for these two tech stocks are much more difficult to find because dividend growth alone does not offer high correlations for either stock. For Apple, earnings growth offer a 90%+ correlation with stock prices over the last decade, and gives us a decent guesstimate of the company's current valuation. 

• For Microsoft, it is necessary to use a proprietary valuation model that includes some portion of dividends, earnings, and interest rates. The chart below shows the remarkable tightness between MSFT's actual stock price (red line) and the model's annual predicted price, shown in green. Currently, the model says MSFT should trade at approximately $422 per share. It is currently trading for near $430. At least in this first step, MSFT would appear to be about fairly priced.

The picture for Apple indicates a bit more risk.

Apple's correlation model shows that its actual price of $239 per share, shown in red, is clearly higher than its predicted price, in green, of $206. 

Based on historical data over the last 13 years, my models are saying MSFT is selling about where it should be, and AAPL is selling nearly 15% higher than its fair value. But as I said last time, "the future is in the future" for all stocks, so we must plug in next year's estimates for both companies to determine if that makes any difference.

Using the mean forecasts from Wall Street analysts, my model predicts a year-end 2025 price of $483 for MSFT and $228 for AAPL. That would offer an approximately 12% gain for MSFT and a relatively flat rate of return for AAPL in the coming year. Indeed, selling at $239, AAPL is already trading above my modeled $228 predicted year-end 2025 price. 

I own both stocks and do not have plans at this time to sell either. However, seeing Apple's valuation does cause me some concerns that I had not thought through before I began this exercise. MSFT, on the other hand, looks even better than I would have guessed. As I said last time, this is not Wall Street research. I am using simple correlation models to arrive at the price estimates I am showing. Thus, this article should not be viewed as investment advice, but just a simple analysis of fundamental data within each company that is highly correlated with changes in its annual stock price. 

 

Simple Dividend Model Says PepsiCo Is Better Value Than Coke

1. In my recently released book, The Hidden Power of Rising Dividends, I described my 40-year journey into finding methods of valuing stocks.

2. In a recent post, I showed mathematical valuations of Coke and PepsiCo based on their last 15 years of price and fundamental data. As it turned out for both companies, dividends alone had the highest correlation with their prices over this period.

3. I chose Coke (KO) and PepsiCo (PEP) for my first valuation calculation because both are powerful brands that have won over our taste buds, grocery shelves, and portfolios. Since they are so dominant and so similar in their products and marketing, most people assume they are both always about fairly valued because they are so large and their products are a staple of everyday life for many people. 

4. Last time I showed a chart for each company as shown below. The green line on each chart is the actual annual price over the last 15 years. The red line is the predicted price my model calculates. A closer look at the two charts shows that PepsiCo's current price is about 9% lower that its predicted price, based on the correlation between its dividend and price growth over the last 15 years. Coke, on the other hand, appears to be selling about 9.5% above its predicted price using he same metrics. 

Studying the two dividend correlation charts suggests PepsiCo is clearly the better value. But, as I said last time, my dividend correlation model is looking only at historical data. The future is in the future for all stocks. So, let's take a swing at estimating the future growth of both companies. Remember, dividend growth alone trumps all other indicators for these two stocks, and in both cases the correlation between the companies' dividends and stock prices is over 90%.

 

In valuing Coke and Pepsi, I am using a simple linear regression model that measures the average changes of prices versus dividends for each company over the last 15 years, and then performs annual standard deviations to determine how tight the fit is. This model generates what is known as a correlation coefficient, or R2. Both Coke and Pepsi have R2s between annual price and dividend growth above .90. Put another way, annual changes in dividends for both companies has been able to explain over 90% of the annual changes in their stock prices. It's not perfect, but few investment professionals will be willing to bet you that this .90 correlation between prices and dividends is going to change very much in the coming year or years.  

A linear regression calculation, as the name implies, assumes that the movement of prices v. dividends will form a line. The important things about lines is they all have a slope and slopes have formulas. Thus, here in November 2024, if we have a good prediction or guess about how much each company will increase its dividends in 2025, (both have unbroken strings of increasing dividends for over 50 years) we can plug that figure into the formula and have a predicted stock price for the coming year.

PepsiCo's linear regression formula is .52+35x, where x is next year's dividend. PepsiCo's current indicated dividend is $5.42. For this analysis let's just increase PepsiCo's dividend by 7%, which is its average increase of the last five years. Here are the results of the formula:

.52+35 x 5.80 = $203.52

This simple regression model is projecting that PepsiCo's price will reach $203.52 by the end of 2025. That would be a rise in the price of over 20%. Remember, this is a model, not an analytical projection of what I think the price will be. But, with a correlation so high, one might think of it as a ballpark figure of the upside potential of PepsiCo.

Coke's dividend growth over the last five years has averaged only 3.5%. Plugging dividend growth of that level into the regression model for Coke gives us a 2025 best guess price of $67.25, only slightly above today's selling price. 

As always, this is not a Wall Street type deep dive type valuation analysis of either company, and it should not be taken as investment advice. This is just a mathematical look at financial data for both companies that has had a very high correlation over the last few years. Using this simple analysis, PepsiCo is our clear winner. 

Someone might want to break the news to Warren Buffett. He holds a tremendous amount of Coke.

Next time I will compare two other name-brand blue chip stocks in the tech industry sector. That will be a tougher challenge because dividends probably won't work as well in these companies, and I will have to dig deeper to determine is any of the companies' fundamental data have a tight correlation with prices. If there is a fit, it should also give us an idea of how fairly valued some of the techs are after their huge run over the last two years. 

Until next time.

If you would like to offer companies for me to value using this correlation process, please send me a note at info@gregdonaldson@gmail.com.

Thanks to several of you who informed me that my colors were wrong on the charts last time. 

I own Pepsico.

Using Simple Mathematical Calculations to Value Coke vs. PepsiCo

 1. In my recently released book, The Hidden Power of Rising Dividends, I described my 40-year journey into finding methods of valuing stocks.

2. My journey of valuation discovery was always about finding methods that worked, not just focusing on dividend investing, although for many companies, dividends are the best indicator.

3. Over the next few months, I am going to do a series of valuation comparisons of great companies of our country and the world. These comparisons will describe the various methods I have found to be helpful. The first two are Coke and Pepsi.

4. Coke and Pepsi are powerful brands that have won over our taste buds, grocery shelves, and portfolios. Most people are in one camp or the other, but these two companies are very similar in many ways. My blindfolded taste test can't tell them apart.

5. Since they are so dominant and so similar in their products and marketing, I have found that most people assume they are almost always efficiently priced and valued at about the same level. In this first look at the tools I have learned to use, a surprise may be in store for you.

 In valuing Coke and Pepsi, I am using a multi-stage correlation model. This model computes a correlation score, called R2, for eight different fundamental indicators for each company, such as earnings, dividends, sales, profit margin, GDP, etc., compared to changes in the company's annual stock prices. With both companies, the correlation, R2, between their annual dividends and stock prices is above 90%, and overrides the need to include any of the other fundamentals. Very simply, this means that over the last 15 years, the annual changes in the dividends for each company were able to explain 90% of the annual changes in its price. 

Next, look at each chart and note that stock prices are on the vertical axis and dividends per share are on the horizontal axis. The red line is the actual annual price over the last 15 years and the green line is the predicted price using the correlation formula. Here is where the model begins to talk. While these two companies are very similar in what they do, they are not similar in prospective valuation. PepsiCo's chart shows its current selling price of over $175.00 is well under its predicted price of $190.44. Coke's story is just the reverse. It is currently selling for over $68 per share, but its predicted price says it should sell for $63.74.

Remember, this analysis is pure math. It is not a deep analysis of each company's intrinsic value. This is just a statistically significant computation comparing the changes in each company's annual dividends with changes in their annual stock prices. Yet, with 90+% correlations for both companies, to ignore what the dividends are saying would be unwise. Indeed, these computations are saying Coke is over 15% more expensive than PepsiCo. A spread that wide would seem to favor PepsiCo at present. Next, however, we all know that the market always looks ahead. Next time I will share with you howe we can adjust the current valuations for a look into the future. In the meantime, let's just see how the the two stocks perform over the next few months.   

Don't Fret, It's Picks and Shovels Time in the AI Gold Rush

• Fears of a sharp economic slowdown, and worldwide heavy selling of stocks have hit U.S. stocks in recent weeks.

• Recent economic releases have shown that unemployment is rising, home sales are slowing, manufacturing production is softening, and wage gains are flattening out. These weaker economic data points have caused fears of a recession and a move out of stocks and into bonds. 

• This flight to safety has seen 10-year U.S. Treasuries to fall from near 4.75% a few months ago to 3.75% on Tuesday. The slowing economy fears have caused the S&P 500 to fall by nearly 10%. 

• The sell off in stocks and specifically in the tech stocks is hard to reconcile in the face of the solid second quarter earnings growth reports across almost all industry sectors, from AI leaders to banks and industrial companies.

• Does this big sell off mean the AI gold rush is already over? Moreover, does it mean the bull market in non-tech stocks, which was signaled in recent weeks, is also only a head fake?  

It is important to remember that gold rushes are driven by forces other than “there’s gold in them thar hills.”  At times, reality sneaks in to play a role in the pricing. The reality in this case is investors have become worried that the tech stocks have come too far too fast, and they no longer offer value at their inflated prices. There is nothing new about that worry. It’s very realistic and has been around as long as the tech stocks have been. The techs are trading at about 30-35 times earnings and projected to have earnings growth of 15-25% over the next 3-5 years. In an earlier post, I stated that if the current earnings projections for the techs and the S&P 500 prove correct for year-end 2024 and 2025, the market will go higher. My valuation model still says 5800 is the best guess of the current fair value of the S&P 500.

It is necessary to square the recent week economic news and sharp sell offs in worldwide stocksand interest rates with corporate earnings that are being reported every day. All these data

are being collected in the same time frame, and history tells us that earnings and dividend growth

have more predictive power in the long run than do changes in GDP and interest rates.

In my judgment, the billions of dollars that corporate America is investing in AI have not had nearly

enough time to find gold. We are in the “picks and shovels,” or early stages of the gold rush where

the miners are assembling the people and tools, and identifying where to mine. In short, nowthe big winners are the chip companies that manufacture the AI chips. The products

and services that will be forthcoming in the years ahead are still concepts. Yet, when giant sums

of capital are being placed in the hands and minds of the smartest tech people in the world,

life-changing products and services are assured.    

I believe an AI gold rush is underway. AI gold will be found and lead to huge stock gains in many existing, as well as start-up companies. My calling it a gold rush is not a total disparagement. The operative questions are: How much gold is there to be found, and who will find it? Almost certainly, too much money will ultimately join the gold rush, but it is far too early to declare AI dead. That being the case, the huge selloff in tech stocks is way overdone and offers a buying opportunity in the coming weeks and months.

Warren Buffett selling a huge chunk of Apple is probably the best news I have seen to assure us that AI has real merit. I am a great fan of Mr. Buffett, but he is anything but a gold rush player. He is strictly a “picks and shovels” guy. He did not sell out entirely. He just took some profits.   

In an earlier post, I said we are traversing a gold rush in AI, and almost all gold rushes end poorly for the average investor. However, for the recent sell off in AI and the stock market to be anywhere near correct, AI would have to be a complete bust. My bottom line is all gold rushes  are driven by periods of reality and illusion. AI has been called the driver of a new industrial revolution. That is big talk, but to say that AI is a bust is just as big an exaggeration.

Stay tuned.

It's Official: The AI Goldrush Is Underway

 

1. Near the end of the dot-com bubble in 2000, my business partner and I stumbled onto the notion that the techs were acting much like a gold rush. Gold was being found in the dot-com world and creating riches, but its passion was producing ever more gold miners with golden dreams.

2. Our company had traversed the dot-com craze during the late 1990s, chasing the gold like everyone else. But in early 2000, our valuation models simply could not justify the tech prices . .  . not by a mile.

3. A simple truth spoke to us: Never in the history of the US stock markets had an industry grown fast enough, long enough, to justify the prices of most tech and big consumer stocks.

4. We decided to cut back on the hottest of the highflyers. It changed our company and our lives forever.

This seemingly bold move was not based on something we were convinced we knew, but just the opposite. It was because we knew we did not know how to value the techs, and that being the case, we decided to stand aside. Even then, there was nothing bold about our decision to start cutting back on techs. In fact, we visited every client we had and admitted to them we believed the techs had reached the gold-rush state, but they might just keep going higher like they had over the last decade. The only thing we could say for sure was that our valuation models showed that many slower-growing companies were great values. We advised them we recommended placing sell orders 15% below the current prices on the six most overvalued tech stocks. Should any of these sell orders be triggered, we would invest the proceeds in undervalued dividend-paying stocks with dominant positions in their industries. 

During the year 2000, all six of the stocks' sell orders were triggered, and we bought financials, consumer staples, and industrial companies whose prices had gone flat in recent years because their sales and earnings were growing in the high single digits, much less than the 25-50% annual earnings growth of the techs. Interestingly, these undervalued dividend-paying stocks actually rose in 2000 when the overall market fell by over 10% and the dot-com gold rush ended. 

Why am I sharing this old tale? Am I predicting the AI gold rush is near its end? Indeed, are there other stocks that offer much better value with good prospects for future growth? No I’m not. I am announcing; however, that the gold rush in AI is now a reality and there are two truisms about gold rushes of the past. 1) When everyone, everywhere knows that an industry or a particular stock is the center of the investing universe, there is a good chance that everyone owns the stocks and the new money needed to push the stock higher will soon be tapped out. 2) The analysis at the end of gold rushes has always revealed that the companies that sold the picks and shovels for the miners were the best place to put your money, not in the gold miners themselves.

As one who is old enough to remember the dot-com collapse, my reason for writing this blog is to just give everyone a heads up that in my judgment, the AI phenomenon has officially reached the gold rush state. I said last time, my valuation models are showing that an S&P 500 level of 5700 is reasonable. If the AI world can produce overall sales and earning growth for corporate America of 11-12% over the next five years, the market is fairly priced. If earnings growth is higher than that, stocks still have a good run ahead of them. However, if the earnings growth falls back to a 7% or 8% handle, stocks will fall. Additionally, I do not see a long list of undervalued non-AI companies. Thus, I conclude the gold rush has room to run. I’ll keep you posted on what my models are saying as we go.

If you would like to communicate with me directly, email me at info@gregdonaldson.com  

Dividends and Earnings Say, The S&P's Current Price is About Right

The question I have been asked most in recent months is, "Is the current bull market in tech stocks signaling another dot-com massacre, or is it justified in light of the promise of AI?" 

1. Most of my questioners lived through the dot-com bubble of the 1990s and its subsequent crash in early 2000. In the late 1990s, the notion that computer and internet stocks could only go higher took hold, which proved dead wrong and devastating to many investors when some tech stocks fell by 90%. 

2. Nvidia and its artificial intelligence computer chips are skyrocketing in much the same way that Cisco and Intel did in the late 1990s, before crashing back to earth in 2000.

3. The Fed gives the impression that their rate hikes are finished, but inflation is still running near 3.5% and shows little signs of slowing on a month over month basis. 

3. If the Fed does not have inflation under control, a spike in long-term interest rates could cause another sell off in tech stocks just as it did in 2022. 

    One of the most disappointing aspects of modern day investing is we seem to have all become momentum investors. Find a winning stock, jump on board, and hope to sell out before it turns lower. Ben Graham's famous quote about how stocks operate is in full bloom today. He said, "In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighing machine." The point being, stock prices can be driven to ridiculous levels by short-term projections of how high is the sky, but ultimately, stock prices find their correct value. 

    Over the years, I have developed two stock market valuation tools. One looks back and is primarly earnings driven. The other looks forward and is dividend and interest rate driven. Dividends would seem to be a very pedestrian way to value a gold rush, but over the years, I have found the growth of S&P 500 dividends in combination with changes in long-term interest rates have been the best risk-adjusted predictor of S&P 500 prices. At present, my dividend discount model predicts that the fair value of the S&P 500 is approximately 5800. At 5300, that would mean stocks are modestly undervalued. However, one has to realize that the forward dividends and earnings estimates are heavily influenced by Wall Street's 3-5 year forward estimates for tech stocks. 

    My answer to the questions I have been receiving about the risks in the markets is a familiar one: "It depends." It depends on whether the AI and other high-flying tech stocks can deliver the dividends and earning growth Wall Street is now projecting. If the overall S&P 500 can deliver numbers reasonably close to the current estimates, the market is modestly undervalued and vice versa. I'll keep you posted in the weeks and months ahead how the estimates are holding up and measuring up, as well report on how interest rates are impacting my model.    

  

Paul Volcker Taught Us How to Tame Inflation

I started writing a monthly investment update for the investment firm I was with in 1975. I didn't know what I was doing at first, so the older people in the firm would feed me what to say, and I would write the update.  This was just a few years after the OPEC oil embargo and inflation had shot higher. As the months rolled on and inflation continued to rise, I found fewer and fewer of the old-timers were stepping up to tell me what to say, so I became a student of the Federal Reserve in order to have something halfway intelligent to say. That was no help for several years.  Inflation remained persistently high. At times, prices changed on grocery shelves and gas pumps while I was standing in front of them, ready to make a purchase.  Interest rates kept going higher and higher, and none of the Federal Reserve's rate hikes seemed to make any difference.  

An inflation mentality set in on Wall Street, Main Street, and Ivy Street. Inflation became a way of life. We had silly government programs such as Whip Inflation Now (WIN) and a lot of other kinds of cute sloganeering that was not rooted in any economic truth because very few people really understood inflation and how it worked. 

We all became followers of the money supply.  M1, M2, and M3 discussions went on at social gatherings like somebody somewhere knew what it all meant.  "Too many dollars chasing too few goods" became the wink and a nod answer to all things inflation.

There was one man who did understand what drove inflation and how to control it. His name was Paul Volcker. Volcker was promoted to chair of the Federal Reserve in 1979. He immediately began a series of rate hikes that would drive the Fed Funds rate up from around 11% in September 1979 to 20% in March 1981. The 6’7”, cigar-chopping man taught us all that in dealing with inflation, the right course of action was to use a leading interest rate strategy instead of a lagging strategy.  In effect, Volcker made it clear verbally and by his actions that wherever inflation went, he would push interest rates even higher. His leading strategy was truly remarkable, and it broke the back of the inflation panic that had been raging through the economy for years. Inflation peaked at 14.8% in March of 1980 and by 1983 had fallen below to near 3 %. 

Today, we face another inflation crisis and the same 'we got this thing under control' illusion that I watched play out for years in the late 1970s.  Modern Monetary Theorists, who spoke so boldly of 'we got this economic thing' and advocated dumping huge quantities of dollars onto anyone who could breathe, have become silent. They should have done so much sooner.

Inflation is as much of a psychological phenomenon as it is a monetary phenomenon. The present Fed has been saying 'we got this thing' for too long.  They are losing both the psychological battle as well as the monetary battle. They must come out of today's meeting with two huge changes in what they say and what they do.  First,  they must say "Paul Volcker taught how to tame inflation, and we are now following his playbook." Second, they must raise Fed Funds by at least 1% and promise even more 1% hikes in the future. Jerome Powell must ignore the politicians, jump straddle inflation, and fight it with tools history shows us have worked.  If he continues to bow down to the politicians and make small interest rate hikes, we may be fighting inflation four years from now.

I believe the stock market understands what needs to be done and will soon find a bottom if the Fed takes a tougher stance. If the Fed keeps nickleing and diming us along, stocks will likely keep falling because big investors know that the longer we allow the current lagging interest rate strategy to prevail, the worse will be the ultimate recession.

The illusion of 'we got this thing" should end today."         

Dividend Watch: Divi-Do Land

• Media headlines have growled that dividends were dying or dead for most of the last three months 

• Yet, few in the crowd of 'Divi-Don'ters' have bothered to chronicle the 'Divi-Doers.'

•  That's a shame because there is a splendid story in Divi-Do land.  

On April 7, we made the following statement:

    "We have long believed that dividends are the linchpin tying individual investors                   
      and corporations together.  With stocks careening all over the place, it would appear 
      that traders and speculators are betting that companies will break this bond.  
      We believe the bond will hold and provide an undergirding to the overall stock market."

Early on, over 20 S&P 500 companies announced dividend cuts, mostly in retail, energy, and travel and entertainment. In late March, estimates of dividend cuts by some observers for S&P 500 companies were as high as 35%.  But soon company after company began announcing that they intended to pay their dividends.  But that wasn't all; a surprising number of companies announced dividend hikes.  The table below shows the dividend actions of S&P 500 companies made from January through June 6, 2020. 

S&P 500 Company Dividend Actions 

Through June 6, 2020

Companies Paying Dividends Paid	Companies Cutting Dividendsd	Companies Raising Dividends
363	47	146

So far 47 companies have cut, suspended, or omitted their dividends.  That represents about 10% of the Index, but only about 3% of total dividend payments.  Wall Street now estimates that total S&P dividends for calendar year 2020 will fall approximately 2.5%.
        The reason the percentage total dividend cuts for the Index will be small is the 146 offsetting companies that are hiking dividends.  In addition, some of the dividend cutters, such as TJ Maxx, have announced they will reinstate payouts once they have assessed the damage from the quarantine. The dividend hikes have a median growth rate of almost 8%. 
        In analyzing the cash flows of hundreds of dividend-paying companies, it is clear many will be borrowing to pay their dividends.  That would have seemed like folly in a time of such great uncertainty.  We believe this commitment to paying a dividend is not well understood by many investors.  Companies know that many of their shareholders count on dividend payments to pay their bills.  They also know that millions of individual investors and thousands of dividend etfs and mutual funds will sell any stock that cuts their dividends.  Finally, these companies have experts advising them on the effects of the coronavirus and its impact on the economy both in the short run and in the long run.  These companies would not borrow to pay dividends if such an action would imperil their firm.  They are taking such actions because they have concluded that the doomsday scenarios spun by many politicians, media, financial analysts, and so-called scientists are far too pessimistic.  Life will go on, and as people return to the streets, business will come alive again.
        Think of it--almost 90% of S&P 500 companies that were paying a dividend before the coronavirus struck are still doing so in the face of the most horrific headlines since the 1930s.  Of this number, over 40% raised their dividends.  That's actual money going out the door.  Either these Divi-Do companies are daft or prescient.  We vote prescient.  

Sources: Bloomberg, Marketbeat, Seeking Alpha           

Dividend Watch: A Bar Bet You Will Win

• Here's a bar bet you can win:  What is the ratio of S&P 500 company dividend hikes to cuts year to date?
• Oops, I forgot the coronavirus has made bars and bar betting taboo for most of us.  Save this one until they open.
• While the dividend news has been much better than almost any of your bar buddies would guess, there is some not-so-good news creeping in. 

First the good news: Through last Friday, 369 companies have paid a dividend in 2020.  Of these dividend payers, 124 increased their dividends at a median rate of 8%.  

Now, the bad news: 39 S&P 500 companies have suspended, cut, or eliminated their dividends since the first of the year.  More on this later.  

Back to the good news: Dividend hikes have outnumbered cuts by over three to one.  That tidbit of dividend news will win you the drink of your choice at a time and place when you once again can have social distance with friends and colleagues.  The financial media has been so full of bad dividend news that most people will bet just the opposite of what has actually happened.

Back to the bit of bad news: Bloomberg now estimates that cumulative S&P 500 second quarter dividends will fall by approximately 2% from last year.  Bloomberg also is now forecasting that total dividends for the S&P 500 in 2020 will be slightly less than 2019.  I'll keep you posted on changes in the estimates as we traverse the rest of the year.  

We look for dividend news to calm down for a few weeks.  Dividend news is often announced at regular quarterly earnings reporting intervals.  These meetings will not return to full throttle until July.

As the country opens and people begin to move toward some level of normalcy, the economic picture will either become clearer or even more opaque than it has been for the last three months.  We said early on that the dividend actions of major American corporations would tell us a lot about how destructive the coronavirus would likely be to the economy for the long-term.  We believe the dividend actions year to date by major American companies are telling a much more positive story than the "things will never be the same again" crowd who know very little about economics and even less about the truth. 

Sources: Marketbeat, Simply Safe Dividends, Seeking Alpha, Bloomberg, Value-Line

       

Dividend Watch: New Data Show S&P 500 Dividend Payments Still Rising

• The percentage of S&P 500 companies paying dividends continues to be much better than was predicted two months ago.
• Dividend increases are running almost 3 times that of dividend cuts.
• Many companies are specifically committing themselves to honoring their dividends.

The news on dividend payments by S&P 500 companies continues to be better than many experts predicted in the early days of the coronavirus outbreak.  The table below shows the dividend actions of companies that either made a dividend announcement from March 1 through today, or paid a dividend during this time.

Dividend Actions by S&P 500 Companies 
March-May 4, 2020

Dividend Paid	Dividend Increased	Dividend Decreased
361	98	35

We are approaching the end of the initial round of dividend actions by S&P 500 companies since the onset of the virus, and so far the news is good for the overall stock market and income investors.  We are awaiting only nine companies that pay irregular dividends, usually annual or semi-annual payers, and 16 companies that did not make dividend payments or declarations in March or April.  We should be able to log the remaining companies over the next six weeks.  Remember, seventy-nine companies do not pay a dividend. 

        Even though the number of companies cutting dividends are the most in many years, we are not even close to the number of cuts in the 2008-2009 Great Recession.  This has surprised many observers because the economic impact of the massive country-wide shutdown is having a more negative effect on the overall U.S. economy than did the Great Recession.  Of even more interest, many companies are taking the unusual step of promising their shareholders that they are committed to paying their dividends and will cut them only as a last resort. The following are statements from some of the largest companies making these types of public statements:

United Parcel (UPS): Our dividend remains a high priority and is a hallmark of our financial strength. We are confident our actions will continue to enable us to fund the business and support shareowner interest.

Coke (KO): We will of course continue to focus on protecting the progress we made on working capital and free cash flow in 2019. And in this context, our capital allocation priorities remain very much focused on investing wisely to support our business operations and continuing to prioritize our dividend. Specifically, with regard to the dividend, we currently have no intentions to change our approach.

IBM (IBM): The key here for investors I think are two questions. One, in any of these scenarios, do you still have the strength of your cash, your liquidity position to ensure that you can, one, invest in your business to make sure as you come out of this—that you can emerge stronger. And two, can you maintain your capital allocation and your commitment to our investors with regards to the dividend, and both of these [we answer] emphatically, yes.         

Starbucks (SBUX): To further enhance our financial flexibility, we have also temporarily suspended our share repurchase program and are taking steps to defer capital expenditures and reduce discretionary spending. We do not expect to reduce our quarterly dividend.

Caterpillar (CAT): "We continue to expect our strong financial position to support the dividend. As a reminder, Caterpillar has paid a quarterly dividend every year since 1933 through a variety of challenging business conditions. We remain committed to returning substantially all our free cash flow to shareholders through the cycles." – CEO Jim Umpleby

Exxon Mobil (XOM):  After all, Exxon and its predecessors have paid uninterrupted dividends since 1882, and management continues to emphasize that "a reliable growing dividend" 

remains a priority.

Chevron (CVX): “Chevron’s financial priorities remain unchanged. Our focus is on protecting the dividend, prioritizing capital that drives long-term value, and supporting the balance sheet.” – Chevron CFO Pierre Breber

        Some of these companies, such as the oil companies, would almost certainly have to borrow to pay their dividends.  That might seem risky, but Exxon recently reaffirmed their continued dividend payments, indicating that nearly 70% of their shareholders were either individuals who count on the dividend income or long-term investors who seek stable growing income. 

        The dividend story of 2020 is still in the early stages, and the recent positive trends could change if the country's economy takes too big a hit from the shutdown and the virus, but the story thus far has been much brighter than observers were predicting.  We believe this is an indication that stocks have seen their lows and will continue to push higher.
        The other bit of good news is that total dividends paid by S&P 500 companies is still higher than it was a year ago.  With few exceptions, the companies cutting dividends have not been big dividend payers compared to the average S&P 500 company.  Thus the cumulative dividend increases from companies hiking their dividends has more than offset the dividends lost resulting from the cuts, even though the cuts on a percentage basis have been higher.

Dividend Watch: The Financial Media Are Barking Up The Wrong Tree

• The financial media are howling about all the companies cutting, suspending, or omitting dividends; but among S&P 500 companies, they are barking up the wrong tree.  
• Since March 1, only 28 of the S&P 500 have officially cut or omitted their dividends.
• That number of cuts pales compared to the 212 companies that have paid dividends and is blown away by the 103 companies that have raised their dividends.
• The financial media might be guilty of looking so hard for the bad news that they are ignoring the good news.
• Since March 1, nearly 50% of the 212 companies announcing or paying dividends have hiked them compared with just 13% that have cut them.  We expect more good news in the weeks ahead. 

The media are missing the powerful message that most major U.S. corporations are broadcasting:  "The coronavirus is devastating and creates much uncertainty, but we believe it will pass sooner than most headlines are stating"
         As I mentioned in a previous Dividend Watch, in 2008-2009 we noticed that apart from the banks, few U.S. companies were cutting their dividends in the face of the recession.  Indeed, much as today, many companies were hiking dividends.  That was one reason we became more optimistic that the credit crisis would be shorter and more shallow than was the consensus of the day.              The coronavirus pandemic is unlike anything we have ever seen, but the greatest corporations in the world are telling us, at least for the present, that tomorrow is coming and it will be much brighter than most of us now believe.
        You may argue with the point I'm making, but I believe the stock market has zeroed in on the net positive dividend actions of major corporations, and that is one of the reasons stocks are nearly 20% above their recent lows.

The following are the 28 S&P 500 companies that have cut or omitted their dividends.  We will have a list early next week of companies whose dividend may be in jeopardy.

S&P 500 Companies Cutting Their Dividends

 From March 1-April 24  

Alaska Air ALK	Darden Inc. DRI	Invesco Corp IVZ	MGM Corp MGM
Apache Energy APA	Estee Lauder Co EL	Nordstrom JWN	Noble Energy NBL
Aptiv PLC APTV	Ford Motors F	Kohl's Corp. KSS	Occidental Pete OXY
Boeing Corp BA	Freeport-McMoRan FCX	L Brands Inc. LB	PVH Corp PVH
Carnival Cruise CCL	Gap Inc. GPS	Las Vegas Sands LVS	Schlumberger Int'l SLB
CenterPoint Energy CNP	Hilton Worldwide HLT	Macy's Inc. M	TJ Maxx TJX
Delta Air DAL	Helmerich &Payne HP	Marriott Int'l MAR	Tapestry Inc. TPR