Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Articles For SA

Surpise, surprise.... few person can write an article for SA, according to Evelyn C. Roth SA Editor email from June 2011:
"...yes, you can write an article with co-authors. However, the article has to appear on only one of your author pages since we can't post something to multiple author pages. In the case of multiple authors, we'd put the co-authors bylines in the first lines of the text of the article.
Another alternative is for you to write the piece and acknowledge the help of others in an author's note at the end of the piece."

Well, I'm too busy/lazy/English-crazy(select what I want) to write articles for SA, but I have plenty ideas about Dividends and Dividend Growth investments (DGI), so I'm looking for co-authors.

June 23, 2011:

Dividend Growth investors are trying to create big dividend stream and NOT touch capital in retirement. In order to increase compounding it is better to avoid taxes, so IRA account can be used. But IRS requires to spend capital from IRA after 70.5 years ( and pay taxes (different tax rates can be calculated).
On another hand, Roth IRA requires taxes at front and regular account imposes taxes on dividends (now 15% but we can calculate different scenarios with e.g., 20%, 25%, .... 50%).
So - what is the optimal strategy for DG investors who is 20,30,... 70 years old?
This idea is extention of Robert Allan Schwartz article , so I hope he will find time to explore it.

There several claims that DG investment outperform market. To the best of my knowledge there is NO conformation for this claim. On another hand there are several scholar reports about high-yield dividend investment and it indeed outperform market. (see e.g., So, I think DGI proponents should run backtest to confirm their claim.

See also

<From my comment to;
Let's assume that you have to withdraw 50%, 60%,...,100% of your income stream (e.g., dividends without selling assets). Obviously you cannot do it each 2 weeks to replace your salary because dividend payments are not uniform during a calendar year but I think it worst to develop better schedule. I guess it should be some extremes on curves that show a good scenario.

5 Oct. 2012

4) We often blame companies that they cook books. I hope that companies that pays dividend (esp. DG firms) manipulate earnings significantly less than non-dividend companies. It seems possible (dis)proof such hope with 2 probabilistic models (Beneish M-Score and Montier C-Score). It is necessary to calculate scores for both types of companies and compare their average values.

15 March 2015

Brokers like Fidelity provide free analyst/ratings reports but it seems that these reports are short-time oriented and suppose to create trades (which are fruitful for the broker). I cannot blame a broker too much because they pay for reports and most reports are indeed short term. There are few long-term analyst/ratings such as Morningstar and ValueLine. What are other firms that make or useful for long-term (5+ years) stocks forecast? What brokers supply free analyst/ratings long-term reports? An article with comparison of brokers and analytical firms seems useful.

On another hand, financial service industry is "famous" in history alternation (they hide previous bad performance, change previous incorrect forecasts, etc.) In this case I think we (SA community) can uncover these tricks.
For example Jefferson Research /JR/ provides only 4 quarters history in the front page of their reports. We can collect JR reports for selected companies with 3 quarters period for 3-5 years. Then longer history of JR ranks can be built and verification of past ranks can be performed. The same can be done for any analyst report.
I believe such research should be useful but too lazy/busy to run it. A good SA article can be encouraging.

12 Aug. 2015

It is well know that one of the most popular indexes S&P500 change with time - they include/exclude some companies. It seems interesting to compare dividend change ratio (DCR) for let's say 5 and 2 years before a company included in S&P500 with DCR for 5 and 2 years before company excluded from the index. I guess "inclusions" have large average DCR than "exclusions" esp. ones whose market cap reduced before S&P removed them from the index. I'd not surprise that "exclusions" have negative DCR while "inclusions" have positive DCR.

Please send me SA email if you want to perform such study and/or co-develop these ideas