Dividend Bubble?

Published in Investing on 8 February 2012

It's never smart to bet on what's popular. Dividend stocks are no exception.

A version of this article originally appeared on our US site, Fool.com.

Have you ever been excited about Consolidated Edison (NYSE: ED.US)?

Probably not. But its shares returned 50% in the last two years, double the rate of the broader market -- not bad for a regulated utility. ConEd's dividend yield, an inverse reading of its valuation, is now the lowest since the 1990s.

Altria (NYSE: MO.US) has suffered a string of dismal earnings reports as smoking rates decline. Just don't tell the market -- its shares are also up nearly 50% in the last two years and now trade at the highest valuation since 1998.

What's unique about Edison and Altria? They pay enormous dividends. And starved of yield with interest rates near 0%, investors are tripping over themselves to get dividends these days. S&P 500 companies with the highest dividend payouts currently have the highest price-to-earnings ratios. In 2007, it was the other way around: stocks that didn't pay dividends had far higher valuations.

But don't get too comfortable with the dominance of dividends. There's a bad precedent here. Last decade, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates far too low for far too long. Starved of income from Treasuries, investors were tempted to search for yield wherever they could find it, which back then meant sub-prime mortgage bonds. You know how that went.

Blue-chip dividend stocks are not sub-prime bonds. But there's an argument to make that, just as investors ran blindly into sub-prime bonds five years ago in search of yield, they're running blindly, carelessly into dividend stocks today.

The tables may already be turning. So far this year, S&P 500 stocks that don't pay dividends are up 8.3%, while those that do are up just 1.3%. That makes sense -- as it becomes clearer that the economy is recovering, investors are more keen to take risks rather than hiding in the warm embrace of dividend stocks. Last year, it was flipped. Dividend stocks handily outperformed the non-payers as it looked like a new recession was imminent.

It all comes down to valuations. And the more I look, the more it becomes apparent that stocks known for their dividends trade at unfortunate valuations that could leave investors disappointed. I already mentioned Edison and Altria. Most utility companies have also seen phenomenal returns and now trade at historically high valuations. McDonald's (NYSE: MCD.US), a favourite of dividend investors, now trades at a brisk 19 times earnings after doubling in price in two and half years. Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT.US), another dividend dynamo, has seen its dividend approach the lowest yield in a decade after shares doubled since 2010.

These are high-quality companies that deserve premium multiples. And there are exceptions to the rule. But for the most part, dividend-paying stocks are some of the most expensive and sought-after stocks in the market. Going forward, investors might get what they pay for (don't they always?).

There may be, in other words, a dividend bubble.

I'm aware of how bad most people, including (sometimes especially) myself, are at predicting market trends. I may be wrong here, and there are two reasons why.

First, the Federal Reserve just signalled plans to keep short-term interest rates near 0% until 2014. That could keep demand for dividend-paying stocks high for years, as they provide some of the only yield left in the entire investment universe.

Second, the dividend payout ratio on S&P stocks is near an all-time low. S&P 500 companies could more than double their dividends without breaking any historical precedent. Howard Silverblatt, S&P's chief number cruncher, expects dividends to rise 11% this year. "The dividend story is good and should continue to be good," he said recently. He may very well be right.

But dividends are sensationally popular right now, and rarely does it pay to follow the crowd. Buying high-dividend stocks three years ago was clearly a wise bet. Whether it will be wise over the coming three years is another story.

> Here's your free Essential Investor Kit. Over the next few weeks, you'll get share ideas, a sector report and much, much more. Don't miss out!

More on US shares:

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.

ANuvver 08 Feb 2012 , 12:39pm

A contrarian view indeed on this website! Fair argument though.
I think it lacks something by being so equity-centric though.

Defensive stocks are not so much a safe haven as a conservative enclave within the equity asset class - "safeish by equity standards" might be a fairer assessment.

The real safe havens, bills and gold, are still stuffed to the gunwales. The question is, in the event of a sustained improvement in risk appetite, how much of that capital will leapfrog the blue chips and head straight into the riskier growth end of the equity spectrum.

There are lots of factors to consider, not least your views on inflation and currency strength, geopolitical instability and the E word.

One theme that springs to mind is the demographic shift in the West as baby boomers retire and require income. The traditional "orphans and widows" home for retirement pots would be fixed income, but prices have been driven sky-high (and real yields decimated) by safe-haven buying.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the traditionally macho cap-gain US investment psyche may well be tempered now that a dividend mindset is potentially more attractive from a tax point of view. The extent to which this premise has been tested in a context of distortion in sovereign debt markets is moot. But you must concede that whatever may have happened to appetite for risk recently, appetite for yield has remained very healthy indeed.

Of course there's also the notion of fear-fatigue and the fact that we may already be experiencing the traditional updraft at the end of a US electoral cycle.

A lot to ponder, but I won't be cashing out my toothpaste and toilet rolls stocks to try to find the inventor of the wifi-enabled underwater toaster just yet. (Alright, I have a few modest bets already riding...)

duffmanchon 08 Feb 2012 , 9:19pm

If the dividends keep rising and are on a good yield to start with who cares! Most equity returns come from reinvested dividends, fact!

Hannibalis 08 Feb 2012 , 9:58pm

Because of this 'dividend bubble' in valuations, you need some kind of signal to sell when your dividend share becomes overpriced. I use a metric of 5 years' dividend - so if it has gained more than that, and it is not still paying more than my average portfolio yield, I'll move onto something with a better current yield and bank 5 years dividends.
http://www.the-diy-income-investor.com/2011/11/portfolio-update-profit-taking-gsk-vod.html

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.