Where “I Bought It For The Dividend” Went Wrong

In early 2017, I warned investors about the “I bought it for the dividend” investment thesis. To wit:

“Company ABC is priced at \$20/share and pays \$1/share in a dividend each year. The dividend yield is 5%, which is calculated by dividing the \$1 cash dividend into the price of the underlying stock.

Here is the important point. You do NOT receive a ‘yield.’

What you DO receive is the \$1/share in cash paid out each year.

Yield is simply a mathematical calculation.

At that time, the article was scoffed at because we were 8-years into an unrelenting bull market where even the most stupid of investments made money.

Unfortunately, the “mean reversion” process has taken hold, which is the point where the investment thesis falls apart.

The Dangers Of “I Bought It For The Dividend”

“I don’t care about the price, I bought it for the yield.”

First of all, let’s clear up something.

In January of 2018, Exxon Mobil, for example, was slated to pay an out an annual dividend of \$3.23, and was priced at roughly \$80/share setting the yield at 4.03%. With the 10-year Treasury trading at 2.89%, the higher yield was certainly attractive.

Assuming an individual bought 100 shares at \$80 in 2018, “income” of \$323 annually would be generated.

Not too shabby.

Fast forward to today with Exxon Mobil trading at roughly \$40/share with a current dividend of \$3.48/share.

Investment Return (-\$4000.00 ) + Dividends of \$323 (Yr 1) and \$343 (Yr 2)  = Net Loss of \$3334

That’s not a good investment.

In just a moment, we will come and revisit this example with a better process.

There is another risk, which occurs during “mean reverting” events, that can leave investors stranded, and financially ruined.

Dividend Loss

When things “go wrong,” as they inevitably do, the “dividend” can, and often does, go away.

• Boeing (BA)
• Marriott (MAR)
• Ford (F)
• Delta (DAL)
• Freeport-McMoRan (FCX)
• Darden (DRI)

These companies, and many others, have all recently cut their dividends after a sharp fall in their stock prices.

I previously posted an article discussing the “Fatal Flaws In Your Financial Plan” which, as you can imagine, generated much debate. One of the more interesting rebuttals was the following:

If a retired person has a portfolio of high-quality dividend growth stocks, the dividends will most likely increase every single year. Even during the stock market crashes of 2002 and 2008, my dividends continued to grow. The total value of the portfolio will indeed fluctuate every year, but that is irrelevant since the retired person is living off his dividends and never selling any shares of stock.

Dividends usually go up even when the stock market goes down.

This comment is the basis of the “buy and hold” mentality, and many of the most common investing misconceptions.

When a recession/market reversion occurs, the “cash dividends” don’t increase, but the “yield” does as prices collapse. However, your INCOME does NOT increase. There is a risk it will decline as companies cut the dividend or eliminate it.

During the 2008 financial crisis, more than 140 companies decreased or eliminated their dividends to shareholders. Yes, many of those companies were major banks; however, leading up to the financial crisis, there were many individuals holding large allocations to banks for the income stream their dividends generated. In hindsight, that was not such a good idea.

But it wasn’t just 2008. It also occurred dot.com bust in 2000. In both periods, while investors lost roughly 50% of their capital, dividends were also cut on average of 12%.

While the current market correction fell almost 30% from its recent peak, what we haven’t seen just yet is the majority of dividend cuts still to come.

Naturally, not EVERY company will cut their dividends. But many did, many will, and in quite a few cases, I would expect dividends to be eliminated entirely to protect cash flows and creditors.

As we warned previously:

“Due to the Federal Reserve’s suppression of interest rates since 2009, investors have piled into dividend yielding equities, regardless of fundamentals, due to the belief ‘there is no alternative.’ The resulting ‘dividend chase’ has pushed valuations of dividend-yielding companies to excessive levels disregarding underlying fundamental weakness.

As with the ‘Nifty Fifty’ heading into the 1970s, the resulting outcome for investors was less than favorable. These periods are not isolated events. There is a high correlation between declines in asset prices, and the dividends paid out.”

Love Dividends, Love Capital More

I agree investors should own companies that pay dividends (as it is a significant portion of long-term total returns)it is also crucial to understand that companies can, and will, cut dividends during periods of financial stress.

It is a good indicator of the strength of the underlying economy. As noted by Political Calculations recently:

Dividend cuts are one of the better near-real-time indicators of the relative health of the U.S. economy. While they slightly lag behind the actual state of the economy, dividend cuts represent one of the simplest indicators to track.

In just one week, beginning 16 March 2020, the number of dividend cuts being announced by U.S. firms spiked sharply upward, transforming 2020-Q1 from a quarter where U.S. firms were apparently performing more strongly than they had in the year-ago quarter of 2019-Q1 into one that all-but-confirms that the U.S. has swung into economic contraction.

Not surprisingly, the economic collapse, which will occur over the next couple of quarters, will lead to a massive round of dividend cuts. While investors lost 30%, or more in many cases, of their capital, they will lose the reason they were clinging on to these companies in the first place.

You Can’t Handle It

EVERY investor has a point, when prices fall far enough, regardless of the dividend being paid, they WILL capitulate, and sell the position. This point generally comes when dividends have been cut, and capital destruction has been maximized.

While individuals suggest they will remain steadfast to their discipline over the long-term, repeated studies show that few individuals actually do. As noted just recently is “Missing The 10-Best Days:”

“As Dalbar regularly points out, individuals always underperform the benchmark index over time by allowing “behaviors” to interfere with their investment discipline. In other words, investors regularly suffer from the ‘buy high/sell low’ syndrome.”

Behavioral biases, specifically the “herding effect” and “loss aversion,” repeatedly leads to poor investment decision-making. In fact, Dalbar is set to release their Investor Report for 2020, and they were kind enough to send me the following graphic for investor performance through 2019. (Pre-Order The Full Report Here)

These differentials in performance can all be directly traced back to two primary factors:

• Psychology
• Lack of capital

Understanding this, it should come as no surprise during market declines, as losses mount, so does the pressure to “avert further losses” by selling. While it is generally believed dividend-yielding stocks offer protection during bear market declines, we warned previously this time could be different:

“The yield chase has manifested itself also in a massive outperformance of ‘dividend-yielding stocks’ over the broad market index. Investors are taking on excessive credit risk which is driving down yields in bonds, and pushing up valuations in traditionally mature companies to stratospheric levels. During historic market corrections, money has traditionally hidden in these ‘mature dividend yielding’ companies. This time, such rotation may be the equivalent of jumping from the ‘frying pan into the fire.’”

The chart below is the S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF versus the S&P 500 Index. During the recent decline, dividend stocks were neither “safe,” nor “low volatility.”

But what about previous “bear markets?” Since most ETF’s didn’t exist before 2000, we can look at the “strategy” with a mutual fund like Fidelity’s Dividend Growth Fund (FDGFX)

As you can see, there is little relative “safety” during a market reversion. The pain of a 38%, 56%, or 30%, loss, can be devastating particularly when the prevailing market sentiment is one of a “can’t lose” environment. Furthermore, when it comes to dividend-yielding stocks, the psychology is no different; a 3-5% yield, and a 30-50% loss of capital, are two VERY different issues.

A Better Way To “Invest For The Dividend”

“Buy and hold” investing, even with dividends and dollar-cost-averaging, will not get you to your financial goals. (Click here for a discussion of chart)

So, what’s the better way to invest for dividends? Let’s go back to our example of Exxon Mobil for a moment. (This is for illustrative purposes only and not a recommendation.)

In 2018, Exxon Mobil broke below its 12-month moving average as the overall market begins to deteriorate.

If you had elected to sell on the break of the moving average, your exit price would have been roughly \$70/share. (For argument sake, you stayed out of the position even though XOM traded above and below the average over the next few months.)

Let’s rerun our math from above.

• In 2018, an individual bought 100 shares at \$80.
• In 2019, the individual sold 100 shares at \$70.

Investment Return (-\$1000.00 ) + Dividends of \$323 (Yr 1) and \$343 (Yr 2)  = Net Loss of \$334

Given the original \$8,000 investment has only declined to \$7,666, the individual could now buy 200 shares of Exxon Mobil with a dividend of \$3.48 and a 9.3% annual yield.

Let’s compare the two strategies.

• Buy And Hold: 100 shares bought at \$80 with a current yield of 4.35%
• Risk Managed: 200 shares bought at \$40 with a current yield of 9.3%

Which yield would you rather have in your portfolio?

In the end, we are just human. Despite the best of our intentions, emotional biases inevitably lead to poor investment decision-making. This is why all great investors have strict investment disciplines they follow to reduce the impact of emotions.

I am all for “dividend investment strategies,” in fact, dividends are a primary factor in our equity selection process. However, we also run a risk-managed strategy to ensure we have capital available to buy strong companies when the opportunity presents itself.

The majority of the time, when you hear someone say “I bought it for the dividend,” they are trying to rationalize an investment mistake. However, it is in the rationalization that the “mistake” is compounded over time. One of the most important rules of successful investors is to “cut losers short and let winners run.”

Unfortunately, the rules are REALLY hard to follow. If they were easy, then everyone would be wealthy from investing. They aren’t because investing without a discipline and strategy has horrid consequences.

Collecting Tolls On The Energy Express

The recent surge in passive investment strategies, and corresponding decline in active investment strategies, is causing strong price correlations amongst a broad swath of equities. This dynamic has caused a large majority of stocks to rise lockstep with the market, while a few unpopular stocks have been left behind. It is these lagging assets that provide an opportunity. Overlooked and underappreciated stocks potentially offer outsized returns and low correlation to the market. Finding these “misfits” is one way we are taking advantage of a glaring market inefficiency.

In July 2019, we recommended that investors consider a specific and underfollowed sector of REITs that pay double-digit dividends and could see reasonable price appreciation. In this article, we shed light on another underfollowed gem that also offers a high dividend yield, albeit with a vastly different fundamental profile.

The Case for MLP’s

Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) are similar in legal structure to REITs in that they pass through a large majority of income to investors. As such, many MLP’s tend to pay higher than average dividends. That is where the similarities between REITs and MLPs end.

The particular class of MLPs that interest us are called mid-stream MLPs. We like to think of these MLPs as the toll booth on the energy express. These MLPs own the pipelines that deliver energy products from the exploration fields (upstream) to the refiners and distributors (downstream). Like a toll road, these MLPs’ profitability is based on the volume of cars on the road, not the value of the cars on it. In other words, mid-stream MLPs care about the volume of energy they carry, not the price of that energy. That said, low oil prices can reduce the volume flowing through the pipelines and, provide energy producers, refiners, and distributors leverage to renegotiate pipeline fees.

Because the income of MLPs is the result of the volume of products flowing through their pipelines and not the cost of the products, their sales revenue, income, and dividend payouts are not well correlated to the price of oil or other energy products. Despite a different earnings profile than most energy companies, MLP stock prices have been strongly correlated to the energy sector. This correlation has always been positive, but the correlation is even greater today, largely due to the surge of passive investment strategies.

Passive investors tend to buy indexes and sectors containing stocks with similar traits. As passive investors become a larger part of the market, the prices of the underlying constituents’ trade more in line with each other despite variances in their businesses, valuations, outlooks, and risks. As this occurs, those marginal active investors that differentiate between stocks and their associated fundamentals play a lesser role in setting prices. With this pricing dynamic, inefficiencies flourish.

The graph below compares the tight correlation of the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index (MLPI) and the State Street Energy Sector ETF (XLE).

Data Courtesy Bloomberg

Before further discussing MLP’s, it is worth pointing out the value proposition that the entire energy sector affords investors. While MLP cash flows and dividends are not necessarily similar to those companies in the broad energy sector, given the strong correlation, we must factor in the fundamental prospects of the entire energy sector.

The following table compares valuation fundamentals, returns, volatility, and dividends for XLE and the S&P 500. As shown, XLE has traded poorly versus the S&P 500 despite a better value proposition. XLE also pays more than twice the dividend of the S&P 500. However, it trades with about 50% more volatility than the index.

The following table compares two valuation metrics and the dividend yield of the top 6 holdings of Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) and the S&P 500. A similar value story emerges.

As XLE has grossly underperformed the market, so have MLPs. It is important for value investors to understand the decline in MLP’s is largely in sympathy with the gross underperformance of the energy sector and not the fundamentals of the MLP sector itself. The graph below shows the steadily rising earnings per share of the MLP sector versus the entire energy sector.

Data Courtesy Bloomberg

Illustrating the Value Proposition

The following graphs help better define the value of owning MLPs at current valuations.

The scatter graph below compares 60-day changes to the price of oil with 60-day changes in AMLP’s dividend yield. At current levels (the orange dot) either oil should be \$10.30 lower given AMLP’s current dividend yield, or the dividend yield should be 1.14% lower based on current oil prices. A decline in the dividend yield to the norm, assuming the dividend payout is unchanged, would result in a price increase of 13.17% for AMLP. Alternatively if oil declined about 20% in value, the current AMLP dividend yield would then be fairly priced. We consider this a significant margin of safety should the price of oil fall, as it likely would if the U.S. enters a recession in the near future.

Data Courtesy Alerian and Bloomberg

The graph below highlights that AMLP’s dividend yield is historically high, albeit below three short term spikes occurring over the last 25 years. In all three cases oil fell precipitously due to a recession or a sharp slowdown of global growth.

Data Courtesy Alerian and Bloomberg

Due to their high dividend yields and volatility, MLP’s are frequently compared to higher-yielding, lower-rated corporate debt securities. The graph below shows that the spread of AMLP’s dividend yield to the yield on junk-rated BB corporate bonds is the largest in at least 25 years. The current spread is 5.66%, which is 5.18% above the average since 1995.

Data Courtesy Alerian and St. Louis Federal Reserve

To help us better quantify the pricing of MLPs, we created a two-factor model. This model forecasts the price of MLPI based on changes to the price of XLE and the yield of U.S. Ten-year Treasury Notes. The model below has an R-squared of .76, meaning 76% of the price change of MLPI is attributable to the price changes of energy stocks and Treasury yields. Currently the model shows that MLPI is 20% undervalued (gray bars).  The last two times MLPI was undervalued by over 20%, its price rose 49% (2016) and 15% (2018) in the following three months.

The following summarizes some of the more important pros and cons of investing in MLPs.

Pros

• Dividend yields are very high on an absolute basis and versus other higher-yielding securities
• Valuations are cheap
• Earnings are growing in a dependable trend
• Balance sheets are in good shape
• Potential for stock buybacks as balance sheets improve and stock prices offer value

Cons

• Strong correlation to oil prices and energy stocks
• “Peak oil demand” – electric cars/solar
• Political uncertainty/green movement
• High volatility

Summary

The stronger the market influence that passive investors have, the greater the potential for market dislocations. Simply, as individual stock prices become more correlated with markets and each other, specific out of favor companies are punished. We believe this explains why MLP’s have traded so poorly and why they are so cheap today.

We urge caution as buying MLPs in today’s environment is a “catching the falling knife” trade. AMLP has fallen nearly 25% over the last few months and may continue to fall further, especially as tax selling occurs over the coming weeks. It has also been in a longer-term downtrend since 2017.  We are unlikely to call the market bottom in MLPs and therefore intend to scale into a larger position over time. We will likely buy our first set of shares opportunistically over the next few weeks or possibly in early 2020. Readers will be alerted at the time. We may possibly use leveraged MLP funds in addition to AMLP.

It is worth noting this position is a small part of our portfolio and fits within the construct of the entire portfolio. While the value proposition is great, we must remain cognizant of the current price trend, the risks of owning MLPs, and how this investment changes our exposure to equities and interest rates.

This article focuses predominately on the current pricing and value proposition. We suggest that if you are interested in MLPs, read more on MLP legal structures, their tax treatment, and specific risks they entail.

AMLP does not require investors to file a K-1 tax form. Many ETFs and all individual MLPs have this requirement.

*MLPI and AMLP were used in this article as a proxy for MLPs. They are both extremely correlated to each other. Usage was based on the data needed.

Quick Take: The Risk Of Algos

Mike ‘Wags’ Wagner: ‘You studied the Flash Crash of 2010 and you know that Quant is another word for wild f***ing guess with math.’

Taylor Mason: ‘Quant is another word for systemized ordered thinking represented in an algorithmic approach to trading.’

Mike ‘Wags’ Wagner: ‘Just remember never won a World Series .’ – Billions, A Generation Too Late

My friend Doug Kass made a great point on Wednesday this week:

“General trading activity is now dominated by passive strategies (ETFs) and quant strategies and products (risk parity, volatility trending, etc.).

Active managers (especially of a hedge fund kind) are going the way of dodo birds – they are an endangered species. Failing hedge funds like Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square is becoming more the rule than the exception – and in a lower return market backdrop (accompanied by lower interest rates), the trend from active to passive managers will likely continue and may even accelerate this year.”

He’s right, and there is a huge risk to individual investors embedded in that statement. As JPMorgan noted previously:

Quantitative investing based on computer formulas and trading by machines directly are leaving the traditional stock picker in the dust and now dominating the equity markets.

While fundamental narratives explaining the price action abound, the majority of equity investors today don’t buy or sell stocks based on stock specific fundamentals. Fundamental discretionary traders’ account for only about 10 percent of trading volume in stocks. Passive and quantitative investing accounts for about 60 percent, more than double the share a decade ago.

As long as the algorithms are all trading in a positive direction, there is little to worry about. But the risk happens when something breaks. With derivatives, quantitative fund flows, central bank policy and political developments all contributing to low market volatility, the reversal of any of those dynamics will be problematic.

There are two other problems currently being dismissed to support the “bullish bias.”

The first, is that while investors have been chasing returns in the “can’t lose” market, they have also been piling on leverage in order to increase their return. Negative free cash balances are now at their highest levels in market history.

Yes, margin debt does increase as asset prices rise. However, just as the “leverage” provides the liquidity to push asset prices higher, the reverse is also true.

The second problem, which will be greatly impacted by the leverage issue, is liquidity of ETF’s themselves. As I noted previously:

“The head of the BOE Mark Carney himself has warned about the risk of ‘disorderly unwinding of portfolios’ due to the lack of market liquidity.

‘Market adjustments to date have occurred without significant stress. However, the risk of a sharp and disorderly reversal remains given the compressed credit and liquidity risk premia. As a result, market participants need to be mindful of the risks of diminished market liquidity, asset price discontinuities and contagion across asset markets.’”

When the “robot trading algorithms”  begin to reverse, it will not be a slow and methodical process but rather a stampede with little regard to price, valuation or fundamental measures as the exit will become very narrow.

Importantly, as prices decline it will trigger margin calls which will induce more indiscriminate selling. The forced redemption cycle will cause large spreads between the current bid and ask pricing for ETF’s. As investors are forced to dump positions to meet margin calls, the lack of buyers will form a vacuum causing rapid price declines which leave investors helpless on the sidelines watching years of capital appreciation vanish in moments.

Algo’s were not a predominant part of the market prior to 2008 and, so far, they have behaved themselves by continually “buying the dips.” That support has kept investors complacent and has built the inherent belief “this time is different.”

But therein lies the “risk of the robots.”

What happens when these algo’s reverse course and begin to “sell the rallies” in unison?

I don’t want to be around to find out.

You Were Warned: MLP’s & “I Bought It For The Dividend”

In early 2016, I warned investors about the dangers of Master Limited Partnerships (MLP’s) and chasing dividend yields. To wit:

One of the big issues starting in 2016 will be the reversions of MLP’s. Many investors jumped into MLP’s believing them to be a ‘no-brainer’ investment for income with little or no price risk. As I have suggested many times over the last few years, this was ALWAYS a false premise. In 2016, many companies that spun-off pipelines in the form of MLP’s, will ‘revert’ them back into the parent company as they can buy the asset back very cheaply, boosting cash flows of the parent company, during a period of weak commodity prices. This will leave MLP investors who just ‘bought it for the dividend,’ receiving back much less than they invested to begin with.”

That prediction continues to come to fruition with the latest announcement by Tallgrass Energy Partners. Via Bloomberg:

“Tallgrass Energy GP, LP announced late on Monday it would buy out the public unit-holders owning about two-thirds of its master limited partnership, Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP. It’s the latest MLP to be shuffled off and a good example of why the ranks are thinning in this once-beloved corner of the market.

Tallgrass Energy Partners listed in 2013, when the combination of yield and growth — predicated on the resurgence in U.S. oil and gas production — offered by MLPs had them in high demand. The general partner, Tallgrass Energy GP, listed two years later, when oil’s bear market had started but MLPs hadn’t yet fallen out of favor. That followed soon after.”

The “yield” is the problem.

“Tallgrass actually avoided cutting its quarterly distributions in the downturn, making it a relatively rare beast and explaining much its outperformance. But those high distributions evidently didn’t inspire enough confidence — and just became a high cost of capital instead.”

But it isn’t just Tallgrass, but most MLP’s. The “yields” reflected by MLP’s are actually understatements of the true cost of equity. Once prices fall, both on the MLP and with the underlying commodity, the entire premise of “raising capital cheaply” gets called into question. It then becomes much more opportunistic to “revert” the MLP back into the parent company.

This is the point where a common“investment thesis” falls apart.

The Dangers Of “I Bought It For The Dividend”

“I don’t care about the price, I bought it for the yield.”

First of all, let’s clear up something.

Tallgrass Energy Partners pays out an annual dividend of \$3.86 and is currently priced at \$39.24 (as of this writing) which translates into a yield of 9..84%. (3.86/39.24)

Let’s assume an individual bought 100 shares at \$50 in 2017 which would generate a “yield” of 7.72%.

Investment Return (39.24 – 50 = -10.76) + Dividend of \$3.86  = Net Loss of \$6.90

“The terms — laid out in a perfunctory seven-slide deck — are as austere as you might expect in a deal where the limited partners don’t get to vote. The parent offered a nominal premium of about 1 percent to Tallgrass Energy Partners’ minority unitholders. The exchange ratio of two shares for each unit was essentially in line with the average since the general partner listed.”

That’s not a great deal, but better than a “sharp stick in the eye.”

Here is the important point. You do NOT receive a “yield.”

“Yield” is just a mathematical calculation.

The “yield” can, and often does, go away.

I previously posted an article discussing the “Fatal Flaws In Your Financial Plan” which, as you can imagine, generated much debate. One of the more interesting rebuttals was the following:

“‘The single biggest mistake made in financial planning is NOT to include variable rates of return in your planning process.’

This statement puzzles me. If a retired person has a portfolio of high-quality dividend growth stocks, the dividends will most likely increase every single year. Even during the stock market crashes of 2002 and 2008, my dividends continued to increase. It is true that the total value of the portfolio will fluctuate every year, but that is irrelevant since the retired person is living off his dividends and never selling any shares of stock.

Dividends are a wonderful thing, Lance. Dividends usually go up even when the stock market goes down.

This comment drives to the heart of the “buy and hold” mentality and, along with it, many of the most common investing misconceptions.

When a recession/market reversion occurs the “cash dividends” don’t increase but the “yield” does as prices collapse. Well, that is until the cash dividend is cut or is eliminated entirely.

During the 2008 financial crisis, more than 140 companies decreased or eliminated their dividends to shareholders. Yes, many of those companies were major banks, however, leading up to the financial crisis there were many individuals holding large allocations to banks for the income stream their dividends generated. In hindsight, that was not such a good idea.

But it wasn’t just 2008. It also occurred dot.com bust in 2000. In both periods, while investors lost roughly 50% of their capital, dividends were also cut on average of 12%.

Of course, not EVERY company cut dividends by 12%. Some didn’t. But many did, and some even eliminated their dividends entirely, to protect cash flows and creditors.

Due to the Federal Reserve’s suppression of interest rates since 2009, investors have piled into dividend yielding equities, regardless of fundamentals, due to the belief “there is no alternative.” The resulting “dividend chase” has pushed valuations dividend yielding companies to excessive levels disregarding underlying fundamental weakness.

As with the “Nifty Fifty” heading into the 1970’s, the resulting outcome for investors was less than favorable. These periods are not isolated events. There is a high correlation between declines in asset prices and the actual dividends being paid out throughout history.

While I completely agree that investors should own companies that pay dividends (as it is a significant portion of long-term total returns)it is also crucial to understand that companies can, and will, cut dividends during periods of financial stress.

In fact, it is a good indicator of the strength of the underlying economy. As noted by Political Calculations recently, the economy may not be as “strong as an ox” currently:

March 2018 saw the second-largest ever number of dividend cuts be declared by U.S. firms and funds in a single month. The month’s 92 dividend cuts reported was just one shy of the record 93 cuts that were recorded during the ‘Great Dividend Raid of 2012.””

Here are the dividend numbers as we know them for March 2018 today:

• There were 4,392 U.S. firms that issued some kind of declaration regarding their dividends in March 2018, which is up significantly from February 2018’s 3,493 and the year-ago March 2017’s 4,041. This figure is also the third highest number on record, coming behind December 2017’s 4,506 and December 2015’s 4,422.
• In March 2018, there were 36 U.S. firms that announced that they would pay an extra, or special, dividend. That figure is slightly down from the 38 firms that made similar declarations in both February 2018 and back in March 2017.
• 167 U.S. companies declared that they would increase their dividends in March 2018, which is down from 322 in February 2018, but up significantly from the 141 that boosted their dividends in March 2017. For the first quarter of 2018, a total of 807 dividend rises were recorded, which ranks third for any quarter’s total of dividend increases, behind March 2014’s 819 and March 2015’s 812.
• The 92 dividend cuts reported for March 2018 is up substantially from the 20 that were recorded in February 2018 and also from the 76 recorded back in March 2017, when the distress in the U.S. oil and gas industry was bottoming.
• 9 U.S. firms omitted paying dividends in March 2018, the same as in February 2018, but which is up from the 2 firms that did a year earlier in March 2017.”

During the next major market reversion, as prices collapse, so will the dividend payouts.

This is when the “I bought it for the dividend plan” doesn’t work out.

Why?

Because EVERY investor has a point, when prices fall far enough, that regardless of the dividend being paid they WILL capitulate and sell the position. This point generally comes when dividends have been cut and capital destruction has been maximized.

Psychology

Of course, while individuals suggest they will remain steadfast to their discipline over the long-term, repeated studies show that few individuals actually do.

Behavioral biases, specifically the “herding effect” and “loss aversion,” repeatedly leads to poor investment decision-making.

Ultimately, when markets decline, there is a slow realization “this decline” is something more than a “buy the dip” opportunity. As losses mount, so does the related anxiety until individuals seek to “avert further loss” by selling. It is generally believed that dividend yielding stocks offer protection during bear market declines. The chart below is the Fidelity Dividend Growth Fund (most ETF’s didn’t exist prior to 2000), as an example, suggests this is not the case.

As you can see, there is little relative “safety” during a major market reversion. The pain of a 38% loss, or a 56% loss, is devastating particularly when the prevailing market sentiment is one of a “can’t lose” environment. Furthermore, when it comes to dividend yielding stocks, the psychology is no different – a 3-5% yield and a 30-50% loss of capital are two VERY different issues.

Buy & Hold Won’t Get You There Anyway

Most importantly, as it relates to this discussion, is the “fact” that “buy and hold” investing, even with dividends and dollar-cost-averaging, will not get you to your financial goals. (Click here for discussion of chart)

In the end, we are just human. Despite the best of our intentions, it is nearly impossible for an individual to be devoid of the emotional biases that inevitably lead to poor investment decision-making over time. This is why all great investors have strict investment disciplines that they follow to reduce the impact of human emotions.

While many studies show that “buy and hold,” and “dividend” strategies do indeed work over very long periods of time; the reality is that few will ever survive the downturns in order to see the benefits. Furthermore, with valuations and market correlations at extremely elevated levels, the next major market correction will be equally unkind to all investors.

In the end, those who utter the words “I bought it for the dividend” are simply trying to rationalize an investment mistake. However, it is in the rationalization the “mistake” is compounded over time. One of the most important rules of successful investors is to “cut losers short and let winners run.”

Unfortunately, the rules are REALLY hard to follow. If they were easy, then everyone would be wealthy from investing. They aren’t because investing without a discipline and strategy has horrid consequences.

Tallgrass won’t be the last MLP, or corporation, to cut dividends. When the next major mean-reverting begins, you can “lie” to yourself for a while that you are fine with just the dividend. Eventually, when you have lost enough capital, and the dividend is cut or eliminated, you will eventually sell.

It happens every time.

But, you have been warned…again.