Intel: Ignoring The Facts Can Cost Investors Money Even With A 4.40% Dividend Yield [View article]
RS, And that makes this a good article. As a fellow author, I know there is a huge difference between laying out the reasons why YOU are doing something and making a recommendation that others do it. I never do the latter. I do lots of the former, and I make it clear that I am not presenting advice, just facts (as I see them) and my reasoning. That's exactly what you did. To me, you argued the bear case for Intel, and then since you are the jury for your own portfolio, you rendered the verdict too. For yourself. That is all proper. Others can state the bull case, or the neutral case, and reach their own conclusions. Personally I like articles like this that say what you are doing and why, as opposed to articles that make broad recommendations for "everyone." You did not do that, you porvided good food for thought. Long INTC, but examining it for the reasons you state. Dave
I hope David Fish sees this and comments, but I will speak for him for now. His state of the art CCC Dividend Champions document will correctly adjust dividend growth rates for accelerated dividends. And he has always ignored special dividends in calculating growth rates. I hope that every serious dividend growth investor uses his document as a basic research tool. It is unparalleled. It should have been mentioned in the article. Dave
The Unbridled Truth About Dividend Contribution To Shareholder Profitability [View article]
JWG,
That's a good comment with many great insights. That said, I think you have muddled a bit how the author arrived at his results. He did not "assume" them. He concluded them from studying many individual companies.
That is not just a semantic difference. The former implies a bias or a starting premise, the latter simply notes that he used actual data to arrive at a conclusion. One might disagree with his conclusion, but then it would be incumbent on them to provide data and reasoning that supports their disagreement.
In these debates in the past, my observation (this is a conclusion, not a premise) is that those who attack dividends do so on the basis of theory, while those who defend them use data. (Obviously, this general statement is not universally applicable, but I believe it is generally correct.)
I write a lot about dividend growth investing, and it is likely that many or most readers believe that I have a pro-dividend bias. But I did not get to my beliefs by starting with them as a premise. They are conclusions that I have reached after many hours studying the issue, including reading and participating in all of the debates of the last couple years here on SA. My mind is still open to counter-information, but such never gets presented. Just theories gets presented.
The flaw with the theories usually comes down to the same thing: Market effects are ignored. It's almost as if certain individuals are in denial about the Mr. Market. They can't (or won't try) to answer even simple questions about why actual data departs from their theoretical predictions.
In this article, Mr. Carnevale has presented a fact-based series of cases from which he has drawn a logical conclusion. You state, "Carnevale makes it sound as if he thinks paying a dividend is "extra", a freebie somehow. That cannot be." With all due respect, your "cannot be" is a theory, an apparent belief that the result could not possibly be correct. But the data suggests that it is. Do you have a different way to interpret the data, or do you have different data? Simply saying "it cannot be" does not suffice in the face of the evidence presented.
If these ongoing debates were a movie, it would be like "12 Angry Men," the famous courtroom drama. In that movie, most of the jurors start out with premises that lead them to state that the defendant is guilty. It seems like an open-and-shut case. "It cannot be" that he is innocent. Then one juror holds out, saying let's look at the evidence. One by one, the jurors become convinced in the other direction as they actually consider the evidence--along with reasonable inferences from the evidence--rather than just accepting their own initial beliefs.
I think that Chuck has presented a lot of evidence here. I also think that the gap between his conclusion and "it cannot be" is, as usual, market effects. To be specific, the market appears from the evidence not to deduct dividends from earnings in the "price discovery" process. Chuck states it this way: The market capitalizes all earnings, whether some of them are paid out as dividends or not. That conclusion, if true, would bridge the gap between theory and observed reality. There may well be a mountain of evidence that goes in the other direction, but it has not been presented in these debates.
A Constructive Critique Of Dividend Growth Investing [View article]
Adam,
Congratulations on a good article and especially on seeking a constructive tone.
Most of what I might have commented on is well covered by deedubs above. I adopt his comment in its entirety rather than repeat the same points here.
I do want to chime in on the price-drop issue. In one of your comments above, you said, "However, what I don't understand is when someone would prefer to see a stock drop so it hits a predisposed yield level than see it rise and potentially harvest a capital gain." To me, that sentence distills the differences between two points of view. One approach is to look to harvest capital gains. Another approach is to look to harvest growing dividend streams. The unstated element (as usual) is time: WHEN do you look to take your gains?
I adopt the Buffett approach: If you are a net buyer of stocks (which most everyone is during their accumulation years), then you are happy to see a stock go on sale. I think that applies to growth as well as value, dividend growth, and other strategies for stock investing.
Even though I am retired, I am still a net accumulator of stocks, as I harvest my other legacy investments. As I explained in a recent article, I am not looking to add fixed income, as my pension, SS, and legacy harvests combine to give my wife and me a comfortable standard of living.
I do need to cover for 30 years or more of inflation, and that's why I am tilting our holdings toward dividend growth stocks, which seem to me to be able to do that better than other instruments that I am comfortable with. The gradual tilting of our holdings (some might even call it a slow-motion rebalancing) comes from harvesting legacy stuff while at the same time reinvesting dividends and not selling those stocks (except in the normal course of buy-and-monitor portfolio management). Occasionally, I sell a legacy investment outright and just move the money all at once into the dividend growth side. That might happen, for example, if rate increases cause our small remaining bond fund holdings to stop outperforming.
So sure, since I am a net acumulator of stocks, I want to buy them at good valuations and higher yields, which go hand-in-hand. When I stop being a net accumulator, I suppose I'll be fine if each of my stock investments' prices go straight to the sky. But not now.
Again, congratulations on an even-handed article. It's generating a lot of well-thought comments, which is a tribute to your article as well as an extended learning experience for all of us. This is SA at its best, IMO
Pompano, I think there are two weak points in your comment. First, you generalize seemingly all SA as "apocalypse momentum players." I'm not even sure I understand what that label means, but each word individually--apocalypse, momentum, and players--does not accurately describe the kinds of dividend and dividend-growth investors that appear often in the income sections of SA. Since this article was posted to the Investing for Income and Income Investing Strategy categories, I think I am safe in assuming that much of its audience will be comprised of individuals that follow a dividend or dividend-growth strategy. Thus, I think that you have mischaracterized a whole lot of people.
Second, what is the point of the example of your friend's portfolio? Are you implying that serious dividend investors typically have portfolios that yield 2.5% and contain generally overvalued stocks? Is P/B the only valuation ratio that you consider? What is your friend's yield on cost? Does the steady collection of dividends help him sleep better at night? What is the long-term disaster that awaits him--underperformance in price? In total returns? That some day so much will be paid out in dividends that the companies will die for lack of "oxygen" (that is, cash to reinvest in themselves)?
Do Covered Calls Improve Expected Returns? [View article]
Tom,
This is a terrific article--fact-based and intelligently reasoned. As you know, I do not use options in my dividend-growth investing. This article gives me the basis to consider whether to try doing so, as it goes way beyond blanket statements like "you could improve your results a lot by writing covered calls" and the like. My takeaway at the moment is that the potential increase in performance is small--more meaningful over time--but that the work and study required to pick your spots may not make it worth the effort when compared to the payoff from investing that same time in stock selection and portfolio management. But I want to study your article again. Thanks for writing it.
A Simple Plan for Saving More Money [View article]
For me the key term is "financial illiteracy." Most SA readers have a higher degree of financial literacy than average. Many of us have planned well for retirement. We argue about the fine points of dividends vs. capital withdrawals, a total-return vs. income strategy, and so on. Most of the people in the statistics, I would imagine, would have no idea what we are talking about. This is a good article, but it's in the wrong place. This stuff needs to be taught in high school and college.
Some remarkably well-educated people are financially illiterate. That's not sustainable with the death of old-fashioned pensions. I'm sure it has not escaped attention that some of the best-off retirees are public employees, who--because of their unions--still enjoy old-fashioned pensions. Sometimes the nicest houses on the street are owned by former cops and teachers. Good for them, but that model no longer exists in the private sector.
Don’t Be Suckered by Stock Market Rally in 2010 [View article]
>>Nevertheless, after such a run-up, some consolidation is in order.<< Why? People have been saying this for several months. Nobody knows the future.
>>133 banks have failed, so far, by acting against their better judgment during the boom years.<< Are you sure they acted against their better judgement? Perhaps they were acting on their best judgement. A bank does not have to be in the TBTF category to make stupid decisions.
>>Investors have little choice but to pour their money into stocks, commodities or properties because deposits offer paltry returns while money printing turns their cash into trash.<< It's getting tiring hearing over and over that investors are being "forced" to do anything with their money. Anybody with a brain can make up their own mind. If you think an investment is too risky, don't invest in it! Millions of investors appear to be reaching exactly this decision, judging by the well-documented inflows into bond mutual funds and out of stock funds over the past several months. Chasing pots in poker is a bad idea; so is chasing returns in investing. Investors have plenty of choices.
>>whether the glass is half full or half empty is up to the analysts or big boys to decide.<< Another victim-statement. Whether the glass is half full or half empty is for each individual to decide, and then hold themselves accountable for their decisions, rather than blame "Da Boyz" whenever something doesn't go their way. Investing is not welfare...it requires thought and research, and I don't mean watching CNBC or believing everything an analyst has to say.
The Dividend Aristocrats: Where Have All The Bargains Gone? [View article]
Brad, Chuck has written more articles that should be EP's than you can believe. I have no idea how SA's scoring system operates such that it does not give an article like this a sufficiently high score to be an EP. Dave
Income Investors Should Still Be Buying Equities [View article]
Individuals who purchased stocks like these earlier than your article...those following a dividend growth strategy, for example...would probably not characterize 2010 and 2011 as bonkers or crazy. The market was doing what it ALWAYS does, going up and down, while those with a focus on growing their income could basically ignore that and monitor the dividend increases each year. As an addendum to your article, you ought to state how the dividend income flow from these stocks increased every year, as it usually does. The income flow is far less volatile than price, and it generally goes in one direction: up. I own six of the stocks on your list, all but one since well before your article. The dividend growth dynamic has been there for a long time. It is how many of our grandparents invested.
Spring Cleaning My Dividend Growth Portfolio [View article]
billshea,
Good grief. Name me five other writers on this site that have a public portfolio at all. As a writer, I am not obligated to disclose every investment in my private life. Or am I not allowed to have a private life?
I have explained this many times: This public demonstration portfolio is not the only money that my wife and I have invested. I have a significantly larger "Perpetual Dividend Portfolio" in our private life that is run according to the same rules and principles as this public one. Most of the holdings are the same. A few are different. Last year, we had some free money in our personal portfolio, and I used it to purchase Intel. That was AFTER I wrote up Intel here on SA as a promising dividend growth stock. I have disclosed my holding in Intel multiple times.
How much do I have to spell out for you? And for your information, I am not and do not feel "compelled to display only" this portfolio. I do not have to maintain or write up any public portfolio at all. Almost nobody else does it. I do it for educational value. If you find none, or believe that I lack credibility because I own other investments besides the portfolio described here, don't read my stuff. It's as simple as that.
12 Low-Risk Dividend Stocks for a Downturn [View article]
To the confirmed dividend-growth investor, the 2008 crash was a non-event or even a positive. If you were accumulating, it provided better bargains on stocks, increasing their yields (which is why you would be buying them, right?). If you were harvesting the dividends, they did not go down in the aggregate unless you were extremely unfortunate in your allocation to and handling of bank stocks. Other dividends just kept on going up.
Imagine there were a sister channel to CNBC called DNBC, where all they did was track dividends, with only an occasional mention of stock prices--the exact inverse of CNBC. What would they report? Mostly dividend increases, occasional features on stocks with dividends in danger. The ticker would stream by with every stock either marked UNCH (unchanged) or green showing a dividend increase. Stocks in red would be few and far between, and they would do feature stories on them, examining why those stocks cut their dividends. The talking heads would not be traders or hedge-fund managers, they would be individuals like D4L, who would say soothing things about dividends rising. They would have plenty of time to do long-form stories about the strategies of dividend investing. They would interview CEOs about the prospect of coming dividend increases.
There wouldn't be many disagreements, so it'd make for bad TV, but maybe they could gin up conflicts like whether dividend yields should be calculated to one decimal place or two, or whether it's valid to add yield + DGR to get an acceptable PE. "Breaking News" would be when Intel's price had dropped to the point that its yield had crossed above 4.0%. When they talked about price (rarely), maybe all charts would be displayed upside-down, so that price drops looked good.
2 Strategies to Build Massive Dividend Stock Portfolios [View article]
Thomas, This is the second post I have seen today making the same point: Past Dividend Champions have blown up.
We all know that is true. So have companies/stocks of every stripe, sector, investing style, domicile, dividend policy, etc. What's the point behind the point? What is the investing lesson to be learned from the undeniable fact that past Dividend Champions have blown up?
Here is what I learn from it: --Buy and monitor, don't buy and forget --Keep your eye out for unsupportable dividends or unsustainable dividend growth streaks, and strongly consider selling if a dividend turns into a "dividend in danger" --Strongly consider selling if a dividend-growth stock cuts its dividend --Strongly consider selling if a dividend-growth stock becomes wildly overvalued --Keep your eye out for strange-seeming changes in a company's dividend policy; you will be able to recognize such changes because you have become quite familiar with the stocks that you own and therefore monitor --Don't put all your eggs in one basket
Those are my takeaways from the "Dividend Champions blow up" fact. I'd love to hear you expound on yours.
Dividends in Danger? Worries About Sysco, Hudson City, Pitney-Bowes [View article]
Thanks for your first comment. Welcome aboard.
I didn't say the dividend was in danger, a reader suggested it. This is a new series idea, an experiment. For this first article, I made no value judgements as to what to include or exclude. I simply reported. I expect, as time goes on, if people think that this is a useful series, that comments will become more focused and supported by data and reasoning. If the series falls flat, it will be discontinued. The idea is to have a central repository for discussion of perceived dividends in danger rather than have them scattered all over the site.
Road Map for Managing a Dividend Growth Portfolio [View article]
frank, This is the constitution for a stock portfolio--hence no funds or ETFs. I own a few funds in areas that I don't understand very well--like bonds. I'm not anti-fund or anti-ETF. But in an area that I understand, such as dividend-growth investing, I prefer to do it myself. Frankly, I trust myself to do a better job than any fund manager. Plus it's fun.
Intel: Ignoring The Facts Can Cost Investors Money Even With A 4.40% Dividend Yield [View article]
Dave
Dividends' Unintended Consequences [View article]
Dave
The Unbridled Truth About Dividend Contribution To Shareholder Profitability [View article]
That's a good comment with many great insights. That said, I think you have muddled a bit how the author arrived at his results. He did not "assume" them. He concluded them from studying many individual companies.
That is not just a semantic difference. The former implies a bias or a starting premise, the latter simply notes that he used actual data to arrive at a conclusion. One might disagree with his conclusion, but then it would be incumbent on them to provide data and reasoning that supports their disagreement.
In these debates in the past, my observation (this is a conclusion, not a premise) is that those who attack dividends do so on the basis of theory, while those who defend them use data. (Obviously, this general statement is not universally applicable, but I believe it is generally correct.)
I write a lot about dividend growth investing, and it is likely that many or most readers believe that I have a pro-dividend bias. But I did not get to my beliefs by starting with them as a premise. They are conclusions that I have reached after many hours studying the issue, including reading and participating in all of the debates of the last couple years here on SA. My mind is still open to counter-information, but such never gets presented. Just theories gets presented.
The flaw with the theories usually comes down to the same thing: Market effects are ignored. It's almost as if certain individuals are in denial about the Mr. Market. They can't (or won't try) to answer even simple questions about why actual data departs from their theoretical predictions.
In this article, Mr. Carnevale has presented a fact-based series of cases from which he has drawn a logical conclusion. You state, "Carnevale makes it sound as if he thinks paying a dividend is "extra", a freebie somehow. That cannot be." With all due respect, your "cannot be" is a theory, an apparent belief that the result could not possibly be correct. But the data suggests that it is. Do you have a different way to interpret the data, or do you have different data? Simply saying "it cannot be" does not suffice in the face of the evidence presented.
If these ongoing debates were a movie, it would be like "12 Angry Men," the famous courtroom drama. In that movie, most of the jurors start out with premises that lead them to state that the defendant is guilty. It seems like an open-and-shut case. "It cannot be" that he is innocent. Then one juror holds out, saying let's look at the evidence. One by one, the jurors become convinced in the other direction as they actually consider the evidence--along with reasonable inferences from the evidence--rather than just accepting their own initial beliefs.
I think that Chuck has presented a lot of evidence here. I also think that the gap between his conclusion and "it cannot be" is, as usual, market effects. To be specific, the market appears from the evidence not to deduct dividends from earnings in the "price discovery" process. Chuck states it this way: The market capitalizes all earnings, whether some of them are paid out as dividends or not. That conclusion, if true, would bridge the gap between theory and observed reality. There may well be a mountain of evidence that goes in the other direction, but it has not been presented in these debates.
Dave
A Constructive Critique Of Dividend Growth Investing [View article]
Congratulations on a good article and especially on seeking a constructive tone.
Most of what I might have commented on is well covered by deedubs above. I adopt his comment in its entirety rather than repeat the same points here.
I do want to chime in on the price-drop issue. In one of your comments above, you said, "However, what I don't understand is when someone would prefer to see a stock drop so it hits a predisposed yield level than see it rise and potentially harvest a capital gain." To me, that sentence distills the differences between two points of view. One approach is to look to harvest capital gains. Another approach is to look to harvest growing dividend streams. The unstated element (as usual) is time: WHEN do you look to take your gains?
I adopt the Buffett approach: If you are a net buyer of stocks (which most everyone is during their accumulation years), then you are happy to see a stock go on sale. I think that applies to growth as well as value, dividend growth, and other strategies for stock investing.
Even though I am retired, I am still a net accumulator of stocks, as I harvest my other legacy investments. As I explained in a recent article, I am not looking to add fixed income, as my pension, SS, and legacy harvests combine to give my wife and me a comfortable standard of living.
I do need to cover for 30 years or more of inflation, and that's why I am tilting our holdings toward dividend growth stocks, which seem to me to be able to do that better than other instruments that I am comfortable with. The gradual tilting of our holdings (some might even call it a slow-motion rebalancing) comes from harvesting legacy stuff while at the same time reinvesting dividends and not selling those stocks (except in the normal course of buy-and-monitor portfolio management). Occasionally, I sell a legacy investment outright and just move the money all at once into the dividend growth side. That might happen, for example, if rate increases cause our small remaining bond fund holdings to stop outperforming.
So sure, since I am a net acumulator of stocks, I want to buy them at good valuations and higher yields, which go hand-in-hand. When I stop being a net accumulator, I suppose I'll be fine if each of my stock investments' prices go straight to the sky. But not now.
Again, congratulations on an even-handed article. It's generating a lot of well-thought comments, which is a tribute to your article as well as an extended learning experience for all of us. This is SA at its best, IMO
Dave
Understanding Compounding: Berkshire's Not-So-Hidden Dividend Contrarian Secret [View article]
Second, what is the point of the example of your friend's portfolio? Are you implying that serious dividend investors typically have portfolios that yield 2.5% and contain generally overvalued stocks? Is P/B the only valuation ratio that you consider? What is your friend's yield on cost? Does the steady collection of dividends help him sleep better at night? What is the long-term disaster that awaits him--underperformance in price? In total returns? That some day so much will be paid out in dividends that the companies will die for lack of "oxygen" (that is, cash to reinvest in themselves)?
Do Covered Calls Improve Expected Returns? [View article]
This is a terrific article--fact-based and intelligently reasoned. As you know, I do not use options in my dividend-growth investing. This article gives me the basis to consider whether to try doing so, as it goes way beyond blanket statements like "you could improve your results a lot by writing covered calls" and the like. My takeaway at the moment is that the potential increase in performance is small--more meaningful over time--but that the work and study required to pick your spots may not make it worth the effort when compared to the payoff from investing that same time in stock selection and portfolio management. But I want to study your article again. Thanks for writing it.
A Simple Plan for Saving More Money [View article]
Some remarkably well-educated people are financially illiterate. That's not sustainable with the death of old-fashioned pensions. I'm sure it has not escaped attention that some of the best-off retirees are public employees, who--because of their unions--still enjoy old-fashioned pensions. Sometimes the nicest houses on the street are owned by former cops and teachers. Good for them, but that model no longer exists in the private sector.
Don’t Be Suckered by Stock Market Rally in 2010 [View article]
Why? People have been saying this for several months. Nobody knows the future.
>>133 banks have failed, so far, by acting against their better judgment during the boom years.<<
Are you sure they acted against their better judgement? Perhaps they were acting on their best judgement. A bank does not have to be in the TBTF category to make stupid decisions.
>>Investors have little choice but to pour their money into stocks, commodities or properties because deposits offer paltry returns while money printing turns their cash into trash.<<
It's getting tiring hearing over and over that investors are being "forced" to do anything with their money. Anybody with a brain can make up their own mind. If you think an investment is too risky, don't invest in it! Millions of investors appear to be reaching exactly this decision, judging by the well-documented inflows into bond mutual funds and out of stock funds over the past several months. Chasing pots in poker is a bad idea; so is chasing returns in investing. Investors have plenty of choices.
>>whether the glass is half full or half empty is up to the analysts or big boys to decide.<<
Another victim-statement. Whether the glass is half full or half empty is for each individual to decide, and then hold themselves accountable for their decisions, rather than blame "Da Boyz" whenever something doesn't go their way. Investing is not welfare...it requires thought and research, and I don't mean watching CNBC or believing everything an analyst has to say.
The Dividend Aristocrats: Where Have All The Bargains Gone? [View article]
Dave
Income Investors Should Still Be Buying Equities [View article]
Spring Cleaning My Dividend Growth Portfolio [View article]
Good grief. Name me five other writers on this site that have a public portfolio at all. As a writer, I am not obligated to disclose every investment in my private life. Or am I not allowed to have a private life?
I have explained this many times: This public demonstration portfolio is not the only money that my wife and I have invested. I have a significantly larger "Perpetual Dividend Portfolio" in our private life that is run according to the same rules and principles as this public one. Most of the holdings are the same. A few are different. Last year, we had some free money in our personal portfolio, and I used it to purchase Intel. That was AFTER I wrote up Intel here on SA as a promising dividend growth stock. I have disclosed my holding in Intel multiple times.
How much do I have to spell out for you? And for your information, I am not and do not feel "compelled to display only" this portfolio. I do not have to maintain or write up any public portfolio at all. Almost nobody else does it. I do it for educational value. If you find none, or believe that I lack credibility because I own other investments besides the portfolio described here, don't read my stuff. It's as simple as that.
Dave
12 Low-Risk Dividend Stocks for a Downturn [View article]
Imagine there were a sister channel to CNBC called DNBC, where all they did was track dividends, with only an occasional mention of stock prices--the exact inverse of CNBC. What would they report? Mostly dividend increases, occasional features on stocks with dividends in danger. The ticker would stream by with every stock either marked UNCH (unchanged) or green showing a dividend increase. Stocks in red would be few and far between, and they would do feature stories on them, examining why those stocks cut their dividends. The talking heads would not be traders or hedge-fund managers, they would be individuals like D4L, who would say soothing things about dividends rising. They would have plenty of time to do long-form stories about the strategies of dividend investing. They would interview CEOs about the prospect of coming dividend increases.
There wouldn't be many disagreements, so it'd make for bad TV, but maybe they could gin up conflicts like whether dividend yields should be calculated to one decimal place or two, or whether it's valid to add yield + DGR to get an acceptable PE. "Breaking News" would be when Intel's price had dropped to the point that its yield had crossed above 4.0%. When they talked about price (rarely), maybe all charts would be displayed upside-down, so that price drops looked good.
2 Strategies to Build Massive Dividend Stock Portfolios [View article]
We all know that is true. So have companies/stocks of every stripe, sector, investing style, domicile, dividend policy, etc. What's the point behind the point? What is the investing lesson to be learned from the undeniable fact that past Dividend Champions have blown up?
Here is what I learn from it:
--Buy and monitor, don't buy and forget
--Keep your eye out for unsupportable dividends or unsustainable dividend growth streaks, and strongly consider selling if a dividend turns into a "dividend in danger"
--Strongly consider selling if a dividend-growth stock cuts its dividend
--Strongly consider selling if a dividend-growth stock becomes wildly overvalued
--Keep your eye out for strange-seeming changes in a company's dividend policy; you will be able to recognize such changes because you have become quite familiar with the stocks that you own and therefore monitor
--Don't put all your eggs in one basket
Those are my takeaways from the "Dividend Champions blow up" fact. I'd love to hear you expound on yours.
Thanks,
Dave
Dividends in Danger? Worries About Sysco, Hudson City, Pitney-Bowes [View article]
I didn't say the dividend was in danger, a reader suggested it. This is a new series idea, an experiment. For this first article, I made no value judgements as to what to include or exclude. I simply reported. I expect, as time goes on, if people think that this is a useful series, that comments will become more focused and supported by data and reasoning. If the series falls flat, it will be discontinued. The idea is to have a central repository for discussion of perceived dividends in danger rather than have them scattered all over the site.
Road Map for Managing a Dividend Growth Portfolio [View article]