Sunday Morning Coffee

The Barron’s cover story was their “Big Money Poll” and I stumbled across something in there that leads to a broader question worth exploring. In there was mention that Lockheed Martin (LMT) is yielding 5.30%. That is pretty substantial for a defense contractor.

Many decades ago it was typical that stocks yielded more in dividends than bonds yielded in interest payments with the logic being that the dividends were meant to be a compensation for taking on the risk of owning the common. Along the way this changed, for most stocks anyway, and we came to expect to get more yield from holding bonds, and more price stability too.

The last decade has been odd for stocks. Although decade long round trips to nowhere are not unprecedented they can create a catalyst for some sort of meaningful change. After the last decade long round trip to nowhere the change was an 18 year run of spectacular returns. Perhaps the change that comes from the current decade long round trip to nowhere is a reversion to stocks yielding more than bonds–if so then really it started a couple of years ago.

We are not there yet at the index level as the S&P 500 is still close to 2% which if we looked we might find is attributable to the relatively large financial sector not paying much in the way of dividends. I made a reference the other day to how many semiconductor stocks yield close to 4% and if you look around you will find many more stocks (excluding REITs and MLPs) with pretty serious yields.

At the March 2009 the SPX yielded more than the ten year as a function of the yields for both stocks and bonds being distorted. Bond yields are still distorted but as of right now stocks are clearly not at a panic low and so probably not distorted, at least I don’t think they are.

If this is a reversion to a bygone era where many stocks will yield more than many bonds then this would not be a valuation call to buy equities as the idea here is that this could persist for a couple of decades. This is not to say that stocks aren’t cheaper just that I don’t think it is a catalyst to immediately rocket higher.

One positive from this could be that yield from a portion of the equity part of the portfolio could offset the reduced yield that most people are having to endure from the fixed income side of the portfolio. The downside, and this is more behavioral, is that too many people will get caught at some point with too much equity exposure for not remembering that dividend stocks are not high quality bonds.

2 Comments

  1. The downside, and this is more behavioral, is that too many people will get caught at some point with too much equity exposure for not remembering that dividend stocks are not high quality bonds.

    Yep. As the years have gone by, I have come to believe that the behavioral aspect of investing is perhaps the most important determinant of investing success. I think you do your readers a great service by discussing behavioral pitfalls and how to avoid them.

    Reply
  2. I really never thought people enormously overweighted their investments in a particular asset class – to a dangerous level (in my opinion).

    That is until I started reading Seeking Alpha a few years ago. Based on comments and also the vicious rebuttals of anyone who questions a strategy, I do now think many people do that with:

    Dividend Stocks in general (no other asset class at all)
    MLPs
    Mreits
    Individual high dividend stocks (like MO for example)

    Roger – is that something you see when getting new clients? (existing holdings like 80% MLPs or Mreits or 50% Altria)

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

WP-SpamFree by Pole Position Marketing

Sunday Morning Coffee

The Barron’s cover story was their “Big Money Poll” and I stumbled across something in there that leads to a broader question worth exploring. In there was mention that Lockheed Martin (LMT) is yielding 5.30%. That is pretty substantial for a defense contractor.

Many decades ago it was typical that stocks yielded more in dividends than bonds yielded in interest payments with the logic being that the dividends were meant to be a compensation for taking on the risk of owning the common. Along the way this changed, for most stocks anyway, and we came to expect to get more yield from holding bonds, and more price stability too.

The last decade has been odd for stocks. Although decade long round trips to nowhere are not unprecedented they can create a catalyst for some sort of meaningful change. After the last decade long round trip to nowhere the change was an 18 year run of spectacular returns. Perhaps the change that comes from the current decade long round trip to nowhere is a reversion to stocks yielding more than bonds–if so then really it started a couple of years ago.

We are not there yet at the index level as the S&P 500 is still close to 2% which if we looked we might find is attributable to the relatively large financial sector not paying much in the way of dividends. I made a reference the other day to how many semiconductor stocks yield close to 4% and if you look around you will find many more stocks (excluding REITs and MLPs) with pretty serious yields.

At the March 2009 the SPX yielded more than the ten year as a function of the yields for both stocks and bonds being distorted. Bond yields are still distorted but as of right now stocks are clearly not at a panic low and so probably not distorted, at least I don’t think they are.

If this is a reversion to a bygone era where many stocks will yield more than many bonds then this would not be a valuation call to buy equities as the idea here is that this could persist for a couple of decades. This is not to say that stocks aren’t cheaper just that I don’t think it is a catalyst to immediately rocket higher.

One positive from this could be that yield from a portion of the equity part of the portfolio could offset the reduced yield that most people are having to endure from the fixed income side of the portfolio. The downside, and this is more behavioral, is that too many people will get caught at some point with too much equity exposure for not remembering that dividend stocks are not high quality bonds.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

WP-SpamFree by Pole Position Marketing