Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

David Fish  

View David Fish's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    As I recall,the "Low D" article was instantly attacked by the "Dividends are irrelevant" crowd...who universally neglected to include smiley faces...:(
    Apr 23, 2015. 07:12 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    li,
    No problem...it's not always easy to find a link when you're writing about something. No apology needed...;)
    Apr 23, 2015. 07:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 7% Raise For The Dividend Growth 50 [View article]
    Well...with JNJ's nice 7.14% dividend increase, I imagine Mike's 7% growth number for the DG50 is holding up pretty good, eh?
    Apr 23, 2015. 07:02 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 7% Raise For The Dividend Growth 50 [View article]
    "other than to do nothing (which is another kind of mistake)"

    That's why one of my favorite "mottos" is "Dare to be Stupid!" (You might turn out to be doing something stupid...or something really cool, but you'll never know unless you Dare to try.)
    Apr 23, 2015. 06:58 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    "If total sales were 0, would the turnover rate be 0?"

    Hmmm...you may be right! So maybe there are sales, after all...which makes you wonder how they can avoid making capital gains distributions,unless they have net realized losses, which seems unlikely in the current environment.

    That's why I called the issue a potential "mystery" in the first place. It's conceivable that they could find "some" losses to take...companies that cut their dividends or otherwise stopped qualifying as the "top 100" DG stocks, and that amount of losses could be matched to a similar amount of gains, resulting in a net gain or loss of Zero. But that seems unlikely to fully result in the necessary rebalancing...unless they limit the rebalancing to what they can manage in the way of gains that match losses in order to avoid distributions. Unless they spell out the process in great detail (unlikely), we may never know.

    BTW, the idea that we generally have of turnover...selling one thing and buying another...actually dictates the logic and practice of using the LESSER of total sales or total purchases, simply because the lower number defines the degree to which sales were matched by equal purchases (literally turned over or into another holding). The excess sales or purchases...the difference between the lower and HIGHER number...simply represents sales that were never used to make purchases OR purchases that never came from sale proceeds.
    Apr 22, 2015. 11:47 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    "(total costs including turnover trading costs is 0.07%)"

    If you mean commissions by "trading costs," then No...those are NOT included in the expense ratio. Commissions attach themselves to the shares bought and sold, so they are a "hidden cost" in any fund, including ETFs. Of course, it's entirely conceivable that a large ETF may be afforded "zero commission" treatment so that even those "hidden" costs might disappear as a factor.

    One possible "mystery" lies in the fact that SCHD has had no capital gains distributions...despite the fact that and net gains that are realized are legally required to be distributed, at least on an annual basis. Tie this to the 26% turnover ratio...and recognizing that the turnover ratio is the LESSER of total purchases OR total sales...and it seem quite possible that SCHD achieves its rebalancing solely by purchasing the necessary shares to increase positions to their desired levels, without any sales whatsoever. (If there are sales, there should be capital gains that are required to be distributed.) Such a "Buy Only" method of rebalancing could only be possible with strong and continuing inflows of capital...which I'm sure is borne out by the Net Asset growth since the ETF was first offered. That strong inflow may continue for some time...which would help it to avoid capital gains distributions and keep the expense ratio extremely low.
    But...as some DG detractors are fond of postulating, once the DG "fad" peters out, the ETF would likely have to distribute some capital gains and the expense ratio could start to rise, especially if the net inflows turn into net outflows.
    Apr 22, 2015. 05:23 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    "The exact opposite is desirable, as you want more of the undervalued and less of the overvalued."

    Absolutely agree, but it's mind-boggling how strongly conventional practice adheres to Cap Weighting...which does work to the extent that the buying of the "biggest" tends to drive those stocks higher...but only as long as the "misguided" support continues.
    Apr 22, 2015. 05:08 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    Alan,
    I tend to think of "noise" as a much larger component...up to 99%! But that's a matter of interpretation of what constitutes "noise," of course. (In my own simplistic construct, I see only three things affecting stock prices:
    1. Earnings
    2. Dividends
    3. Noise
    If you see earnings and dividends as being only quarterly events, then it's easy to picture "noise" as the other 99% of what moves trading on any given day...including the "noise" of earnings and dividend speculation and "chatter.")
    To my way of thinking, NO stock can be perfectly priced because not only is all "known" information being continually digested, but there is also plenty of "unknown" information...which, by definition, cannot be factored into the pricing...and that "unknown" information is dynamically being created every second of every day. If EMH limits itself only to "known" information (which seems to be the case), then how can it possibly be right?!
    Apr 22, 2015. 03:27 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    I have to chuckle at some of the "weighting" schemes within ETFs and even the underlying indices. It strikes me as suspiciously similar to "asset allocation," a favorite ritualistic approach of MPT (Modern Portfolio Theory) and boils down to a giant shell game..in which "investment professionals" seek to dazzle the rubes by shifting countless peas under limitless cups, while telling them, "This is how we spread the risk and get exposure to potential returns, which may show up at any time in any sector, country, and industry. DON'T try this at home."
    Apr 22, 2015. 03:03 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    ...not to mention HAS, CBRL, WBA, and even TGT during the past year. Or, to put it another way...it's not a stock market, it's a market of (mispriced) stocks...:)

    (You can probably tell that I'm a believer in the INefficient Market Hypothesis, or IMH...not the EMH. As opposed to the EMH theory that prices always reflect all that is known, the IMH would suggest that ALL stocks are ALWAYS mispriced to one degree or another...or, in the extreme, that is virtually impossible for any stock to be properly valued except by coincidence. It's the old "price vs. value" conundrum.)
    Apr 22, 2015. 02:50 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    I suspect the limitation is centered around Risk...as in, managers seeking higher (personal) return being willing to take on more risk...with client money, of course. Not a good formula for a manager/client relationship.
    Apr 22, 2015. 02:44 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    Just a guess, but I think the SA 60-month Beta is probably calculated based on the portion of the 60 months that actually existed...much like a Yahoo quote will show a 52-week price range, even if a stock has only traded for 8 months. The number is "true" but for a lesser period. (since inception)
    Apr 22, 2015. 10:56 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    I would definitely have to treat them like companies with fluctuating dividends - like foreign firms with currency exchange - and not be able to determine if they had another increase until the last payment of the year, comparing the totals this year vs. last year.
    ...and a lot would be missing, like Earnings for P/E and Payout Ratio, etc. Not likely to happen.
    Apr 22, 2015. 12:53 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Purchased Schwab's U.S Dividend Equity ETF As A Dividend Growth Investment [View article]
    Miss...I'm not planning to add ETFs to the CCC (which is a listing of COMPANIES that have paid higher dividends. I think adding ETFs would simply muddy things, not to mention being additional work.
    Apr 21, 2015. 05:11 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 7% Raise For The Dividend Growth 50 [View article]
    "transcendental functions"

    Is that like a cocktail party at the Mahareesh Yogi's house???
    Apr 21, 2015. 05:02 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
8,444 Comments
30,129 Likes