Dividend yields have a bit of a “Goldilock’s porridge” quality about them. Investors have to try different yields while searching for the ones that are just right. Pick one that’s too low, and you’ll be risking your money and not getting paid for taking on that risk. But pick one that’s too high and you could get seriously burned.

Too Low

Investors love dividends. And they have every reason to. A dividend can be, among other things, evidence that a company is:
  1. financially secure;
  2. confident about future sales trends; and
  3. willing to share that stability and success with it’s shareholders

But just paying any old dividend doesn’t automatically qualify you as a good dividend stock.

Consider the case of Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), an oil and gas company with a market cap of over 40 billion. Halliburton’s current yield is 0.75%, which is less than what you can get from a 2 year U.S. treasury bill. One of these investment options is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, and the other one is not (probably).

To qualify as a good dividend yield, it has to compensate investors for the extra risk of owning stocks instead of bonds or bank CDs, so the yield shouldn’t be too low.

Too Steady

Consistency is a prized value in dividend stocks. So much so that the S&P 500 has a special class of dividend payers called dividend aristocrats which have raised dividends for at least 25 consecutive years.

But consistency can cut both ways. Take a look at Merck (NYSE: MRK), a pharmaceutical company with a mega-market cap of over 100 billion. It currently sports a hefty yield of over 4.5% which is no small potatoes when 10 year treasury bonds are paying around 3.75% and most bank savings accounts are at less than 1%.

But as with so much of investing, the important aspect of the dividend yield is all about the future, not the present. And that’s where Merck comes up short. The company has been paying the same exact dividend for over six years, without a single hike since September of 2004! That’s not the kind of consistency that dividend investors hope for. To qualify as a good dividend yield, it has to be growing.

Too High

In early 2008, Harley Davidson (NYSE: HOG) had a dividend yield of $0.33 per share, or over 6%. Investors who were selling Harley stock for fear of what the recession would do to motorcycle sales were right to keep the stock price down, and the dividend was slashed by 70 percent in the next quarter!

To be a good dividend yield, it must be sustainable and shouldn’t be temporarily inflated by a low stock price. In other words, it shouldn’t be too high.

 

Just Right

That puts the sweet spot of dividend yields these days at around 3-5 percent. There are plenty of large cap companies paying dividends in this range which have been raising their dividends over the last five years. Running a screen for these metrics yielded about 40 stocks for me. Here are a few picks from the bunch:

Unilever (NYSE: UL)
Market Cap: 84 Billion
Yield: 4.75
Dividend Growth Rate (5 year average): 17%
McDonald’s (NYSE: MCD)
Market Cap: 80 Billion
Yield: 3.21
Dividend Growth Rate (5 year average): 29%
Clorox (NYSE: CLX)
Market Cap: 9 Billion
Yield: 3.23%
Dividend Growth Rate (5 year average): 14%

 

Related posts:

6 Signs of a Good Dividend Yield

Full Disclosure: I own shares in HOG, MCD.

Related posts:

  3 Responses to “What is a Good Dividend Yield?”

Comments (3)
  1. I'm highly flexible when it comes to yield. More so than most dividend investors.

    One reason is that I don't necessarily stick 100% to dividends. I've had non-dividend-payers in my portfolio before, and it could happen again. I find it important to keep dividend investments as the core of my portfolio, but don't mind being a bit more flexible with a smaller portion of my portfolio. So if I have a dividend investment with a really low yield, I'll basically just consider it to be a non-dividend payer for the purpose of my portfolio.

    Another reason is that I focus primarily on shareholder friendliness when analyzing a company's dividend policy. I take into account dividend yield, dividend growth, and other factors like business growth, where the money is going, etc. I want the business to use its money as close to 100% efficiently as possible, and more often that not, that involves paying decent dividends.

    I do, however, prefer to keep the average portfolio yield over 3% and closer to 4%.

  2. Agreed, Matt. One trick that has ended up helping me is that I've been concentrating my dividend payers in the tax advantaged IRA account and using my after tax account to focus on the more growth oriented stocks. It sort of forces me to include both types in the portfolio while protecting from unnecessary taxes.

    I think you're right about not excluding a dividend payer just because the yield is too low. I own DIS right now and I'm not the least bit concerned that it is yielding less than 1 percent. There are plenty of other ways that good management teams can return some money to us poor shareholders!

  3. Hi.Really an awesome post.Everyone has different approach for managing their portfolios as per their requirements & risk taking capabilities so i agree to both of your view points.

 
© 2011-2012 Sigma Swan - Long-Term Stock Investing Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha