I've been a pretty big fan of Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs) over the years and something close to half of my invested assets are in them. For those who want to invest small amounts without having to deal with a broker, I really think these are a very good option because you can put in money in dollar rather than share denominations.
In terms of where to go for them, here are a few different websites of providers:
Shareowner Online (Wells Fargo):
http://www.shareowneronline.com/
Investor Service Direct (BNY Mellon):
https://isd.bnymellon.com/isd/faces/jsp/enroll/enrollInterface.jsp
ADR.com (JP Morgan):
http://www.adr.com/ShareholderServices/ShareholderServices.aspx?L1=DirectPurchase&L2=About
Computershare:
https://www-us.computershare.com/Investor/Plans/buyshares.asp
There are a few others out there, but these are the ones I would start with. There are some companies that seem to do it directly such as Procter and Gamble (PG): http://www.pg.com/en_US/investors/investing_in_pg/sip.shtml
I think these are fantastic programs, but keep an eye on the fee schedules when choosing how to do your automatic investments. If the plans charge a dollar per transaction and you put $25 in a month, that doesn't make much sense. You are paying 4% transaction costs then.
Showing posts with label Dividends. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dividends. Show all posts
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Quick Update of Dynamic Asset Allocation Model
The model still suggests an 80% allocation to equities in the current environment. Despite the contraction in the yield curve, the expansion of the earnings yield measure and corporate credit spreads added more than the narrowing in the yield curve took away.
On a fundamental basis, this allocation makes sense for entirely another reason. The dividend yield on the S&P 500, forgetting earnings for a moment, is just shy of 2%, so you are only giving up 1% on 10-year treasuries just there. Among those stocks that are actually paying dividends right now, the average yield is 2.54%. Further, these numbers are depressed by the fact that almost all financial stocks, normally payers of robust dividends, have pulled back over the past two years to pay virtually nothing. Case in point, JP Morgan Chase (JPM) was once a payer of a 4% dividend or better, but in order to preserve capital during the financial crisis it put that down to 0.5%.
With such a narrow differential between bonds and stocks in terms of income generation, it doesn't make long term sense to be heavily in bonds at the moment. From a trading perspective, it varies, but for those without sufficient cash to trade, it makes the most sense to be heavily in equities in the present situation.
On a fundamental basis, this allocation makes sense for entirely another reason. The dividend yield on the S&P 500, forgetting earnings for a moment, is just shy of 2%, so you are only giving up 1% on 10-year treasuries just there. Among those stocks that are actually paying dividends right now, the average yield is 2.54%. Further, these numbers are depressed by the fact that almost all financial stocks, normally payers of robust dividends, have pulled back over the past two years to pay virtually nothing. Case in point, JP Morgan Chase (JPM) was once a payer of a 4% dividend or better, but in order to preserve capital during the financial crisis it put that down to 0.5%.
With such a narrow differential between bonds and stocks in terms of income generation, it doesn't make long term sense to be heavily in bonds at the moment. From a trading perspective, it varies, but for those without sufficient cash to trade, it makes the most sense to be heavily in equities in the present situation.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Q: How do I value stocks anyway? A: Umm....
One of the basic questions that is brought up time and again is: Is the stock market overvalued or undervalued? Investors are chronically asking this question and the debate between the two factions is what creates a market. Those who think their stocks have had their run will sell and those that think that those stocks can continue to run will buy and where the two meet is the price of the stock. The question for you is which side of that trade do you come down on?
I wish there was an easy answer here, but there is no easy answer. I don't subscribe to any one view of it. Efficient market theorists insist that the price of a stock is always justified because that is what the market values it at. Well.... that's nice, but kind of useless. Then, to quote Cheech Marin's character at the end of From Dusk Till Dawn, "One place's just as good as another". Put in terms of market history, buying Microstrategy (MSTR) at $3,000 a share in March of 2000 made just as much sense as buying Ford (F) at $1 in late 2008.
Dismissing this idea for a moment, how then should stocks, or the stock market at large, be valued? One idea for the overall market is by relative valuation. This is the previously mentioned earnings yield (1/PE * 100%) and compare it to long term bonds. If the earnings yield is at 5% and the 10-year Treasury Note is at 3.5%, stocks seem cheap. If the earnings yield is at 4% and the 10-year Treasury Note is at 7%, stocks are horrifically overvalued. There are some problems with this method in that it is possible that the "E", or earnings, in the PE ratio may be temporarily distorted. Also, interest rates can change in a hurry. It is not uncommon for long term rates to move 100 basis points in a six week period.
If you have taken a microeconomics class that has discussed financial markets at all, or any finance class, you have heard of the Dividend Discount Model. There are two problems with this as well. One is that many companies do not pay dividends, or do not pay particularly large dividends as a matter of policy. As a result, these companies get the shaft in this method of valuation. Also, you have to make the leap of faith that some given level of dividend growth will be sustainable. Just because a company has grown dividends at 8% each year for the past ten years does not mean that they will continue to do so. Case in point: the financials during the 2007-2008 period. If you valued those companies with the assumption that their current dividends were a good proxy of their dividends over the next five years, you would get hosed. Purely conceptually, however, this is probably the best method. It's just that it is difficult to apply to a large number of stocks.
I wish there was an easy answer here, but there is no easy answer. I don't subscribe to any one view of it. Efficient market theorists insist that the price of a stock is always justified because that is what the market values it at. Well.... that's nice, but kind of useless. Then, to quote Cheech Marin's character at the end of From Dusk Till Dawn, "One place's just as good as another". Put in terms of market history, buying Microstrategy (MSTR) at $3,000 a share in March of 2000 made just as much sense as buying Ford (F) at $1 in late 2008.
Dismissing this idea for a moment, how then should stocks, or the stock market at large, be valued? One idea for the overall market is by relative valuation. This is the previously mentioned earnings yield (1/PE * 100%) and compare it to long term bonds. If the earnings yield is at 5% and the 10-year Treasury Note is at 3.5%, stocks seem cheap. If the earnings yield is at 4% and the 10-year Treasury Note is at 7%, stocks are horrifically overvalued. There are some problems with this method in that it is possible that the "E", or earnings, in the PE ratio may be temporarily distorted. Also, interest rates can change in a hurry. It is not uncommon for long term rates to move 100 basis points in a six week period.
If you have taken a microeconomics class that has discussed financial markets at all, or any finance class, you have heard of the Dividend Discount Model. There are two problems with this as well. One is that many companies do not pay dividends, or do not pay particularly large dividends as a matter of policy. As a result, these companies get the shaft in this method of valuation. Also, you have to make the leap of faith that some given level of dividend growth will be sustainable. Just because a company has grown dividends at 8% each year for the past ten years does not mean that they will continue to do so. Case in point: the financials during the 2007-2008 period. If you valued those companies with the assumption that their current dividends were a good proxy of their dividends over the next five years, you would get hosed. Purely conceptually, however, this is probably the best method. It's just that it is difficult to apply to a large number of stocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)