Seeking Alpha

Dividend Growth Investor

View as an RSS Feed
View Dividend Growth Investor's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Dividend Stocks Are Not Expensive And They Beat Cash In The Bank Any Day [View article]
    WallStreetDebunker,

    I was going to respond to you, but then I remembered a nice saying from Charlie Munger:

    "Never wrestle with a pig, for if you do, you will both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it"
    Jul 8 08:48 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Warren Buffett Earns $900 In Dividends Per Minute [View article]
    I submitted an edit to say $900/minute.
    Jul 6 08:07 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Companies I Am Considering For My Roth IRA [View article]
    Thanks for info TXWoodworker. Which broker do you use to hold those banks in an IRA?

    Thanks!

    DGI
    Jun 19 11:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Personal Dividend Objectives Versus The Market Environment [View article]
    I usually do not respond to comments, unless they are from someone who really doesn't know what they are talking about, yet are unusually cocky in their abilities ( or ignorant of the lack of those abilities). I am not trying to be mean or harsh with this comment, but I am writing it in order to educate Paul, and hopefully educate everyone here in order to prevent them from doing foolish things such as withdrawing 6% from a 50% stock/50% bond portfolio. Check this chart first:

    http://bit.ly/1gAHeLl

    Paul's comments struck me as unusually arrogant, yet lacking much in substance. I found it particularly funny that he said this, since he doesn't have much factual substantiation behind his words: "That is a misleading and potentially frightening statement and I urge retirees with a $500,000 portfolio and $30,000 of annual expenses to disregard it. "

    How do I know he doesn't know what he is talking about? First, he talks about 6% withdrawal rate, but he also ignores inflation. Second, he supports a 6% withdrawal rate from a nest egg, by advocating a 50% stock/fixed income split without bothering to tell readers how this might have worked in the past. If he had bothered to learn about studies done on safe withdrawal rates, he would have learned that a 6% withdrawal could result in very short retirement spans, that could mean a very high probability of running out of money within 15-20 years or so.. I would not want be 80-85 years old, and running out of money. Pauls advise is really dangerous for retirees, because it tells them to use their retirement nest eggs the same way that people used to use their houses before the housing crisis. It is really dangerous because he expects smooth increases of stock prices, which of course never happens.

    http://bit.ly/1gAHhqB

    I am just sitting here, thinking to myself, why do people like Paul exist? Why don't they bother to learn about market history before speaking out? I then remind myself that the market is full of people who never bother to learn, and are eventually washed out. Unfortunately, for people who follow Paul's advise, they might be in for a very very very crude awakening when they turn 80 or 85, and run out of money. I doubt many companies would hire someone at that age who also hasn't worked for 15 - 20 years..
    May 17 11:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Be An Arrogant Dividend Growth Investor [View article]
    Dividend Dynasty,

    Your comment would have been valid, if you had actually held the same 15 names for the past 5 years. However, based on what you have disclosed on this site, you have had quite the turnover in your portfolio since 2011. You have experienced quite a lot of dividend freezes (INTC, LLY, TEG to name a few). So therefore, please do not come here throwing off misrepresented statistics, and try to mislead people that concentrated is better.

    In addition, please do not talk to me about ratings by agencies. That shows to me that you are outsourcing your analysis to a third party, which is not something that you should be doing as a heavily concentrated investor. Quite the opposite, you should be devouring the 10K, 10Q and Press Releases coming out of those companies. Plus, in the past both GM and EK had been rated triple-A, and those didn’t turn out well for investors.

    You claim to have a great return in the past five years on stocks you have held for less than 2 years, while conveniently “ignoring” the result of the other companies that you sold off.

    I was also turned off by you mentioning some greek alphabet letters, which I am not sure how they help out in actual dividend investing.

    On the positive side however, I believe a large portion of your picks are solid companies, which would likely do pretty well. Of course, if there is a change that happens in 5 – 10-15 years, that none of us could even conceivably think about, you could be in trouble. But then, that’s your money, and you can invest it as you please.

    I wish you good luck in your dividend investing journey!

    Dividend Growth Investor
    May 7 06:37 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 12 Dividend Machines Raising Distributions For Investors [View article]
    You just hand picked three companies, and made a conclusion based on that. This is not an example of the serious research I was requesting from, that should support your thesis of what is “right” or “wrong”. Hence my comment that you are talking out of your hat, which you are.

    In other words, you came up with a conclusion that something is the way you think it should be, and then you only looked for evidence supporting your thesis. This was very obvious to me after reading your first comment. This is the wrong way to look at things.
    May 5 11:49 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 12 Dividend Machines Raising Distributions For Investors [View article]
    Show me the academic research that supports your thesis. (or any objective research that can be relied upon, which had a statistically valid sample ). Also show me the proof that the paragraph is “wrong”.

    The thing is, you can’t, because you are talking out of your hat.

    PS The statement you are making is complete BS – “How often have you seen companies raise dividends and then tank after they are forced to reduce or even cancel them altogether?”

    If you have bothered to look at actual data, rather than talking out of your hat, you would have learned that your statement is incorrect.

    Thanks to people like you, inefficiencies in the stock market exist, and people like me make a lot of money in dividends and capital gains. So please, spread your disinformation.
    May 5 08:54 AM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • When To Buy Dividend-Paying Stocks? [View article]
    I create a portfolio list in Yahoo Finance. It provides me information for those companies on the parameters used above. I also have a list I maintain at home of companies, streaks of dividend growth, historical dividend growth, earnings/revenue growth (you can use David Fish CCC list). I bump results of both sources (Yahoo and my list) together and screen.

    Screening is part of the picture - here's why:http://bit.ly/1eJd1m5

    It is much better to have a watchlist of 100 - 200 or so companies, and monitor them regularly.
    Apr 19 08:21 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • These Companies Have Paid Dividends For Over 100 Years [View article]
    Hi Mike,

    I am sorry, I didn't mean to come out too strong or rude. I was mostly dissapointed with myself that I might not have communicated my article well.

    I enjoy your articles, and hope you manage to inspire more investors to reach their financial goals.

    Best Regards,

    DGI
    Mar 31 06:36 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • These Companies Have Paid Dividends For Over 100 Years [View article]
    Hi Mike,

    The reason why I asked you the question is because your comment indicated that you either haven't read the article, or didn't understand reasons behind companies outlined there. I therefore did not think your comment was relevant. That being said, everyone can write what they want, but I guess I had higher expectations from you based on my reviews of your work which I like.

    As was mentioned in the article "This list is by no means a complete one of course, but it includes those rare companies that have listed their complete dividend histories, spanning back over one century"

    Therefore, by you pointing out GIS, which does not have the complete listing of all their dividend payments over the past 115 years, indicates that you either haven't read the article, or didn't understand reasons behind companies outlined there
    Mar 30 04:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • These Companies Have Paid Dividends For Over 100 Years [View article]
    Hi Mike,

    Did you even bother reading the article before commenting?
    Mar 27 09:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • These Companies Have Paid Dividends For Over 100 Years [View article]
    I could only verify complete histories for those 4. Check links included here:

    http://bit.ly/1hZuoSd

    Dividend Growth Investors
    Mar 27 07:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Target: Why Did I Purchase This Dividend-Paying Company For A Third Month In A Row? [View article]
    Lake,

    I believe you are having some of your facts confused.

    When you buy TGT stock, you are buying partial ownership of Target Corporation. Target corporation owns assets such as Target Stores, Target.com etc. The corporation can buy and sell assets, and it can change its name as it pleases.

    So now that you learned something new today, lets go through the motions of what I am saying.

    The corporation which is now known as Target, that owns Target stores, was originally named Dayton Hudson. If you had bought Dayton Hudson 46 years ago, you would have been able to receive higher dividends for 46 years in a row. In the meantime, your Dayton Hudson stock would have been renamed Target. That doesn’t change absolutely anything for you as a shareholder – you kept receiving a higher dividend check for 46 years in a row. The corporation’s management worked in your best interest to develop, buy and sell different stores over the years. But change is natural. So whether they rename the corporation in the future to Bullseye or whether they build Target Mexico or start a chain of dollar stores called BullsEye that takes off, is irrelevant.

    That being said, I am pretty confident that Target Stores and Target Corporation will be around in 20 years. Of course, as a Dividend Growth Investor, I have a reasonable estimate of when to get in, and when to get out if I am wrong. So let’s revisit this discussion in 2034.
    Mar 20 01:47 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Colgate-Palmolive Delivers A Disappointing Dividend Increase [View article]
    Hi Alex,

    The price of $1.43 you see is adjusted for historical splits. That way, you can easily compare the current price versus the price it was in 1985, adjusted for the splits.

    In order to come up with that price you would obtain the historical price from Yahoo on last day of 1985: $22.91 (Source: http://yhoo.it/1pfrUle)

    The next step is determining how many stock splits were there between 1985 and 2014. Yahoo Finance shows the following:
    Splits: May 16, 1991 [2:1], May 16, 1997 [2:1], Jul 1, 1999 [2:1], May 16, 2013 [2:1] ( Source - Check the splits directly from under the stock chart: http://yhoo.it/1pfrWcZ )

    To come up with the $1.43 split adjusted price, I divided the $22.91 price by 16. (Or alternatively, you can divide the 22.91 price by a factor of 2 on four times).

    So in other words, if you put $1000 in CL at 22.91 you got ~43.65 shares. After splits you got ~698.38 shares. So your split adjusted cost basis is ~1.43/share.

    But in even other words, if the Colgate stock price had never split between 1985 - 2014, the $63.29 you see quoted would have actually been 759.48/share ( again 63.29 times a factor of 16). That's the only way that the ~43.65 shares you bought with the $1000 at very end of 1985 would have stayed at 43.65.

    I actually thought that anyone could find the split adjusted price, and that it was a common sense approach to presenting historical data. But I guess what I find to be common sense is not common sense for others.

    Does that pass your "smell test" ;-)
    Mar 20 01:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividends And 'The Magic Pants' [View article]
    But the ex-dividend thing you claim, as well as dividends versus homemade dividends have already been refuted before:

    http://bit.ly/1dbEItd

    Good luck in your dividend investing journey!
    Mar 18 08:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
596 Comments
1,355 Likes