Your Dividend Yield Is Just A Feel-Good Metric And It's Dangerous

Summary

• The dividend yield taken alone is incredibly insignificant and dangerous.
• In fact, the dividend yield often blinds income-seeking investors.
• The Dividend yield is a feel-good metric, and you must not give it an inordinate level of attention.
• Looking for a helping hand in the market? Members of Dividend Growth Rocks get exclusive ideas and guidance to navigate any climate. Get started today »

What I am about to explain will likely not make me any friends among the Dividend Investing community. As “The Dividend Guy”, I’ve been called “a heretic” to focus on dividend growth (no matter the yield) or to discuss total return (as if we were all investing to give away our money to Mr. Market). So here we go:

The dividend yield is just a feel-good metric and it could be dangerous.

When taken alone, a dividend yield doesn’t mean much. Yet, many investors are grabbing shares of high-yielding stocks like they are gold nuggets. They cherish them for their juicy distribution and completely ignore what’s around. This is what I call a feel-good metric.

What’s a feel-good metric?

While I prefer the term “feel good”, I must admit I’ve taken it from Tim Ferris’ blog when he discusses vanity metrics.

“They might make you feel good, but they don’t offer clear guidance for what to do.”

That article was referring to blogs and businesses and their numbers of followers or page views (remember the tech bubble?). Those are vanity or feel-good metrics. The larger they are, the better you feel. There is only one problem: they don’t mean much. In fact, they mean nothing.

Why the dividend yield means nothing?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that dividend investing means nothing. I’m saying that the yield by itself is useless. If you are more inclined to consider your total return, you are probably nodding right now. The rest of the dividend investing community is likely preparing logs for the stake (guess which witch they will burn?).

The dividend yield is usually considered by income-seeking investors. When you think about it, that makes sense. You finally get to stop working and live off your investment. In an ideal world, you cash your dividend payment each month and move on to the golf course. Your portfolio is not big enough? That’s not a problem, let’s buy stocks offering you an 8-10% yield and you’ll be fine.

My classic response to this would be, “But what if your stocks go down?”

And the classic answer would be, “I don’t care about the stock value as long as I get the dividend payment. This is real cash in my bank account”.

This is where the yield becomes a feel-good metric. The larger it is, the better you feel. This is also where it doesn’t offer clear guidance for what to do. This is the dangerous part. You don’t have to believe me, as we can look at a real example.

One of the most “loved” REITs these days is Macerich (MAC)

When you look at my fellow Seeking Alpha authors writing on MAC, you will see that there is a general positive sentiment around the stock:

Source: Seeking Alpha (I have taken the names and # comments out to save some space)

One of the reasons why Macerich is so loved is the combination of its history (it is a long-time high-quality malls REIT) and its incredibly generous yield: 14% as of February 27. This means that if you invest $100,000 in MAC, you will get $14,000 per year in dividend. This is the kind of paycheck we would all take, right?

But before we discuss Macerich, let me tell you a story.

Mackenzie and her debt problem

I wanted to tell you about my good friend Mackenzie. She is a wonderful woman working as an investing assistant (that’s a fancy word to say secretary) at a good investment firm. She makes a decent salary and has been working there for several years.

I met her the other day and she was in tears. Unfortunately, another classic story where the marriage crumble after 20 years of love and three children. Everything was going very well for several years, but you know how it goes... life changes, and if the couple doesn’t adapt (to each other), the marriage takes a hit.

Now she’s in tears because she can’t keep up with the house and paying college for her kids. Mac then asked me if I would lend her money until things get better. She would like to borrow $100,000, but she would pay me back $3,500 every three months. Looking at her budget now, she can afford to pay $14,000 per year in interest. Her job situation likely won’t improve in the coming years, her house may need maintenance, and she may need a new car soon, but right now and next year, everything looks great.

Would you lend my friend Mac $100K?

Back to MAC

When a reader first brought MAC to my attention, we were in August 2019. The stock was trading at $30 per share and was offering a 10% dividend yield.

Source: YCharts

Here’s what I wrote back then:

“I must admit, I’m not a big fan of brick & mortar retail companies in general. While MAC shows a strong occupancy rate (over 94% since 2014), this also tells me there is limited growth perspective. The high dividend yield should be a huge red flag at this point; the market simply doesn’t believe in MAC’s ability to grow going forward. MAC will be required to invest massively to keep up its premium mall to its tenants’ taste. Further compromise might be required to keep its high-standard clientele. With the stock price drop in 2019, MAC looks like a “false good idea”.”

Now imagine that you think I’m just one of those retail haters and you decided to buy MAC at $30 as opposed to one of its previous values of up to $90 per share.

You invest $100,000 and you get $10,000 in dividend per year.

6 months later, MAC is trading at ~$21.50, but you still get your $10,000 a year in dividend. Your investment is now worth slightly over $71K. This means that just to get your capital back, you will need to wait 3 years. That’s 3 years wait to earn nothing. Yet, the $10,000 in dividends is “real money”, while I’m just talking about paper losses, right?

What if Mac must repair her roof?

Now, back to my friend’s story. Imagine that after a year of good payments, my friend comes back to me and says, “I’m really sorry Mike, but I must reduce my payment to you from $3,500 to $2,000 every three months. I must take care of my leaking roof”.

Suddenly, my “income” from this loan of $14,000 per year goes down to $8,000. To get my capital back, it will take more than 10 years.

Would you like to buy my loan contract with Mac?

A MAC dividend cut is likely built into today’s price

When you look at how fast the stock dropped in the past 3 years, the market doesn’t believe in MAC. Maybe it’s wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time), but if it’s right, this is where you should not get blinded by MAC’s generous yield.

Julian Lin suggested that you should be happy to see a dividend cut. I agree with the premise, as this would give more money to MAC to manage its malls and find a way to create value for shareholders. However, for those who already suffered a loss of 30% (or a lot more if you bought MAC 2-3 years ago), this means you will have to wait at least a decade to get your money back.

When you look at MAC’s dividend over the past 3 years, you’ll notice something interesting...

Source: YCharts

That’s right: after MAC increased its dividend consecutively for a few years, management “forgot” to increase your paycheck in 2019. They are likely going to keep their amnesia in 2020. The absence of dividend growth is clearly one of the 3 red flags telling you it could be a bad investment.

How will your retirement budget take a 30-50% dividend cut? Not so well.

The dividend yield is only good for your ego

Getting a 10% dividend yield on a holding is good for your ego, but it doesn’t make you a good investor or even give you what you are looking for: the ability to retire stress-free. The stock market is filled with stories of companies offering generous dividend payments and then ending up in the ditch in terms of the stock’s value.

Selecting a stock based solely on its dividend yield is saying goodbye to a sound analysis. We would all like getting paid 10% per year on all our holdings. But the truth is that there is a clear reason why most of those super-high yield stocks are being so “generous”. It’s because a dividend cut is coming and the share price will drag behind the market for a long time.

For my part, I would rather focus on growth (revenue, earnings, and dividends). I only select companies which regularly increase their dividends. The current yield should be “considered”, but it cannot be the sole factor involved in the selection of an investment. I would own ten Visas, Apples, or Microsofts over a single Macerich. What about you?

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Comments

[Emerald]

@as10675, @David Crosetti, @Julian Lin, its always a lot of fun when someone takes a poke at their own perception of "dividend growth investors". Her are a few of my perceptions surrounding this endless debate:

1. Individual investors have different investment goals and plans. Some are purely income oriented and they are content with this strategy. Yes, they are not maximizing their cash/income/capital gains, but they don't want to do this. REITs, Utilites and AT&T do it for them.

2. Others are purely "total return" oriented and mock the dividend types. Pure growth has worked for the last ten years, but now we are in a correction. If you took your profits, good for you. Otherwise, Mr. Market is actively taking them away from you.

3. For myself, I'm a "cash flow investor" that incorporates both strategies. I don't criticize other strategies and this is the plan that works for me.

-For starters, I have the safety part of my portfolio that I built in 2010. Investment grade, blue chip stocks that I bought on sale that have both increased in principal value and pay a growing dividend. This part of my portfolio is both dividend growth oriented and total growth oriented. It has worked well and is covering 67% of my annual costs today, generally without a lot of harvesting of unrealized appreciation.

-In 2019, I started a more active "harvest and replant strategy" on a number of "overvalued" (by my analysis) stocks. I captured the unrealized gain and turned the gain into cash flow via sale and future income by buying new, different stocks that were on sale.

-I bought a a number of low-dividend payers and zero-dividend payers for future capital appreciation and harvesting (i.e. BABA, TCEHY, VIAC, JD, MDT, MLNX, etc.). I bought Apple and Microsoft many years ago when they were low dividend payers.

-I'm getting ready to buy more stocks that are going on sale over the next few weeks at a deep discount. A new chance to make some new cash flow from both dividend payers and a few more pure growth stocks.

P.S. I own a few shares of MAC and SPG, but a very small percentage of my overall portfolio. I'll let them ride for now.

Cheers

[David Crosetti]

@Emerald

Since I retired, I've been more of a capital gain/total return investor, than a DGI.

Now, let's be clear about something. I love the blue chip DG Champions and that is where my focus has been since 2017, but from that capital gain perspective.

My activity is in my Roth and my wife's Roth (mirror portfolios) and while the annual contribution levels are not all that stout, we have had tremendous growth in the value of the portfolios, through "buying low and selling high."

A couple of examples.

PG at $72 and sold at $125
KO at $44 and sold at $60
KMB at $102 and sold at $145
PEP at $97 and sold at $145
CL at $60 and sold at $75
TGT at $52 and sold aat $129
VFC at $47 and sold at $100
SWH at $240 and sold at $530

Sitting on about 40% cash, right now. The guy from Schwab called the wife the other day to tell her that he noticed our accounts were sitting there with a lot of cash. He said that he was concerned. She told him that while the stocks in our portfolio might be taking a hit, here, that idle cash is saving us a ton of money and will let us get back into the market when this stuff is over and 2009 comes back as the buying opportunity of a lifetime.

There are some oil companies out there that their stock price is under book value. Not buying anything right now, but just pointing out a fact.

We have had 10 years of a stock market where something was always on sale. Through Obama and Trump, if you didn't make money in the stock market, you weren't trying.

Just sayin.

[Dividend Latitude]

Well, it may be a "feel good" metric, and it also may be "good for your ego". But that certainly is NOT all it is.

It is a crucial factor in how quickly you can get to a level of dividend income that makes you financially independent. This assumes a fairly fixed monthly investment amount.

If I invest $3000 per month at an average yield of 3%, I will reach financial independence fast than if I get an average yield of 1%, even if I get better dividend growth rates a 1% yield.

[The Dividend Guy]

My point is that you can't consider the yield and forget about everything else. Your statement about which strategy achieve financial independence faster is true if and only if:
- You have no intention to sell a single shares during your lifetime.
- You higher yielding stocks never cut their dividend.

Consider investing in CenturyLink (CTL) vs Visa (V) for the past 10 years and you will see who reaches financial independence first. I'm cherry picking here, but I'm sure you get the point. If you allow yourself to sell shares, the yield becomes irrelevant.

The question is: "why would you not consider selling shares?". What is so wrong about it?

A dividend is only money a company decided not to reinvest in their great business model. If a company decides to pay a low yield (most likely because the stock is doing so well that the yield can't keep up), there is nothing stoping you from selling shares and make your own dividend from your portfolio.

Cheers,
Mike

[Dividend Latitude]

"Consider investing in CenturyLink (CTL) vs Visa (V) for the past 10 years and you will see who reaches financial independence first. I'm cherry picking here, but I'm sure you get the point. If you allow yourself to sell shares, the yield becomes irrelevant.

The question is: "why would you not consider selling shares?". What is so wrong about it?"

@The Dividend Guy

I've made my share of stock selection mistakes, no doubt. But this made me a better investor, as now I have a much better understanding of what is quality, what businesses should do well long-term, moats, etc.

The problem with selling shares is similar to the problem of trimming winners. It is more speculation than investing, for one thing.

For another, it really goes against the DGI strategy. Selling shares reduces your dividend income and your overall portfolio size. You cannot live off the principle forever, so the risk of running out of money in retirement is higher.

After V pays me my dividend, I still have the same number of shares. And, after a buyback, I own a larger fraction of the company. If I sell shares, my fraction is smaller.

[as10675]

"If I invest $3000 per month at an average yield of 3%, I will reach financial independence fast than if I get an average yield of 1%, even if I get better dividend growth rates a 1% yield."

Not really. Over the years I provided hundreds of FastGraphs examples why not. Many stocks with lower yield ratios actually paid out more dividends than stocks with high yield ratio over the same time frame.

[aarc]

The best times to buy are when markets become irrationally pessimistic that resulted into prolonged panic selling episodes.

- GFC bottom fish method: drive.google.com/...
- Account Management: drive.google.com/...

I had a hard time deciding which ones to bottom fish:

- Growth Stocks vs. Value Stocks?

Decision made simple when XLF went down past -75% toward -85% max losses hence i over-weighted in financials despite being considered most risky by Financial Analysts. And when fundamental analysts kept declaring numerous (formerly) mid-cap companies as penny-stock Zombies in late Feb to early March 2009, i bought 3 dozens of them @ more than -95% discounts without even blinking twice, so to speak.

- zombies jumped 3x to 5x profits w/in weeks after bottoming;
- badly battered banks jumped 2x to 3x within months.

I sold 1/3 of zombie positions at 3x to 5x profits; then sold another 1/3 at 10x profits or more; then slowly sold remaining 1/3 past 20x profits except for few hundreds/thousands of shares each stock as precious memento (average costs from 10cents to less than $1/share). More than a dozen went bk'ed but that's inconsequential against 3x to 20+x massive profits. TEN DAN MU SIRI and ATTU among the best performing survivors.

- Strategic Plan A: drive.google.com/...
- Fiscal Stimulus Plan B: drive.google.com/...

Plan A had been my primary guide or 'roadmap' since it became feasible in October 2011 during EU debt crisis, plan B became probable only in late 2017 due to excessive outperformance of Dow Jones from 2016 to 2017. Portfolio performed 695% max vs. 400% by SnP500 and 438% for SPY w/ DRIP by Feb2020 ATH.

,

Investing in highly stable dividend stocks is viable in practically all market conditions, more often than not they survive and prosper. Over the long run some could outperform stable growth stocks via DRIP and/or DCA + DRIP, such as from say 1974 to 2016 (= 42 years).

- DJ = 3,175% cap gains; 11,574% total returns.
- SnP500 = 3,421% ..... 10,271% TR.

- Compq = 9,278% mostly with none to nil dividends;
- Gold = 4,634% from 1968 bottom to 2011 ATH = 43 yrs.

Buying leading tech stocks such as the FANGAM group become extremely profitable for highly skilled experts and other veteran traders. AMZN = 130,000% from 1997 IPO low to Jan2018 high for example, with 95% collapse during Dotcom Bust - far too many dotcoms not so lucky to survive.

- SPY /2009 to 2020 = 438% max incl DRIP;

- 2xSSO = 2,250%, 2250/438 = 5.13x instead of 2x;
- 3xSPXL = 6,424%, = 15x instead of 3x.

To reduce trading stresses, i gravitated toward 2x and 3x ETFs as they could outperform majority of the FANGAM group due to 'excessive' positive compounding effects during bull runs. Negative compounding effects not as effective due to decays as share prices become smaller and smaller, with 3xSPXL to become $zero only if SnP500 = $zero (infinite time needed to reach $zero).

--------------------

Rising tide lifts all boats and so they say.

Not really since not all stocks have similar secular characteristics, others are known as cyclical that performed differently from Dow Jones, SnP500, and/or Compq. Russell2000 being small caps also has different but not very wide divergences against the former 3 which were/are highly correlated on short-term to medium-term to long-term cycles.

Gold and Crude Oil have very different cycles of secular rallies and corrections compared to the major averages.

- Dow Jones Historical: drive.google.com/...

- Gold Historical: drive.google.com/...
- Crude Oil Historical: drive.google.com/...

23 and 26 years of secular rallies (1942/65 and 1974/2000) vs. 9 years of secular corrections (1965/74 and 2000/09) for Dow Jones post WWII.

10-12 years of secular rallies and about 19 years of secular corrections for Gold and Crude Oil. Hence, not wise to invest in gold and oil for the long run specially since they don't have dividends to tide you over. Crude oil suffered worst in modern history, with 82% max loss vs. 71% by gold vs. 80% by Compq vs. 57% by SnP500 vs. 54% by Dow Jones.

- XLE Long-Term: drive.google.com/...

However, energy stocks/ETFs have yummy irresistible 4+% to 14+% yields these days majority are not Zombies despite prolonged crude-oil meltdowns, most of the zombies had been weeded out during and after 2008 and 2016 catastrophic collapses. What remain mostly are the profitable companies due to lowered production costs and optimized operating maintenance, after a series of cost cuttings the past several years.

- China w/ tons of Cov-19: drive.google.com/...

vs.

- USA w/ few Cov-19: drive.google.com/...

Who's gonna win or lose, Red USA vs. Blue China, or both?

Hence i bought lots of 4+% to 14+% high-dividend energy stocks/ETFs in this corona-virus panic selling while they are being hammered very badly. Another one of those 'once-in-a-lifetime' opportunities. This too shall pass.

Cheers and Good Luck.

[MegaDivGuy]

Would you mind explaining in more detail? :)

[Robert in Vancouver]

I think my average of 15.6% total annual return over the past 47 years with the main focus on high dividends is better than focusing on growth. And it's a lot easier than trying to buy low and sell high all the time to make money (which is impossible to do consistently).

Some, but not all, high dividend payers might grow less than "growth" stocks. But when they give me a dividend it's my money, it's not piling up in a corporate account and tempting a new manager to blow it on speculative ventures.

[Paul Wagner]

@Robert in Vancouver "And it's a lot easier than trying to buy low and sell high all the time to make money (which is impossible to do consistently)."

You don't have do do anything "all the time" to make money. Just looking at a long term chart of the Dow or other indices, will tell you that the likelihood is that you will almost always have an opportunity to sell shares of a good company for more than you paid for them.

It's the dividend that gets in the way of investors realizing this reality, because when you sell shares, even at a profit, you lose future dividends from those shares. But, you DO have the cash now, don't you? Even a bond is going to be redeemed at some point, leaving you bereft of future interest income from it, but giving you the opportunity to do with the cash what you will, even if it is only to store it away in a safe place.

The higher the yield, the greater the disinclination to sell shares at a profit and the greater the inclination to hold onto shares no matter what.

[Mr AT]

I like looking at current yield vs the security's historical range. It lets me know if something is cheap or expensive, and it flags outliers for additional scrutiny.

[Srmonroe00]

As a purely income investor I love to look at the yields at that price of that time. Paper losses are nothing but that, paper. I have found even with a dividend cut of 50% on a 20% yielding dividend, you still make 10% while you wait. I get what your saying, but income is King at this point in the game. Long OXLC, ECC. Thanks for the update.

[Vlad Chitic]

"Paper", how you call it, can be sold when there are gains to substitute for dividends. Also, thinking of stocks as "paper", I believe, shows that you don't understand what investing really is.

[David Crosetti]

As a DGI, why would you even consider this REIT to be something that you'd want to own??

Inconsistent dividend increases, inconsistent dividend growth, it's a REIT.

No thanks. I'll stick with buying shares of PG when the dividend is 3.8% or higher, KO when the dividend is 3.5% or higher, KMB with a 3.5% yield point and on and on with great Dividend Champions.

[Dividend Latitude]

"As a DGI, why would you even consider this REIT to be something that you'd want to own??"

Exactly! I would never invest in this junk. First things first - invest only in high-quality companies with excellent track records.

[David Crosetti]

@Dividend Latitude

The entire strategy behind DGI is centered on buying quality companies (product and service) with excellent management (driven to success) and that increase dividends annually, because they have the earnings power to do so.

There are a number of companies that met these target goals in my portfolio, in the past. They are not there, today, because they lost sight of quality, management, and profitability.

That REIT is dog city and probably the worse example that the author could have used, in any effort to influence a DGI.

The author makes a good point, however, when he says:

"Selecting a stock based solely on its dividend yield is saying goodbye to a sound analysis."

And, unfortunately, he gives us this tidbit, quite late in his article. Almost missed it, until I printed the article and made notes on it.

But reading comments here and on other articles by some of the newer authors, it would appear that prudence and due diligence are no longer part of stock market investing.

I think that's because many people think this game is simple and easy.

I guess that's why there are so many millionaires who made their fortune in the stock market.

Like those gamblers who made their fortunes in Vegas.

And gold prospectors who got rich in California back in the 1849-1853 time period, like my great grandfather did. But instead of breaking his back digging for gold, he sold the other idiots shovels, pick axes, lanterns, tents, cooking utensils, and other supplies in his general store in El Dorado County, California (Placerville as a town reference).

Store is still there. The prospectors all have left.

[MegaDivGuy]

@David Crosetti So, you believe that my average yield of 14.25%, which includes a decade's worth of essentially money market yields as an emergency fund, is bad because my yield may vary.

Of course, REITs have non-linear dividend payouts and prices; that is a by product of any security which has a massive yield which, I might add, has been time tested.

I don't belong to the "tortoise" investor group, count me as a "hare", though my very short term results can be hair-raising from time to time :)

[MegaDivGuy]

Despite my screen name, I focus on increasing my dividend stream. My goal is the very best total yearly income at the lowest apparent risk.

My risk tolerance is magnitudes higher than most everyone else. I break all the rules; diversification means virtually nothing to me. It's all about relentlessly maximizing total income. The resulting "yield" number is by a by-product.

(That said, my spreadsheet does perform a "yield" calculation, which is currently a bit over 14%, a reduced number because, as I gain years, I prefer slightly less perceived risk than before. My methodology has granted me the ability to do anything I wish, any where, and at any time, a most marvelous gift).

[Market Map]

Peter Lynch published an informative piece in Worth magazine in 1995 about the mathematics underlying the holding a of portfolio of "dividend achievers" ( versus the holding of bonds ) and the harvesting of income at a 7% rate ( through the combination of the receiving of dividends and the sale of shares ). www.worth.com/...

Pulling that premise forward to the "lost decade" and beyond ( 2000 - 2014 ), a combination 7% dividends received / sale of shares applied to a portfolio constructed of dividend "Kings" survived this difficult 15 year period with a balance drawdown of -14% below initial starting amount. It then started growing above initial starting post 2012 and continuing to present.
https://tinyurl.com/v6sc9v9

Taking this idea of "sale of shares" for income, instead of holding a highly concentrated portfolio of individual companies, as described in Part 1 of E Book "Improving Asset Accumulation: Tactical “Buy & Hold” with Exchange Traded Funds" *, we diversify by constructing a simple portfolio of four equal weighted equity based asset classes representing dividend payer (aristocrats), non financial large cap growth ( technology ), REIT, and small cap value. All of these attributes have produced highest ranking excess returns above SP500 benchmark over many decades. The portfolio uses low expense exchange traded funds and REIT ( SCHD/REGL, QQQ, O, VBR for example ). The use of an ETF representing the dividend payer / growth attribute alleviates the exacting management of a portfolio of individual stocks.

Because these four asset classes have shown evidence of producing high excess returns ( equating to capital appreciation ) over many decades, one can utilize a "sale of shares" income harvesting process exclusively ( Part 4 * ) and reinvest the dividends for further portfolio compounding. This may give an investor more control and flexibility in the amount of income that they desire, rather than being beholden to dividend payout schedules and idiosyncratic stock behaviors and dividend events, such as cuts, freezes, etc.
. . .
* tinyurl.com/y6z8njmp ( Paste link into browser )

[Zucks]

To be fair, this article is sort of the back of the hand to experienced investors. Anyone with a brain knows to first focus on the individual company’s industry/ business and the prospects of that company going forward. As we were told several times recently on CNBC, the value of a business is based on one year’s results in the future. Then you focus on management and the financials. This article talks down to your readers. Of course there are exceptions. As I read this the Fed just announced a cut in interest rates... bye bye

[vinyl1]

The reality is, everyone has to learn this the hard way. Only when you lose a lot of money on one of these stocks will you learn how to properly evaluate cash flows, debt, and capex requirements. If a stock pays 14% for one year, two years, three years, then you think you're an investing genius - but then you find out.

My late mother owned a utility stock during the 90s that paid 18%. The analysts all said they would have to cut, but they never did. They eventually were bought out at a fat price by another utility. BUT - owning this stock made her a worse investor. She was always looking for another one like it, and they don't exist.

[Robert in Vancouver]

Actually, lots of such stocks and ETF's exist, it all depends on the price you pay when you buy. If you buy a solid dividend payer that's dropped because of a market crash it can yield well over 10% simply because it's temporarily dropped in price.

[TheMeyerGroup]

Hi Robert, you make an excellent point.

The "Accidental High Yielder" DGI champs are my special focus and right now that area is target rich. ENB, MO, T, XOM, NNN! Even the lower current yields with higher divvy growth rates look sweet: ADM, GPC, MMM, TGT...

Good hunting,

-TMG

[Brettmar57]

Well, I can generally agree with this article since its focus is on such mega-yield stocks. Yields over 10% should be considered as a red flag. I own only a couple of these, and got burned by one of then this past year - Gas Log Partners. But this article loses a lot of its punch, at least for me, when I consider the long term experience of the bulk of my dividend stocks which have yields ranging from 4% to 8%, with an average just over 6%. This large basket of stocks (about 60) has grown steadily with the market, albeit at a lower growth rate than the general market. But the dividends have also grown slowly and steadily across the portfolio. The total return of this portfolio meets or exceeds my long teem goal of 8% to 10%. As a retiree in my 5th year of retirement, I am enjoying a steady increase in both dividend income and total net investment worth. It helps that I can reinvest a portion of the income to create even more growth. So for me, yield remains important and is certainly not USELESS.

[Calmanto]

MAC is struggling with finance regardless of “high” occupancy. Wouldn't you lend your money to someone who is struggling with finance? You may ask them to cut debts/expenses (or dividends). Financial issue do not lie.

Insiders buying? It reminds of Kinder Morgan whose the CEO kept buying until the dividend cut.

[Heiko Hofheinz]

@ The Dividend Guy, If you love Visa, Apple and Microsoft, I'll give you a good tip: take the Adams Fund ADX. There are your values and a lot more quality. Always trades under NAV and pays a high special distribution every December like a Swiss watch. But the icing on the cake: he has a self-imposed minimum payment of 6%. It is one of my favorite funds. And if he paid out monthly, he might be my only one.
Invest well

[mr_cassandra]

I enjoyed reading this article. I approach this in a similar way starting with lists of dividend aristocrats, kings etc and then screening for long term stock price appreciation, value line and morningstar ratings and last but not least, the more mundane the better; ie I try as much as possible to avoid areas subject to disruptive technologies.

[kesslerblvd]

Going below 20.

[BrianSSS]

Going to 0.

[Little Dude]

going below 0

[HenryGood]

The fatal flaw in your article is assuming that once a stock drops that it will never recover. You make silly statements like “10 years to make your money back.” That’s if you only count dividend payments. What if MAC stock gets to $60, around where its NAV is? What if you buy MAC not only for the dividend, but also because it’s incredibly undervalued?

[c0nst]

Agreed. Moreover, dividends cut could speed up the movement towards NAV.

[The Dividend Guy]

You are right, MAC could go back to its original value... or cut its dividend and stay at $20... or something in between. We don't know for sure.

I find it interesting that some investors would also give me the opposite argument when I discuss a low yield stocks showing strong capital appreciation (Microsoft for example). They will tell "well, wait until MSFT drops by 50% and then come talk about its growth!". We can go in circle like that for a while.

I'd be more interested in finding several examples where a 10%+ yield stock made a huge come back and went up by 100-200% (MAC going back to $60).

But the point of this article wasn't about MAC and it's potential. It's about using the yield as a main point of focus to select a company in one's portfolio. Pick 10 of your favorite high yielders (especially 10%+) and let's see how they do in 5 years.

Cheers,
Mike

[Whiterabbit66]

Mike how about OHI. People on here were screaming sell, sell, sell when it was in the 20's and a 11%ish yield. People like me that bought then did very well. I am happy to recently buy MAC and SKT, take the yield and hold on as my downside is limited and upside will likely be very good. I am not saying hold only high yielders but mix them in with growth stocks too.

[Gordon Gekko Greed]

No need for any long winded comment. It's all in black and white, and straight to the point. Great article. Thanks.

[EU-10-bagger]

Which brings us back to Geraldine Weiss! Thanks for the (re)guidance.

[Larry Ev]

Ah yes divvies. Boy have I been there. Ten and twelve percent yields and a huge smile from 2009 to 2015. Then it ended. 2004 through 2018 total return was a huge negative. I had money in the bank all right but one day I ran some numbers projecting a continuation and discovered it would all be gone at around age eighty. I am a Total Return disciple now. I want a reasonable yield (6% is high) and a decent capital gain. Divvies alone are truly dangerous. The ultimate Wall Street suckers game.