I understand the shoulds and should nots very well, but the database that publishes them chose to do so and it is data that many yield chasers observe -- the article has been modified to indicated yield to attempt to placate those of you who have had so much trouble with reporting widely distributed data, that is not incorrect, but merely less desirable -- can we finally drop this particular point and concentrate on the purpose of the article
Good point about faded memories -- and the lag time for investors adapting to the current situation from their recent experience and memory is a risk factor
The work is not sloppy. Your read is superficial. The yields reported we of 12-month trailing dividends, and were correct. The text said they were trailing. The charts showed the extraordinary dividends in 2012. You need to distinguish between your desire for the yield presented to have been "indicated" instead of "trailing". Sloppy reading is also a problem on SA.
You are absolutely correct. In 2009 there were over many, many high quality, high yield, consistent dividend growers (and long-term low volatility, but who would have believed int in 2008Q4 or 2009Q1).
Perhaps I should have said that the commenter was thinking in terms of out of date information. As of today, the pickings in the 4% realm are quite thin.
The fact is the yields are correct. They are 12-month trailing yield, which are admittedly problematic due to the special distributions in 2012, which are clearly disclosed in the charts. The text clearly states that the yields are trailing yields. I accept that indicated yield would be more instructive if it were a set of recommendations. but it is a set of warnings. Somehow the comment stream fails to see that part of the point. I will resubmit the article with indicated yields and therefor a modified list of names, but regret that the point did not come across as intended.
I am concerned that too many people based decision on yield alone, chasing big numbers. Big trailing yields just increase the danger for those scrambling for yield.
But to your point the article does state that the yields are trailing and the charts clearly show the special distributions in 2912.
Not saying that at all. Unware of how you could draw that conclusion.
The statement is quite simple -- don't expect to find many good opportunities in the 4% to 8% yield category, when quality and volatility are also important to the investor.
The "data dump" error in the COST yield has already been discussed and acknowledged here, so let's not beat a dead horse. The fact is that by tossing out the two bad data dump yield, there is even less in the 4% - 8% yield are available.
If you would take the time to read the article before writing your comment, you would know the purpose was to respond to a specific comment on a prior article, which comment represents similar ones I have read and heard at other time -- there are NOT ample high yield equity opportunities that also are high quality and low volatility -- and the fact is that low volatility stock generally outperform high volatility stocks over time, and have been doing so recently in the short term as well.
Definitely right that large down movements occur in low volatility stocks too. However, as a group that have less severe downturns than high volatility stocks.
My main point is that the prior article had a more appropriate focus and tended to suggest stocks with yields that are not in the 4% to 8% yield range right now -- and that contrary to the comment that 4% to 8% should be the target range for selection, there just isn't that much to chose from in the very high yield area, if quality ratings and low volatility are guideposts to be taken into consideration.
There are certainly some high yield stocks that will turn out to be winners, but as a group they are a riskier bunch.
Some REITs and infrastructure MLPs may be important exceptions, but they tend to lack quality ratings from the sources used.
There were oodles of high yield, high quality stocks to chose from in 2009, but few would have prospectively believed in the low volatility angle at that time.
We may look back in the future and see some good high yield, high quality, low volatility stocks in Europe that could be bought now (particularly among global exporters).
You are right about that. It actually, however, makes my core point even stronger though.
My primary purpose was to strongly rebut the comment that (1) there are plenty of 4+% yield stocks with high quality ratings, and low volatility -- there are not , (2) that focusing on 4% to 8% yield stocks in a portfolio is a good idea for conservative investors -- it is not.
The article that stimulated the commenter who objected that 2% to 3% stocks are not a good choice was specifically addressed to conservative income oriented investors, who I think this data shows (including its apparent overstatement of yields) cannot obtain 4% to 8% yields in quality low volatility stocks sufficient to build a portfolio.
Take away LANC, WSO and COST and you can't even get to 5% in the high quality, low volatility R3000 universe. There are only 8 stocks in the 4% to 4.99% range that also pass the quality and low volatility tests.
I do recognize that there are certain REIT and MLP securities that may not be covered by the analysts with respect to quality or the indexes with respect to volatility. I have not tested for them, and they are often excluded from analyst stock quality ratings.
I not only do not recommend those 5 stocks, I am cautioning against owning them. If you read more closely, you will not that I am rebutting a commenter who said going for high yield is key, and that my prior article essentially recommending stocks at lower yields is a better bet.
You make the false assumption that anything about this article is a recommendation of any stock in the article.
The charts you said say little, actually say a lot if you know how to read them.
S&P 500 Likely To Correct To 1476 Or Less During 2013 [View article]
Zenith -- what I was attempting to convey is that negative surprise of a correction tends to cause panic, always creates media overhype, and the combination tends to cause bad decisions ... By being prepared to expect a certain range of normal outcomes, surprise is reduced, media hype is discounted, panic is less, and decisions are better ... which decision may be to do nothing
4 Companies With Extreme Price Charts And High Statistical Probability Of Decline [View article]
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
7 Top Stock Holdings Of The 15 Best Risk Adjusted Total Return Equity Mutual Funds [View article]
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
Perhaps I should have said that the commenter was thinking in terms of out of date information. As of today, the pickings in the 4% realm are quite thin.
Thanks for that very good observation.
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
I am concerned that too many people based decision on yield alone, chasing big numbers. Big trailing yields just increase the danger for those scrambling for yield.
But to your point the article does state that the yields are trailing and the charts clearly show the special distributions in 2912.
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
The statement is quite simple -- don't expect to find many good opportunities in the 4% to 8% yield category, when quality and volatility are also important to the investor.
The "data dump" error in the COST yield has already been discussed and acknowledged here, so let's not beat a dead horse. The fact is that by tossing out the two bad data dump yield, there is even less in the 4% - 8% yield are available.
If you would take the time to read the article before writing your comment, you would know the purpose was to respond to a specific comment on a prior article, which comment represents similar ones I have read and heard at other time -- there are NOT ample high yield equity opportunities that also are high quality and low volatility -- and the fact is that low volatility stock generally outperform high volatility stocks over time, and have been doing so recently in the short term as well.
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
My main point is that the prior article had a more appropriate focus and tended to suggest stocks with yields that are not in the 4% to 8% yield range right now -- and that contrary to the comment that 4% to 8% should be the target range for selection, there just isn't that much to chose from in the very high yield area, if quality ratings and low volatility are guideposts to be taken into consideration.
There are certainly some high yield stocks that will turn out to be winners, but as a group they are a riskier bunch.
Some REITs and infrastructure MLPs may be important exceptions, but they tend to lack quality ratings from the sources used.
There were oodles of high yield, high quality stocks to chose from in 2009, but few would have prospectively believed in the low volatility angle at that time.
We may look back in the future and see some good high yield, high quality, low volatility stocks in Europe that could be bought now (particularly among global exporters).
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
My primary purpose was to strongly rebut the comment that (1) there are plenty of 4+% yield stocks with high quality ratings, and low volatility -- there are not , (2) that focusing on 4% to 8% yield stocks in a portfolio is a good idea for conservative investors -- it is not.
The article that stimulated the commenter who objected that 2% to 3% stocks are not a good choice was specifically addressed to conservative income oriented investors, who I think this data shows (including its apparent overstatement of yields) cannot obtain 4% to 8% yields in quality low volatility stocks sufficient to build a portfolio.
Take away LANC, WSO and COST and you can't even get to 5% in the high quality, low volatility R3000 universe. There are only 8 stocks in the 4% to 4.99% range that also pass the quality and low volatility tests.
I do recognize that there are certain REIT and MLP securities that may not be covered by the analysts with respect to quality or the indexes with respect to volatility. I have not tested for them, and they are often excluded from analyst stock quality ratings.
5 Highest Yielding, High Quality, Low Volatility, Consistent Dividend Growers [View article]
You make the false assumption that anything about this article is a recommendation of any stock in the article.
The charts you said say little, actually say a lot if you know how to read them.
S&P 500 Likely To Correct To 1476 Or Less During 2013 [View article]