 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
The Dogs Bite the Hand that Feeds Them |
rffrydr Moderator


Joined: 30 Oct 2005 Posts: 16939 Location: Sunny California
|
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:56 pm Post subject: The Dogs Bite the Hand that Feeds Them |
|
|
Contrarians discover, at heart, they are true believers:
| Quote: | Dogs of the Dow
Published: January 1 2009 18:13 | Last updated: January 1 2009 18:13
In a year that saw sophisticated investment strategies fail spectacularly, one of the simplest left its fans hanging as well. American retail investors, armed with little more than a calculator, have run circles around most professionals over the years by buying the “Dogs of the Dow” – the 10 stocks out of the 30 Dow Jones Industrials with the highest dividend yield – each January. Owning these seemingly solid but out of favour stocks would have produced a 16.77 per cent annualised total return between 1945 and 1995, according to a study by Brigham Young University – 3 percentage points better than owning the index.
Loaded with duds such as General Motors and Citigroup in 2008, the Dogs lagged the broader average badly in its worst year since the Great Depression. And it was not only distressed companies. Even blue chips such as General Electric and DuPont were little help. Mercifully, Dow component AIG, down 97 per cent, yielded too little and did not make the list of Dogs for 2008.
Last year was a peculiar year in many respects. The Dogs’ slump makes it even more so, because they have tended to lag in bull markets, like that of the late 1990s, and outperform in leaner times. This will be fodder for money managers who scoff at such simplistic strategies.
But investors could do worse than eschewing expensive advice and adopting a formulaic approach. There is strong empirical evidence that dividend-paying stocks outperform non-payers in the long run. Furthermore, the benefits of diversification shrink rapidly once 10 stocks are owned. Investors who switch out the old Dogs for the new each year incur capital gains taxes. But typical retail funds have more turnover and higher fees to boot, mostly without the impressive track record of the Dogs. With their four shakiest members departing and a yield of 6.2 per cent, – nearly three times 10-year Treasuries – the Dogs may have their day again in 2009. |
_________________ Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
The Dogs Bite the Hand that Feeds Them Replies |
rffrydr Moderator


Joined: 30 Oct 2005 Posts: 16939 Location: Sunny California
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
With the "D-Word" proviso above, "reversion" trades to the economy pay off--one of Goldman's "first principals." But then there's one's fiduciary duty to their own job--safety in numbers.
Retail MUST go it alone--with plenty of help.
Nifty Fifty
Published: January 31 2011 15:09 | Last updated: January 31 2011 16:45
Quick, name a “one decision stock” – a business team so good that valuation is a secondary consideration. For those investors foolish enough to believe in such things, Google and Apple – market darlings for the better part of a decade – might well fit the bill.
But go back 40 years and Xerox and Kodak, two stocks that tumbled last week and have had awful decades, were similar bellwethers that fund managers happily owned at nearly any price. Leading members of a group dubbed the “Nifty Fifty”, they traded at an average of 42 times price-to-earnings at their 1972 peak, pricier than today’s tech leaders but a similar multiple of revenue.
A decade ago , the finance professor Jeremy Siegel revisited the Nifty Fifty and calculated what a reasonable p/e ratio would have been with 29 years of perfect foresight. Xerox would have been fairly valued at 9 times and Kodak at 11 times. Polaroid, the most richly-valued of the group at 95 times in 1972, has since disappeared altogether.
Not all did badly. McDonalds and Walt Disney had high starting valuations that eventually were justified. Somewhat cheaper Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Coca-Cola, did well too. Technology stocks did worst, but the best predictor of future return was not industry but starting valuation. The cheapest five stocks traded at 26 times earnings while the most expensive group sold for 63 times. Extrapolating returns calculated by Siegel, the cheaper group had a return 2.3 times higher.
Duds such as Kodak or Polaroid notwithstanding, fund managers in 1972 did a decent job of picking lasting franchises but not good investments. A portfolio of companies chosen purely on the basis of a low p/e would have done better. Followers of Apple or Google might still ponder the words of Warren Buffett, who feasted on fallen members of the Nifty Fifty after the group dropped by 70 per cent in the subsequent bear market. “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get." _________________ Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Please log in to view without the ad banners |
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB
|