Seeking Alpha

Robert Allan Schwartz

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Robert Allan Schwartz's Comments BY TICKER:
AA, AAPL, ABBV, ABC, ABT, ADM, ADP, AFL, AGD, AGG, AGNC, AJG, AMGN, AMIGF, AMZN, APD, ARCP, ARCT, ARG, AVP, AWK, AWR, BA, BAX, BBY, BCE, BCR, BDJ, BDT, BDX, BF.B, BGG, BGS, BHP, BIP, BLL, BMR, BMS, BND, BP, BRC, BREW, BRK.A, BRK.B, BTI, BUD, CAG, CAH, CAT, CATO, CB, CBRL, CHD, CHEUY, CHRW, CIM, CL, CLCT, CLX, CM, CMI, CMLP, CMRE, CNI, CNRD, COP, COST, CPB, CR, CSCO, CTL, CVR, CVX, DBD, DE, DEO, DGRS, DGRW, DIA, DIS, DKS, DLR, DLX, DOV, DOW, DPS, DRI, DTN, DVY, DX, EADSF, EBF, ECL, ED, EMR, ENB, ERIE, ESLT, ESV, ETN, EV, EXC, EXR, FAST, FB, FDS, FHCO, FII, FLY, FRD, FRT, FSC, FTR, FUN, GCI, GD, GE, GEF, GEF.B, GIS, GLD, GME, GOOD, GPC, GRMN, HAS, HCBK, HCLP, HCP, HEINY, HGIC, HMN, HNZ, HOG, HRS, HSH, HSY, HT, HTA, HYG, IBM, IDV, INTC, IRM, ITW, IVV, JCI, JCP, JJSF, JNJ, K, KMB, KMI, KMP, KO, KODK, KRFT, LANC, LDR, LECO, LEG, LLY, LMT, LO, LOW, M, MAIN, MAT, MCD, MCHP, MDLZ, MDP, MDT, MET, MHFI, MKC, MMM, MN, MNDO, MNR, MO, MON, MOS, MRK, MSFT, MUR, NEE, NHI, NKE, NLY, NP, NRP, NSC, NSRGY, NUE, NUS, NVS, O, OFC, OHI, OKE, ORCL, ORI, OSGIQ, OXY, PAYX, PBI, PCAR, PEP, PERM, PFE, PFG, PG, PH, PII, PM, PPG, PPO, PSX, PX, QCOM, RAS, RAVN, RDC, RDS.A, RDS.B, REG, RLI, ROST, RPM, RRD, RSG, RSH, RTN, RY, SBUX, SDY, SEP, SHW, SJM, SLF, SO, SON, SPLS, SPLV, SPY, STON, STRA, STX, SVU, SWK, SYK, SYY, T, TAL, TAP, TAXI, TBT, TD, TEVA, TGH, TGT, THO, TIP, TIS, TJX, TLT, TMP, TOT, TR, TROW, TRV, TUP, UG, UL, UMH, UN, UNH, UTX, UVE, UVV, V, VALE, VFC, VIG, VIVO, VMC, VNRCF, VO, VTR, VYM, VZ, WAG, WDFC, WEN, WFC, WFM, WHR, WIN, WM, WMT, WRI, WTR, WU, XLP, XOM, XRX, YUM
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Dividend Aristocrats In Focus Part 23: Is It Time To Sell Leggett & Platt? [View article]
    "that is a mischaracterization of the facts."

    No, it's not.

    It is a fact that LEG paid (as in "on the payable date") $1.42 in 2012.
    It is a fact that LEG paid $0.88 in 2012.
    My web site shows the facts.
    So does this other dividend web site:
    http://bit.ly/1tJelmb
    So does the nasdaq.com site that you mentioned:
    http://bit.ly/1lLVO3r

    LEG paid 5 dividends in 2012.
    LEG paid 3 dividends in 2013.
    Please note I said "paid".
    I did NOT say "declared".

    Please note that I did not say that this represents a "dividend cut".
    I have no wish to repeat that other discussion.

    "on a normalized and factually honest basis, there was actually a four cent dividend increase in 2013 over 2012, not a decrease."

    If you look at the dividends PAID (not declared), then my web site, and the other two web sites I listed, report the FACTS.
    Oct 21 04:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solving The Mystery Of 10 By 10 - How Does A Dividend Growth Investor Get From Point A To Point B? [View article]
    "A fixed preferred stock or bond paying 6% compounded at the same rate will yield 10% on the original investment in ten years."

    True, but you're ignoring the second level of compounding.

    The first level of compounding is that you can reinvest your dividends to buy more shares (which themselves pay dividends).

    The second level of compounding is that each share pays a rising dividend over time.

    This is called "hypercompounding". I apologize, I forget which SA commenter first used this term.

    "fixed" income investments do offer one level of compounding, but not the other, so you will always do better with dividend GROWTH companies than with "fixed" income companies.
    Oct 21 03:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Retired Investors Should Not Fear Recessions Or A Bad Market: Part 1 [View article]
    "I do want to mention that current list of "dividend champions" is skewed by 'survivor bias' (stocks that are in the index now may not have been in the past)"

    I don't think of that as a "skew".
    I want a list of companies that have paid (and raised) their dividend for 10, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, etc. years in a row.
    If that is a "skew", then that is a most desirable "skew" from my perspective.
    Oct 21 03:46 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Textbook Model Of Dividend Predictability [View article]
    "There are more academies in academia than are dreamt of in your philosophy, dear Schwartz..."

    Peter, I don't understand why you wrote that comment.
    Are you making fun of me?

    You are close to joining the list of commenters I don't read.
    Oct 21 12:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Create Your Own Miniature Berkshire Hathaway [View article]
    "Ditto for most companies. Timing and luck."

    Perhaps good results over the short term might be attributable to luck.

    But it's difficult to attribute Warren Buffett's success, over more than 40 years, to luck.

    No one has that much "luck".
    Oct 21 12:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Aristocrats In Focus Part 23: Is It Time To Sell Leggett & Platt? [View article]
    Here is LEG's dividend history:

    http://bit.ly/136dhbs
    Oct 21 12:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solving The Mystery Of 10 By 10 - How Does A Dividend Growth Investor Get From Point A To Point B? [View article]
    "A question that I have asked earlier and you gave me a reasonable response was "what is so magical about getting the portfolio to 10% Yield on Cost in 10 years". I believe your response was, "nothing". So reaching 10% in ten years means nothing at all."

    George, it's not really "nothing at all".

    Many estimates of the market's long-term growth say that the market grows by approx. 10% per year (I believe it is 10.2% from 1926 onward).

    DVK's approach allows an investor to build a portfolio that achieves the SAME growth of 10% per year, WITHOUT depending on share price increases.

    Personally, that impresses the hell out of me.

    And I'm investing the way I learned from DVK, "The Godfather" of DGI. :-)

    Robert
    Oct 21 12:41 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solving The Mystery Of 10 By 10 - How Does A Dividend Growth Investor Get From Point A To Point B? [View article]
    "But T has been growing the dividend at a rate closer to 2%, so with its 5%+ yield, it will probably take longer then 10 years, unless the growth rate picks up."

    If you only look at T, you might be right.
    But the point of this article is that you should look at the whole portfolio, not just one of its components.
    I own T.
    I do not reinvest dividends in T, because of T's slow dividend growth.
    I view T as a "cash cow" that produces lots of cash.
    I invest that cash in other dividend GROWTH companies.
    I own some companies for their current cash, and I own other companies for their dividend GROWTH.
    It's all good.
    And I expect (thanks to DVK) to achieve 10x10 on schedule.
    Thanks, DVK!
    Oct 21 12:35 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dover: Reliable Dividend Grower With A Low Valuation [View article]
    Here is DOV's dividend history:

    http://bit.ly/1tIFvJS
    Oct 21 12:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Retirement Investing For Income ONLY: Doing It The Right Way [View article]
    "If the value of your portfolio moves toward zero, what makes you think that your income won't head in the same direction?"

    Prices are determined by the market.
    Dividends are determined by a company's board of directors.
    There is no direct causal relationship between the two.

    "A company who's stock price has dropped in half certainly isn't going to double their dividend to preserve the 4.8% yield you would need."

    They don't have to.
    Suppose a company pays me $2.00 in dividends.
    Suppose their share price is $50.00.
    The current yield is 2/50 or 4 percent.
    Now suppose their share prices drops to $40.00.
    The current yield is 2/40 or 5 percent.
    But they are still paying me the same $2.00 in dividends!
    Focus on the INCOME, not the YIELD.
    Oct 21 12:23 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Have We Really Lost? [View article]
    "You haven't lost until you sell is mostly the mantra of losers."

    I am not a "loser".

    I know the difference between a paper loss (which is UNREALized) and a real loss.

    Do you?
    Oct 21 11:54 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Have We Really Lost? [View article]
    "I know it was made popular by an investing genius, but it's become so trite and overused. It makes the writer sound like a schoolmarm talking down to a 5 year old."

    I disagree.
    I think Benjamin Graham's invention of "Mr. Market" is a succinct way to remind me of how the market behaves.
    I like using that phrase.
    Oct 21 11:52 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Textbook Model Of Dividend Predictability [View article]
    "Choosing to ignore losses and not quantifying them by regularly marking to market is analogous to placing bets at the roulette table and letting them ride spin after spin after spin after spins after spins after spin after spin..."

    Peter, this is likely to be my last comment to you, because we're not communicating.

    I can't "ignore" a loss that I don't have.
    A paper loss is not a real loss.

    You claim I'm gambling.
    I know I'm not gambling.
    Oct 21 11:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Textbook Model Of Dividend Predictability [View article]
    Boris, if you are a capital gain investor, then I do understand you.
    Though I do not invest the same way that you do, I do understand how you invest.

    "If something goes wrong you could lose both your original investment and the income stream."

    The only "something" that could go that wrong, would be the end of the world.
    Many income investors own 30, 40, 50, etc. companies, in order to diversify their income. If one out of 50 companies tanks, then I still have the income from the other 49. I have suffered at most a 2% loss in income.

    "I wouldn't care about the fluctuations in the stock price either if I knew that dividend stream was guaranteed."

    Absolutely nothing in the world of investing is "guaranteed", but I am betting all my money on the relative safety of companies that have paid (and raised) their dividends for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or more years in a row.

    "In the real world both your dividends and your original investment are at risk, that is why you always must insure yourself."

    If you are a capital gain investor, then you want to insure against a capital loss.
    I understand that.
    I am not a capital gain investor.
    I am an income investor.
    I want to insure against an income loss.
    That is why I own many companies, as I explained above.

    "This is a Black Swan risk that will cause you to lose everything. Always cap the downside, my friend!"

    I am capping the downside, my friend - the downside to my income.

    Thanks,

    Robert
    Oct 21 09:53 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Textbook Model Of Dividend Predictability [View article]
    "Those who never mark to market laugh at capital losses."

    It's not a REALized capital loss unless/until I sell.
    Why would I laugh?

    "Such is the charmed life of the "income investor"."

    I'm not an "income investor".
    I am an income investor.
    No need to put it in quotes.
    My life is not charmed.

    "A real life Goldilocks portfolio :-)"

    Why are you making fun of me? What did I ever do to you?
    Oct 21 09:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
13,519 Comments
27,049 Likes