It is very common today to get a client or prospect asking
about high dividend paying stocks. It is
perhaps even more common for many advisors today to include dividend stocks as
a part of their lead pitch. “We focus on
high quality dividend paying stocks,” they might say. This will undoubtedly lead to affirming head
nods from the prospective clients. And
therein lies the problem. This idea that
high quality dividend paying stocks are a guaranteed smart investment with
great upside and limited downside potential has become an axiom of sorts in the
eyes of the general public. No further
data is needed; the safety of dividend stocks is self-evident.
But this is always where problems begin: A general consensus among the investing
public followed by hungry advisors wanting to capitalize on the latest trend
(think late 90’s dot-com bubble). I don’t
think dividend paying stocks are near the problem internet stocks were, but it
may be useful to take a more honest look at dividend stocks and remove the halo
for a few moments.
An issue largely overlooked is the survivorship bias
inherent in the glossy perception of dividend stocks. An easy way to understand survivorship bias
is to think of a clinical drug trial.
The trial starts with 30 patients.
In 10 years only 15 patients remain alive and they are in great
health. At this point the pharmaceutical
company has a press release that states: “Great news! We have a new drug that
gives marvelous results. Out of the 15
patients currently taking the drug they are all in great health.”
You can see the problem.
As it applies to dividend stocks, investors have focused on how great
the surviving dividend stocks have held up the past 5 years. However; if we go back before 2008 and look
at what was considered a top dividend paying stock then we might see a
different story.
I did a quick Google search on “Top Dividend Paying Stocks”
and limited the results to stories from 2007.
This just so happened to be one of the first search results I clicked on:
It is an article from TheStreet.com, a very popular
investing website. To cut to the chase
there are 8 stocks mentioned. Here is
the 5-Year Annualized Returns for 5 of those 8 with the S&P 500 Total
Return for comparison:
When we include the fallen “top dividend stocks” the picture
does not look as great. 57% of dividend-paying stocks reduced or eliminated their dividend from
2008-2009. I have nothing
against dividend stocks; in fact, they make up an important piece of any well
diversified portfolio. But only a
piece. There is no evidence that having
a concentrated position in high dividend paying stocks will reduce risk or
increase return. The historical data actually
suggests dividend stock returns have been about the same as non-dividend stocks
so the only thing you really get by focusing primarily on dividend stocks is
less diversification.
Everyone is susceptible to getting caught up in the current
investment trends. That includes me and
every other advisor. Human beings make
terrible computers and are vulnerable to a wide range of emotional and
cognitive biases. Survivorship bias is
one example of something we tend to overlook.
Grounding your investment philosophy in concepts with decades of
collaborating data and academic research can prevent us from falling prey to
these dangerous biases.
No comments:
Post a Comment