Seeking Alpha

SDS (Seductive ...'s  Instablog

SDS (Seductive Dividend Stocks)
Send Message
Sorry I hide my true identity but I'm a physicist/engineer, native contrarian and idea generator. I am an eclectic dividend investor with motto "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash" applied to companies I invest in. I like to read /and read a lot - did you look on my SA photo 8-)? /... More
My blog:
SDS blog in Seeking Alpha
  • Illustrative Comments On Pants With Dividends 16 comments
    Mar 20, 2014 1:52 AM

    19-20 March 2014

    Chuck Carnevale and Larry Swedroe discussed dividends /and pants where money can be hold 8-)/ from contradictory points of view in the following SA papers
    seekingalpha.com/article/2087433-debunki...
    seekingalpha.com/article/2093953-dividen...
    seekingalpha.com/article/2097693-i-love-...

    I think that both sides wrote not perfect articles (but I admit and strongly appreciate their efforts) and pointed some weak /IMO/ points in emotional comments to the articles (reproduced in footnote 1 below).

    i)

    One aspect of Chuck/Larry debates (as well as few early 2013/2014 SA articles/comments) is dividends related risk.

    Chuck stated
    "First of all and practically speaking, once I receive a dividend from a company I own, I have less money at risk precisely proportionate to the amount of my dividend check. Therefore, I understand that I simultaneously have reduced the risk of owning that stock simply because I now have less money at risk. Moreover, I did not have to sell any shares to receive that cash back, therefore, my beneficial ownership interest in the company remains intact. More simply stated, I still have all my shares."
    Larry pointed
    "This concept fails to understand the simple math that shows that a homemade dividend, created by selling shares equal to the amount of a dividend, produces the same result. By selling shares you reduce your exposure to the stock's risk in the same way, and by the same amount, as a dividend does."
    Larry also stressed that Fama-French & Co multi-factor models ( kind of engineering improvement of Capital Asset Pricing Model - CAMP) works quite well without dividends for explanation of stock portfolio returns.
    Because dividends and their growth represent ~ 95% of total stocks return in long run and ~ 80% of return in average 5 year period (see fig. 1 below constructed from prof R. Shiller data (econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm) for US stock market.

    Figure 1

    Dominance of dividends in long-term returns (well, are 5 years are really long? - not for me) is not specific US phenomenon. In some countries dividends and their growth are even stronge esp. if change of valuation is negative as shown in the fig. 2 below:

    Figure 2

    I think that something is very fishy with so-called Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) and CAMP if it ignores dividends.
    On another hand, the return is linked with risk in MPT/CAMP so if dividends are irrelevant to the return they should be irrelevant to the risk.

    Unfortunately I do not have access to databases, so I'll use single example to show that MPT/CAMP cannot explain reality.

    If we presume that MPT/CAMP is a scientific theory and use Karl Popper's ideas (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Raimund_Popper) that even single violation is enough for a theory refutation (see also footnote 2)

    As it well known the prime risk is MPT and CAMP is stock price volatility. It seems interesting to compare volatility of stock of firm ABC which keeps all cash with firm XYZ which distributes all cash to shareholders. I know and own such XYZ firm - it is First Financial Bancorp from August 2011. Current yield of FFBC is 3.4%

    Because FFBC is a bank (not favorite industry for some investors and academics who also dislike utilities) it is hard to find close competitors which do not pay dividends. Nevertheless OTTW , TFSL, TAYC, UBMI, CLDB, FNHM are close enough and I used this banks for comparison. I also compared FFBC with other regional US Midwest banks with similar market cap (FMBI with current yield 1.6%, PRK with yield 4.8%) P/E ratio (KLIB with yield 3%, OTTW with zero yield), P/B ratio (FITB with yield 2.1%, BUSE with yield 2.7%), and LT debt/equity ratio (FFNM with yield 1.5%, THFF with yield 2.9%) using today's (19 March 2014) data from biz.yahoo.com/p/414priu.html and www.buyupside.com/calculators/volatility....

    These banks pay dividends but they keep some cash in hands (their payout ratios are below 100%).

    The results are presented in the table 1

    Table 1

    (click to enlarge)

    See also Footnote 3

    FFBC was less volatile than ABC-type banks and than banks with similar characteristics and payout ratios below 100%. Hence from MPT/CAMP point of view risk is smaller for FFBC.
    Bingo! Investors probably view risk differently than MPT/CAMP pundits (see also footnote 4).

    I think that S&P database beyond FASTGraphs (favorite Chuck's tool) allows perform more massive and detailed studies. One warming - 100% payout should be the company's policy, not just an accident.

    ii)

    Another aspect of Larry/Chuck debates is importance of money location (in company pants or in investor pants). We are talking here about cash generated by company from its business and not strongly needed by the company.

    There are few possibilities for a company with these money (I use small letters)

    a) company keeps money (including investment in safe instruments)

    b) company distributes money as dividends

    c) company uses money for internal projects

    d) company pays debt

    e) company acquires other firms

    f) company buys its shares back

    g) company increases executives salaries and bonuses

    h) company increases workers salaries and bonuses

    <well I use "i", "ii", etc for different sections of this blog, so no "i" here 8-) >

    j) company buys shares of competitor(s)

    k) company buys shares of firms in totally different sectors (like KO buys INTC shares)

    l) company supports some politicians

    m) company participates in philanthropy projects.

    If shareholder receives dividends (and in some cases pays taxes) there are few possibilities for the shareholder with these money (I use capital letters and keep the same letters for similar activities)

    A) shareholder keeps money (including investment in safe instruments)

    C) shareholder uses money for internal projects (e.g. to buy food)

    D) shareholder pays debt

    E) see K)

    F) shareholder buys shares of the company which paid dividends (like DRIP)

    K) shareholder buys shares of firms in totally different sectors (like KO dividends buys INTC shares)

    L) shareholder supports some politicians

    M) shareholder participates in philanthropy projects.

    It seems that a person (shareholder) has less possibilities than a company but let's compare a)... M).

    IMO a person can keep money (a/A) more safely than a company e.g. in FDIC protected CD (each CD has protection limit ~ 100K$ which is nothing for a company and quite good for a person). Any bond is not safe (see http://huff.to/1gr0hoq , http://bit.ly/1gr0hot and seekingalpha.com/article/1752002-the-nex...).

    I love b) and I hate double taxation of dividends and frequent change of US tax rules for dividends (both are crime IMO). The reasons for my "love" are in my SA comments and blogs (esp. in seekingalpha.com/instablog/725729-sds-se... and seekingalpha.com/instablog/725729-sds-se...).

    c/C:

    If for-profit company beleives that a project will be quite profitable it should fund the project. Investor can fund profitable and non-profitable projects.

    d/D:

    Debt should be paid according to schedule or in accelerate rate if interest rate is higher that any "for sure" investable project.

    e:

    There are too many initially hidden problems im M&A. I prefer natural grown but I trust company top management esp. if it has M&A experience.

    f/F:

    See seekingalpha.com/instablog/725729-sds-se... for my opinion on buybacks. Shortly I'm strongly against buybacks. Based on some similar ideas I don't DRIP but it might be a good choice for an investor whose total dividends from portfolio are still small to expand the portfolio. I rarely use dividends to increase my stake in a company by "independent" share purchase.

    g) company increases executives salaries and bonuses / h) company increases workers salaries and bonuses

    I'm usually agaist g) and for h).

    j:

    I don't have a strong opinion, there are cons and pros.

    k/K:

    I'd be very suspicious if company buys shares of firms in totally different sectors. I beleive investor should do it.

    l/L:

    Company must NOT support any politician. IMO supports of politicians (l/L) should be illegal for companies and for trade unions but legal for individuals and non-formal groups.

    n/M:

    Warren Buffett has very good policy for philanthropy projects in BRK.A but most companies do it by just ONLY executives will. IMO the approach of Berkshire Hathaway should be adopted or owners of public for-profit company should vote on proposed philanthropy projects.

    Therefore I prefer to have money in my pants' pocket that in company one.

    iii)

    What to explain?

    Larry stated that FF "model explains almost all of the differences in returns of diversified portfolios" without dividends.

    Well to me it is more important the stock return itself than "differences in returns". As far as I know MPT does NOT explain the stock return itself (e.g. why it is ~ 10% annual in USA). Because dividends represent ~95% of the total return (see figs 1 and 2) they are the explanation. Financial pundits might ignore dividends, label them as puzzle, say that they are irrelevant, etc... - I do not care. Fact is 95%. A good science rather explains 95% first and then explains reminder. Well probably it would be hard to create thousand of PhD theses for 95% explanation in this really simple case of dividends.

    Footnotes:

    1. Somehow SA can loose comments when there are "too many" for an article. For example I do not see my initial comments to Chuck and LArry articles cited above ( but I can see my replies to comments of other readers). SO I reproduce these comments here:

    My comment on "Debunking The 'Dividends Don't Add Shareholder Value' Myth"

    Chuck
    Thank you for excellent article.
    I didn't read comments yet, so probably will say nothing new below. Anyway let me play a critic...

    1) Although I agree with you I think the proof your presented isn't perfect: MPT proponents should argue that earnings (your orange line) should be higher if company use all earnings to grow business and so price should follow this new orange line. This argument is valid if all projects the company performs have NPV and for most dividend-paying firms it is not the case. It is known that dividends imposes discipline on firm management not to spend money for junk projects.

    2) Price behavior on ex-dividend day must be random. Although stock exchange adjust opening price, dividends are NOT news in this day. Price reacts on dividends in the announcement day if the announcement is not expected (e.g. dividend freeze for DG company or higher than several previous dividend increase, etc...). Academic studies (some of them not so bad) show that price-dividend correlations occur in couple days before the announcement /I guess because of leak of information/ and last few days after the announcement. Commonly ex-dividend day is in couple weeks after the announcement and all correlations decay at this time.

    3) In my pure English bonus is extra pay due to good performance (bit.ly/1koPzQb). If company has long dividend history and not so good performance during a short period /e.g. last year/ investors could expect dividends to be paid. Of course long underperformance reduces probability of such expectations. John Lintner noted back in 1956 that dividends are sticky at least in USA. Such stickiness reduce to some extend bonus-like character of dividends IMO.

    SDS
    .....................................................................................

    My comment on "Dividends And 'The Magic Pants' "

    Larry.
    Thank you for good article.

    Let me start from your summary
    1) While dividends may comprise a significant portion of total returns, they don't add any explanatory power to future returns.
    Yes dividends and their growth comprise ~95% of long term return (bit.ly/xFpiPl)
    Yes dividends probably don't add any explanatory power to future returns in the framework of MPT. Different taxonomy can be created probably which would explain the result I just mentioned above. You know that FF model is not unique.

    2) Approximately 60 percent of U.S. stocks and 40 percent of international stocks don't pay dividends.
    By definition from Warren Buffet purchase of stocks which do not pay dividends is speculation not investment. See also bit.ly/1l045k8
    2a) The total returns to investors come from capital gains.
    Well paper money is not wealth. Capital losses happens…

    3) Corporate dividends can be replaced with self-made dividends.
    Oh Larry, Larry….. I don't know that block exists in your head but you still cannot distinguish milkman from butcher (see my early comments). Probably brainwashed course in your college was quite good and concept of time (which is absent in economy) became totally foreign for you. Take your photo made 20 years ago and look in a mirror. Does time exists? For most retired folks the problem not to outlive their money is so serious that they loss their health thinking about it and in result live shorter…. So self-made dividends proposal is at least anti-human.

    NB: I assume that Larry is a financial advisor (actually he is more - he wrote several books on investing /some of them are good/) who should be aware about his clients financial wealth.

    Now to the article. I'd not agree with all Chuck's statements but let's analyze yours article.

    OK I don't know who say the maxim I'd like to rephrase "Prediction of expected returns makes astrology a serious science". There is signal/noise ratio in engineering and if it is significantly smaller than 1, signal (i.e. stock price) detection becomes impossible (see e.g. bit.ly/Nr421M).

    "The bottom line is that while for some stocks dividends compromise a significant portion of the total return, the evidence demonstrates that their return isn't impacted by the dividend policy."
    This is probably incorrect - no academic paper I aware considered different dividend policies except primitive separation pay/no-pay. If you know such papers I'd appreciate copies/links.

    Pants analogy: Did you grow up in communist country as I did where government tried to convince citizens that your and my pair pants is the same pair? In capitalist countries there is big difference if dollar sits in CEO pants or in yours one. If it doesn't matter for you, can you keep your cash in my saving account? I promise return you these money (sorry without interest)….
    "$1 is worth $1" - Sure? Take $30 and try to buy pair of pants in Saks Fifth Avenue and in Walmart. Do you see difference? It is the same as cash in "CEO pocket" versus cash in my pocket. Full disclosure: I own Walmart shares but buy pants elsewhere /actually in my wife's favorite store to save my time during her shopping tour/ 8-).

    There is no such thing as "financial theory" yet - see bit.ly/R7h6d4

    "Now, this doesn't even consider the lost interest income the company would have earned had it not paid out the dividend and invested the cash in bonds."
    Investor can do the same…. Just remember that any bond is not 100 safe - even US Treasury had defaulted - see recent self comment to bit.ly/Upp1C5.

    If company can invest money better than average investor it should NOT pay dividends, but good companies generate more cash than they can invest.

    If company has $30 billion cash and no debt "cost of capital" is irrelevant for it because the company should borrow money ONLY at cost lower than it can earn. If person has $3M cash the person should borrow money ONLY at cost lower than it can earn.

    'using the cash to buy back shares" - it is often a stupid idea - see bit.ly/XRf3gk

    "The two companies have a beginning book value of $10…."
    Are you sure that person can ALWAYS make home-made dividends at value?
    "Company B now has a somewhat higher expected growth in earnings because it has more capital to invest."
    You assume that B can invest ALL cash at the same good rate. It is rarely the case for cash-rich companies.

    "They find it hard to accept even the obvious because somehow it goes against their accepted beliefs"
    Oh yes, human brain isn't perfect…. For example it is quite weak with risk concept and obvious is hidden under noise - see bit.ly/102frew.

    "Assume Company A and Company B have identical cash flows and have identical opportunities to invest in profitable projects. Company A pays a dividend, B doesn't. If company A wants to invest an equal amount in new projects as Company B, it may have to borrow money since it has paid out some of its cash flow"
    Prudent investor understands such case and allows company to stop dividend payments for some period - see bit.ly/Nr4du0

    "dividends do provide one benefit. They reduce what is called agency risk"
    Not only this case is considered in academic literature. I suggested you to read books, it seems you ignored.

    Let me not discuss US taxes here, I'm not a polite person 8-).

    SDS

    2. There are a lot of facts that show MPT/CAMP weakness, actually Fama-French developed their 1992 3-factor model to save CAMP, now 5-factor models are considered. IMO this is probably good engineering but not a science because Occam's razor principle is violated.

    3. I also collected data for some of these banks from Finvis.com - see table 2 below:

    Table 2

    (click to enlarge)

    4. I'm trying to understand risk in blogpost seekingalpha.com/instablog/725729-sds-se....

Back To SDS (Seductive Dividend Stocks)'s Instablog HomePage »

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.

Comments (16)
Track new comments
  • giorgiolb
    , contributor
    Comments (5382) | Send Message
     
    SDS,

     

    I realize English is not your first language, so..

     

    I think I mainly agree with your conclusions.

     

    DG has many fine attributes, but like any strategy will underperform at times.

     

    MPT is a fine strategy for the "average" investor. That's a good thing. The "average investor will never become amazingly rich using MPT either, and that's not so good.

     

    One thing too many investors overlook is that you can be absolutely correct about a stock or a strategy and still lose money. I don't like to lose money!
    20 Mar, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • SDS (Seductive Dividend Sto...
    , contributor
    Comments (3197) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » giorgiolb

     

    Yes, English is my enemy....
    Yes, I stated that DGI should underperform in very bullish market esp. related with new technologies in some of my SA blogpost
    Yes, I agree that persons without knowledge and/or time should do indexing. If everybody becomes rich the limit for "rich person" will go up, it should be distribution in wealth (communist idea is to make all equal /not really implemented/ failed in reality).
    I consider a possibility of loosing money as absolute risk (http://seekingalpha.co...). It seems me that CFAs and financial pundits overcomplicated risk as well as some other aspects of investing probably to make their own income large. As Jacques Lussier noted "The fees on financial products are not high because products are complex, but that the products are complex because the fees are high" in his good book "Successful Investing is a Process: Structuring Efficient Portfolios for Outperformance" (BTW recommended by Larry Swedroe).
    SDS
    20 Mar, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • giorgiolb
    , contributor
    Comments (5382) | Send Message
     
    SDS,

     

    True, not everyone can be rich, but the odds are better if you're an active investor versus the passive, MPT style.

     

    I have a problem with those who rely on on academic evidence too much.

     

    And some like Larry can't admit that there might be problems with the factor models, such as variables that the academics have overlooked.

     

    If models based on behavioral science work so well, why does every economist given the same data set come to a different conclusion?
    20 Mar, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • SDS (Seductive Dividend Sto...
    , contributor
    Comments (3197) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » giorgiolb

     

    MPT is a collection of ideas (I reluctant to call it science), some good, some not. Just to be precise I not fully understand that you mean under MPT style, I assume that you are talking about indexing probably with some tilt from FF model. Indexing (popularized by John C. Bogle before FF) promises market performance-fees if index is properly constructed. Although S&P500 isn't the best index, it is probably the cheapest, so I presume SPY for market which historically delivered ~ 10% annual return.

     

    I do not expect significantly outperform market in first ~ 15 years of DGI. After this period I hope to have my YoC above 10% and outperform market (assuming that historical 10% still will be valid estimation for market return). Not everybody has ~ 15 years patience (I even not sure about myself) or time horizon.

     

    Again I believe that MPT is NOT a science (http://seekingalpha.co...), so it is risky to rely on it. FF92 model is king of grey duct tape to fix CAMP and to me it and later 4/5/99-factor models nothing more than
    engineering. There is a big difference between data (and Fama/French have access to at least one of two the best databases about stock market) and information. There can be a big difference between interpretations of the same information. For example ignorance of consideration that dividends might increase with time leads to ~ 50/50 contributions of dividends and capital gains in total return based on the same R. Shiller data used in fig 1 of this blog. If DG is taking into account numbers shown in fig 1 appears (I repeated this calculations myself). The same data were interpreted via dividends, earnings growth and change of P?E ratio - the problem which is strange to me as a physicist/engineer why financial pundits prefer to use ill-observed variable /earnings can be easily falsified/ to a tangible one /dividends/.

     

    Couple new factors appeared in financial models during last 2-3 years, so almost for sure that academics have overlooked something.

     

    "If models based on behavioral science work so well" - who told you this? There are few MFs based on behavioral finance, I didn't heard about their strong outperformance yet.

     

    SDS
    21 Mar, 01:30 AM Reply Like
  • giorgiolb
    , contributor
    Comments (5382) | Send Message
     
    SDS,

     

    I think I agree with you again.

     

    I agree that MPT leaves much to be desired. It's reverse engineering of a stock market which doesn't follow scientific principles, but follows human actions driven by fear and greed.

     

    Humans don't always react the same way, even when it seems that they should. Every day it's a different market.

     

    I also agree that academic research is often misused. The methodology often has little resemblance to how people actually invest, or the data is decades old, or has other such problems.

     

    Larry likes to cite research but never gives links. It's a good way to end debate.

     

    It's frustrating when I google some author, find his name on 25 different studies, but all I can see for free are abstracts. 15 minutes is the max time I'll waste trying to find what Larry claims is "evidence".
    21 Mar, 01:56 AM Reply Like
  • SDS (Seductive Dividend Sto...
    , contributor
    Comments (3197) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » giorgiolb
    Many academic studies available at http://www.ssrn.com/en (free) and http://www.jstor.org (not free but I have access and can send you couple papers for personal usage /their restriction/).

     

    Larry kindly sent me few papers. As usually each person read what (s)he wants to see. Larry read that ~ 60% of firms don't pay dividends, I read in the same paper that ~ 8000 firms pay dividends and 8000 is more than enough for me.... Actually ~ 25000 firms paid dividends at least once in their history for last 20 years and I briefly analyzed their dividends. In the result I selected "only" ~ 1800 companies worth to consider further and I guess even 1800 are too many for practical diversification (Larry told me that ~ 100 large cap and ~ 600 small cap is enough from his point of view derived from MPT).

     

    There is delay for data in database and data analysis also takes time. As far as I know waiting time in scholar financial journals is quite long, but they establish "working paper" format to avoid this delay (often in http://www.ssrn.com/en). So academic studies cannot be in real time. Now it is a philosophic type of question - what can we learn from the history and how to handle historical lesson together with famous SEC statement "previous performance does NOT guarantee future results". I think (no proof yet) that dividends history is quite reliable just because BoD sets up dividend policy for a long term and often reluctant to change it during minor economy events.

     

    I admit that financial scholars use quite advanced statistical methods /usually more sophisticated than in physics, material science and semiconductor engineering/ probably because they have to work with data there noise>signal. I understand why they use some unrealistic assumption (e.g. exact period for rebalance). I know that financial mafia in Editors Board does not allow to publish papers which strongly contradict mainstream (this is a crime IMO). I guess they can implement scenarios for rational persons and finite number of irrationalities in a study of the same aspect within asingle paper (I didn't see such reports). I CANNOT understand why financial pundits faced so many evidence that their models are flawed continue to ignore reality.

     

    SDS
    21 Mar, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • giorgiolb
    , contributor
    Comments (5382) | Send Message
     
    SDS,

     

    Thanks for the free link for academic papers. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

     

    Yes, I agree, we see what we want to see. Even if only 40 percent of stocks pay dividends, that's still a lot of stocks.

     

    I prefer dividend-paying stocks when possible, but own many that don't pay dividends. Dividend-payers in some sectors are few, or they have miniscule dividends.

     

    I'm not sure why everyone has to agrgue about it, there are plenty which do pay dividends and plenty which don't.

     

    I've read many papers on global climate change and often see how the different sides will reach conclusions that even the researcher who wrote the paper would never agree with.

     

    Climate change has the same problem we see in the financial models, the models have obvious flaws, but the die-hards will accept them blindly and fight to prove they're valid...until a better model comes along.

     

    And so we have the 3-factor, then the 4-factor, then the 5-factor, and eventually the 157-factor models. And anyone who disagrees with the "evidence" is WRONG!! hehe. I easily amuse myself.

     

    BTW, I'm curious which communist country you came from? If I'm prying, just say so.
    21 Mar, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • SDS (Seductive Dividend Sto...
    , contributor
    Comments (3197) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » giorgiolb

     

    Probably data for about 500K years on climate change and about 2K years on stock market are needed for conclusions. Nobody has such records....

     

    I'm not familiar with all Nobel and quasi-Nobel prices but I do not recall that in single years a price was given for academics with quite opposite points of view (like in economy for 2013). Just this fact probably tells that we do not know a lot in the field (finance).

     

    SDS
    23 Mar, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • giorgiolb
    , contributor
    Comments (5382) | Send Message
     
    SDS,

     

    My view of economics in general is that it's really politics in sheep's clothing.

     

    It's a fancy way of numerically quantifying (and justifying) one's political beliefs, that's why there are so many differing points of view.
    24 Mar, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • SDS (Seductive Dividend Sto...
    , contributor
    Comments (3197) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » giorgiolb
    Historically you are right - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Although politics influence stock markets in many cases there are other sources <of noise> there. I think dividend investing allows to ignore a lot of noises...
    SDS
    25 Mar, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • giorgiolb
    , contributor
    Comments (5382) | Send Message
     
    SDS,

     

    Historically the path to creating wealth has been to buy strong companies with wide moats, adding to your positions along the way, and holding onto your strong stocks for decades.

     

    I ignore the other sources <of noise> from the hordes of financial advisors pushing "academically-proven" MPT-type strategies.. nobody ever gets rich using such strategies except for the financial advisors.
    25 Mar, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • SDS (Seductive Dividend Sto...
    , contributor
    Comments (3197) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Agree, although not all my holdings have wide moat.
    25 Mar, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • giorgiolb
    , contributor
    Comments (5382) | Send Message
     
    SDS,

     

    Someone posted this link on on one of Larry's articles. Larry will surely disagree with it, but you should find it interesting...

     

    http://bit.ly/1pyFtMS
    26 Mar, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • SDS (Seductive Dividend Sto...
    , contributor
    Comments (3197) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thank you for the link. I guess academia got tired to ignore W. Buffett and started to add quality-like factors in their engineering models.
    SDS
    26 Mar, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • Ptstanford
    , contributor
    Comments (503) | Send Message
     
    As I pointed out earlier, if you take the S&P returns from the recent past, 14 years or so with dividends reinvested in the price returns, and take a million dollar portfolio selling off $60000 per year from which to live, you will run out of money.

     

    If you pick a stock portfolio that pays about 3/4 or 45,000 in cash dividends or about 4.5% (not hard to do) you will never run out of money.

     

    Larry's ideas work wonderfully on paper and he can prove them all day long, but they will fail in reality.

     

    If you believe in the Efficient Market Theory and Modern Portfolio Theory, then by all means pay Larry to invest your hard earned money in the market, void of timing or seeking bargains. No timing, no worry -- until you realize you are running out of money with your self made dividends.
    26 Mar, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • SDS (Seductive Dividend Sto...
    , contributor
    Comments (3197) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Ptstanford
    DGI is attractive to me mainly because I can minimize probability to run out of money during my long retirement. Long because I'm going to retire when I want (e.g. tomorrow) and I'm going to live many-many years (because I'll not wary to run out of money). 8-)
    SDS
    27 Mar, 01:00 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.