Muy interesante (y larga) conversación acerca de la reinversión y del cálculo del DGR (dividend-growth-rate) ya que no es la suma dividido por el número de empresas.
"Consider, for example, a portfolio with three equal-weighted positions. Call them WPC, PEP, and NKE. (A real portfolio will have more than three positions, but that merely complicates the calculations. It doesn’t really change the mathematics.)
WPC has a 5.43% yield and (according to SSD) 1.0% dividend growth in the last year. PEP has a 2.82% yield and 5.1% dividend growth. NKE has a 0.68% yield and 12.0% dividend growth. If I average these numbers, I get a 2.98% yield and 6.03% dividend growth. Right?
Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. In an equal-weighted portfolio, yield averages. If I had $10k invested in each at that yield, then I’m anticipating $543 of dividends from WPC, $282 from PEP, $68 from NKE, for a total of $893. A 2.98% yield on the $30k portfolio. But the impact of the dividend growth isn’t weighted by the size of the position, but by the contribution to the income stream! Applying those growth factors for one year, my next year’s dividend income might be $548, $296, and $76 respectively, for a total of $921. Just 3.1% dividend growth!!!
Another way to look at it? That 1% DGR for WPC added $5.43 of income. That 12% DGR for NKE added $8.16 of income. PEP added $14.38, more than both of the others combined! (Sweet spot of moderate yield and moderate growth.)
Again, this isn’t specifically about those three companies or about the numbers I pulled from SSD. Doesn’t make a difference whether the numbers are right or wrong, and I’m not trying to tell anybody what they should own. But the fundamental mathematical point is that the dividend growth rate of the higher yield securities counts more heavily (is weighted on more dollars) than the dividend growth rate of the lower yield securities.
My take on this?
Lower-yield companies with high DGR don’t really do much to increase your portfolio income. Not directly at least, unless they are held in MUCH larger size than the other positions. However, high-growth companies will also tend to deliver strong capital appreciation over time. This helps to support my strategy of trimming a portion of this growth to build other positions that aren’t growing much on their own. And once I came to that conclusion, there was little reason for me to care about the DGR of these companies or even whether they paid a dividend at all. AAPL, MSFT, NKE, FB, and GOOG all serve an essentially identical role in my portfolio. AMZN as well, once it is built in size.
Which brings to mind another mathematical conclusion – the boost to dividend income from reinvesting dividends depends solely on the yield of the shares being purchased with those dividends. If I’m reinvesting NKE dividends into NKE, then I get a 0.7% boost to my DGR from that reinvestment. If I reinvest them into WPC, then I get a 5.4% boost to the DGR. Thus selective reinvestment of dividends into the higher-yield securities can generate greater DGR than the yield of the portfolio might suggest.
Again, these conclusions are basic mathematics. Simple stuff that is entirely agnostic to your investment approach and your goals. Do with it what you will.
(1) Higher-yield securities weight more heavily in “organic” dividend growth than lower-yield securities, leading to a lower portfolio DGR than an “eyeball” average might suggest.
(2) The boost to DGR from reinvestment of dividends is exactly equal to the yield of the securities purchased with those dividends, allowing the investor a high degree of control over this aspect."
"Could you please expand on the following? It seems like if “A” is true than perhaps “B” can’t be true?
A.)"Higher-yield securities weight more heavily in “organic” dividend growth than lower-yield securities, leading to a lower portfolio DGR than an “eyeball” average might suggest."
B.) “Thus selective reinvestment of dividends into the higher-yield securities can generate greater DGR than the yield of the portfolio might suggest.”
"“A” refers to “organic” dividend growth, the result of company dividend increases. It averages over a portfolio weighted by the dividend income of the position, and thus high-yield positions factor in much more heavily. The dividend growth of NKE doesn’t move the needle in my portfolio, despite being one of my six largest positions and an excellent dividend grower.
“B” refers to the dividend growth generated by reinvestment of dividends. The added percentage from this aspect is exactly equal to the yield of the purchases securities, regardless of the source of the dividends.
Thus somebody who owns a slow-growth 6% yielder and uses those proceeds to purchase low-yield growth stocks is hammering their dividend growth on both fronts. Which is fine, of course, if that is what their strategy calls for."