How Dividends Supercharge Your Income

Published in Investing on 10 March 2011

Finding dividends that keep on giving.

In investing parlance, "multi-bagger" is a term used to describe stocks that have multiplied in value -- a share that's trebled, for example, is a "three-bagger" and so on.

Multi-baggers tend to be really exciting events, tend to garner media attention, and can happen in a relatively short period of time. In fact, as of 7 March, twenty FTSE All-Share constituents, including ARM Holdings (LSE: ARM) and Hochschild Mining (LSE: HOC), have more than doubled over the past year and reached multi-bagger status.

It works for dividends, too

As the lead advisor at Dividend Edge, I'd also like to take a moment to recognise the more infrequent and unheralded, yet incredibly impressive, occasion of what I call an "Income Amplifier" -- an investment whose annual dividend payments have doubled at least once over. For example, an investment that paid £40 in dividends in year one would reach income amplifier status when the annual dividends received exceed £80.

Here are five UK companies that have achieved income amplifier-status for those investors who've bought and held the shares for at least five years:

CompanyDividend
per share
2005
Dividend
per share
last 12 mths
British American Tobacco (LSE: BATS)47p114.2p
Reckitt Benckiser (LSE: RB)39p115p
Capita (LSE: CPI)7p20p
Sage Group (LSE: SGE)3.6p7.8p
Wm. Morrison (LSE: MRW)3.7p8.2p

* Data provided by CapitalIQ and company filings

Warren Buffett also described such an income amplifier situation in his most recent shareholder letter:

"Coca-Cola paid us $88 million [in dividends] in 1995, the year after we finished purchasing the stock. Every year since, Coke has increased its dividend. In 2011, we will almost certainly receive $376 million from Coke, up $24 million from last year. Within ten years, I would expect that $376 million to double. "

Between 1995 and 2010, Coca-Cola's dividend payments to Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway quadrupled -- an income amplifier four times over.

And if his expectations are correct, by 2021, it will be an amplifier nearly nine times over, yielding nearly 60% per year on his originally invested capital.

Yes, this is the Oracle of Omaha we're talking about here, but income amplifiers aren't out of reach for the individual investor.

Let's take a closer look at how Buffett turned Coca-Cola into a multi-income amplifier and glean some lessons. I realise most of the figures are in US dollars, but the lessons remain the same for UK investors.

Coke and a smile

In 1988, Berkshire Hathaway began accumulating shares of Coca-Cola, just a few months after the stock market crash in October 1987.

Over the course of the year, he purchased $592 million (today, £364 million) worth of Coca-Cola shares at an average split-adjusted price of $5.23 -- some 20% below Coca-Cola's pre-crash levels. These shares posted an average dividend yield of 2.9%, which was below the S&P 500 market average of 3.7% at that time.

In subsequent years, Buffett made two additional investments in Coca-Cola:

YearAmount
invested
Average
share price
purchased
Average
yield
S&P
average
yield
1989$431m$5.872.9%3.3%
1994$274m$20.831.9%2.9%

*Derived from Berkshire shareholder letters, Coca-Cola dividend history, and Bloomberg.
All figures are split-adjusted

Having made a nearly $1.3 billion investment in Coca-Cola over the course of six years, Buffett did perhaps the most remarkable thing of all -- nothing. In fact, he simply did what he said what he would do in his 1988 shareholder letter:

"When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever."

Lessons learned

Here are some takeaways from Buffett's Coca-Cola success:

1. Great dividend track record

By the time Buffett made his first purchase of Coca-Cola in 1988, the company had been paying dividends since 1893 and had raised its payout each year since 1962. Though Buffett may not have purchased Coca-Cola for the dividend alone, it was clear by 1988 that the company had the financial strength and confidence in its prospects to pay increasing dividends. Before recommending a dividend-paying share at Dividend Edge, we always look for a good track record of payouts that go back at least ten years.

2. Determine competitive advantages

Buffett recently said that "The single most important decision in evaluating a business is pricing power." Coca-Cola, for example, is able to pass on rising costs to consumers because of its globally-recognized brand name. Over the years, this advantage helped the company maintain margins and expand into new markets. Be wary of buying shares in businesses that have few competitive advantages or pricing power.

3. Wait for your opportunities

A good business is not always a good investment. Certainly Buffett could have purchased Coca-Cola in 1987 when it was trading around $6.50 a share and still achieved strong results in the long-term, but his returns -- both in dividend and capital gains terms -- are much better because he waited for a better price. At Dividend Edge, we aim to close at least 75% of our trades for a profit, so buying shares at a good price matters quite a bit to us.

4. Yield isn't everything

Each time Buffett purchased shares, Coca-Cola's yield was below the market average, but that didn't stop it from being a very fine dividend-paying share. Adding a helping of dividend growth shares can help keep your portfolio's income returns ahead of inflation.

5. Be patient

This is probably the hardest thing to do, but as Buffett noted in his most recent shareholder letter, "Time is the friend of the wonderful business." Even if you find a good dividend-paying share, it takes approximately seven years for a dividend to double assuming a 10% annualised growth rate. Once you've invested in a good company at a good price, you need to give that business time to flourish if you expect to attain an income amplifier. At Dividend Edge, we aim to own our investments for at least five years, although that will not always turn out to be the case.

Even though Buffett's investments were in the millions, the amount of investment matters little -- an individual investor who invested a few thousand in Coca-Cola at the same prices as Buffett did would have had just as much success performance-wise and achieved income amplifier status many times over, just in much smaller nominal terms.

At Dividend Edge we're building a £20,000 real-money portfolio of dividend-paying shares using these very strategies. We started in November last year and we recently bought our sixth share.

If you'd like to learn more about the service, you can take a free 30-day trial. I look forward to seeing you!

** CLICK HERE FOR A SPECIAL VIDEO PRESENTATION **

 

> Todd does not own shares of any company mentioned.

 

For all Dividend Edge subscription enquiries please e-mail DividendEdge@Fool.co.uk or call 0845 226 3237.

Risk Warning

  • The prices of all shares, and the income from them, can fall as well as rise.
  • You run an extra risk of losing money when you buy shares in certain smaller companies including "penny shares".
  • There is a big difference between the buying price and the selling price of these shares. If you have to sell them immediately, you may get back much less than you paid for them. The price may change quickly, it may go down as well as up and you may not get back the full amount invested. It may be difficult to sell or realise the investment.
  • You should not speculate using money you cannot afford to lose, or rely on dividend income for non-discretionary living expenses.
  • Some securities may be traded in currencies other than sterling, and may also pay dividends in other currencies. Changes in rates of exchange may have an adverse effect on the value of these investments in sterling terms. You should also consult your stockbroker about any additional dealing or administrative charges.
  • We have taken all reasonable care to ensure that all statements of fact and opinion contained in this publication are fair and accurate in all material aspects.
  • Investors should seek appropriate professional advice from their stockbroker or other adviser if any points are unclear.
  • This newsletter gives general advice only, and the investments mentioned may not necessarily be suitable for any individual.

Authorised by The McHattie Group, St Brandon's House, 29 Great George Street, Bristol BS1 5QT | Tel: 01179 200 070 | Fax: 01179 200 071 | E-mail: enquiries@mchattie.co.uk

The McHattie Group is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

ProfessorMarcus 10 Mar 2011 , 3:09pm

Hello Todd.

Re: At Dividend Edge, we aim to close at least 75% of our trades for a profit, so buying shares at a good price matters quite a bit to us.

How are you aiming to do this, please?

And are you aiming to trade the shares at some point? If they are decent dividend payers (as per Coca Cola in Buffett's portfolio) then does the purchase price matter?

Regards.

XMFPhila100 10 Mar 2011 , 3:34pm

Hi ProfessorMarcus,

I think price does matter quite a bit. Price is what you pay, value is what you get, in other words.

It's true, with the benefit of hindsight, that Buffett's returns with Coca Cola still would have been good if he'd bought shares for $6.50 in 1987 versus $5.23 in 1988.

However, that $1ish difference does make a difference in terms of both capital returns and income returns. Had he paid $6.50, for instance, his starting yield would have been 2.3% versus the 2.9% he secured by waiting for a better price. Over time, that tiny difference has made a huge difference in his realised dividend harvest.

At DE, we do valuation work to primarily determine that we're not paying too much for the shares. It's nice to buy with a "margin of safety" as well.

If we can do that frequently enough, we stand a good shot at closing at least 75% of our investments for a profit.

Will we sell our investments? There are various reasons that we might, though we aim to hold our investments for at least five years.

Foolish best,

Todd Wenning
Dividend Edge Advisor

Hannibalis 10 Mar 2011 , 3:50pm

Interesting stats on the 'Income Amplifiers' - these are the sort of shares I'd have liked to have in an income-oriented portfolio.

Your observation on the initially low Coca Cola dividend yield means we possibly need to relax the entry criteria for new dividend shares - targeting business strength rather than current dividend yield? Is Brian Richards' 10:10 Formula (for dividend growth shares) the way to go?

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/2011/02/16/a-simple-dividend-strategy-you-should-seriously-co.aspx

Anyway Todd - keep up the good work for us income hunters...
http://the-diy-income-investor.blogspot.com/

XMFPhila100 10 Mar 2011 , 4:08pm

Hi Hannibalis,

Thanks.

Is Brian Richards' 10:10 Formula (for dividend growth shares) the way to go?

The 10:10 formula is a great screen to run, but there are certainly more steps to the research process before a buy/sell decision should be made.

Your observation on the initially low Coca Cola dividend yield means we possibly need to relax the entry criteria for new dividend shares - targeting business strength rather than current dividend yield?

That's a nice way to put it.

Also, depending on your time horizon and appetite for current income, you may want to have more "dividend growth" opportunities (2-4%) and fewer "high yield" (4-7%+) names in your portfolio.

That's one nice thing about a dividend-paying strategy -- it can give you choices to best match your financial situation.

At DE, we have a mix of both "dividend growth" and "high yield" names that we hope will provide above-average current yield whilst providing a dividend growth rate that beats inflation by a few perecentage points.

Hope that helps.

Foolish best,

Todd Wenning
Dividend Edge Advisor

ProfessorMarcus 10 Mar 2011 , 4:22pm

Thanks Todd but I'm still not totally convinced that this is always possible.

At DE, we do valuation work to primarily determine that we're not paying too much for the shares. It's nice to buy with a "margin of safety" as well.

We could look at 'value' indicators such as P/E, low price to book etc. and then check fundamentals such as free cash flow etc.

But then would this have stopped someone investing in companies such as RBS before the banking crash? I realise that the accounting practices of some companies aren't always transparent but I don't think there's a fail-safe method of avoiding some disasters.

Is it better to pay more for shares in e.g. Unilever, Diageo, BATS (quality lower yielders) that don't appear to have the value of e.g. Home Retail, Cable and Wireless (potential basket-case higher yielders) etc.? The point I'm making is that often there's a reason for cheaper prices as demonstrated by companies such as Dixons, Woolworths, Northern Rock etc.

XMFPhila100 10 Mar 2011 , 4:38pm

Hi Professor,

Indeed, there are no fail-safe methods to avoiding disasters. What valuation can do, however, is force you to ask some important questions.

Why is this company's yield more than twice the market? Why is the P/E half the market average?

And you don't necessarily need to run a DCF valuation to begin answering these questions -- relative valuation (i.e. P/E, P/B, div yield, etc) can get you started.

Sometimes the answer is "Yep, the market might be right here," and the stock could be a value trap. Other times, the market's concerns are overblown and you have a buying opportunity.

Is it better to pay more for shares in e.g. Unilever, Diageo, BATS (quality lower yielders) that don't appear to have the value of e.g. Home Retail, Cable and Wireless (potential basket-case higher yielders) etc.?

Absolutely, as long as you're paying a good price for the quality shares. Not all undervalued companies need to trade for a single-digit P/E or a yield twice the market. If you wait for a quality company to trade with those metrics, you may be waiting a very long time.

But then would this have stopped someone investing in companies such as RBS before the banking crash?

Free cash flow valuations don't do you much good with financial stocks because they primarily invest in intangible assets -- primarily people and brand. Without a good CapEx measure, you can't derive FCF.

There are other ways to value banks and financials, but a good rule of thumb for me is if I can't illustrate the business model with a crayon, I won't buy it. Granted, DE wasn't around pre-financial crisis, but I don't think RBS would have passed the crayon-test. It certainly wouldn't today.

Foolish best,

Todd Wenning
Dividend Edge

thairet 10 Mar 2011 , 5:43pm

Todd, in the MF presentation of DE

** CLICK HERE FOR A SPECIAL VIDEO PRESENTATION **

you have all committed a major marketing mistake (IMHO) in that one cannot pause the speil to evaluate what has been said, to answer the woman, to check who's at the door, to check the kid who has just scraped his knee etc. After 27 restarts I just lost interest!

Thairet

XMFPhila100 10 Mar 2011 , 5:52pm

Hi thairet,

Fair point. I'll bring it up at our next team meeting.

Thanks for trying 27 times, though. I appreciate it! :)

Foolish best,

Todd Wenning
Dividend Edge Advisor

thairet 10 Mar 2011 , 7:44pm

Thanks Todd,
Great article non-the-less, as usual.
Thairet

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.