Saturday, September 27, 2014

Cocktail napkin math on 5 plus 5 dividend yield and growth

One of the main metrics I use is the simple 5+5 rule that I first came across in Daniel Peris' excellent book Strategic Dividend Investor. The 5 + 5 rule looks for a combination of dividend yield and dividend growth. So the total should equal 10 percentage points, for example 5 percentage points of current dividend yield plus 5 percentage points of annual dividend growth.

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
First cut is income only and 5% current yield wins here, more than double the income at the end of the decade (though not double on cost)


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.

2 comments:

  1. Nice article on a concept similar to what is known as the Chowder Rule. BTW, a small typo in the second to last paragraph: "area" instead of "are a"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks FerdiS. I have seen a couple of variations on this rule, the Chowder rule as I understand it, aims for a total of 12 but then makes some exceptions for lower yielders like utilities. I think that whether its 10 or 12, the core idea and philosophy is the same, as desribed in the Chowder rule - "High Quality + High Current Yield + High Growth of Yield = High Total Return" works pretty well.

    ReplyDelete