Putting this into practice is about a rough separation for high yield and low dividend growth versus lower yielders with high dividend growth. . A company with a 3% dividend yield would need at least 7% dividend growth to clear the bar. Likewise a high yielding company with say 6% would only need a tepid 4% growth to get over the 5+5 hurdle.
GlaxoSmithKline's 5.6% current yield combined with a 6.6% 5 year annualized dividend growth clears the 5+5 hurdle with a total of 12.2. By the same token, IBM clears the hurdle even though it has a much lower yield of 2.3%, IBM sports a 5 year dividend growth rate of 14.3% for a combined 16.6 percentage points.
Before any mathematicians jab a pencil into their eye, the 5 + 5 rule is not about mathematical precision. Its much more about orienting your frame of reference for investment selection and ongoing portfolio management - what am i looking for with this investment? What does "good enough" look like? What are the minimum expected growth rates that are acceptable given the current yield? Is a low yielder with decent growth as good an investments as a high yielder?
I did some cocktail napkin math with four scenarios
- 2% current yield with 8% growth
- 3% current yield with 7% growth
- 4% current yield with 6% growth
- 5% current yield with 5% growth
Yield Plus Growth | 2+8 | 3+7 | 4+6 | 5+5 |
Income - Year 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Year 2 | 2.16 | 3.21 | 4.24 | 5.25 |
Year 3 | 2.33 | 3.43 | 4.49 | 5.51 |
Year 4 | 2.52 | 3.68 | 4.76 | 5.79 |
Year 5 | 2.72 | 3.93 | 5.05 | 6.08 |
Year 6 | 2.94 | 4.21 | 5.35 | 6.38 |
Year 7 | 3.17 | 4.50 | 5.67 | 6.70 |
Year 8 | 3.43 | 4.82 | 6.01 | 7.04 |
Year 9 | 3.70 | 5.15 | 6.38 | 7.39 |
Year 10 | 4.00 | 5.52 | 6.76 | 7.76 |
Total | 28.97 | 41.45 | 52.72 | 62.89 |
For Capital appreciation I tracked the growth of $100 and assumed that the shares roughly track the dividend growth and so the 2% yield wins here
2+8 | 3+7 | 4+6 | 5+5 | |
Capital - Year 1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Year 2 | 108.00 | 107.00 | 106.00 | 105.00 |
Year 3 | 116.64 | 114.49 | 112.36 | 110.25 |
Year 4 | 125.97 | 122.50 | 119.10 | 115.76 |
Year 5 | 136.05 | 131.08 | 126.25 | 121.55 |
Year 6 | 146.93 | 140.26 | 133.82 | 127.63 |
Year 7 | 158.69 | 150.07 | 141.85 | 134.01 |
Year 8 | 171.38 | 160.58 | 150.36 | 140.71 |
Year 9 | 185.09 | 171.82 | 159.38 | 147.75 |
Year 10 | 199.90 | 183.85 | 168.95 | 155.13 |
Total | 1,448.66 | 1,381.64 | 1,318.08 | 1,257.79 |
Then in the last scenario I combine the income plus capital plus reinvest the dividends each year.
2+8 | 3+7 | 4+6 | 5+5 | |
Total W Div Reinvested | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Year 2 | 110.16 | 110.21 | 110.24 | 110.25 |
Year 3 | 121.31 | 121.36 | 121.35 | 121.28 |
Year 4 | 133.53 | 133.53 | 133.39 | 133.13 |
Year 5 | 146.93 | 146.81 | 146.45 | 145.86 |
Year 6 | 161.63 | 161.29 | 160.59 | 159.54 |
Year 7 | 177.73 | 177.09 | 175.90 | 174.21 |
Year 8 | 195.38 | 194.30 | 192.46 | 189.96 |
Year 9 | 214.71 | 213.06 | 210.39 | 206.84 |
Year 10 | 235.88 | 233.48 | 229.77 | 224.94 |
Total | 1,597.25 | 1,591.13 | 1,580.54 | 1,566.01 |
The ten year total returns are for all intents and purposes identical. I think this shows the value of 5 + 5 as a conceptual model. Of course, its a model not reality, but despite it breaking any number mathematical rules it holds up well as a rough guide.
There are a number of caveats here, first there is no guarantee that share price will track dividend growth, although it usually does over a long enough time scale. One of my starting points is 5 years annualized dividend growth, but just because IBM and GSK have grown their dividends in line with the 5 + 5 rule for the last five years, the future can be different. Just ask Tesco or Boardwalk Pipeline shareholders.
I still find it interesting to see that in a total return view the 5+5 thinking works pretty well and it confirms to me that both low yielders like IBM and high yielders like GSK can be worthwhile long term holdings when dividends are reinvested.