Stingy Investor Contact - Subscribe - Login
  Home | Articles | Screens | Links | SNW | Rothery Report
 
Down with the dogs

Investors seeking income often buy stocks that pay a healthy dividend. Canadian dividends are taxed more favorably than interest from GICs but dividends may be reduced and the initial investment is not guaranteed. Dividend investors employ a variety of popular approaches to pick stocks including dividend growth, relative dividend yield and the Dogs of the Dow. In this article I focus on the Dogs of the Dow which is wildly popular in both Canada and the U.S. but has its flaws.

The basic Dogs formula is to buy an equal amount of the top ten yielding stocks in the Dow each year. The approach was first advocated by Michael O'Higgins in his book Beating the Dow. From 1973 to 1996 the Dogs of the Dow returned 20.3% which far surpassed the Dow's return of 15.8%. O'Higgins also suggested two variants which I'll call the Dow Five and the Dow Four. The Dow Five is formed by selecting the five lowest priced of the Dogs of the Dow. The Dow Four further refines the list and holds the four highest priced of the Dow Five (See Table 1).

Table 1: The Dogs of the Dow
Company NamePriceDividend YieldDow 5Dow 4
Eastman Kodak Company 26.25 6.9% Yes
Philip Morris Companies Inc. 48.81 4.8%
General Motors Corporation 49.77 4.0%
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. 35.91 3.8% Yes Yes
E. I. du Pont de Nemours 40.68 3.4%
Caterpillar Inc. 48.98 2.9%
SBC Communications Inc. 36.51 2.8% Yes Yes
Honeywell International Inc. 29.35 2.6% Yes Yes
International Paper Company 38.22 2.6% Yes Yes
Exxon Mobil Corporation 38.40 2.4%
Source: msn.com January 22 2002


The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) went a step further and created the Foolish Four. The Foolish Four tweaks the Dow Four by putting 40% of the portfolio in the lowest priced stock (currently Honeywell) and 20% in each of the others (J.P. Morgan, SBC & International Paper).

Why bother with all of these variations? Each has a better performance record than the last (See Table 2). With strong past performance many investors jumped on the Dogs bandwagon.

Table 2: High Dividend Yield Strategies 1973-1996
StrategyAverage Annual Return
DJIA 15.80%
Dogs of the Dow 20.31%
Dow Five 23.40%
Dow Four 26.41%
Foolish Four 28.03%
Source: Mining Fool's Gold


Popularity bred criticism and charges of data mining. Data mining is the process of testing many different stock-picking methods against the historical record to find a winning approach. For every one hundred methods tested a handful of apparent winners will be found by chance alone. These apparent winners are nothing more than statistical artifacts and are unlikely to be profitable in the future. Data mining is compounded when the researcher tweaks a successful method to achieve additional gains. Continual tweaking will eventually result in a scheme that captures all of the best possible picks from the historical record. High gains on paper but these hyper-optimized methods regularly fail dramatically when put into practice.

The many Dogs of the Dow approaches seem to follow a data mining pattern. They start with the basic high-yield model and move into refinements. There are a variety of tests that can be used to detect data mining but perhaps the simplest is to keep an eye out for strange parameters. For instance, picking high-yield stocks may make sense but why select stocks based on price-per-share? A stock's price, on its own, doesn't represent anything fundamental about a company. After all, management could wake up one morning and split the stock two-for-one. After the split, there'd be twice as many shares each selling for half the price. Why should the Fool's pick a stock after an arbitrary split but not before?

Weird criteria can often be explained away but if an approach is good then it should stand the test of time. Change the study period and the approach should still work. This is exactly what Grant McQueen and Steven Thorley did in their entertaining study "Mining Fool's Gold". Instead of looking at the 1973 to 1996 period they took a step back and examined the 1949 to 1972 period. From 1949 to 1972 the Dow gained an average of 14.11% a year whereas the Foolish Four gained 14.43% a year. A 0.32% performance boost is slight and quickly eroded by the corrosive impact of taxes and commissions. The Fool's themselves pulled the approach saying

"Our analysis of the Foolish Four over the last 50 years is likely to please no one. The results are mixed, but show some weak support for the proposition that the high yield/low price formula we've used does tend to select stocks that outperform. However, the outperformance is at a much lower level than we found in our original study and is not high enough to justify our continued endorsement." -M.F.

If the complicated Foolish Four doesn't work then what about the basic high-yield approach? Here the evidence is mixed. David Dreman in Contrarian Investment Strategies: The Next Generation studied high-yield US stocks from January 1 1970 to December 31 1996 and found some evidence for outperformance (See Table 3). In his study Dreman looked at the largest 1,500 stocks in the US and sorted them into groups of five ("quinitiles") based on their price-to-dividend ratio. The 20% lowest price-to-dividend (or highest dividend yield) stocks are put into quintile one and the highest 20% (lowest yielders) are put into quintile five. Over this period selecting the second lowest price-to-dividend group each year was profitable (before taxes and commissions) and returned 17.5% vs. 14.9% for the market.

Table 3: David Dreman's High Yield Study
Dividend 8.0% 5.4% 3.9% 2.2% 0.7% 4.0%
Capital Gain 8.2% 12.1% 11.2% 11.6% 11.5% 10.9%
Total Return 16.1% 17.5% 15.1% 13.8% 12.2% 14.9%
P/D Quintile High Yield 2 3 4 Low Yield Market
Data: 1,500 Large US Companies from 1970 to 1996


Before getting too happy about a high-yield approach it is useful to look at as much history as possible. Here I turn to What Works on Wall Street by James O'Shaughnessy and his broad study of high-yield US stocks from 1951 to 1996 (See Table 4). O'Shaughnessy split his universe of stocks into groups of ten ("deciles") with the top 10% of yields in decile one and the lowest 10% of yields in decile ten. A slight high-yield advantage remains but avoiding the highest yielding stocks continues to be a better strategy. The difference between the market's return of 13.2% and the 14.0% returned by high-yielding stocks is only 0.8%. Once again, taxes and commissions can easily consume more than 0.8% per year.

Table 4: O'Shaughnessy's High Yield Study
Decile High Yield 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Yield
Return 14.0% 13.8% 15.1% 14.3% 13.4% 13.5% 12.6% 13.0% 11.7% 11.8%
Data: US companies from 1952 to1996 with a market cap larger than $150M


One possible reason for the lackluster performance of the highest yielding stocks is that there is an increased risk that they will cut their dividend. Dividend yield is usually based on last year's dividend divided by the current stock price. Should a company falter its stock price usually goes down rapidly which pushes up the apparent dividend yield. If the stock is in real trouble then its dividend is often reduced or cut altogether. Suddenly a juicy yield of 10% based on past dividends disappears. A very unhappy circumstance. Dividend investors should make sure that a company earns more than enough to cover its dividend and that it is reasonably likely to do so in the future.

A simple high-yield strategy appears to provide a slight performance boost but the pickings are slim. Backing away from the highest yielding stocks looks like a better strategy. These stocks are more likely to have dividends that are well covered by earnings and may experience dividend growth. In the end it is important to avoid being too greedy when it comes to high-yield stocks and fancy strategies.

Sources:
  • Beating the Dow by Michael O'Higgins
  • Contrarian Investment Strategies by David Dreman
  • What Works on Wall Street by James O'Shaughnessy
  • Relative Dividend Yield by Anthony Spare

    Web Sources:
  • Mining Fool's Gold
  • Motley Fool
  • Foolish Four Research Results

    Disclosure:
    Phillip Morris is currently my largest public stock holding.

    First published in March 2002.

  •   MoneySense Articles
     Cdn Top 200 2016
     US Top 500 2016
     Retirement 100: 2015
     Cdn Top 200 2015
     US Top 500 2015
     Retirement 100: 2014
     Cdn Top 200 2014
     US Top 500 2014
     Retirement 100: 2013
     Cdn Top 200 2013
     US Top 500 2013
     Retirement 100: 2012
     Buffett Buys
     FB IPO
     Stocks that pay
     Value in the S&P500
     Cdn Top 200 2012
     US Top 500 2012
     Retirement 100: 2011
     Where to invest $100k
     Where to invest $10k
     Summer Simple Way
     A crystal ball for stocks?
     Cheap & safe
     Risky business
     Cdn Top 200 2011
     US Top 500 2011
     Retirement 100
     Dividend investing
     Value investing
     Momentum investing
     Low P/E P/B
     Dividends
     Dividend growers
     Cdn Top 200 2010
     US Top 500 2010
     Graham's prescription
     Income 100: 2009
     The case for optimism
     Cdn Top 200 2009
     U.S. Top 500 2009
     Wicked investments
     Simply spectacular
     Income 2008
     Small stocks, big profits
     Cdn Top 200 2008
     US Top 500 2008
     Value that sizzles
     So simple it works
     Income 100
     No assembly required
     Investing by the book
     Cdn Top 200 2007
     US Top 500 2007
     Invest like the masters
     A simple way to get rich
     Top Trusts 2006
     Stocks for cannibals
     Car bites dogs
     Cdn Top 200 2006
     US Top 1000 2006
     So easy, so profitable
     Top Trusts 2005
     Dogs of the Dow
     Top 200 2005
     Money for nothing
     Yield of dreams
     Return of the master

    MoneySaver Articles
     2 Graham Stocks for 2017
     3 Stingy Stocks for 2016
     5 Graham Stocks for 2016
     3 Stingy Stocks for 2015
     3 Graham Stocks for 2015
     3 Stingy Stocks for 2014
     4 Graham Stocks for 2014
     8 Stingy Stocks for 2013
     6 Graham Stocks for 2013
     9 Stingy Stocks for 2012
     8 Graham Stocks for 2012
     Simple Way 2011
     5 Stingy Stocks for 2011
     7 Graham Stocks for 2011
     Simple Way 2010
     5 Stingy Stocks for 2010
     8 Graham Stocks for 2010
     Simple Way 2009
     Timing Temptation
     19 Stingy Stocks for 2009
     4 Graham Stocks for 2009
     Simple Way 2008
     Active at Passive Prices
     Unbundling ETFs 2008
     5 Stingy Stocks for 2008
     5 Graham Stocks for 2008
     Is your index too active?
     Graham's Simple Way
     Canadian Graham Stocks
     5 Stingy Stocks for 2007
     8 Graham Stocks for 2007
     Top SPPs
     The Simple Way
     A hole in your IPO?
     Monkey Business
     8 Stingy Stocks for 2006
     Graham Stock Gainers
     Blue-Chip Blues
     Are Dividends Safe?
     SPPs for 2005
     Graham's Simplest Way
     Selling Graham Stocks
     RRSP Money Market Funds
     Stingy Stocks for 2005
     High Performance Graham
     Intelligent Indexing
     Unbundling Canadian ETFs
     A history of yield
     A Dynamic Duo
     Canadian Graham Stock
     Dividends at Risk
     Thrifty Value Stocks
     Stocks in Short Supply
     The New Dividend
     Hunting Goodwill
     SPPs for 2003
     RRSP: don't panic
     Desirable Dividends
     Stingy Selections 2003
     10 Graham Picks
     Growth Eh?
     Timing Disaster
     Dangerous Diversification
     The Coffee Can Portfolio
     Down with the dogs
     Stingy Selections
     Frugal Funds
     Graham Revisited
     Just Spend It
     Ticker Temptation
     Stock Mortality
     Focus on Fees
     SPPs for the Long Term
     Seeking Solid Stocks
     Relative Strength
     The VR Approach
     The Irrational Investor
     Value Investing

    Globe & Mail Articles
     Indexing advice
     Media-shy stocks
     Curse of size
     Market uncertainty
     Be even lazier
     Scary beats safe
     Small, illiquid, value
     Use the numbers
     What value is good value?
     Sculpt for value
     Value vs CAPE
     Graham Rules
     CAPE vs PeakE
     Top value ratio
     Low Beta
     Value and dividends
     Walter Schloss
     Try unloved AIG
     Why I'm a value investor
     New world of ETFs
     Low P/Es possible
     10 yielders
     Be happier
     Long-Short
     Dividend Downside
     Shiller's P/E
     Copycat investing
     Cashing in on class
     Index roulette
     Theory collides
     Diving too deep
     3 retirement villains
     Scourge of inflation
     Economic omens
     Analyst Expectations
     Value stock scarcity
     It's all in the index
     How to pick good funds
     Low Beta Wins
     Hunt for dividend stocks
     Think garage sale

    Advisor's Edge Articles
     Passive Rebundling
     Doing the math

    Norm Speaks
    Flip Books

    Tools:
     Asset Mixer
     Periodic Table
     ETF Fee Calculator



     
    About Us | Legal | Contact Us
    Disclaimers: Consult with a qualified investment adviser before trading. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, financial advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. More...