Full index of posts »
StockTalks

Codelco output up 5.7%: http://bloom.bg/lGcNVi pundits tell us that there are supply shortfalls and lower grades blah blah blah. May 27, 2011

Labor has claimed victory in the Australian election. This means the LaborGreen alliance will govern. A disaster for miners. Sell. Sep 7, 2010

Reports from Australia that the BHP Rio Tinto iron ore joint venture will not get regulatory approval. Aug 19, 2010
Latest Comments
 Wildebeest on What Sovereign Wealth? Part 2 if you are running a perpetual current account ...
 Wildebeest on An Australian Sovereign Wealth Fund. What Sovereign Wealth? structural current account deficit. not much el...
 TKline on What Sovereign Wealth? Part 2 Governments love low to nil interest as it allo...
 TKline on An Australian Sovereign Wealth Fund. What Sovereign Wealth? As Australia's resources are depleted, the inco...
 Wildebeest on Does a growth in M2 cause or imply an increase in inflation? correct. by definition if the money supply is e...
 Dibber on Does a growth in M2 cause or imply an increase in inflation? Velocity isn't independently measured. It's der...
Most Commented
 Does a growth in M2 cause or imply an increase in inflation? (7 Comments)
 Sundance Resources (5 Comments)
 Planet Economics vs Planet Earth (4 Comments)
 Charting???? (4 Comments)
 BHP copper production up 27% in the second quarter (3 Comments)
Posts by Themes
Australia,
australia,
balanced budget,
baltic dry index,
base metals,
BHP,
biomass,
Boom,
bulls in denial,
calculus,
cameroon,
CFNAI,
CFNAI index,
charting,
Chicago Fed,
China,
china,
coal,
cobalt,
commodities,
consumer spending,
consumption,
container movements,
containers,
Copper,
copper,
currency,
current account deficit,
data,
demand,
Deutsche Bank,
difference charts,
diffusion indexes,
discounted cash flows,
dividend growth,
dividend yield,
Doom,
doom,
economy,
Economy,
electricity,
energy,
export,
exports,
freight,
futures,
GDP,
Gindalbie Metals,
global economy,
global growth,
Planet Economics vs Planet Earth 4 comments
I've been involved in a back and forth in the comments section of this article:
seekingalpha.com/article/199672thefutu...
It is my contention that in the real world you cannot estimate a return by adding dividend yield to dividend growth. In the comments to the article, in response to a comment in which a formula was produced, I explained that the formula doesn't work in the real world. More details of the formula can be found here. Mathematically the infinite series can be rewritten as:
The assumptions are that r > g , that r and g are both constant, and that g is less than economic growth. If you're wondering about the third assumption it is there because if you have a perpetuity growth number that exceeds economic growth you are saying that the asset being valued will eventually become the entire economy. The value that the series converges to (right hand side of the arrow) can be used to derive the formula cited in the article comments.
However this series converges very slowly for typical values of r and g. The smaller the difference between r and g, i.e. the smaller the dividend yield, the slower the convergence. What this means is that for typical investment horizons the formula that is derived by summing all terms to infinity is nothing like what you get in practice  and after all it is the real world that we live in  i.e. it doesn't even constitute a good approximation.
Here is a plot to show you what I mean. A 3D plot of real rate of return vs number of years. The orange surface is what you get using the simplified textbook formula and the green surface shows the real world. We can see that in the real world the surfaces are not very close to each other (understatement) due to the infinite series converging very slowly. The calculations where made using a real dividend growth of 1.3% which is the number cited by one of the adherents to this model in the comment stream. I note that no error estimate accompanied this number.
Here is a video to get a better idea of the gap between real world and textbook:
www.screencast.com/t/MWZlM2U0YzQt
As a result of the textbook situation bearing no resemblance to the real world, I maintain that the use of the formula to calculate a rate of return is a crock, useless, a waste of time, and so on.

For those interested, for an expansion over a finite number of years ( y years) the formula is:
which means that the theoretical relationship between rate of return, dividend yield, and dividend growth, is actually:
Disclosure: not relevant
Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.
Share this Instablog with a colleague