Are dividends irrelevant? Some index investors think so. However, I think they have their noses stuck in their books and have forgotten about real-life results.
Not too long ago, I watched an interesting video on YouTube which claimed that “dividends are irrelevant.” The video comes from my archenemy, Ben Felix. Ben is a financial advisor who sells ETF products and has also written a column for the Globe & Mail, a while back, which had several caveats. I, myself, have written a complete blog about Dividend Growth Investing Vs ETFs Investing in the past, but Ben just poked the bear in me, once again, with his new video.
This time, with this video, Ben just puts it plain and simple: dividends are irrelevant, when an investor is deciding where he should put his money. According to his “research,” the only way to make a good investment decision is to select ETFs. Now, let’s see how focusing solely on this financial theory is a very bad way to invest your money, in the real world. This is not Monopoly here.
The story of two great minds
The premise of many “anti-dividend” theses is based on the Modigliani-Miller theorem (or M&M, if you like… but I prefer Skittles!). According to the financial theory of these two great minds, an investor should be indifferent between investing in Company A, which is paying a $1 dividend, and Company B, with all the same metrics and fundamentals as Company A, which keeps its money in its bank account. That totally makes sense, when you look at basic math:
- Company A is worth $10 a share and makes $1 in profit. Company A pays a $0.50 dividend.
- Company B is worth $10 a share and makes $1 in profit. Company B doesn’t pay a dividend (grinch!).
- Company A loses $0.50 in value each time it pays a dividend. The shareholder sees Company A shares going up to $10.50 and receives $0.50 in cash. Total value of the investment: $11, including dividend.
- Company B keeps the $1 in profit. The shareholder sees Company B shares going up to $11. Total value of the investment: $11.
Therefore, dividends are irrelevant when choosing an investment. Not so fast M&M!
While there is no money created by the issuance of a dividend, it doesn’t make it irrelevant to your investing decisions. Dividend growth policies will tell you a lot about the company you are looking at, and this is why dividends can be relevant to your investing choices.
Dividends are an indicator, a very good one
The very first thing I look for, when I analyze a company, is what I call the dividend triangle. Most dividend growers will show a strong dividend triangle: revenue growth, earnings growth and dividend growth. These three metrics are good indicators that the company is exposed to favorable factors. In other words, it’s a great way to know if the company is:
- A leader in its market
- Has a competitive advantage
- Has developed an expertise in growth by acquisitions or focuses on a strong R&D budget to keep its edge against its peers
- Shows growth vectors
- Demonstrates a robust business model
- Generates consistent and growing free cash flow
I think you get the picture. Now, most dividend growers will have several of these characteristics. Using common sense, I would bet that, on average, this type of company will do well over the long haul. When a company is continuously making more money, it is usually liked by the market, and its share value goes up.
Therefore, by keeping track of dividend growers, you can identify great candidates for your portfolio faster. While not all dividend growers will generate the expected results, it has been proven, many times over, that dividend growth stocks can beat the market. But you don’t have to be a blind believer. You can read about index investors that prove my point!
Let’s dig the numbers
I’ll be honest. I didn’t spend dozens of hours reading financial studies, in order to prove this point. For me, it comes down to common sense which is actually backed by research. If you have any other papers that could add to the discussion (not theories, but actual results), please share them with me.
The first set of results that I found came from Vanguard, the #1 index investing advocate. In a document where Vanguard tries to convince us that dividend investing isn’t that amazing, it clearly missed the point by providing the following graph:
Source: Vanguard
During this 10-year period, dividend growth stocks not only beat the market, but they did it with less volatility.
My portfolio is built with one goal in mind: providing a comfortable and stress-free retirement. I now have the opportunity to invest in a strategy that not only beat the market, but has done it with less downfalls.
Is this an anecdote? Is it luck? Let’s go further.
The next graph, provided by Ned Davis Research, tracks stock from the early ‘70s up to 2018. Once again, it shows, clearly, that dividend growers outperform the rest of the market. We now have nearly half a century of data showing the same results.
Meb Faber and the dividend growth myth
All right, Meb Faber explained that Ned David Research generated this graph based on geometrically weighted indices. While this was a methodology accepted and commonly used by the industry, a while ago, the financial world has now moved to arithmetic-weighted indices. I’m not going to debate which one is better here. I’ll leave that debate for people who love reading books and studies, and think theory is king. I just want to highlight that what was once commonly accepted by the industry has changed over time (you know, theory must evolve to get closer to reality).
According to Meb Faber’s article, The Dividend Growth Myth, the new numbers show a less dramatic gap between dividend growers and the market:
“Now, with its updated return calculations, Ned Davis shows dividend growers returning 12.89%, all dividend stocks 12.83%, and equal weight S&P 500 12.35%! (All beginning in 1973.)”
Actually, 0.54% for 46 years is enough for me to pick dividend growth investing. It is a consistent difference, showing dividend growers do well. While Faber’s article is about his own investing strategy (including dividends and share buyback) showing even better results, his numbers still show that dividend growers perform better than the market.
Source: Meb Faber
I find Faber’s investing strategy interesting, but for me, tracking and determining share buyback programs has proven more difficult and time consuming than focusing on dividend growth. It proves to me that more than one strategy can work…
Can you beat the market with dividend investing?
If you’re wondering if you can beat the market and you do a quick Google search, you’ll easily find tons of studies telling you how professional investors don’t beat the market, in the long run. If you can beat the market for 5-10 years, many people will tell you that you are just very lucky (as if investing has anything to do with luck).
Back in 2017, I wrote an article about how dividend investors can beat the market. There are several constraints for professional investors that individual investors don’t face. As a DYI investor, I don’t have to charge myself a fee to manage my portfolio. I don’t have to manage $500M and calculate my trades to not affect the market when I want to use 10% of my portfolio. I don’t have to meet my boss and tell him that I lag my benchmark for a third quarter in a row.
Over the past nine years, I’ve consistently beat the market. When I look at my investment performances, I guess I’m just super lucky and my investment process has nothing to do with it. Ahem! Actually, my results have nothing to do with being a genius and nothing to do about luck either.
What dividend growth investing is really about
My overall results are probably similar to many other dividend growth investors. The “secret” isn’t a special formula or a superpower enabling me to foresee the future and systematically pick undervalued stocks that nobody saw coming.
Dividend growth investing is not about beating the market.
It’s not about making smarter investment decisions either.
Dividend growth investing is about having a clear strategy, following a straight-forward process and making trades based on concise information, to avoid paralysis by analysis. If you apply those simple rules to your portfolio, you will likely achieve your investing goals.
Paul N
Thanks for doing this.
The comments I left for “Ben” on YouTube, which i tried to be civil about, were responded to with a very professional reply : “Dividend investing is a joke” – I believe it was also my favorite response from him. I wonder if he talks to clients this way? Obviously the person you would want leading your customer relations committee/team.
Who actually started the competition between investing styles? Some people invest in real estate. Some people invest in precious metals. Some in a business. Maybe we should all attack one another because were all just so perfect with what we do, and no one is allowed to make money in any variant fashion?
DivGuy
Hello Paul,
Thank you for your comment.
I left a comment too with 3 specific questions. I even numbered them to make sure it was clear as I expected a clear answer for each of them. 1 week and 19 likes (haha) later, Ben still ignore my questions. This tells a lot.
There are probably a good dozen of valid investing strategy. Dividend growth investing is one of them, Real Estate and Index investing are valid too. I don’t need empirical studies to prove that :-).
Cheers,
Mike
Dividend Growth Investor
Ben is a troll.
His goal is to enrage dividend investors, so that they can then go ahead and debunk his articles/videos.
This provides free traffic to him and exposure to him. Ben’s goal is to get as much in AUM as possible. All controversy is just him trying to get more free advertising.
His firm charges around $3,500 to set up a portfolio of funds for you, and then charges steep annual fees for these actively managed funds that they sell to you ( they will claim evidence based, but in reality they are actively managed expensive mutual funds). Of course he doesn’t like dividend investing – most DGI’s are DIY’s who are not ok paying thousands of dollars per year for someone to select a few expensive mutual funds for them.
I have no intent of debating this with him though. You cannot convince a man whose livelihood depends on selling expensive mutual funds and expensive investment advice that he is wrong.
DGI
DivGuy
“Ben is a troll”
I had my laugh of the day! thx 🙂
$3.5K is a lot of money for a coach potato portfolio underperforming most dividend growth investors portfolio over the past 10 years!
Cheers,
Mike
Paul N
Oddly enough there was no mention about that additional $3500.00 “wrap fee” or using mutual funds when we were discussing the subject? The word “only” is used below just to describe what they invest in (first line). Where do see that $3500,00 fee? Is it mentioned on the PWL website? That would be something. “The low cost guru” charging $3500.00 then a perpetual 1.6% total MER to do what anyone can do on their own…
Highlighted reply
Ben Felix
5 days ago
Some cursory research would tell you that PWL only invests in low cost index funds. We are not active managers in any sense. Our fees are not posted online, but they start at 1% and get lower as assets increase – nothing close to 2%. Cool that you think I’m smooth though ?.
Highlighted reply
Ben Felix
4 days ago (edited)
Dividend investing is a joke. <—
Edit: I'll answer your question too. When you pay a fee for a portfolio management firm to manage your investments you are paying for them to invest your money (buy ETFs or whatever) but there are a ton of decisions leading up to investing, and following investing, that need to be made. Things like minimizing taxes, avoiding over-spending/over-saving, and asset allocation are easy examples. There is also a more administrative component for things like tracking adjusted cost bases and performance calculations. Probably the most important piece is access to ongoing advice in the context of your overall financial picture, tax situation, goals, family history etc. For a lot of people that is valuable. I tell everyone that if they can DIY then they should. Except, not by picking dividend stocks.
DivGuy
Ouch… and I thought their investment performances were bad…. I didn’t know I had to cut another 1% out of it. This means his 100% equity portfolio gave less than 5% annualized return in the past 5 years to their clients?
I’m glad he invested according to the right studies. Imagine the results if he didn’t!
David M
Just ran across this article. Ben Felix explains the what actually matters in the accompanying weblog post:
“””
Dividend investors will tell you that theory does not extend to reality, and that dividend stocks do indeed do better than the market. I am not denying that dividend growth stocks have beat the market on average. But the dividends are not the reason why. Dividend stocks, particularly dividend growth stocks, have excess exposure to the value, profitability, and investment factors. That is what explains performance differences, which means the outperformance still doesn’t justify trying to pick individual stocks.
“””
https://www.pwlcapital.com/the-irrelevance-of-dividends-still-a-non-starter/
He mentions, at about the 6 minute mark of the video, that he tested this hypothesis by recreating the returns of a dividend fund by leveraging some Dimension Funds; elsewhere saying it was specifically “91.44% DUSLX and 8.56% DFUVX using the Fama French five factor model”.
The argument that that he is making is not ‘dividends are bad’, but rather ‘focusing on dividends is a form of stock picking, which tends not work long-term’, and further that ‘good “dividend stocks” are actually stocks that conform to known factor-based investing strategies’.
DivGuy
I read that too. I agree; dividend growth investing is a form of stock picking (in a sense that if you invest in individual stocks, you automatically pick them). All stock researches are based on mutual funds (pros), not individual investors. As an individual investor, I don’t have the same limitations that pros have when they manage their multi-million dollars funds. Researches can’t demonstrate that.
It’s interesting that Ben knows why dividend growth stocks outperformed the market (exposure to factors) and how to replicate the past.
Unfortunately for him, he (and Dimension Funds obviously) can’t replicate this wisdom in real world results. If you look at his portfolio at PWL (100% equity), it shows terrible market returns over the past 1, 3, 5 and 10 years compared to a dividend growth investing approach (in the past 5 years, I show more than double his annualized return).
But then, he will say that my returns are just luck and basically a good anecdote while he is right and made the right decision. It’s just a 10 year bad luck streak hurting his portfolio.
It’s quite easy to win your argument when you stick to researches proving your points, ignoring those who don’t and refer to luck when you can’t explain the rest. If you watch a few of his videos, he often refer to luck to explain how people perform when it’s not according to his theory. I’ll stay with my lucky strategy ;-).