David van Knapp (DVK)

Pues con esos datos seria para tenerlas todas.

Pero de inclinarme por una seria por GD, no tengo ningun representante de este sector

De nada. De las que sigo (155) me salen con CAGR >10 a 20 años las siguientes:

PEP: 10,99%
HRL: 13,05%
SWX:NESN: 10,15%
MKC: 10,59%
MO: 11,14%
LON: IMB: 13,98%
LON: ULVR: 12,20%
CHD: 18,41%
LON: RB: 11,14%
EPA: OR: 14,43%
EL: 17,04%
JNJ: 10,95%
CAH: 22,59%
CVS: 17,14%
WBA: 15,22%
BDX: 12,90%
DHR: 26,82%
MDT: 15,43%
SYK: 25,84%
UNH: 38,35%
UTX: 10,77%
ITW: 14,02%
AOS: 12,82%
ROP: 15,16%
BA: 14,92%
GD: 12,03%
LMT: 13,20%
RTN: 59,07%
FAST: 48,17%
GWW: 12,02%
WM: 33,69%
TXN: 21,01%
INTC: 18,11%
ADP: 13,59%
IBM: 15,42%
ENB: 11,36%
VFC: 12,91%
NKE: 15,48%
HD: 22,09%
LOW: 25,46%
DIS: 21,26%
CMCSA: 34,17%
MCD: 18,58%
BEN: 15,09%
AFL: 15,95%
APD: 10,54%
LIN: 14,69%
ECL: 12,10%
SHW: 10,40%

Ojo, hay alguna que en esos 20 años ha congelado o incluso suspendido el dividendo pero luego lo ha retomado. Por ejemplo, Disney o Comcast.

No os fiéis 100% puesto que puede haber algún error involuntario en la recogida de datos. La mayoría están sacados del este excel.

Un saludo.


Con todas las que has puesto habria para una cartera, no se si bien diversificada, muy buena.

Yo creo que esa lista es demasiado extensa. Un CAGR de +10% en los últimos 20 años no es nada nada fácil de conseguir. Y yo veo demasiadas empresas en esa lista

Yo creo que la lista lo que refleja es el CAGR> 10% del Total Return


Y tus pornos DGIs son las que tienen un CAGR>10% pero solo del dividendo


1 Like

Exacto, las pornos DGI (que no es cosa mía sino de Manel Perry y Dividendo Rentable) es un CAGR del 10% durante 20 años del dividendo sólo.

Para los cálculos que os he puesto he tomado sólo datos de dividendos.
La fórmula que utilizo en el excel es la que ha puesto ruindog pero al revisarla he descubierto que en #of years estaba usando 18 en vez de 20.

Aquí están los resultados corregidos (han desaparecido algunas empresas):

HRL: 11,67%
LON:IMB: 12,50%
LON:ULVR: 10,92%
CHD: 16,42%
EPA:OR: 12,90%
EL: 15,21%
CAH: 20,12%
CVS: 15,30%
WBA: 13,60%
BDX: 11,54%
DHR: 23,84%
MDT: 13,79%
SYK: 22,98%
UNH: 33,93%
UTX: 10,72%
ITW: 12,53%
AOS: 11,91%
ROP: 13,55%
BA: 13,33%
GD: 10,76%
LMT: 11,81%
RTN: 51,85%
FAST: 42,46%
GWW: 11,30%
WM: 29,86%
TXN: 18,72%
INTC: 16,16%
ADP: 12,15%
IBM: 13,78%
ENB: 10,17%
VFC: 11,55%
NKE: 13,83%
HD: 19,68%
LOW: 22,65%
DIS: 18,95%
CMCSA: 30,28%
MCD: 16,58%
BEN: 13,48%
AFL: 14,24%
LIN: 13,13%
ECL: 10,82%
SHW: 10,35%

Para un ejemplo del cálculo, aquí están los dividendos pagados para una de las más llamativas, Raytheon (RTN), desde 1999 hasta 2018, inclusive ambos:

3,4000; 3,1250; 2,8675; 2,6150; 2,3650; 2,1500; 1,9300; 1,6650; 1,4350; 1,2100; 1,0950; 1,0050; 0,9400; 0,8600; 0,8000; 0,8000; 0,2006; 0,0008; 0,0008; 0,0008

Como se ve ha tenido dos periodos de congelación.

CAGR = (3,40/0,0008)^(1/20)-1 = 0,5185 = 51,85%

Ya os digo que puede haber algún error involuntario en los datos anuales de DPA.


1 Like

Si nos vamos a la web de Raytheon dice que en 1998 pagaba un dividendo trimestral de 0,2$ por accion (anual de 0,8$) asi que …

1 Like

Un pequeño detalle. Para poder poner 20 en la fórmula creo que el periodo de referencia es de 21 años. Así cuentas 20 periodos de crecimiento (pues el primero por el que empiezas no tiene ningún crecimiento).

De todas formas el resultado final no debe variar mucho con respecto a cómo lo haces tú, salvo que entre el año -21 y el -20 haya habido un incremento o un recorte muy espectacular.

1 Like

Ambos tenéis razón.
Vash: como dije, he tomado los datos del citado excel. Lo he comprobado con la web de la compañía y los datos están mal. Trataré de notificárselo al autor del excel.
Por lo visto, de 1996 a 2004 tuvo el dividendo congelado en 0,80 $
La verdad es que sonaba demasiado bonito para ser cierto. Aparte de poco sostenible en el futuro.

Gracias por señalarme los errores.


Análisis de NFG


Acerca de las ventas que ha hecho (BA, VTR).

“I feel like I’m developing a whole new category of stocks, “Stocks that Piss Me Off.” It’s a reason to sell. In the past 3 months, I’ve sold two stocks that fell into that category: BA and VTR. I felt better as soon as I let each one go.
In fact, it’s given me an idea for an article, something like “Kondo-izing Your Portfolio.” I’ve never read anything by Marie Kondo, but I’ve read about her, and her idea for getting rid of stuff that doesn’t spark joy for you (even if it once did). Throw it out.
So I’ve Kondo-ized my portfolio a little by tossing BA and VTR.
When my former company was taken over by a much larger company, we all learned a lot about corporate cultures. In fact, studying the subject became an avocation of mine for a couple of years. The more I read about BA, the more I realized what a deep-seated cultural problem they have. It led inevitably to the 737 MAX problems, and I’ll bet there are other problems lurking in various products and projects. Scary thought.
It can take years to change a company culture. Once I came to those realizations, it was easy to let BA go. In fact, it became imperative. I wish them luck, but that’s the kind of anti-SWAN stock I don’t want to own.


Análisis de CVX


“Your comment also gives me my weekly chance to bring up the difference between stock returns and investor returns.
Stock returns are what you see on a chart or in the newspaper. Investor returns add your own behavior to the equation.
The important behavior of interest here, of course, is dividend reinvestment. I don’t know if I’ll do an article on it this year, but dividend reinvestment can significantly increase one’s investor returns over the returns of the stocks they hold. That’s because (of course) the reinvested dividends buy more shares, which introduces a multiplier effect on the basic returns of the stocks themselves.
The interesting thing with many growth stocks is, their basic returns are the only returns available, because there are no dividends to reinvest (or very little). Meanwhile, the utility with a 4% yield means you have a built-in 4% gain just through reinvesting them. The stock’s own returns then stack on top.
That’s a big head start, and it often closes the gap between lil’ ol’ utilities and big strong growth companies. Not all the time, but some of the time. It’s way cool when it happens.


DTA has engaged with a young friend of the owner – Liz – to interview some of their writers about investing. She’s 31 and starting literally from ground zero. She wants to learn about investing.She interviewed me a couple weeks ago, the tape has been edited, and it’s been posted on You Tube. Liz wrote a short article explaining what’s going on, and the video is embedded in her article.I would love for anyone to look at the video, or skim and it, and give feedback about anything: Content, production, video and audio quality, questions and answers, and anything else you think of. Criticize! We want to learn how to do these better.This is kind of an experiment, part of DTA trying to broaden its audience to include younger people. Here’s the link:


Análisis de UNM


Reinversión de dividendos en… ¡TXN!


“To me, this feels like the dot-com bubble burst and the financial/housing collapse, which was also a bubble bursting. Each of those, in retrospect, was also accompanied by a recession.
This time, we may again have something of a bubble bursting, and it’s hard to see how an economic slowdown isn’t inevitable (indeed already underway). The market seems to be pricing in a recession.
If your time horizon is <1-3 years, it could be truly disastrous. If you can widen your timeframe out to 3-5 years+, it’s not so bad, just hard to go through.


El artículo que saca el viernes en DTA será muy interesante:

“I’m working on my DGSM article for DTA that will be out Friday. This month will be a special edition on the impact of the crash on blue chip DG stocks. I’m especially looking at credit ratings, SSD score changes, yield changes, and valuations. Gonna do about 10 of the most widely held DG stocks.
Overall, it’s hard to imagine that DG rates won’t fall. There’s simply less money circulating in the economy, so companies will have less to distribute. The impact will be uneven, though. The “contactless” business models will be far less affected than others.