## Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Discuss your favourite picks, broker, and trading or investment style.
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11806
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

NormR wrote:
16 May 2017 19:33
Ah, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're talking about the difference between geometric and arithmetic returns. In this case it seems to be applied index construction. That is, geometrically-weighted indexes.
Ah, my mistake.

In constructing an index, using geometric weights is the equivalent of using arithmetic weights of the logarithms of the values, and then exponentiating. This serves to reduce the impact of more extreme values. In practical terms, this reduces the relative weight of companies with very large market capitalization.

As Value Line says, both the geometric mean and the median have this property. In fact, in the case of returns that are log-normally distributed, the geometric mean coincides with the median.

I'm not sure why Value Line chose to use geometric weights rather than medians. Perhaps it's because geometric weights are maximum likelihood estimators, and so have all sorts of nice asymptotic properties, like laws of large numbers and central limit theorems. Or perhaps because their clients are more comfortable with geometric weights generally.

Did I answer the right question this time?

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

NormR
Gold Ring
Posts: 4002
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 11:19
Contact:

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

ghariton wrote:
16 May 2017 21:58
In constructing an index, using geometric weights is the equivalent of using arithmetic weights of the logarithms of the values, and then exponentiating. This serves to reduce the impact of more extreme values. In practical terms, this reduces the relative weight of companies with very large market capitalization.
Humm, it might be my confusion or poor description. But I think they are equal-weights but the daily return is either calculated arithmetically or geometrically as follows. (Again, I could be wrong!)

Arithmetic index = sum of % stock returns / # stocks
Geometric index = (product of stock returns {i.e. 1 + %stock return}) ^ (1/# stocks)

The arithmetic index has (in my view) a simple interpretation. It reflects what an investor would get by buying an equal amount of each stock.

It strikes me that one can't invest in a basket of stocks - in advance - and get the return of a geometric index. As a result it's interpretation, and usefulness, seems odd. That is, it tracks the performance of the median stock.

Now, my actual application of all of this goes to the point of this thread. Ned Davis Research used to just track a geometric index when studying U.S. dividend growth and now they offer both.

Code: Select all

``````Category          Geometric    Arithmetic
Div.Growers       9.96%        12.89%
S&P 500 Equal Wt  7.60%        12.34%``````
The outperformance is wide in the Geometric case but tiny in the Arithmetic one. It seems to me that investors are most likely to obtain the returns of the second. The returns of the first seem to be theoretical and designed to track median results. But investors don't earn the median they get the average. I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason to opt for a geometric index and interpreting the difference between the two in this context.

ghariton
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11806
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

NormR wrote:
16 May 2017 22:40
It strikes me that one can't invest in a basket of stocks - in advance - and get the return of a geometric index. As a result it's interpretation, and usefulness, seems odd. That is, it tracks the performance of the median stock.
I think you're right.

The idea is still to give lower weight to more extreme values, in this case daily returns. You're de-emphasizing large swings (or, in the case of a median, discounting them completely). We know that the arithmetic average is always greater than or equal to the geometric average. But the difference depends on the variance of the observations (or some other measure of dispersion). The more dispersion, the greater the gap between arithmetic and geometric means.

Your table is consistent with a finding of less dispersion in returns among dividend growers than among members of the S & P 500. I suspect that doesn't come as a surprise.

As to the usefulness of the geometric mean in this context, I am unsure. Perhaps the purpose is to de-emphasize "tail" events, i.e. very large and very small returns. The result might (or might not) be a better estimator of over-all returns going forward. But that would require some empirical testing.

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

Taggart
Gold Ring
Posts: 6209
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 07:34

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Using just a static high dividend yield policy may work fine in a tax free environment, but for someone like myself who has all their individual Canadian stocks in a taxable account, I don't think it would work out too well. Plus I would always be worried about dividend cuts from these highest yield stocks. One of the requirements of running a high yield portfolio is to turn over the now lower yielders to make way for a new crop of highest yield stocks once a year. That creates a taxable event. When running a large portfolio of common dividend growth equities I attempt to have no turnover, except when a company forces my hand, which doesn't happen too often. It's been a good year, when there's no selling from the portfolio.

NormR
Gold Ring
Posts: 4002
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 11:19
Contact:

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Taggart wrote:
17 May 2017 05:43
Using just a static high dividend yield policy may work fine in a tax free environment, but for someone like myself who has all their individual Canadian stocks in a taxable account, I don't think it would work out too well. Plus I would always be worried about dividend cuts from these highest yield stocks.
People in high tax brackets should probably opt for low/no dividend value stocks instead.
Taggart wrote:
17 May 2017 05:43
One of the requirements of running a high yield portfolio is to turn over the now lower yielders to make way for a new crop of highest yield stocks once a year. That creates a taxable event. When running a large portfolio of common dividend growth equities I attempt to have no turnover, except when a company forces my hand, which doesn't happen too often. It's been a good year, when there's no selling from the portfolio.
I like the low turnover approach and have anecdotally done well with dividend growers selected largely for other reasons.

But, at this point, I'd put the strategy of buying dividend growers - and holding for a long time - into the category of basically untested. Most studies use 1-year turnover or 1-month turnover and the ones I trust show little improvement in returns. I'm not saying it isn't good, only that it isn't proven.

deaddog
Gold Ring
Posts: 2594
Joined: 19 Jan 2008 19:59
Location: Central BC/Arizona

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Taggart wrote:
17 May 2017 05:43
Plus I would always be worried about dividend cuts from these highest yield stocks.
If you are well diversified one or two cuts doesn't hurt the overall performance.
One of the requirements of running a high yield portfolio is to turn over the now lower yielders to make way for a new crop of highest yield stocks once a year.
We set a target for each stock and change out stocks as they reach their target rather than do an annual rebalance. We also replace stocks that don't perform (AIM) and those that cut their dividends.
Most of our so-called reasoning consists of finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.( J.H. Robinson)

bpither
Silver Ring
Posts: 320
Joined: 05 Jan 2009 08:34

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

If you are well diversified one or two cuts doesn't hurt the overall performance.
Yes - Manulife, Telus and Trans Canada comes to mind in my case. My aggregate tax efficient yearly income went up during the same time. Sometimes a cut is a good thing - Telus and Trans Canada reinstated dividend growth shortly thereafter and the stock price fared well since.

"Diversification" - I have a tiny percentage in the resource sector. The earnings are too volatile. I prefer Utilities, Pipelines, a couple of banks, one insurer, two telecom, Metro, CN Rail, Brookfield Infrastructure. So far, so good. If I were to buy an dividend growth oil company it would have to be the best - EXXON

This strategy enables me to live off the income and to keep the principal untouched unless I really need it in future.
"We have two classes of forecaster: Those who don’t know and those who don’t know they don’t know.” John Kenneth Galbraith

Taggart
Gold Ring
Posts: 6209
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 07:34

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

I watched David Stanley give a talk at an investment forum near the CN Tower a few years ago. I remember he actually mentioned dividend growth at least a couple of times which perked up my interest in what he had to say. I hadn't realized until today that his talk was posted on the internet in PDF format.

Hope you enjoy reading through it as much as I did.

https://www.canadianmoneysaver.ca/files ... tanley.pdf

longinvest
Gold Ring
Posts: 1395
Joined: 10 Sep 2012 17:26
Location: QC

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Taggart wrote:
21 May 2017 18:50
I watched David Stanley give a talk at an investment forum near the CN Tower a few years ago. I remember he actually mentioned dividend growth at least a couple of times which perked up my interest in what he had to say. I hadn't realized until today that his talk was posted on the internet in PDF format.

Hope you enjoy reading through it as much as I did.

https://www.canadianmoneysaver.ca/files ... tanley.pdf
Thanks.

I found the following multi-part webinar by David Stanley on Beating the TSX:
Beating the TSX with David Stanley Part #1
Beating the TSX with David Stanley Part #2
Beating the TSX with David Stanley Part #3
Beating the TSX with David Stanley Part #4
Beating the TSX with David Stanley Part #5
Beating the TSX with David Stanley Part #6

I also found this clip:
Beating The TSX (BTSX) by Robin Speziale

Disclaimer: I haven't watched any of them yet, as I just found them.

Let's not forget our own Finiki page: http://www.finiki.org/wiki/Beating_the_TSX
Bogleheads investment philosophy | Simple index portfolios | Lifelong Portfolio: 25% each of (domestic/international)stocks/(nominal/inflation-indexed)bonds | VCN/VXC/VAB/ZRR

Shakespeare
Diamond Ring
Posts: 20724
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Contact:

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Say hello to John Heinzl’s new Yield Hog dividend portfolio - The Globe and Mail

From the text, included are

22 securities \$100K

FTS, AQN, TRP, PZA, AW.UN, CRT.UN, DGRO-N, XIU, EMA

plus others not identified (banks, telecoms, etc.)
“A wise man should be prepared to abandon his baggage at any time.” -- R.A. Heinlein, The Door Into Summer.

scomac
Gold Ring
Posts: 5918
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 09:47
Location: The Greenbelt

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Shakespeare wrote:
04 Oct 2017 09:11
Say hello to John Heinzl’s new Yield Hog dividend portfolio - The Globe and Mail

From the text, included are

22 securities \$100K

FTS, AQN, TRP, PZA, AW.UN, CRT.UN, DGRO-N, XIU, EMA

plus others not identified (banks, telecoms, etc.)
The full list:

Code: Select all

``````COMPANY	TICKER	BOOK VALUE \$***	GAIN/LOSS %	YIELD %
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.*	AQN-T
5,276.00	0%	4.41%
A&W Revenue Royalties Income Fund*	AW.UN-T
3,297.00	0%	4.84%
BCE Inc.*	BCE-T
4,092.20	0%	4.91%
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners LP*	BIP-UN-T
5,382.00	0%	4.03%
Bank of Montreal*	BMO-T
4,721.50	0%	3.81%
Canadian Apartment Properties REIT*	CAR.UN-T
4,047.60	0%	3.79%
Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce*	CM-T
4,366.80	0%	4.76%
Capital Power Corp.*	CPX-T
3,947.20	0%	6.77%
CT REIT*	CRT.UN-T
3,472.50	0%	5.04%
Canadian Utilities Ltd.*	CU-T
3,875.00	0%	3.69%
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF*	DGRO-N
5,063.94	0%	2.29%
Emera Inc.*	EMA-T
4,726.00	0%	4.42%
Enbridge Inc.*	ENB-T
5,212.00	0%	4.68%
Fortis Inc.*	FTS-T
4,478.00	0%	3.57%
Manulife Financial Corp.*	MFC-T
4,555.80	0%	3.24%
Pizza Pizza Royalty Corp.*	PZA-T
3,312.00	0%	5.17%
Canadian REIT*	REF.UN-T
4,613.00	0%	4.05%
Royal Bank Of Canada*	RY-T
4,827.00	0%	3.77%
Telus Corp.*	T-T
4,488.00	0%	4.39%
Toronto-Dominion Bank*	TD-T
4,917.50	0%	3.42%
TransCanada Corp.*	TRP-T
4,933.60	0%	4.05%
iShares S&P/TSX 60 Index ETF*	XIU-T
6,366.25	0%	2.68%``````
"On what principle is it, that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"
Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1830

Chuck
Gold Ring
Posts: 1313
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 11:48
Location: Manitoba

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Seems odd he has XIU in there. He should have just picked another dividend stock.

AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Posts: 18253
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Interesting.... but also worth a comparison to Norm Rothery's new Dividend All Starts and Top 100 Dividend Stocks list.
http://www.moneysense.ca/save/investing ... pfm_weekly
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom

AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Posts: 18253
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Chuck wrote:
04 Oct 2017 13:05
Seems odd he has XIU in there. He should have just picked another dividend stock.
He said he isn't diversified enough with his list....and it isn't. Not that his XIU slice will do anything for him other than mop up dividends (which he also said).
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom

Taggart
Gold Ring
Posts: 6209
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 07:34

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Well, at least you can say we don't all have the same stocks in a dividend growth portfolio. Unlike Heinzl, I'll accept lower initial yield down to around 1.5%.

Profit not Prophet
Silver Ring
Posts: 414
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 14:24

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

A methodology that places Royal Bank as a C. Can't entire swallow that.

BRIAN5000
Gold Ring
Posts: 5844
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Profit not Prophet wrote:
04 Oct 2017 16:53
A methodology that places Royal Bank as a C. Can't entire swallow that.
I saw that too can't remember what year it was but it was rated higher before.

RY got a "B" in 2016 "C" in 2015 and 2014
Last edited by BRIAN5000 on 04 Oct 2017 17:33, edited 2 times in total.
“Sometimes you are going to sell early and wish you would’ve held on, other times you will hold on a
little bit longer and wish you would’ve sold early - this is just part of the game.” - Frank Zorilla via Abnormal Returns

Descartes
Gold Ring
Posts: 1153
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 09:59

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

scomac wrote:
04 Oct 2017 12:56
Shakespeare wrote:
04 Oct 2017 09:11
Say hello to John Heinzl’s new Yield Hog dividend portfolio - The Globe and Mail

From the text, included are

22 securities \$100K

FTS, AQN, TRP, PZA, AW.UN, CRT.UN, DGRO-N, XIU, EMA

plus others not identified (banks, telecoms, etc.)
The full list:

Code: Select all

``````COMPANY	TICKER	BOOK VALUE \$***	GAIN/LOSS %	YIELD %
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.*	AQN-T
5,276.00	0%	4.41%
A&W Revenue Royalties Income Fund*	AW.UN-T
3,297.00	0%	4.84%
BCE Inc.*	BCE-T
4,092.20	0%	4.91%
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners LP*	BIP-UN-T
5,382.00	0%	4.03%
Bank of Montreal*	BMO-T
4,721.50	0%	3.81%
Canadian Apartment Properties REIT*	CAR.UN-T
4,047.60	0%	3.79%
Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce*	CM-T
4,366.80	0%	4.76%
Capital Power Corp.*	CPX-T
3,947.20	0%	6.77%
CT REIT*	CRT.UN-T
3,472.50	0%	5.04%
Canadian Utilities Ltd.*	CU-T
3,875.00	0%	3.69%
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF*	DGRO-N
5,063.94	0%	2.29%
Emera Inc.*	EMA-T
4,726.00	0%	4.42%
Enbridge Inc.*	ENB-T
5,212.00	0%	4.68%
Fortis Inc.*	FTS-T
4,478.00	0%	3.57%
Manulife Financial Corp.*	MFC-T
4,555.80	0%	3.24%
Pizza Pizza Royalty Corp.*	PZA-T
3,312.00	0%	5.17%
Canadian REIT*	REF.UN-T
4,613.00	0%	4.05%
Royal Bank Of Canada*	RY-T
4,827.00	0%	3.77%
Telus Corp.*	T-T
4,488.00	0%	4.39%
Toronto-Dominion Bank*	TD-T
4,917.50	0%	3.42%
TransCanada Corp.*	TRP-T
4,933.60	0%	4.05%
iShares S&P/TSX 60 Index ETF*	XIU-T
6,366.25	0%	2.68%``````
As much as my job sucks, I would hate to be Norm or Heinzl (although I respect them both). What a crappy job writing articles to pander to people's desperate need for investment guidance!

Regarding the list, it doesn't seem too tax efficient (BIP.UN, DGRO-N, all that REIT stuff). I know: don't let the tax tail wag the dog.. but, still..
I personally don't like food stocks (too whimsical): pizza and burgers.
I don't like the weightiness of the reits.
I don't like the cop-out of XIU-T: seriously, choose some proper dividend growth stocks - you've got a lot of overlap of your individual choices with this ETF.
I hate insurance companies like MFC: too convoluted.
Also I'm suspect of AQN. Why? Because Emera sold their stake in them, they had that accounting kerfuffle, and the CEO felt the need to come out and say "don't worry about Trump, renewables are here to stay": smacks of desperation to me and I don't want that in a buy-and-hold decision.

My overall grade would be: meh.
Could have done better but a paycheck is a paycheck, right?
"A dividend is a dictate of management. A capital gain is a whim of the market."

AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Posts: 18253
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

BRIAN5000 wrote:
04 Oct 2017 17:22
Profit not Prophet wrote:
04 Oct 2017 16:53
A methodology that places Royal Bank as a C. Can't entire swallow that.
I saw that too can't remember what year it was but it was rated higher before.

RY got a "B" in 2016 "C" in 2015 and 2014
You need to take Norm's criteria into account. Remember his list is refreshed every year. Marks are awarded for past performance and dividend growth rate, but also for inexpensive P/B and P/E ratios... which might bode well for a stellar 2018 going forward.

RY P/B is 2.02 vs BMO 1.49
RY P/E is 12.25 vs BMO 10.91

That suggests BMO might outperform RY this coming year.

RY's rating of B last year performed as Norm suggested. 15.6% TR vs 6.6% for BMO. Norm has a track record of his all stars outperforming the TSX. It is just we investors don't rotate our stocks out every year to match Norm's list. When one understands the methodology, it makes more sense.
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom

Taggart
Gold Ring
Posts: 6209
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 07:34

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Well, the trouble with this rolling stocks in and out is it would probably only work in a tax free or deferred portfolio. Once you start paying taxes like I would in the taxable, then I don't see much in the way of outperformance, versus just sitting on them.

AltaRed
Diamond Ring
Posts: 18253
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Taggart wrote:
04 Oct 2017 18:00
Well, the trouble with this rolling stocks in and out is it would probably only work in a tax free or deferred portfolio. Once you start paying taxes like I would in the taxable, then I don't see much in the way of outperformance, versus just sitting on them.
Agreed. All of my equity is in taxable accounts so that is not a viable option for me either. Still, it allows us to compare Norm's results with our own opinions of our holdings and/or possible new buys and/or swaps. For example, I hold CU and have been doting for some time about a swap of that into FTS or EMA (if and when the latter two ever have some sensible metrics). This just might prompt me to hold my nose and make the move.
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom

Shakespeare
Diamond Ring
Posts: 20724
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Lethbridge, AB
Contact:

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

For example, I hold CU and have been doting for some time about a swap of that into FTS or EMA (if and when the latter two ever have some sensible metrics). This just might prompt me to hold my nose and make the move.
I hold all three. Zzzzzzz......
“A wise man should be prepared to abandon his baggage at any time.” -- R.A. Heinlein, The Door Into Summer.

Taggart
Gold Ring
Posts: 6209
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 07:34

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

AltaRed wrote:
04 Oct 2017 18:15
Taggart wrote:
04 Oct 2017 18:00
Well, the trouble with this rolling stocks in and out is it would probably only work in a tax free or deferred portfolio. Once you start paying taxes like I would in the taxable, then I don't see much in the way of outperformance, versus just sitting on them.
Agreed. All of my equity is in taxable accounts so that is not a viable option for me either. Still, it allows us to compare Norm's results with our own opinions of our holdings and/or possible new buys and/or swaps. For example, I hold CU and have been doting for some time about a swap of that into FTS or EMA (if and when the latter two ever have some sensible metrics). This just might prompt me to hold my nose and make the move.
Yeah, I guess you have to do what's right for yourself. I own all three, CU, FTS and EMA. My buying descision always comes down to whichever is the lagging sector in the portfolio. Then I focus on which stock to purchase within that sector. A mild form of value investing.

scomac
Gold Ring
Posts: 5918
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 09:47
Location: The Greenbelt

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

Descartes wrote:
04 Oct 2017 17:26
<snip></snip>
My overall grade would be: meh.
Could have done better but a paycheck is a paycheck, right?
Agreed. These sorts of exercises never excite me much, but such are the demands of column inches. I wasn't exactly thrilled with Heinzl's first attempt at this and I don't see this as being a great improvement despite him owning each of these securities. At least he has skin in the game. Who knows, maybe this time he has it right!
"On what principle is it, that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"
Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1830

OnlyMyOpinion
Silver Ring
Posts: 656
Joined: 24 Jan 2014 23:17

### Re: Power of Dividend Growth 2011 (and beyond)

scomac wrote:
04 Oct 2017 19:01
... Heinzl's first attempt...
Over the past five years, the portfolio's annual dividend income soared by 80 per cent. The total return – from dividends and share price gains – clocked in at 11.6 per cent on an annualized basis, easily topping the S&P/TSX composite index's annualized total return of 7.2 per cent over the same period.