Kurtis Hemmerling
Follow this author
Daily digest on all my authors
Send Message

x

Author Following Options:

See their articles on your Seeking Alpha homepage and in your feed.

Real-time alerts on this author

Get their new articles emailed to you as they are published.

Get all your favorite authorsâ€™ new articles emailed to you in one daily digest.

Kurtis Hemmerling

Stop FollowingKurtis Hemmerling

View as an RSS Feed

## The Importance Of Total Return With Dividend Growth Investing [View article]

I did this again where you hold the stocks even when dividends are cut (no selling no matter what). Annualized return is 4.23%.

## The Importance Of Total Return With Dividend Growth Investing [View article]

But if you calculate value, the difference between what you think a company is worth and the current price, and hold the ones which you think have the greatest likelihood to appreciate over the next 2 years, you may be able to maximize total return and income at the same time. The income may be greater because the yields are higher when buying deep value.

## The Importance Of Total Return With Dividend Growth Investing [View article]

I used the mega-cap example in the article to illustrate when you may want to be out of a system, but at that point in time the total return is so low that emotionally you may not want to 'lock in the losses' to try something else. You could continue the strategy but it doesn't get much better.

Another example would be when dividends are cut and your portfolio value is low because you failed to maximize total return. This can be on a stock-by-stock basis or during a crash such as 2008/09. You can hold a basket of stocks which no longer have dividend increases if you want to, but this isn't dividend growth investing any longer.

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

Correction - it should read 11.7% + the original yield on cost, or 14.95% final YOC. The 11.7% represents the growth.

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

Yes, there are small differences in trades. Some stocks paid an extra dividend in the 2012 fiscal year. Strictly following the dividend growth rule, regular income dropped. Some of these would have been sold (but the special dividend isn't counted towards growth - just if they stuck an extra regular dividend in the fiscal year). However, this would have a minimal effect on the 14 year performance as it was near the end of the test and 2013 was a good year. As well, all capital is distributed equal-weight in the sim among all eligible stocks - so no dead money. A sold holding gets put right back into the div growth pool.

I get that a DGI investor may make allowances based on this or that. I can use 2 year average growth or trailing 6 quarters or whatever - but this was about stocks which grow dividends annually without lowering it. The big surprise for me is that there was only a 2.5% drop in return annually between the 23% surviving stocks (cherry-picked) and the entire group.

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

But I am suggesting that your use of the geometric average is incorrect. I have never seen anyone use a geometric mean to tally portfolio yield. The yield does not need a geometric average applied to it. The way you apply it in this instance (to yield) would have this effect: I have 10 apples, 2 apples and 5 apples. 17 apples. The geometric mean is 4.64159. I quickly re-count my apples (3 piles) and suddenly I have 13.92477 apples?

Try out the CAGR calculator. http://bit.ly/ZJ8quk

If you double your money in 10 years, the compound annual growth rate is 7.18%.

But in the second example, if I have 3 different stocks (equal weight), one with a 9% yield, a 5% yield and a 1% yield, I can say that I have an average 5% yield. If I have $10,000 invested in each stock I will actually earn $1,500 in dividends or $500 on average or 5% average. This uses the simple arithmetic mean and not the geometric.

As for my use of the geometric mean or compounding growth ratios - look at the chart that starts with a 3.25% yield on cost and 15% growth rate. If I had expressed this as a arithmetic average I would have multiplied 24 years (first year isn't considered growth but is the baseline year) by 0.15 to get 3.6. This would then represent the multiplier to my original annual dividend stream (which I chose to express as yield on cost). If I used a simple arithmetic average of 15% growth, the final YOC would have shown 11.7%. It is obvious that I did not use the arithmetic average. If I didn't use the arithmetic mean in my forward growth numbers, why did you assume I used it in my trailing growth numbers? Perhaps the answer has more to do with a view that I am attacking dividend growth investing instead of actually wondering if I used a standard CAGR calculation.

If you find a money manager using one of those geometric averages for a stock index, run. http://bit.ly/1FaOp4i

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

The testing here is not limited to the CCC list. It may be that instead of 70% survivor-ship, one investor or another might feel inclined to include exceptions. Yes, this might change survivorship bias by a few percent depending on the investor leniency. But if you add more exceptions on one end (current list), you need to add it to the other (2001 historical list) with a similar result.

But to be fair, the one survivorship test did use the CCC list. I ran a point in time screen and tallied all div growth stocks with 5 years or more of div growth as of 2001. This P123 list was compared against the number of stocks on the current CCC list which have 19 years or more of consecutive div growth. It is my experience that the CCC list, as you say, includes certain exceptions which makes the list a tiny bit larger than the strict rules-based approach. Thus, in 2001 David Fish may have added a few more names than my 2001 list, and the survivorship rate would even be worse than the 77% attrition rate I calculated.

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

As for survivorship bias, I consider a stock as not surviving once it is removed from dividend growth universe. In my non-biased dividend example, a stock was sold as soon as it failed to increase the dividend. The 2.5% reduction in the compound annual growth rate shows the consequence of selling a stock when the dividend fails to rise and distributing the capital amongst the surviving names. This is showing the difference between computing the average return of the CCC list (as one example) and a real investment portfolio following the exact same guidelines as the CCC list.

I would suggest that the yield of the replacement stock is very important for yield on cost projections. If you invested $100K and have a 10% yield on cost after 5 years, and now you sell your shares and have $200K in capital to redeploy, you would need to invest in a stock with a minimum of a 5% current dividend yield to collect $10K in dividends and maintain your 10% yield on cost.

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

Perhaps you can add additional explanation why you use the geometric mean in this case. I disagree with your use of it.

As for my hypothetical example.... all growth rate calculations and figures used for the sake of this article do in fact use the compound annual growth rate or the geometric mean. The software I use, Portfolio123, uses CAGR for growth calculations. It is standard practice and I operate under the assumption that all readers would know this.

Back to the portfolio...if each variable already represents the 5 year geometric mean, you should not apply it a second time. If one portfolio has a compound annual growth rate of 1% and a second portfolio has a compound annual growth rate of 100%, the investor (holding both portfolios equal-weight) could say that his average return per year is 50.5% as this number already includes the compound annual growth rate. He would definitely not say that his average return is the geometric average of a geometric average which is 10%.

As for yield, I have no idea why you would apply a geometric average to it. That is a bit boggling if you ask me. It is indicated or expected dividend to price ratio to provide the first year of income so that you can apply the compound annual growth rate of dividend growth to it. If I use the geometric average of yields as you suggest the following bizairre situation would be true:

$30,000 invested. $10,000 per stock. Stock A gives $500 in dividends. Stock B gives $300 in dividends. Stock C gives $100 in dividends. I invested $30,000 and received $900 in dividends. My yield on cost - or dividends received for that year dividend by my initial investment is 3%. That is true. By using the geometric mean I am told that my portfolio yield on cost is 2.15% which means I made only $650 in dividends for the year. But this is not true.

You cannot apply a geometric average to every possible calculation. I use the compound annual growth rate where it makes sense to do so. But I do not agree in the manner in which you attempt to apply it. If you would like to explain your reason for doing so in the form of a hypothetical example I would be most interested.

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

http://bit.ly/RmM4R0

I had to cross-reference these tickers with the P123 database as sometimes it used a slightly different ticker or name. For instance, Household International (historical ticker HI) is linked to the name HSBC, which bought the firm up and not Hillenbrand which currently has the ticker HI.

I recreated and verified the list (as best I could) for every year since 2001 based on the link above.

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

My motivation is to gain a better understanding of the DGI life-cycle and which sub-types have more/less risk. Many principles of DGI can be applied to other areas of the market. For example, stocks with 10 years of DGI and 10 years of consecutive earnings growth have performed very well even if the number of tickers are low. Some might choose to overweight these names.

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

## 5 Common Errors Of A Dividend Growth Forecast [View article]

The second test was to record all stocks (as of 2001) which had a minimum of 5 years of div growth. I then zipped forward to current and counted which of these tickers had 19 years or more of dividend growth (the 5 years at inception plus the 14 year test).

The survivorship rate in both studies were similar.

## The Hidden Risk Of High Dividend Growth Stocks [View article]

Thank you for your input. Can you give us a little more information?

Do you mean that you invest in high trailing dividend growth stocks but the income appears to compound at a similar rate going forward and that over time your total yield on cost is greater than a high yield selection (while still investing in div growth stocks)? I will dig more into this subject next.

It is also possible that there are sector, size, minimum yield, starting date, holding period and other factors that need to be accounted for when using a high div growth to project forward income streams but the initial round of testing was to use as few pieces and processes as possible to see if factor A on Universe A leads to income alpha or at least an income stream that is somewhat near our projections.

## The Hidden Risk Of High Dividend Growth Stocks [View article]

Perhaps I will narrow the test and run the top 10% or 25% minus the bottom 10% or 25% to see the net difference.

Good ideas. Thank you.