Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Dividend Growth Investor  

View Dividend Growth Investor's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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, 2014. 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, 2014. 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, 2014. 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:

    It is much better to have a watchlist of 100 - 200 or so companies, and monitor them regularly.
    Apr 19, 2014. 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,

    Mar 31, 2014. 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, 2014. 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, 2014. 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:

    Dividend Growth Investors
    Mar 27, 2014. 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]

    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, 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, 2014. 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:

    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: )

    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, 2014. 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:

    Good luck in your dividend investing journey!
    Mar 18, 2014. 08:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Do Not Become A Victim Of Fear In Your Dividend Investing [View article]
    That’s a great question. Reading DGI and archives should be required for anyone that wants to get college diploma in any major ;-)

    In all seriousness, I try to teach investors that they should not blindly follow anyone, but should use facts and do the hard work themselves in order to make their own analyses, and make their own investment decisions based on those analyses.

    It is dangerous to listen to other people’s opinions, because you never know if they have done the work or thought through all the facts, what their level of experience is, if they are selling you something, if they are biased, or following herd behavior.

    If you are a beginning investor, you might follow opinions as a learning tool, but you also have to try and do the work and make your own decisions. If you end up following the person who is teaching you the wrong stuff, you might be at a disadvantage, which might be further compounded by the fact that you are still a beginner at the art of investing. For example, I spent a lot of years thinking that short term fluctuations were the way to make money, while ignoring fundamentals. That thinking has probably cost me a lot of time and I could have been where I am now much earlier. There are always two sides to a coin, so how can you gain the expertise to decide for yourself what to do? The answer – years of trial and error, continuous learning, and keeping an open mind until you find something that works for you. That’s when you can develop “an opinion” that can count. There are no shortcuts to investing.

    I look at factual evidence, and try to make up my mind on what I need to do with my hard earned money. Going back to two sides to a coin, Charlie Munger said that in order to have an opinion, you need to be able to know well and debate the arguments on both sides

    I actually wrote an article about the work required to have an opinion:

    I know that my opinion is somewhat substantiated from analyzing a lot of companies since 2008 on my site, discussing my strategy, and reading a ton of annual reports, quarterly reports, books/journals on investing, accounting, business strategy, marketing etc to gain some insight. Even then I make stupid mistakes all the time. I try to learn from my mistakes and then go on. But I keep making new mistakes ;-) I am also always short on time with work, family, investing, and my new hobby of hands-on research of DEO, BF/B etc ;-)

    The reality is that my approach to investing is different than the approach of many others. I believe in good hard work, and have stopped looking for shortcuts. Of course, I have spent the past 16 years learning about investing, so what I say means different things to different investors at different stages. I am always evolving. I write my articles because writing makes me concentrate on what I think, and crystalizes my thoughts. One could say I write more for myself and try to improve my investing, than anything else.

    Does that answer your question? I am very wordy..
    Mar 6, 2014. 06:37 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • mREITs Are The True Dividend Champions, And Safer Than You May Think [View article]

    I hope you manage to do well in your retirement. However, if i look at CMO, IMH, RWT and their historical dividend payments, I get a little scared of the fluctuations.

    That being said, just because I am not comfortable owning something that pays $2 a quarter that then drops payment to 2 cents/quarter, doesn't mean you should do what I do.

    I am curious if you had looked at all the mortgage REITs at a given period of time (say since the 1980s), whether you would have arrived at the same conclusion or not.

    Please advise!

    Mar 6, 2014. 04:19 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Altria's Latest Earnings Announcement Is Not A Good Reason To Short The Stock [View article]
    I would gladly let any short sellers borrow my shares in Altria Group (MO) for a small fee of course. Maybe I should open an account with Interactive Brokers, who would share some of the proceeds from that activity.
    Feb 10, 2014. 03:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Only Reason For Automatic Dividend Reinvestment [View article]
    I am going to ignore the personal attacks from you. But, if all you got out of this article was arguments about record-keeping, then I think you missed the forest for the trees.

    I sincerely hope your total reliance on record keeping from your broker for everything works out for you.

    I wish you a nice evening and success in your dividend investing journey! Hope to talk to you soon!

    Jan 30, 2014. 08:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment