Gracias por los aportes, se agradecen mucho.
Me he vuelto a leer todo el hilo y he sacar mucha info, supongo que dentro de un tiempo me lo volveré a leer porque da muchas ideas.
Me gustaría hacer otra petición si no es mucha molestia, que sería:
¿Qué empresas consideráis CORE en moneda EURO y LIBRA para una cartera con Euros y libras?
Las mías están basadas en gran medida en los comentarios de LLuís (su filosofía es muy parecida a la de Chowder) aunque no las tengo tan claras como las americanas. En principio:
Core: AMS:RDSA, AMS:UNA, ETR:ALV, EPA:ENGI, BME:ABE, BME:GAS, LON:DGE, LON:GSK, LON:RIO, VTX:NESN, VTX:ROG
Resto: ETR:BAS, ETR:SIE, ETR:MUV2, AMS:UL, AMS:AD, EPA:SEV, EPA:MC, EBR:ABI, BME:BME, BME:MRL, BME:EBRO, BME:REE, LON:UU, LON:BLT, LON:BLND
Un par de comentarios que vienen muy al hilo de últimos comentarios del foro:
You know, I keep seeing comment after comment after comment from people talking about SO, KO and other companies who haven’t performed up to some sort of expectations that I have no clue as to what they were for them.
I didn’t buy SO, KO and other companies thinking they would all outperform the market, I’m not that stupid to think that.
I bought them for the safety of their dividend and when the recession comes, because the expectations were so low for them, they will help provide some ballast from keeping me from even considering a panic attack.
Some of you are in for some very rough times when that correction comes. Your expectations are too high but you’ll learn this lesson as well. Recessions have a tendency to do that.
I simply expect companies like KO, SO and others not to hurt me. I think it’s foolish to think everything we buy will be a market beating winner.
So 5 years seems like a long time to turn a company around and get the price moving? I suppose you never heard of the Lost Decade and understand the ramifications of those 10 years?
I’m telling you folks, some of you are in for a rough ride unless you can get your mind right.
Este sobre las valoraciones de las empresas, ya que no consiste en comprar a cualquier precio pese a lo que se podría interpretar erróneamente:
>>> In this corner, saying valuation doesn’t matter one iota <<<
What I’m saying is that valuation is predicting forward performance, and nobody can predict the future accurately on a consistent basis.
If I thought valuation doesn’t matter one iota, I would have purchased AMZN by now.
If I thought valuation didn’t matter one iota I wouldn’t spend hours every month looking up fair value numbers for 100 companies via Morningstar, Valuentum, S&P and ValuEngine. I don’t make a move without those numbers.
It’s how we react to those valuations that is screwed up.
Some people insist on using historical information and I insist on considering the current condition of the market.
Some people insist on only buying at a deep discount to fair value and I insist on paying a small premium if necessary to own companies performing better than expected.
Your own DG50 portfolio has borne that out. The companies that most contributors said they wouldn’t recommend buying at the time due to valuations are some of your best performers because you were forced to pay the premium and you benefited as a result of stepping up and paying that premium.
Most examples that are provided in articles about valuation are presented with a one and done purchase. You buy a full position today, never buy or sell any of it and then look at how it performed over 10 or 20 years. … Who invests that way? I certainly don’t.
I will pay what I think … key word, think … might be a reasonable valuation. Then I manage my position based on company performance. I start with a 1/4 sized position, will average down one time only for another 1/4 sized position, and then average up from there, or there will be no more purchases.
There will be many purchases made to a company over time, all at various price points, all with varying valuations, and if one is looking long term, what I say doesn’t matter one iota is what we pay today when looking back 20 years from now. Why does today’s entry carry so much more weight than the one I pay when I add 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now?
Where I differ from most people on SA with regard to valuation isn’t whether it matters or not - it does, but whether fair value is a price point or a price range, and where those who do consider price range, most would want to buy in the low end of that range or below, and I will buy in the high end of the range if company performance demands it. If a company comes out and beats on earnings and revenue, then it demands the premium I pay that others are unwilling to pay.
A better discussion would be; does it matter if one pays a premium to fair value, or do we insist on always buying at a discount to fair value. Now that’s where you’ll get some varying viewpoints…
¿Se puede ver en algun sitio la rentabilidad historica de Chowder?
Chowder no está interesado en comparar la rentabilidad total (“total return”) de su cartera con ningún índice (en su caso particular el S&P500). El se centra en los dividendos (“dividend income”) que genera su cartera y afirma que en ese sentido gana al índice de referencia por goleada.
Entiendo que para un inversor con un marcado perfil value que busque acelerar en todo lo posible su camino hacia la IF esto suene a herejía. Al fin y al cabo deja las “capital gains” en un plano muy, muy secundario. Pero si el objetivo de uno es generar unos ingresos crecientes/fiables en el tiempo y olvidarse de la fluctuación de las cotizaciones o de tener que vender parte de sus acciones para mantener su nivel de vida su filosofía no suena nada descabellada.
“As I said in the article, it’s all about me and my goals. … Heh, heh. I don’t want to sell shares to generate cash. I want to collect the dividends and leave the assets alone. I understand some will say I can sell shares because the cap appreciation was better, but I don’t want to have to sell. I want selling to be an option, but I prefer to hold the asset and harvest the income those assets generate”
“I can only speak for me. When I take the capital gains, those shares are no longer generating income. I’ve killed off some of my golden geese. I don’t mind taking capital gains as an option, but I don’t want it to be a necessity because I might have to sell at a time when the market is in the middle of a crash, and I’ve been through 3 of those now. No fun! I’m looking to put myself, and others, in a position where all income needs are generated from dividends and take the emotional selling out of the equation.”
Lo que dice Ruindog, yo no le he leído decirlo nunca (ni ningún interés en hacerlo porque se aleja de lo que quiere resaltar con su estrategia). Eso sí, él siempre habla del 8% de Total Return que es su objetivo anual.
Hola Investing, toda la información está extraída de un artículo que Chowder tiene publicado en Seeking Alpha (Equity vs. Index Investing). Por que piensas que está en contradicción con su estrategia? A mi no me lo parece en absoluto.
Igual no me he expresado bien, te daba la razón. Comentaba que era cierto lo que tú decías porque él considera que dar una cifra de su rendimiento despista de lo que quiere transmitir y lo que se persigue.
Su intención es ayudar a quién quiera a crearse un sistema con reglas más o menos claras y un objetivo identificable. Que es básicamente lo que has explicado :).
Mi intención al abrir el hilo e ir poniendo sus reflexiones, no es que la gente siga su método a pies juntillas ni crear un ídolo al que adorar, sino hacer pensar sobre nuestra forma de invertir. Porque me parece que sus ideas son muy válidas y llenas de sentido común. Además, seguir su estrategia en Europa no es tan sencillo porque vivimos en euros y aquí las empresas no son tan consideradas con el accionista receptor de dividendos.
Yo sé que ahora mismo, a diferencia de cuando operaba con fondos, tengo un sesgo USA que tendré que paliar de alguna manera. Pero hasta que crezca más mi cartera tengo tiempo de encontrar alguna solución satisfactoria. Porque no me preocupa en exceso de momento, sin embargo es cierto que es un riesgo añadido que la moneda sea distinta; solo espero que sea tan poco probable que afecte en exceso como lo ha sido en el pasado.
Bueno, a lo que venía es a poner otro comentario suyo que ahonda en primero pensar de manera adecuada para esta forma de invertir, lo importante del largo plazo y cómo somos nuestro peor enemigo en el corto plazo:
Robert Schiller has been telling us that the market is dangerously high and that the only two times the market was valued as highly as it is now, a significant correction followed. What is Schiller’s advice? Do not sell.
Warren Buffett said he has lost faith in IBM and has sold 1/3 of his position. What is Buffett’s advice? He’s not selling anymore at these prices.
Both had negative views, both said don’t sell now. Does that scan? Does that make any sense at all?
We have people in this very comment stream that are down on companies they themselves won’t sell. Why is that? Why is it that people who lose confidence in a company, and are so convinced that the outlook for said company is dire, only trims a small portion of that position and then holds on to the rest? What causes that thought process? If one loses confidence in a company, why don’t they sell it all in one swoop? Why do they play both ends towards the middle?
As investors we create most of our own problems. We are often indecisive when things don’t work out quickly. It’s funny how people will find excuses to buy something and then look for excuses to sell.
When I read some of the comments regarding companies that have under-performed, and how quickly people will discard them when they face adversity tells me they haven’t studied the historical performance of the companies they buy, they merely looked at a FAST Graph or some similar chart to see how a company did share price wise during recessions and how they rebounded and say yeah, let me git some, this company is a survivor.
People will throw up MO’s long term performance, it has been the single most successful long term investment of any other company out there, but most of you never would have been around for it. MO would show periods of lower earnings, lower revenues, making acquisitions and spin offs that made no sense to you. The government stepping in and trying to put MO out of business totally surely would have had most of you long gone, perhaps myself too at the time. Most of you would have come back and said, I sold my MO 3 or 4 years ago and what I bought has done much better and I’m glad I sold MO. And everyone one of you would have been wrong because longer term MO caught up to them and then left them in the dust. Some of you will even try to justify why you might have held but then I see where you jettison other under-performers with much less problems because you don’t like some of the decisions they have made the last few years.
Every company you own had periods where they would have made decisions you don’t like or understand. Sell everything! Equity investing isn’t for you. You are going to get crushed in the next significant recession and the fact that everything is dropping so it’s okay isn’t going to work. Why? Because most of the companies you own are going to show lower earnings, they are going to show declining revenues, share prices are going to drop at an accelerating pace and every talking head on the boob tube and nearly every article on SA is going to be screaming, head for the hills. The sheer number of negative people you listen to or read about will break your resolve, will cause you to sell at a time when you shouldn’t. It’s inevitable unless you learn to manage your emotions and manage your expectations.
Shiller doesn’t expect high market returns going forward, but he doesn’t recommend selling either. Buffett doesn’t think IBM is a high conviction company any more, but he too doesn’t recommend selling now. I don’t think TGT is a better investment than COST, but I’m not selling TGT and I am buying COST. I don’t think IBM is a great investment, but I do think they are a great dividend payer. I’m not looking for high expectations with regard to share prices, I’m looking to get paid well while these financially strong companies attempt to work through their problems just as every company you own had to work through problems of one sort or another at some point. You just didn’t realize it because you weren’t invested in them at the time, and you wouldn’t have benefited from the success of them overcoming their adversities because you wouldn’t have held long enough to do so.
Buy high conviction companies only, and if you do that, then you are more willing to hold as opposed to run when the company goes through another down business cycle where they need to adjust, to adapt, to make the moves necessary to turn it around even if that means changing the CEO. All of this takes time, sometimes more time than a lot of you are willing to allow because you are too short term oriented.
If you think you are smart enough to time those moves, all I can say is … Ha!
I don’t know who is going to turn out to be a great investment and who isn’t. All I know is that I can’t pick 100% winners in the short to intermediate term. All I know is that I do have the ability to manage losses though. In the past 7 or 8 years I’ve only had one full position or overweight position lose money, Just one out of 60 holdings! I do have 5 or 6 holdings showing a loss out of 60, but those positions are small, none more than a 1/2 sized position, so if they don’t work out, I will minimize my losses.
I don’t build up positions to size unless I’m averaging up. When averaging up I’m always in the green, I’m not staring at full positions in the red. You’d be surprised the psychogical difference between the two scenarios. Start small and average up on your winners and you can eliminate a lot of the problems you face in your own portfolios going forward.
Think about it!
A word on company selection …
I am not going to suggest the way I select my companies is the way others should, but I thought you should know how I do it and perhaps that will help others understand why I’m not as concerned about growth or share prices. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take what growth comes and over time I do prefer that prices rise, but that isn’t the focus, the amount of income my assets generate is, and the quality of that income stream.
When I started with the dividend growth investing strategy, I noticed that consumer related companies seemed to have the better yields and the least number of dividend cuts. There are always exceptions of course, but I play the high probabilities. Others may do better chasing growth, but it’s more important to me, and the people I help, to not lose money. Chasing growth also puts one at risk of not catching it and paying a price for that.
I prefer a more reasonable rate of return with a more secure income stream, than a higher growth rate and an income stream at greater risk.
Since consumer related companies presented the better course of action for securing income, I paid attention to product lines and coverage area for those that provide a service instead.
When I looked at KHC for example, it wasn’t the dividend I focused on, I bought them before they even declared the dividend. I just knew the dividend was coming and was willing to accept whatever it was. I wanted exposure to the consumer dollar for their products as they have eight $1 billion+ brands, and more than 200 well know brands around the world. That’s what I’m buying, exposure to all of those products they sell worldwide regardless of market conditions.
When I looked into utilities, I didn’t focus on the yield, or a lot of the other data people screen for, I wanted to set up a utility portfolio based on geographical locations. I wanted one in the NE, one in the mid-Atlantic, one in the SE, one in the mid-central, one in the SW and one on the south and north ends of the west coast. I wanted access to all of those utility consumer dollars across the country. Then I looked for what I thought were the best of breed in each of those geographical areas.
I wasn’t looking for the highest yields, the most growth, the best idea of beating the market, I was looking for area coverage and who best qualified. I ended up with D, SO, WEC, XEL, SRE, AVA and I couldn’t find an acceptable NE utility so I bought another SE one, NEE. … Heh, heh. I did end up buying LNT as well because WEC didn’t have enough coverage in the mid-central region.
To me, it was all about accessing the consumer dollar in that industry across the country.
I saw where T and VZ had a majority of the telecom consumer dollars. I wasn’t looking for who would be the better performer, I was looking for access to the largest amount of the consumer dollars in that industry and I’ll take whatever return comes with that.
I know from experience that during recessionary times growth ideas go out the window and it’s your defensive positions that will drive your portfolio. Prices are going to rise and fall all the time, but what I can’t allow is that income flow to drop, even for those not drawing income and won’t have a need to draw it for years. That income not only pays the bills for those drawing it, it buys even more shares for those who don’t need to draw that income. The more income I generate, the more shares I can buy.
Where others raise cash for the crash they have no idea of knowing when it will come, I will continue to buy shares that generate cash that I can also use for buying opportunities during those crash events. My way of managing the account does both, increases income and raises cash via the dividends that the cash generated I was able to put to work, as opposed to sit on the cash that did nothing.
The best way to insure a dividend stream that can be used for purchasing even more shares is to maintain a strong presence in high quality Defensive positions, and the more exposure I have to the consumer dollar for the necessity items of life, the better that income flow will continue to grow.
Food for thought!
I want to once again reiterate the importance of, it isn’t what you own that has as much importance as to how you manage it. No matter what you decide to invest in, the better managed that position is, the better the return.
If everyone of us were given one investment to own, and we couldn’t own anything else, the return on that one investment would vary widely based on how the position was managed.
Since nobody here buys something at one price and never adds to it again over a 40 year time frame, then each of us are managing a position.
Many people buy something, get lazy, the investment doesn’t work out as expected in a short time frame, and they are moving on to another investment.
Don’t buy something because you think it might do good, buy something that you can commit yourself to over a long time frame, and be willing to manage those positions.
Who do you add to and when? Who do you trim? Who do you ignore for now? Who are you willing to hold through good times and bad? … Those are the things you need to manage in order to run a successful portfolio. Chasing rarely works, and when it does, it is fleeing. It won’t last. At some point you need to know when to circle the wagons and defend your positions. The more you wander off the reservation, the more you open yourself for even more mistakes.
I have shown a number of ways in how I manage a portfolio, in in doing so, some of those decisions may not have worked out as well as some folks would like, but what is important to remember is that my decisions may not always create great results, but they don’t create great failures either, and that’s the key to running a successful portfolio. If it can’t help me, don’t hurt me.
The way to accomplish this is through proper weightings and when you bring those weightings up in size. You do this my learning how to average up and not through averaging down. If your biggest losers are from full positions, you screwed up. I make an attempt to keep our biggest losers underweight and will only add to them when they start to outperform. I will average up or not add to them at all.
Good money goes after good, good money does not go after bad. When you learn how to apply that concept, you’ll have greater peace of mind.
Dividend Growth Investing is about psychology as much as actual numbers and percentage returns. The strategy is meant to steer a middle course between two extremes, what I often refer to as balance. The first extreme is price volatility, and overcoming that through the psychological impact of receiving dividends without having you bailing out on positions at the worst moment. The other extreme being going to cash, taking your money out of the market altogether.
Dividends take into consideration that people invest in assets to create income. When we forget about price charts and where price sits within a specific time frame on a chart, we focus on an income flow, insuring that it grows to meet our needs at a time when they need to be met.
Too many of you people are sucked in by the many others who are always asking, how much is your position up? How does it compare to the market? Are you able to beat some benchmark? Some of you still don’t get it. The dividend growth strategy is an income based strategy and the question you should be answering is, how much did my income grow this year? Does my income flow beat that of some benchmark?
A lot of you are so wrapped up over short term company performance that you don’t realize how much you are undermining your strategy. You are setting yourself up for failure in a significant bear market because you can’t take your focus off the share price.
You see me pay attention to earnings only because I’m looking for an opportunity to build our positions and I have two very definable strategies into how I do that. One is buying off a beat and raise during earnings season, and the other is when I can buy quality companies at a discount to fair value.
Some of you are willing to buy at a discount to fair value, but you give up on your company when it doesn’t keep pace with the market, its peers, or some other such thing. All I focus on is the income. Is it growing or not? There is no ambiguity, you know, it’s a simple yes or no answer.
If a company I own is under-performing as a company or to the market, like an IBM for example, I may not add more shares now but I’m not jumping ship either. It pays a very nice dividend and they continue to grow it. The company may be under-performing on top line growth, but I continue to get a pay raise for my troubles.
I’m not looking to sell companies I bought to provide income even if they rise 50%, 100%, 150% or more. It’s the income those assets generate that I’m interested in and if the company is down 20% or more, I’m still not selling, my income hasn’t dropped, only the share price did. When you finally understand the psychological impact of that on managing a portfolio, you’d be surprised how easy this dividend growth investing can be.
Others can chase the market all they want, some people just need chaos in their lives, some people have a need to make things harder than they are so they can feel smarter, but the average high school student could succeed at this as long as they are shown the principles of dividend growth investing and stick with them.
I read somewhere today that Buffett’s fortune saw 80% of his returns over the years coming from 20% of his holdings, it’s just that those 20% are held in size. You can’t hold something of size if you keep trimming or selling every time a company faces adversity. You are supposed to buy the companies you are comfortable enough holding through good times and bad, and in those bad times, continue to build the position. The sooner one understands that, and applies that, the sooner they should start to see some serious results.
Build small, end small. Build big, end big. Your choice!
I read somewhere that investing is 90% emotional and the reason most people don’t achieve their objectives isn’t a lack of knowledge, it’s an excess of emotion. People fret too much over short-term performance, even though they supposedly say they are investing for the next 20 or 30 years. Your actions, or lack thereof don’t support your long-term plans.
After having suffered through 3 significant recessions as an equity investor, I learned in the first two what not to do and I was prepared for the last one. I knew I needed a clear and concise objective, not multiple objectives that might be in conflict with each other, but a single purpose, something I could apply a laser type focus on and I decided it would be the income stream. I came up with a Mission Statement and that statement is to build an income stream that is reliable, predictable and increasing. I was able to accomplish that even during the Great Recession.
A lot of you want growth and income and those objectives conflict. You are the people who will have a difficult time during the next recession. You haven’t learned the concept yet of owning high conviction companies and continue to hold them while ignoring price action. Price action don’t mean nuthin’ in the long game. Price action is temporary, the focus needs to be on the quality of the companies you own, that’s what is going to support you during the distribution years, and that’s why my main focus is the income stream. It grows regardless of market conditions and portfolio values don’t. Our portfolio values dropped during the Great Recession, yet our income flows from those companies that saw share prices drop saw income levels rise. It’s the income stupid that we rely on, so focus on it.
Manage your emotions or they will manage you.
Varias carteras de ejemplo que lleva Chowder. Algunas más orientadas a crecimiento y otras a mayores dividendos.
I have several portfolios I manage for people in retirement or within 2 years of retirement and each of them have their unique characteristics based on what the person is trying to accomplish. I don’t think one is better than any other, but each one is satisfactory to the person owning it and based on what was important to them.
Oddly though, most of them are portfolios of 20-25 positions, and they are mostly equal weight positions.
This portfolio belongs to a retired person:
CVX … D … GIS … GPC … JNJ … KHC … KMB … KO … MCD … MO … O … PG … PM … SBUX … SCG … SO … T … UNP … UTG … VZ
This portfolio carries a 3.56% yield. I think it has a nice balance between sectors with an emphasis on defense.
This person wanted growth with as much safety as possible. He isn’t drawing the dividends, the portfolio is a Legacy Portfolio he wishes to pass on when he’s gone.
This next person was looking for safe companies to own, wanted some growth, wasn’t sure if the amount of income he’d like to have would be accomplished but decided he’d take what came along, and if need be, would harvest some shares down the road to generate cash.
D … GIS … KHC … KMB … KO … MO … PG … VZ … NEE … JNJ … ABT … BDX … HD … SBUX … O … AAPL … ADP … BA … MA
This portfolio carries a 2.45% yield, so capital appreciation is going to be important. I think it is a more growth oriented income portfolio though, especially for someone who is retired. However, if one wants more growth they must sacrifice some income. This is a decent balance I think.
This woman is retired, but isn’t drawing her dividends yet. She did want to be more focused on immediate income just in case, but did want as much safety as she could get.
AVA … D … ETV … FLC … GIS … HCN … JNJ … KHC … KMB … KO … MO … NEE … O … PG … PM … PTY … SO … T … TPZ … UTG … VZ … WEC
This portfolio carries a 4.19% yield but doesn’t offer much growth potential either in cap gains or dividend income due to the number of CEF’s owned. The CEF’s are higher quality and a couple of them, PTY and UTG have bond exposure, thus providing a little less risk than all equity funds. I’m always looking for balance.
The following account is another Legacy Portfolio that they wish to pass on, so no dividends will be drawn but are being reinvested.
ADP … CLX … CVS … D … DUK … GIS … HRL … JNJ … KMB … KO … MKC … MMM … MO … O … PEP … SO … SYY … T … XEL … XOM
I kinda like this portfolio and think it fits any age, and a young person could use this and then add a couple of growth companies if they wish. AAPL, maybe an AMZN if they wish to be adventurous, a V, MA, HD or LOW could be considered growth I think. All have double digit earnings growth expectations going forward and anything providing 10% earnings growth or more is considered a growth company.
I’m not sure others would want me showing their portfolios and I don’t plan on sharing mine.
Some of the other folks expect even more income than you see above, others wish to have a more balanced portfolio between growth and income. One’s goals should determine the investments they own.
I want people to think about what it is they want their portfolio to do and then find companies or investment vehicles to support it. If they wish to discuss their ideas to see what others think, I think that’s what we’re all here for.
I will say this though, all of the companies mentioned above can fit into a retired portfolio, or any portfolio for that matter. You can position size them to either create more income or create more growth potential. For example:
If one wanted more income, you can double size your positions on companies with a 4% yield or anything close to it and then hold 1/2 sized positions in the low yield, high dividend growth companies. Allow them to do what they were meant to do … grow.
If one wanted both income and growth, then equally weight all positions.
I want more income so in my personal portfolio I have larger positions in T, VZ, O and SO than I do in KMB and KHC for example.
There are a number of ways to go but before you can get there, you have to know exactly where it is you want to go. You have to know what has priority and what takes a back seat.
I like the idea that all of the portfolios I manage own everything that was on the watch list a number of years ago. I don’t need to look for “new” ideas.
A lot of people are always looking for the next big idea, and I happen to think some of the best ideas are already owned.
I don’t know why so many people ignore the best ideas they already purchased to chase something else (unless they are still working off the established watch list), and that something else is an unknown until it can prove itself.
My son has 60 positions, but everything in his portfolio was on a list 8 years ago. I worked off that list until everything was purchased. I didn’t continue screening for the latest hot potato. Now that he owns everything, we’ll see who shows strength and who doesn’t, and as time goes on, when I sell a weakling the proceeds will go into a company or two that has proven to show strength over time.
A couple of examples:
MO … up 208.75%
LMT … up 206.07%
ADP … up 117.03%
JNJ … up 104.21%
These are some of his largest and most profitable positions. I will continue to look for opportunities to build on these. The best chance at getting 300% returns at some point is to invest in companies up 200%, they show they are capable of performing.
What are the odds and the time frame for a new position to generate 300% returns?
As I average up our cost basis on companies, it does slow down the amount of time for positions to show triple digit returns, but the companies I am averaging up on are performing better than expected and I’m playing the high probability of odds game that they will continue to do so.
This is how a long-term approach to investing is supposed to work, in my opinion. I don’t want to be that person that owns 400 companies because they are afraid to pay more today for a company than they did 5 years ago so they keep adding new ideas. I don’t want a large group of unknowns, I want a smaller group of well knowns and I want them in size.
Anyone think I’m going to sweat a 30% or 40% market correction with LMT or MO? … Pffft! Not with their margin of safety!
Empresas resistentes a la recesión. Merece la pena mirar 20 años con dividendos reinvertidos.
With companies like CL, which most of us would agree is recession resistant, it does me no good unless I look at the historical performance which includes recessions. So when I pull up a 20 year FAST chart with dividends reinvested, I see that slow growing CL, with all of its warts, outperformed the S&P 500. Annualized rate of return for CL is 9.3% to the S&P 500’s 6.7%.
It’s the compounding of those dividends through good market conditions and bad that provide the juice needed to outperform the market over long time frames.
One has to recognize companies like CL for what they are. Companies that provide products people are going to buy regardless of market conditions and that is going to generate more cash flow than is needed in order to provide a safe dividend. I mean how much assurance does one need about the safety of a dividend when the company has paid an uninterrupted one for 120 years? … That’s 120 for 120!
I suppose there may come a day when they cut the dividend, or eliminate it, but I’m going to play the odds and settle for 120 out of 120.
As to total return, I’ve talked about how we should be lowering our expectations, and in doing so, I’ll be happy with annualized rates of return of 6% to 8% over the next decade or so. The higher the market goes, the higher the valuations go and that means lower total return rates down the road. I think a company like CL can meet my safety needs and still provide that 6% plus annualized rate of return.
The higher this market goes, the safer I want to see as to the companies I continue to add to. I’ve been going all defense during this draft season. … Ha!
For those in or near retirement, I can see where the yield might be too low, but those looking out longer term, a few companies like CL in the portfolio isn’t a bad thing to have.
Me ha resultado de lo más útil conocer la filosofía de Chowder. Ahora cada vez que leo un debate pienso…¿Que haría Chowder en esta situación?. Se ha convertido en una especie de gurú de referencia.
Pero creo que este post se complementaría muy bien si dejásemos puesto algo de la “Chowder Rule”. Ya que se habla poco de ella aquí y se está debatiendo ahora mismo en otro post sobre si ha cambiado o no.
Para los que no la conozcan la base es escoger empresas de calidad+ alto dividendo + alto crecimiento del dividendo. Escoger empresas de calidad digamos que es un filtro previo. Si no cumple eso ya no sigue. Pero una vez que tiene claro que le interesa una empresa aplica la Chowder Rule para validar si el precio actual le conviene o no.
La fórmula que yo conozco es:
En otro post se comenta que ahora Chowder se está poniendo más defensivo y aplica el 8% a todas sus posiciones core, y no solo a las Utilities. A ver si entre todos conseguimos aclararlo y perfilar la regla para que sirva a futuros lectores. Yo de momento no he encontrado ningún cambio reciente.
Creo que ya lo he comentado alguna vez. La regla de Chowder no la ha inventando el. Esta explicada en el libro “The Ultimate Dividend Playbook” y es una consecuencia de aplicar el Modelo de Gordon-Shapiro.
Bajar ahora el hurdle rate al 8% solo indica que el mercado cada vez esta mas caro. Creo que es una imprudencia. Si el mercado dobla ¿la bajara al 6%, al 4%, al 0%?
Esto no es un poco raro?
Ejemplo:
yield: 2.5%, crecimiento 10% = 12.5% OKKKK
yield 4%, crecimiento 10% = 13% NO OK
La segunda que es mejor que la primera no pasa el filtro y la primera si? :S