FREE NEWSLETTER

Don’t Dis Dividends by Jonathan Clements

Go to main Forum page »

AUTHOR: Jonathan Clements on 11/08/2024

Who knew dividend-paying stocks were so controversial? Some view them as a great way to generate retirement income and lower a portfolio’s risk level, while others shun such stocks as tax-inefficient and dismiss their owners as irrational.

But wherever you stand on this issue, keep a key notion in mind: At some point in their life, we need publicly traded companies to start returning cash to shareholders—or there’s a risk they’ll disappear without creating any wealth for investors over their lifetime.

In their initial, fast-growing years, companies typically don’t pay dividends. Instead, they invest any spare cash back into the company. That makes sense: If the company is growing fast, shareholders get a big bang for every buck that’s reinvested in the business.

But as companies grow larger, not only does their need to spend heavily on research, marketing, equipment and other corporate investments typically dwindle, but also the return on those investments often shrinks. What to do with the company’s spare cash? The business could use that cash to pay down debt or acquire other companies. But often, it makes sense to begin returning some of the money to shareholders.

But how? A company might start paying dividends or it could buy back its own shares. Those who disdain dividends often embrace share buybacks. Why? A dividend means a bigger tax bill for any investor who owns the stock in a regular taxable account, while a buyback only triggers a tax bill for those who want to sell.

On the other hand, companies are often terrible market timers, aggressively buying back their own shares at market peaks, as they seek to offset the issuance of stock options to the company’s executives. By contrast, a regular dividend can provide a healthy dose of discipline for senior executives, who spend corporate cash more carefully because they know that failing to pay that dividend would crush the company’s share price.

But however it happens, it’s important that companies eventually start returning cash to investors—or there’s a risk they could disappear without creating any wealth for investors over their corporate lifetime.

Take General Motors, which filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Its shares, which had traded above $90 in 2000, became essentially worthless. If GM had never returned any cash to shareholders, it might have counted as one of America’s great wealth-destruction machines. But in fact, GM ranks as the past century’s eighth greatest creator of shareholder value, according to finance professor Hendrik Bessembinder.

“GM paid more than $64 billion in dividends to its shareholders in the decades prior to its bankruptcy and also repurchased shares on multiple occasions,” writes Bessembinder. “GM common stock was one of the most successful stocks in terms of lifetime wealth creation for shareholders in aggregate, despite its ignoble ending.”

The lesson: You may not want to own dividend-paying stocks—but we should all want companies to eventually return lots of cash to shareholders, whether it’s through dividends, stock buybacks or some other means.

Subscribe
Notify of
19 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael l Berard
1 month ago

yes, all great reasons to simply own a global index fund, like VT. Plenty of dividend payers, and the best companies tend to raise it a lot. I feel if someone owns high dividend stocks, the total return will not outdo the market, but, as long as you do not need to sell shares and just use the cash, should be good.

Cheryl Low
1 month ago

My main portfolio is invested in ETFs/individual stocks, but I also have a dividend portfolio of Dividend King and Aristocrat stocks in a Roth account. I don’t depend on the dividends to pay monthly expenses, but if I need cash, I withdraw the dividends to avoid selling stocks, especially in a down market. Otherwise, I reinvest the dividends. Companies can cut their dividends, but investing in Dividend King stocks (paying dividends 50+ years) mitigates some of the risk of a dividend cut.

Cody Mercurio
1 month ago

More important than the dividend is the corporation’s payout percentage. When reviewing a stock I always check the payout ratio. Personally, I prefer companies that have less than a 50% payout ratio. I don’t understand how some companies cannot cover the shareholder dividend payment from free cash flow and do not suspend or cut the dividend.

Mark Eckman
1 month ago

There are also some stocks that pay a dividend but are not what you would call a dividend stock. For example, Visa (V) pays a small dividend, less than a 1% yield, but the 5-year compounded annual growth rate of dividend increases is over 10%. If you are buying stocks to beat inflation, the dividend growth and consistency alone would say buy and hold V. I have found similar situations with Microsoft (MSFT), Home Depot (HD) and more.

Michael1
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark Eckman

You further illustrate the difference between dividend stocks and dividend growth stocks. All three of those you mention are among the top ten holdings of Vanguard Dividend Appreciation (VDADX/VIG).

And only HD makes even the top 100 of Vanguard High Dividend Yield (VHYAX/VYM).

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael1
Rob Jennings
1 month ago

What I frequently find fascinating is the lingering approach of owning dividend paying stocks as a primary retirement strategy and the strength of folk’s belief when retirement research has long since moved on. Reminds me of the movie Hard to Kill. When I see these arguments raised, I sometimes need to go back and re-read pieces like this recent one by Larry Swedroe:
The Preference for Dividend-Paying Stocks is Irrational – Rethinking65

David Powell
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob Jennings

“…even when a question looks like it has an entirely quantitative answer, it’s rarely that simple.” -Adam Grossman

mytimetotravel
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob Jennings

Thanks. That article makes a lot of sense.

David Powell
1 month ago

Most financial debates are people with different goals and different time horizons talking past each other.

A dividend bird in the hand is worth two stock buyback growth promises in the bush to many retired investors. We have shorter time horizons than younger folk in the retirement saving phase when growth is top of mind.

The surest way of getting and keeping a great dividend yield in your diversified stock portfolio is to follow Jonathan’s advice to buy more of the stocks you hold when the market takes a big drop and stocks go on sale. It may help to think of your stock yield as you would a bond: from a cost (par) perspective, not a market price perspective.

The second best way is to employ a tilt towards value, small, and ex-US stocks which have a higher yield than S&P 500 or total market funds.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Powell
mytimetotravel
1 month ago

If I own a total US stock index fund (or an S&P index plus extended market) is there any reason for me to be concerned about this? Presumably I own dividend paying stocks as part of the index. Isn’t the argument about whether to overweight dividend paying stocks, which I have no current plans to do?

Michael1
1 month ago
Reply to  mytimetotravel

You might be interested in what I just added under David Lancaster’s comment early in the thread.

parkslope
1 month ago
Reply to  mytimetotravel

I think your question highlights something that is missing from this thread. While I am in complete agreement with the need for mature companies to pay dividends, I have always been content to invest in total US and global index funds.

Brent Wilson
1 month ago

I’m not against dividend-paying stocks and I think you make a great point that some companies best use of excess capital is to pay a dividend.

But I’m not going to focus on or exclusively own dividend-paying stocks, ignoring companies who don’t pay dividends because, as you mention, companies can have perfectly valid reasons for re-investing excess cash into their companies.

I think it is this approach that many advocate for – overweighting dividend-paying companies – which many like myself take issue with. I don’t mean to say I’m passionately against this. To each their own. But I’ve heard others’ reasons for it, and I remain unconvinced.

R Quinn
1 month ago

I just checked, one dividend paying stock comprises 21% of our entire portfolio value – qualified and non-qualified combined. That’s because the stock has more than doubled since I retired and all dividends are reinvested.

If the portfolio was used for retirement income, perhaps that allocation is not prudent or maybe in any case, but it does create good income if needed.

The dividends are qualified so the tax rate at 15% is quite a bit lower than our standard income tax rate.

Jonathan, what do you think? Too risky?

David Lancaster
1 month ago

Or perhaps redeploy that portion in your IRA which you could do immediately and completely without incurring capital gains?

David Lancaster
1 month ago

Christine Benz of Morningstar recommends 20-25% of her third bucket for retirees (11 years and beyond) be invested in Vanguard Dividend Appreciation mutual fund/ETF. The percentage deployed based on the risk profile of the portfolio.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Lancaster
Michael1
1 month ago

Thanks David. To expand on this…

While actual percentages do depend on risk profile, Christine recommends the dividend growth index fund be about 2/3 of the US equity piece of a retiree portfolio, with other 1/3 a total market index fund. (For non-US stock she just uses a broad international fund).

Her reasoning:

“Owing to an anchor position in Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index [VDASX/VIG] which focuses on companies with a history of growing their dividends, the portfolio has a high-quality tilt that’s appropriate for a retirement portfolio.”

“I would take pains to point out that it doesn’t have a yield that’s high in absolute terms. In fact, its yield is roughly in line with the broad markets, but it is generally a higher-quality basket of stocks than you get with a total market index fund.”

luvtoride44afe9eb1e
1 month ago

Great explanation of the pros to dividend paying stocks. The biggest con I’ve read about using this strategy to create cash flow in retirement is the lack of diversification it could cause. Many other factors need to be considered of course especially what portion of your portfolio you dedicate to dividend paying stocks. Thanks for the insight.

Free Newsletter

SHARE