I could not discern from that site if the "annual return" is "price return", "dividend return", or "total return".
Here are the raw data sorted by year:

The interval between 1928 and 2015 represents 88 calendar years.
Of those 88 years, the S&P 500 went up in 64 years (72.7273%) and went down in 24 years (27.2727%).
The ratio of up years to down years was 64 / 88 or 2.66667, which means the S&P 500 went down once every (approximately) 4 years on average.
Here are the raw data sorted by return:

The worst return was 43.84% in 1931.
The best return was 52.56% in 1954.
Here are the raw data sorted by the frequency of similar returns:
number of losses >= 44% and < 43% is 1
number of losses >= 37% and < 36% is 1
number of losses >= 36% and < 35% is 1
number of losses >= 26% and < 25% is 2
number of losses >= 22% and < 21% is 1
number of losses >= 15% and < 14% is 1
number of losses >= 13% and < 12% is 1
number of losses >= 12% and < 11% is 1
number of losses >= 11% and < 10% is 2
number of losses >= 10% and < 9% is 2
number of losses >= 9% and < 8% is 5
number of losses >= 7% and < 6% is 1
number of losses >= 5% and < 4% is 1
number of losses >= 4% and < 3% is 1
number of losses >= 2% and < 1% is 3
number of gains >= 0% and < 1% is 1
number of gains >= 1% and < 2% is 2
number of gains >= 2% and < 3% is 1
number of gains >= 3% and < 4% is 1
number of gains >= 4% and < 5% is 1
number of gains >= 5% and < 6% is 4
number of gains >= 6% and < 7% is 2
number of gains >= 7% and < 8% is 2
number of gains >= 9% and < 10% is 1
number of gains >= 10% and < 11% is 2
number of gains >= 12% and < 13% is 2
number of gains >= 13% and < 14% is 1
number of gains >= 14% and < 15% is 2
number of gains >= 15% and < 16% is 2
number of gains >= 16% and < 17% is 2
number of gains >= 18% and < 19% is 5
number of gains >= 19% and < 20% is 2
number of gains >= 20% and < 21% is 2
number of gains >= 22% and < 23% is 3
number of gains >= 23% and < 24% is 3
number of gains >= 25% and < 26% is 2
number of gains >= 26% and < 27% is 1
number of gains >= 28% and < 29% is 2
number of gains >= 29% and < 30% is 1
number of gains >= 30% and < 31% is 2
number of gains >= 31% and < 32% is 4
number of gains >= 32% and < 33% is 2
number of gains >= 33% and < 34% is 1
number of gains >= 35% and < 36% is 1
number of gains >= 37% and < 38% is 2
number of gains >= 43% and < 44% is 2
number of gains >= 46% and < 47% is 1
number of gains >= 49% and < 50% is 1
number of gains >= 52% and < 53% is 1
Ups and Downs
After a down year, the following year was a down year 8 times out of 24 (33.33%), and was an up year 16 times out of 24 (66.67%).
After an up year, the following year was a down year 16 times out of 63 (25%), and was an up year 47 times out of 63 (75%).
Streaks
Here are the streaks of consecutive down years:
streak starting in 1973 for 2 consecutive years
streak starting in 1939 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 2000 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1929 for 4 consecutive years
Here are the streaks of consecutive up years:
streak starting in 1935 for 2 consecutive years
streak starting in 1967 for 2 consecutive years
streak starting in 1975 for 2 consecutive years
streak starting in 1954 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1978 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1963 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1970 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1942 for 4 consecutive years
streak starting in 1958 for 4 consecutive years
streak starting in 2003 for 5 consecutive years
streak starting in 1947 for 6 consecutive years
streak starting in 2009 for 7 consecutive years
streak starting in 1982 for 8 consecutive years
streak starting in 1991 for 9 consecutive years
Streaks of up years tend to be longer, and occur more frequently, than streaks of down years.
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Compound Annual Growth Rate [CAGR]
The mean return was 11.4122%. This is the simple arithmetic average of all of the returns.
The interpretation of "average" is not as easy as it looks. Perhaps you've heard the quote from William Kruskal's article, "Statistics, Moliere, and Henry Adams", American Scientist 55 (1967), p. 416 to 428: "A man standing with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and the other in a bucket of freezing water would be a ridiculous fool to summarize his experience by saying, "On the average, I feel fine.""
Suppose you begin with $100. During the first year, you experience a return of +50%, and end up with $150. During the second year, you experience a return of 50%, and end up with $75. It is indeed nonsensical to claim that your "average" return was 0.
Standard deviation "is a measure that is used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values. A standard deviation close to 0 indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called the expected value) of the set, while a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a wider range of values."
The standard deviation of S&P 500 returns was 19.7028%.
This means that 68% of the time the S&P 500 return was between the mean +/ one standard deviation (i.e. 8.2906 and 31.115), 95% of the time the S&P 500 return was between the mean +/ two standard deviations (i.e. 27.9934 and 50.8178), and 99.7% of the time the S&P 500 return was between the mean +/ three standard deviations (i.e. 36.284 and 81.9328).
To help you visualize what this means, there is a good diagram here.
The compound annual growth rate [CAGR] answers the question, "What constant rate of return would take you from the starting value to the ending value over the time interval?". If you bought $1 worth of S&P 500 at the beginning of 1928, you would end up with $2,940.88 at the end of 2015. The CAGR of S&P 500 returns was 9.5%.
Conclusions
What conclusions can be drawn from these data?
I hesitate to make guesses, estimates, or predictions of future returns based on the history of past returns, because as all investors hear at least once per day, "past performance is no guarantee of future results".
One must be careful to avoid the Gambler's Fallacy  "the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature)."
2015 was the 7th year in a streak of up years. What does that say about 2016? Sadly, very little of statistical significance.
I wish good luck to all investors.
]]>I could not discern from that site if the "annual return" is "price return", "dividend return", or "total return".
Here are the raw data sorted by year:

The interval between 1928 and 2015 represents 88 calendar years.
Of those 88 years, the S&P 500 went up in 64 years (72.7273%) and went down in 24 years (27.2727%).
The ratio of up years to down years was 64 / 88 or 2.66667, which means the S&P 500 went down once every (approximately) 4 years on average.
Here are the raw data sorted by return:

The worst return was 43.84% in 1931.
The best return was 52.56% in 1954.
Here are the raw data sorted by the frequency of similar returns:
number of losses >= 44% and < 43% is 1
number of losses >= 37% and < 36% is 1
number of losses >= 36% and < 35% is 1
number of losses >= 26% and < 25% is 2
number of losses >= 22% and < 21% is 1
number of losses >= 15% and < 14% is 1
number of losses >= 13% and < 12% is 1
number of losses >= 12% and < 11% is 1
number of losses >= 11% and < 10% is 2
number of losses >= 10% and < 9% is 2
number of losses >= 9% and < 8% is 5
number of losses >= 7% and < 6% is 1
number of losses >= 5% and < 4% is 1
number of losses >= 4% and < 3% is 1
number of losses >= 2% and < 1% is 3
number of gains >= 0% and < 1% is 1
number of gains >= 1% and < 2% is 2
number of gains >= 2% and < 3% is 1
number of gains >= 3% and < 4% is 1
number of gains >= 4% and < 5% is 1
number of gains >= 5% and < 6% is 4
number of gains >= 6% and < 7% is 2
number of gains >= 7% and < 8% is 2
number of gains >= 9% and < 10% is 1
number of gains >= 10% and < 11% is 2
number of gains >= 12% and < 13% is 2
number of gains >= 13% and < 14% is 1
number of gains >= 14% and < 15% is 2
number of gains >= 15% and < 16% is 2
number of gains >= 16% and < 17% is 2
number of gains >= 18% and < 19% is 5
number of gains >= 19% and < 20% is 2
number of gains >= 20% and < 21% is 2
number of gains >= 22% and < 23% is 3
number of gains >= 23% and < 24% is 3
number of gains >= 25% and < 26% is 2
number of gains >= 26% and < 27% is 1
number of gains >= 28% and < 29% is 2
number of gains >= 29% and < 30% is 1
number of gains >= 30% and < 31% is 2
number of gains >= 31% and < 32% is 4
number of gains >= 32% and < 33% is 2
number of gains >= 33% and < 34% is 1
number of gains >= 35% and < 36% is 1
number of gains >= 37% and < 38% is 2
number of gains >= 43% and < 44% is 2
number of gains >= 46% and < 47% is 1
number of gains >= 49% and < 50% is 1
number of gains >= 52% and < 53% is 1
Ups and Downs
After a down year, the following year was a down year 8 times out of 24 (33.33%), and was an up year 16 times out of 24 (66.67%).
After an up year, the following year was a down year 16 times out of 63 (25%), and was an up year 47 times out of 63 (75%).
Streaks
Here are the streaks of consecutive down years:
streak starting in 1973 for 2 consecutive years
streak starting in 1939 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 2000 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1929 for 4 consecutive years
Here are the streaks of consecutive up years:
streak starting in 1935 for 2 consecutive years
streak starting in 1967 for 2 consecutive years
streak starting in 1975 for 2 consecutive years
streak starting in 1954 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1978 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1963 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1970 for 3 consecutive years
streak starting in 1942 for 4 consecutive years
streak starting in 1958 for 4 consecutive years
streak starting in 2003 for 5 consecutive years
streak starting in 1947 for 6 consecutive years
streak starting in 2009 for 7 consecutive years
streak starting in 1982 for 8 consecutive years
streak starting in 1991 for 9 consecutive years
Streaks of up years tend to be longer, and occur more frequently, than streaks of down years.
Mean, Standard Deviation, and Compound Annual Growth Rate [CAGR]
The mean return was 11.4122%. This is the simple arithmetic average of all of the returns.
The interpretation of "average" is not as easy as it looks. Perhaps you've heard the quote from William Kruskal's article, "Statistics, Moliere, and Henry Adams", American Scientist 55 (1967), p. 416 to 428: "A man standing with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and the other in a bucket of freezing water would be a ridiculous fool to summarize his experience by saying, "On the average, I feel fine.""
Suppose you begin with $100. During the first year, you experience a return of +50%, and end up with $150. During the second year, you experience a return of 50%, and end up with $75. It is indeed nonsensical to claim that your "average" return was 0.
Standard deviation "is a measure that is used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values. A standard deviation close to 0 indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called the expected value) of the set, while a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a wider range of values."
The standard deviation of S&P 500 returns was 19.7028%.
This means that 68% of the time the S&P 500 return was between the mean +/ one standard deviation (i.e. 8.2906 and 31.115), 95% of the time the S&P 500 return was between the mean +/ two standard deviations (i.e. 27.9934 and 50.8178), and 99.7% of the time the S&P 500 return was between the mean +/ three standard deviations (i.e. 36.284 and 81.9328).
To help you visualize what this means, there is a good diagram here.
The compound annual growth rate [CAGR] answers the question, "What constant rate of return would take you from the starting value to the ending value over the time interval?". If you bought $1 worth of S&P 500 at the beginning of 1928, you would end up with $2,940.88 at the end of 2015. The CAGR of S&P 500 returns was 9.5%.
Conclusions
What conclusions can be drawn from these data?
I hesitate to make guesses, estimates, or predictions of future returns based on the history of past returns, because as all investors hear at least once per day, "past performance is no guarantee of future results".
One must be careful to avoid the Gambler's Fallacy  "the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature)."
2015 was the 7th year in a streak of up years. What does that say about 2016? Sadly, very little of statistical significance.
I wish good luck to all investors.
]]>http://www.tessellation.com/dividends
If you'd like me to add a company I don't already have, please let me know.
Thanks,
Robert Allan Schwartz
]]>http://www.tessellation.com/dividends
If you'd like me to add a company I don't already have, please let me know.
Thanks,
Robert Allan Schwartz
]]>Perhaps the most common answer is 30. Why is that?
Here is an explanation of why 30 is used as a sample size. It states: "The answer really hinges on an understanding of how confidence intervals for the standard deviation are created, and how they rely on the sample size for their accuracy: the larger the sample size, the better the accuracy of the standard deviation estimate." Terms like "confidence interval", "standard deviation", "sample size", etc. are from statistics. Don't worry, you don't have to know or understand any statistics in order to read and understand the rest of this article.
The most common use of statistics in investing comes from Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), invented by Harry Markowitz in the 1950's.
I am an investor, but I do not invest using MPT, so MPT's answer of 30 won't help me. I still wonder how many companies should I own?
The smallest number is one  I could "put all my eggs in one basket". If you do that, then make sure you follow the rest of this Mark Twain quote: "Put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket." With all of your cash invested in only one company, you run a very large risk of not achieving your investing goals: If you are a capital gain investor, then the share price might go down; if you are an income investor, then the dividend might be frozen, reduced, or eliminated.
The largest number is "all of the companies available for purchase on any stock exchange in any country", which is surely in the tens of thousands or more. When I think of how long it would take to perform due diligence on that many companies, I immediately reach for the nearest bottle of aspirin (or single malt scotch).
The "right" number must be somewhere inbetween.
You and I likely have different investing goals, different investing timeframes, different investing strategies, different investing tactics, etc. so I'm only asking the question, "What is the right number for me?" You might ask a similar question for yourself.
Rather than ask if the right number for me is 20, 30, 40, or any other particular number, I'm going to ask a slightly different question: If I have cash to invest, should I invest it in one of the companies I already own, or should I invest it in a company I do not already own? If I choose the former, then I will not change the number of companies I own; if I choose the latter, then I will change the number of companies I own.
The obvious answer is, "It depends". What does it depend on?
Which is more likely to achieve your investing goals  investing new cash into one of the companies you already own, or investing new cash into a company you do not already own? If adding one more company to your portfolio allows you to achieve your investing goals sooner, or with more safety, or with higher probability, then it might make sense to add one more company to your portfolio.
Of course, adding one more company requires you to spend more time once on due diligence, and more time on an ongoing basis to monitor that company. If you would rather not spend more time on investing, then it might make sense to not add one more company to your portfolio.
Conclusion
Rather than start with the goal of owning a particular number of companies, my approach is as follows: As long as adding one more company helps me achieve my investing goals, and I'm willing to spend more time on investing, then I buy shares in that company; when there is no company out there that could help me achieve my investing goals better than all of the companies I already own, then I maintain the same number of companies. This means that my number of companies goes up and down over time  up when it's beneficial for me to own one more company, and down when a company's performance stops helping me achieve my investing goals so I sell it.
]]>Perhaps the most common answer is 30. Why is that?
Here is an explanation of why 30 is used as a sample size. It states: "The answer really hinges on an understanding of how confidence intervals for the standard deviation are created, and how they rely on the sample size for their accuracy: the larger the sample size, the better the accuracy of the standard deviation estimate." Terms like "confidence interval", "standard deviation", "sample size", etc. are from statistics. Don't worry, you don't have to know or understand any statistics in order to read and understand the rest of this article.
The most common use of statistics in investing comes from Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), invented by Harry Markowitz in the 1950's.
I am an investor, but I do not invest using MPT, so MPT's answer of 30 won't help me. I still wonder how many companies should I own?
The smallest number is one  I could "put all my eggs in one basket". If you do that, then make sure you follow the rest of this Mark Twain quote: "Put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket." With all of your cash invested in only one company, you run a very large risk of not achieving your investing goals: If you are a capital gain investor, then the share price might go down; if you are an income investor, then the dividend might be frozen, reduced, or eliminated.
The largest number is "all of the companies available for purchase on any stock exchange in any country", which is surely in the tens of thousands or more. When I think of how long it would take to perform due diligence on that many companies, I immediately reach for the nearest bottle of aspirin (or single malt scotch).
The "right" number must be somewhere inbetween.
You and I likely have different investing goals, different investing timeframes, different investing strategies, different investing tactics, etc. so I'm only asking the question, "What is the right number for me?" You might ask a similar question for yourself.
Rather than ask if the right number for me is 20, 30, 40, or any other particular number, I'm going to ask a slightly different question: If I have cash to invest, should I invest it in one of the companies I already own, or should I invest it in a company I do not already own? If I choose the former, then I will not change the number of companies I own; if I choose the latter, then I will change the number of companies I own.
The obvious answer is, "It depends". What does it depend on?
Which is more likely to achieve your investing goals  investing new cash into one of the companies you already own, or investing new cash into a company you do not already own? If adding one more company to your portfolio allows you to achieve your investing goals sooner, or with more safety, or with higher probability, then it might make sense to add one more company to your portfolio.
Of course, adding one more company requires you to spend more time once on due diligence, and more time on an ongoing basis to monitor that company. If you would rather not spend more time on investing, then it might make sense to not add one more company to your portfolio.
Conclusion
Rather than start with the goal of owning a particular number of companies, my approach is as follows: As long as adding one more company helps me achieve my investing goals, and I'm willing to spend more time on investing, then I buy shares in that company; when there is no company out there that could help me achieve my investing goals better than all of the companies I already own, then I maintain the same number of companies. This means that my number of companies goes up and down over time  up when it's beneficial for me to own one more company, and down when a company's performance stops helping me achieve my investing goals so I sell it.
]]>I am an income investor, so I pay far more attention to the income produced by my portfolio than I pay to its current market value. As of this moment, my yield on cost (YOC) (and by that I mean "total current yield divided by total cost basis") is 4.88%. This includes all dividend reinvestment, which adds to the cost basis.
It struck me that if the stock market closed for 3 months (1.27% / 4.88% = 0.26 year, or almost exactly 3 months), or if all share prices froze for 3 months, then the dividends I would receive over those 3 months would compensate for the 1.27% unrealized capital loss, and I would have exactly the same amount of money now as I invested in the past.
Some people would not be satisfied with "running harder and harder yet staying in the same place", but I don't see it that way, because I don't look at the market value  I look at the income. My portfolio generates more income today than it has ever done in the past. I have certainly not "stayed in the same place" incomewise.
I will be able to retire in 2 years, and live off my dividends, without ever being forced to sell anything in order to produce cash.
I won't have to worry about "withdrawing" (which is a strange euphemism for "selling") 4% of my assets every year, or 3%, or any percent.
I won't have to worry about price volatility (i.e. beta).
As an income investor, my only concern is: will the overall portfolio dividend growth over the next year exceed the inflation over the next year? That needs to happen in order for me to not lose purchasing power over time due to inflation.
My focus on income allows me to "sleep well at night" (SWAN).
I wish the same to all of my readers.
]]>I am an income investor, so I pay far more attention to the income produced by my portfolio than I pay to its current market value. As of this moment, my yield on cost (YOC) (and by that I mean "total current yield divided by total cost basis") is 4.88%. This includes all dividend reinvestment, which adds to the cost basis.
It struck me that if the stock market closed for 3 months (1.27% / 4.88% = 0.26 year, or almost exactly 3 months), or if all share prices froze for 3 months, then the dividends I would receive over those 3 months would compensate for the 1.27% unrealized capital loss, and I would have exactly the same amount of money now as I invested in the past.
Some people would not be satisfied with "running harder and harder yet staying in the same place", but I don't see it that way, because I don't look at the market value  I look at the income. My portfolio generates more income today than it has ever done in the past. I have certainly not "stayed in the same place" incomewise.
I will be able to retire in 2 years, and live off my dividends, without ever being forced to sell anything in order to produce cash.
I won't have to worry about "withdrawing" (which is a strange euphemism for "selling") 4% of my assets every year, or 3%, or any percent.
I won't have to worry about price volatility (i.e. beta).
As an income investor, my only concern is: will the overall portfolio dividend growth over the next year exceed the inflation over the next year? That needs to happen in order for me to not lose purchasing power over time due to inflation.
My focus on income allows me to "sleep well at night" (SWAN).
I wish the same to all of my readers.
]]>Here is a history of my purchases:
02/19/2013  $40.42
02/20/2013  $41.67
04/19/2013  $39.97
07/09/2013  $36.79
08/25/2014  $34.77
08/28/2014  $34.98, $35.03
01/28/2015  $34.47
02/24/2015  $33.22
03/09/2015  $31.71, $31.90
03/18/2015  $29.71
A capital gain investor would probably see this pattern as "averaging down".
I see this pattern as "buying more and more shares with higher and higher dividend yield".
The current price (at 3:37 PM on 6/30/15) is $25.92.
I've gathered analytical data from three sources, and displayed both the good news and the bad news from each source:
From FinViz:
Good news:
P/E is 9.06.
Forward P/E is 8.87.
PEG is 0.76.
Target price is $33.00/share.
Dividend current yield is 7.18%.
Gross Margin is 87.70%.
Operating Margin is 48.20%.
Profit Margin is 29.10%.
Bad news:
Yearoveryear quarterly earnings growth is 41.00%.
From my (free) dividend investing web site:
Bad news:
From 2011 to 2014, the dividend increases slowed down.
From FAST Graphs:
Good news:
P/E is 8.2.
Dividend current yield is 7.2%.
Operating earnings growth rate is 9.5%.
Total annualized rate of return plus dividends declared (not reinvested) is 11.1% (which is more than twice the S&P result of 5.1%).
Payout ratio from 2007 to 2014 has been 55%, 45%, 54%, 42%, 38%, 44%, 61%, 55%.
Bad news:
Estimated earnings growth is 6%.
From Bloomberg:
Good news:
Analyst coverage is 1 Buy, 10 Hold, 1 Sell.
Target price is $32.89.
Forward P/E is 8.91.
EPS Adjusted is inline with comps (4.8% yearoveryear growth).
EPS GAAP is stronger than comps (25.9% yearoveryear growth).
Sales are stronger than comps (2.4% yearoveryear growth).
Net income adjusted is inline with comps (4.4% yearoveryear growth).
Bloomberg expects the 8/3/15 dividend to be $0.48/share.
Bad news:
The dividend has been $0.47/share for 8 consecutive quarters.
What Could I Do Now?
I could sell all my shares. This would lock in a substantial capital loss, and deprive me of the dividend income from all of those shares, which would be tough to replace with an equivalent substitute.
I could hold.
I could buy more shares. The current dividend yield is now 6.9% (from Yahoo! Finance), 7.2% (from FastGraphs), or 7.2% (from Bloomberg).
If I thought that the company's business was deteriorating, then I would sell, but there is enough good news above that I don't think that.
If I thought that the company would cut the dividend, then I would sell, but there is enough good news above that I don't think that.
Am I concerned that the share price has been going down for over two years? Yes.
Am I going to decide what to do based on that? No.
I am a dividend growth investor. I take the longterm view. My primary investing goal is to own a portfolio of dividend growth companies that generate the income I will need for my retirement organically, i.e. from dividends, so that I will never be forced to sell anything in order to produce cash. (I am not against choosing to sell a few shares when the share price is high in order to fund something like an expensive vacation or a gift to a relative, but I do not want to be forced to sell shares when the share price is low just to pay the mortgage.)
What Will I Do Now?
I have decided to hold.
I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.
]]>Here is a history of my purchases:
02/19/2013  $40.42
02/20/2013  $41.67
04/19/2013  $39.97
07/09/2013  $36.79
08/25/2014  $34.77
08/28/2014  $34.98, $35.03
01/28/2015  $34.47
02/24/2015  $33.22
03/09/2015  $31.71, $31.90
03/18/2015  $29.71
A capital gain investor would probably see this pattern as "averaging down".
I see this pattern as "buying more and more shares with higher and higher dividend yield".
The current price (at 3:37 PM on 6/30/15) is $25.92.
I've gathered analytical data from three sources, and displayed both the good news and the bad news from each source:
From FinViz:
Good news:
P/E is 9.06.
Forward P/E is 8.87.
PEG is 0.76.
Target price is $33.00/share.
Dividend current yield is 7.18%.
Gross Margin is 87.70%.
Operating Margin is 48.20%.
Profit Margin is 29.10%.
Bad news:
Yearoveryear quarterly earnings growth is 41.00%.
From my (free) dividend investing web site:
Bad news:
From 2011 to 2014, the dividend increases slowed down.
From FAST Graphs:
Good news:
P/E is 8.2.
Dividend current yield is 7.2%.
Operating earnings growth rate is 9.5%.
Total annualized rate of return plus dividends declared (not reinvested) is 11.1% (which is more than twice the S&P result of 5.1%).
Payout ratio from 2007 to 2014 has been 55%, 45%, 54%, 42%, 38%, 44%, 61%, 55%.
Bad news:
Estimated earnings growth is 6%.
From Bloomberg:
Good news:
Analyst coverage is 1 Buy, 10 Hold, 1 Sell.
Target price is $32.89.
Forward P/E is 8.91.
EPS Adjusted is inline with comps (4.8% yearoveryear growth).
EPS GAAP is stronger than comps (25.9% yearoveryear growth).
Sales are stronger than comps (2.4% yearoveryear growth).
Net income adjusted is inline with comps (4.4% yearoveryear growth).
Bloomberg expects the 8/3/15 dividend to be $0.48/share.
Bad news:
The dividend has been $0.47/share for 8 consecutive quarters.
What Could I Do Now?
I could sell all my shares. This would lock in a substantial capital loss, and deprive me of the dividend income from all of those shares, which would be tough to replace with an equivalent substitute.
I could hold.
I could buy more shares. The current dividend yield is now 6.9% (from Yahoo! Finance), 7.2% (from FastGraphs), or 7.2% (from Bloomberg).
If I thought that the company's business was deteriorating, then I would sell, but there is enough good news above that I don't think that.
If I thought that the company would cut the dividend, then I would sell, but there is enough good news above that I don't think that.
Am I concerned that the share price has been going down for over two years? Yes.
Am I going to decide what to do based on that? No.
I am a dividend growth investor. I take the longterm view. My primary investing goal is to own a portfolio of dividend growth companies that generate the income I will need for my retirement organically, i.e. from dividends, so that I will never be forced to sell anything in order to produce cash. (I am not against choosing to sell a few shares when the share price is high in order to fund something like an expensive vacation or a gift to a relative, but I do not want to be forced to sell shares when the share price is low just to pay the mortgage.)
What Will I Do Now?
I have decided to hold.
I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.
]]>"Hi, Robert."
No, this is not a meeting of Dividend Growth Investors Anonymous.
I wrote this instablog to tell you how Dividend Growth Investing ["DGI"] has benefited me.
The single most important reason is that it helps me avoid purchasing shares in companies that cut their dividends.
No, it's not perfect, and I would never claim that DGI promises or guarantees that I will never suffer from a dividend cut.
Let's look at the facts:

I'm not saying that 100% of the companies I have owned or do own now come from the lists of Dividend Champions, Contenders, and Challengers [known as the "CCC"] (maintained by David Fish) which are available for free from here.
What I am saying is that 49 companies that I never had any interest in owning because they were NOT in the CCC, cut their dividends. Those dividend cuts did not affect me.
Of the remaining 6 companies, 2 were removed from the CCC in 2013, one for a freeze and one for a cut. I prefer to sell before a cut, but even if I had sold DX after the cut in 2013, I would have avoided DX's 2015 cut.
Of the remaining 4 companies, maybe I was just lucky, because I was never tempted to own them in the first place. I prefer not to invest in MLP's, BDC's, preferreds, options, etc. because I don't want to invest in something I don't understand.
Each investor should always perform their own due diligence before investing. There are no guarantees in investing. Choosing my investments from the CCC is no guarantee, but it is the single best method I have ever found for reducing my risk of dividend cuts.
]]>"Hi, Robert."
No, this is not a meeting of Dividend Growth Investors Anonymous.
I wrote this instablog to tell you how Dividend Growth Investing ["DGI"] has benefited me.
The single most important reason is that it helps me avoid purchasing shares in companies that cut their dividends.
No, it's not perfect, and I would never claim that DGI promises or guarantees that I will never suffer from a dividend cut.
Let's look at the facts:

I'm not saying that 100% of the companies I have owned or do own now come from the lists of Dividend Champions, Contenders, and Challengers [known as the "CCC"] (maintained by David Fish) which are available for free from here.
What I am saying is that 49 companies that I never had any interest in owning because they were NOT in the CCC, cut their dividends. Those dividend cuts did not affect me.
Of the remaining 6 companies, 2 were removed from the CCC in 2013, one for a freeze and one for a cut. I prefer to sell before a cut, but even if I had sold DX after the cut in 2013, I would have avoided DX's 2015 cut.
Of the remaining 4 companies, maybe I was just lucky, because I was never tempted to own them in the first place. I prefer not to invest in MLP's, BDC's, preferreds, options, etc. because I don't want to invest in something I don't understand.
Each investor should always perform their own due diligence before investing. There are no guarantees in investing. Choosing my investments from the CCC is no guarantee, but it is the single best method I have ever found for reducing my risk of dividend cuts.
]]>