The Power of Dividends - Hartford Funds

2022

Insight

The Power of Dividends: Past, Present, and Future

Is all the talk about dividend-paying stocks just a fad? Or is there real merit to the dividend argument, particularly at this point in market history?

In the 1990 film "Crazy People," an advertising executive decides to create a series of truthful ads. One of the funniest ads says, "Volvo--they're boxy but they're good."

Dividend-paying stocks are like the Volvos of the investing world. They're not fancy at first glance, but they have a lot going for them when you look deeper under the hood. In this insight, we'll take a historical look at dividends and examine the future for dividend investors.

Inside:

The Power of Dividends The Long-Term View Decade By Decade: How Dividends Impacted Returns

The Long-Term View

Dividends have played a significant role in the returns investors have received during the past 50 years. Going back to 1960, 84% of the total return of the S&P 500 Index1 can be attributed to reinvested dividends and the power of compounding, as illustrated in FIGURE 1.

When "High" Beat "Highest"

Payout Ratio: ACritical Metric

Do Dividend Policies Affect Stock Performance?

Lowest Risk and Highest Returns for Dividend Growers & Initiators

1

FIGURE 1

The Power of Dividends and Compounding

Growth of $10,000 (1960?2021)

Fig 8 The Future for Dividend Investors

$15,000 $14,000

$5,000,000 $4,000,000

I S&P 500 Index Total Return (Reinvesting Dividends) I S&P 500 Index Price Only (No Dividends)

$4,949,663

$13,000 $12,000 $11,000

$3,000,000

$10,000 $9,000

$2,000,000

$795,823

$8,000 $7,000

$1,000,000

$6,000 $5,000

$0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2019 2021

$4,000 $3,000

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Indices are unmanaged and not available for direct investment. Dividend-paying stocks are not guaranteed to outperform non-dividend-paying stocks in a declining, flat, or rising market. For illustrative purposes only. Data sources: Morningstar and Hartford Funds, 12 /21.

$2,000 $1,000

$0 1972

1982

20%

verage annual total return

30% 15%

16% 28%

12%

Average for All

Decades

1 S&P 500 Index is a market capitalization-weighted price index composed of 500 widely h1e7ld%common stocks.

Indice1s0a%re unmanaged and not available for direct investment.

1

67% 5%

44% 73%

NA*

40%

$4,000 $3,500 $3,000

I S&P 500 Index Price Only (No Dividends)

$4,000,000

Insight

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$795,823

$1,D00e0c,a0d0e0 By Decade: How Dividends Impacted Returns

Looking at average stock performance over a longer time frame provides acomntorribe$u0g1tr9iao6n0nutloa1r9th7pe0ertsop1ta9e8lcr0teivteu1.r9Fn9roo0fmth12e9030S00&?P2052200101,0Idnidveid2xe0an1v9deirnacg2oe0md21e4'0s%. Looking at S&P 500 Index performance on a decade-by-decade basis shows how dividends' contribution varied greatly from decade to decade.

FIGURE 2

Dividends' Contribution to Total Return Varies By Decade

Average annual total return

20% 15%

30%

16% 28%

12%

Average for All

Decades

17%

10%

67%

44%

5%

73%

NA*

40%

0% 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s 1930-

12.31.21

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Indices are unmanaged and not available for direct investment. * Total return for the S&P 500 Index was negative for the 2000s.

Dividends provided a 1.8% annualized return over the decade. For illustrative purposes only. Data

Sources: Morningstar and Hartford Funds, 12 /21.

Dividends played a large role in terms of their contribution to total returns

during the 1940s, 1960s, and 1970s, decades in which total returns were

lower than 10%. By contrast, dividends played a smaller role during the

200

1950s, 1980s, and 1990s when average annual total returns for the decade

were well into double digits.

During the 1990s, dividends were de-emphasized. At the time, companies

160

thought they were better able to deploy their capital by reinvesting it in

their businesses rather than returning it to shareholders. Significant capital

appreciation year in and year out caused investors to shift their attention

120

away from dividends.

From 2000 to 2009, a period often referred to as the "lost decade," the

S&P 500 Index produced a negative return. Largely as a result of the

$80

bursting of the dot-com bubble in March 2000, stock investors once

again turned to fundamentals such as P/E ratios2 and dividend yields.

$40

$12,000 $11,000 $10,000

$9,000

$8,000

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0 19D72ividends w1e98r2e

1992

de-emphasized in the

1990s, but after the

dot-com bubble burst,

investors once again

$4,000

turned their attention

$3,500

to dividends.

$3,000

$2,500 $2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0 1945

1955

1965

1975

1985

$0 0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2 Price/earnings "P/ E" ratio is the ratio of a stock's price to its earnings per share.

0% 2 1930

1935

1940

1945 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995 2000

2005

Insight

FIGURE 3 summarizes the dividend yield for the S&P 500 Index from 1960? 2021. According to Yale, the median dividend yield for the entire period was 2.90%, with yields peaking in the 1980s and bottoming in the 2000s. Today, investors are increasingly seeking to reduce risk in their portfolios by shifting some gains from growth stocks into dividend-paying stocks.

FIGURE 3

The S&P 500 Index's Yield Has Been Relatively Stable Over the Past Decade

S&P 500 Index Dividend Yield (1960?2021)

7

6

7

5

6

4

5

3

4

2

3

1

0

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000 2010 2021

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Indices are unmanaged and not available for direct investment. For illustrative purposes only. Data Sources: Yale and Hartford Funds, 12 /21.

2 1 0

1970

Black Monday

1980

1990

When "High" Beat "Highest"

Investors seeking dividend-paying investments may make the mistake

14

of simply choosing those that offer the highest yields possible. A study

13

conducted by Wellington Management reveals the potential flaws in this

12

thinking.

11

The study found that stocks offering the highest level of dividend payouts 10

haven't performed as well as those that pay high, but not the very highest, 9

levels of dividends.

8

This conclusion is counterintuitive: Why wouldn't the highest-yielding stocks 7

have the best historical total returns? Isn't the ability to pay a generous

6

dividend a sign of a healthy underlying business?

5

We'll answer these questions in a moment, but we'll begin by summarizing 4

the methodology and findings of the study. Black Tuesday

3

Wellington Management began by dividing dividend-paying stocks into

2

quintiles by their level of dividend payouts. The first quintile (i.e., top 20%) 1

consisted of the highest dividend payers, while the fifth quintile

0

(i.e., bottom 20%) co1n8s8i0sted18o9f0 the19lo00wes1t9d10ivide19n2d0 pa1y9e3r0s. 1940 1950 1960 1970

Stocks offering the highest level of dividend payouts haven't performed as well as those that pay high, but not the

Black Monday

very highest, levels of dividends.

1980 1990 2000 2010 2015

3

Insight

FIGURE 4 summarizes the performance of the S&P500 Index as a whole

relative to each quintile over the past eight decades.

66.7%

77.8%

66.7%

44.4%

44.4%

FIGURE 4

Second-Quintile Stocks Outperformed Most Often From 1930?2021

Percentage of Time Dividend Payers by Quintile Outperformed the S&P 500 Index (summary of data in FIGURE 5)

60%

70%

60%

40%

50%

1st Quintile 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile 5th Quintile

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Indices are unmanaged and not available for direct investment. Data Sources: Wellington Management and Hartford Funds, 12 /21.

The second-quintile stocks outperformed the S&P 500 Index seven out of the 10 time periods (1930 to 2021), or 77.8% of the time, while first- and third-quintile stocks tied for second, beating the Index 66.7% of the time. Fourth- and fifth-quintile stocks lagged behind by a significant margin.

FIGURE 5

Compound Annual Growth Rate (%) for US Stocks by Dividend Yield Quintile by Decade

(1930?2021)

Jan-1930 to Dec-1939 Jan-1940 to Dec-1949 Jan-1950 to Dec-1959 Jan-1960 to Dec-1969 Jan-1970 to Dec-1979 Jan-1980 to Dec-1989 Jan-1990 to Dec-1999 Jan-2000 to Dec-2009 Jan-2010 to Dec-2019 Jan-2020 to Dec-2021

S&P 500 -0.20 9.51 18.33 8.26 6.05 16.80 17.96 -0.44 13.65 23.45

1st Quintile -2.36 13.92 18.52 8.82 9.67 20.23 12.37 5.57 12.98 12.44

2nd Quintile 0.61

13.06 20.31

8.90 10.22 19.62 15.54

4.15 13.25 16.98

3rd Quintile -2.34 10.26 18.47 6.46 7.00 17.20 15.06 4.21 14.15 15.04

4th Quintile -0.38 8.63 16.57 7.97 7.57 16.19 18.10 1.99 13.68 31.83

5th Quintile 2.07 6.83

19.81 9.30 3.94 14.65 18.93 -1.75 10.85 29.47

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Indices are unmanaged and not available for direct investment. US stocks are represented by the S&P 500 Index. Chart represents the compound annual growth rate (%) for US stocks by dividend yield quintile by decade from 1930-2019 and January 2020-December 2021. For illustrative purposes only. Data Sources: Wellington Management and Hartford Funds, 12 /21.

4

Insight

Payout Ratio: A Critical Metric

One reason why second-quintile dividend stocks came out ahead is because the first-quintile's excessive dividend payouts haven't always been sustainable. The best way to measure whether a company will be able to pay a consistent dividend is through the payout ratio.

The payout ratio is calculated by dividing the yearly dividend per share by the earnings per share. A high payout ratio means that a company is using a significant percentage of its earnings to pay a dividend, which leaves them with less money to invest in future growth of the business.

The chart below illustrates the average dividend-payout ratio since 1979 for the first two quintiles of dividend payers within the Russell 1000 Index.3 The first-quintile stocks had an average dividend payout ratio of 74%, while the second quintile had a 41% average payout ratio.

A payout ratio of 74% could be difficult to sustain if a company experiences a drop in earnings. Once this happens, a company could be forced to cut its dividend. A dividend cut is often viewed as a sign of weakness in the financial markets and frequently results in a decline in the price of the company's stock.

FIGURE 6

Average Dividend Payout Ratio

(1/31/79-12/31/21)

1st Quintile 2nd Quintile

74% 41%

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Indices are unmanaged and not available for direct investment. Payout ratios illustrated are for stocks within the Russell 1000 Index. For illustrative purposes only. Data Sources: Wellington Management and Hartford Funds, 12 /21.

70% 47%

The best way to measure whether a company will be able to pay a consistent dividend is through the payout ratio.

3 The Russell 1000 Index measures the performance of the large-cap segment of the US equity universe. It's a subset of the Russell 3000 Index and includes approximately 1,000 of the largest securities based on a combination of their market cap and current index membership.

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download