11/21/2013 12:45 AM ET|
Is dividend investing doomed?
It's time investors stopped worshiping at the altar of dividend stocks, and started weighing whether they are truly as low-risk as they used to be.
I like juicy yields as much as the next guy, since I personally lean towards buy-and-hold investing for the long-term with reinvested dividends.
But frankly, the constant drum-beating around the power of dividend payers gets on my nerves.
It's about time investors stopped worshiping at the altar of dividend stocks, and start thinking seriously about the relative risk of dividend stocks -- and more importantly, whether this particular corner of the equities market is truly as low-risk and income-rich as it used to be.
The appeal of dividends is undeniable, especially in this low-rate environment where there simply aren't any interest-bearing assets. And it's undeniable that many retired Americans are in a financial situation where income via reliable dividend payers makes a lot of sense.
But if you need proof of just how fashionable -- or darn near bubble-like -- income investing is, just consider that the newly created Retirement Income Certified Professional is the hottest designation for financial advisors in the 87-year history of the American College of Financial Services.
When fee-based advisors are clamoring to be experts in a given discipline in order to get in front of more customers, that tells you something.
The popularity of dividend stocks over the last few years is obvious, and has resulted in a seismic shift in valuations for this once-sleepy sector.
As Mebane Faber of Cambria Investment Management recently pointed out, dividend stocks that normally trade at a deep discount to the broader market are now trading for a significant premium. Consider that in 1997, the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of defensive sectors characterized by dividend payers was sometimes as much as 40 percent below the relative P/E of the broader market . . . but in 2013, defensive dividend payers are trading for a 20 percent premium.
So much for low-risk investments if you're paying a higher relative earnings multiple than the other stocks on Wall Street.
Interestingly enough, despite this expansion in valuation multiples, there has been a simultaneous contraction in dividend payout rations. Every dividend investor knows this -- with dividends going from about three-quarters of corporate profits around World War II to about 50 percent in the 1970s and 1980s to roughly 30 percent after the damage of the Great Recession.
There are a host of items to blame for this trend. There's the rise of tech stocks like Apple (AAPL) and Cisco (CSCO) and Oracle (ORCL) that make up a large part of the S&P 500 Index ($INX) now, but up until recently haven't paid a dime . . . and remain miserly with their payout ratios even after instituting a dividend. There's also the general sense that corporations are hoarding their profits instead of distributing money to shareholders, with non-financial stocks now sitting on over $1.5 trillion in cash and investments.
But any way you slice it, dividends aren't what they used to be as a share of the profits.
Josh Brown over at The Reformed Broker shared a Merrill Lynch tidbit recently that pointed out the change in beta across market sectors. And surprisingly, the beta -- roughly translated as "volatility" to those who don't know their Wall Street Greek -- of historically low-risk sectors like telecoms, staples and utilities has been on the rise. On the other hand, historically cyclical and volatile sectors like materials and financials are seeing their beta readings fall.
In plain English, this means that what you thought of as sleepy stocks are now supercharged -- with the ability to deliver big outperformance or underperformance, depending on the environment.
And forget about beta -- what about alpha, or the ability to move in opposite of the broader indexes instead of marching in the same direction? Consider 2011, where the broader S&P index and the Utilities SPDR ETF (XLU) put up 14 percent returns in calendar 2011. Or more recently in the last three months, where supposedly bulletproof blue-chips AT&T (T) and Procter & Gamble (PG) have been fighting just to break even while the broader S&P 500 is sitting on almost 3.5 percent gains.
Not exactly your grandad's slow-and-steady dividend stocks, eh?
Income is nice, but if you are exposing yourself to massive capital risk in dividend stocks then perhaps you need to reconsider your definition of low-risk investing.
Precious few options
These are uncomfortable realities of dividend investing in the wake of the financial crisis, as well as the harsh truth of what it's like to seek income under the yoke of a Federal Reserve funds rate that is effectively zero.
The volatility is up, the dividends are down and investors are paying a premium for this risky combination.
But what are the alternatives? Even if inflation remains low enough for the meager returns on Treasurys and corporate bonds to keep pace with inflation, that's cold comfort for those investors who still need to grow their funds instead of just bleed them down to live off of.
And furthermore, even if you are comfortable with 0.9 percent in a "high yield" CD, a good investment portfolio is always diversified to have some equity exposure -- and like it or not, dividend-paying blue-chips remains the go-to asset of choice.
It is obviously an overreaction to say we are witnessing the death of dividend investing, since we will always have corporations that deliver cash back to shareholders in some manner and there will always be a place for these stocks in a good investing portfolio.
But it is not too crazy to posit that we could be witnessing the end of low-risk dividend investing.
Because even if companies keep dishing out the dividends, unless the premium paid on income stocks or the low payout ratios begin to reverse course, this corner of Wall Street has dramatically changed over the past few decades.
And certainly not for the better.
More from MarketWatch:
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
I'm figuring that no matter what intelligent people say about the markets, unintelligent people will assume it's code for-- keep all in even though I don't know what I'm doing.
JCP's comeback tragedy... $1.97 items, Amazon makes billions but not-for-profit, Wal-Mart employees have a Food Drive for themselves because they can't live on substandard pay, McDonald's tells it's workforce- stop whining, auto sales lead us through the Shutdown, but 90 Million Americans are under or unemployed and likely cannot afford one, tens of thousands of publicly traded business platforms have an executive management body but drop ship imported goods, we can like commercials but can't recall the business, virtual business models IPO but don't sell or make goods, just run ads. There are more than $700 TRILLION in derivatives outstanding. Wouldn't you figure that ANYTHING you throw $700 TRILLION at will thrive? Why isn't this economy thriving then? Why is it STILL dying? Because... what shouldn't have survived was-- the stock and bond markets and the top 5% earners. unfortunately, those were the only things saved and they are meaningless and worthless
Welcome to the dark side of, accommodative Fed policy (aka printing money faster than an army of teenage girls can spend it).
After the thrill of watching your losses recover from the last bubble, every investment becomes too expensive and too risky for most people to afford.
I invest long term and if I don't sell any stock and it doesn't pay dividends or royalties I never get paid. I might as well just hand my money to the company executives and tell them to do whatever they want with it. A stock can lose value at any time but they can't take dividends back once they are paid. I will not buy a stock if it does not pay a dividend or royalty. I reinvest most of my dividends but almost never in the stock that paid it. If I feel the market is stable I invest my dividends in other dividend paying equities. If I feel the market is unstable or I can't find a good investment I invest in precious metals.
It also makes me feel better when the stock closes at a loss and I can look at the dividends that it has paid. So what if PM was down 2.17 yesterday and I lost $542,500.00 I can look at the $1,042,500 in dividends and $1,242,500 in capital gain over the last 18 months and all is well.
When a article starts out with "worshiping at the altar" comments, you immediately start to raise a red flag. Dividend stocks are great cash flow for either reinvesting or your income. What are you going to get from a CD? .9% is high yield ? Truly pitiful, although to be fair, the author did qualify his statement with " dividend- paying blue chip stocks are still the go-to asset choice."
Remember: the three most important things in your portfolio are: Diversification, Diversification, Diversification !!!
As with every other stock investment, you need to be selective in what divdend paying stocks you buy. While some may be relatively "expensive" compared to what they sold for one year ago, what has to be considered is that for companies which increase their dividend virtually every year, the increased dividends will justify the price you are paying now to buy in.
That being stated, dividends are an excellent way over time to accumulate wealth, but it's certainly no guarantee. Other than dividends already paid out, you can lose 100% of what's left. Moving forward there are clear and present dangers. It matters not if that is this year or next or 5 years from now. What matters, things are changing quickly and for the worst. Nor did this happen overnight, it has been literally decades in the making.
Folks that are really clueless about the Actual Long term, will always say nobody knows and or since you can predict when, keep it all in. That's pure nonsense. You lock in profits when you can get them and always be ready to pull everything else out if you feel it's the right time for you. Never buy into this, well in the past it has always done this. BS.
Nothing ever stays the same. We know things aren't alright simply due to the fact that our FED alone has a nearly $4Trillion dollar bloated balance sheet. We know things aren't alright due to declining wages and so many folks underwater on their homes. We know things aren't alright as a living wage has become a thing of the past but inflation has not. Ignoring Reality just to pump more folks in never ends well.
CL;You`re going to tell me you`re an expert on Ohio property values?Nobody wants to live
in cold climates unless you`re a skier.He gets monthly rent but not what he feels he should.
He`s tired of the upkeep.He wishes he had great stocks like me.If I`m ever in a pinch I can sell
a stock in 2 minutes.Try doing that with real estate.
Essentially, investing in stocks will become pointless. Financial system, the way it is, will stop working. Unstable. Yep.
I`ll always be a dividend investor.My brother has 9 rental properities he can`t sell and if he
raises rent the renters will move.It might be 20 years before housing prices break even for
Same old ****!
Stock go down yesterday because of this and that.
It go up today because of this and......
We all know the truth.
Economy will be great if investor just buy stock, but don't sell.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] Recent action saw the S&P 500 (+0.1%) slip to a session low, while the Nasdaq Composite (-0.1%) is now in the red.
The tech-heavy Nasdaq has trailed the S&P 500 since the start and has been pressured into negative territory by the continued underperformance of chipmaker stocks. The PHLX Semiconductor Index has widened its loss to 0.8% amid weakness in 29 of its 30 components.
Furthermore, the index has also been pressured by the biotech group, which has ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'