[Our friend Doug Behnfield, the savviest financial advisor we know, is skeptical about the dividend mania that has captivated Wall Street of late. In the essay below he explains why investors seduced by dividend-paying stocks may be overlooking more-than-offsetting risks and better opportunities. Doug works exclusively with high-net-worth individuals, many of whom are undoubtedly grateful for his prescient skew toward Treasury paper since the beginning of last year. To contact him about his services, click here and I will forward your message. RA] As you read this essay, keep Bob Farrell’s Rule #7 well in mind: "Markets are strongest when they are broad and weakest when they narrow to a handful of blue chip names." Most stock market participants can remember back to 2000 if they really try. It was common back then for typically risk-averse investors (like retirees) to be insistent that half of their portfolios consisted of Microsoft, Intel, Cisco and Dell. The price of each of these stocks had gone parabolic and none of them paid dividends, which was a good thing because that left them with all those earnings to plow back into their business. If the investor needed to buy groceries, they could just sell a few shares for cash flow. My, how things have changed. Today, "dividend paying stocks" are all the rage. McDonalds, Proctor & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson are emblematic. Apple has just begun getting into the act by declaring its first dividend and Intel and Microsoft are now on the list after ramping up dividends soon after the tech stock meltdown in the early 2000s. What these companies have in common is that they are blue chip names and they have taken on a "one decision" aura. For example, Proctor & Gamble has raised its dividend every year for 55
Cisco
Trillion Dollar Surplus a Corporate ‘Problem’
– Posted in: Commentary for the Week of March 8 FreeWhere would you invest $76 billion if you had it? That’s the size of Apple’s cash hoard at the moment, and it would appear that they have no better idea of what to do with all that money than you or I. Apple isn’t the only company with this “problem,” if you could call having a mountain of spare cash in the bank a problem. According to Standard & Poor’s data reported by the Wall Street Journal the other day, the 500 largest U.S. companies alone currently hold cash or cash equivalents that totaled $963 billion at the end of the first quarter, up from $837 billion a year ago. Tech companies in particular are glutted with cash they apparently cannot use. Microsoft’s got $60.9 billion sitting around; Google, $39.1 billion; and Cisco, $43.4 billion. What’s a company to do? Traditionally, high-tech companies have shunned paying dividends because shareholders expect the companies to use the cash more aggressively for growth. But the likes of Apple and Google have been growing plenty fast without dipping into their so-called war chests. Come to think of it, maybe they should start a war with China, Europe or Brazil. Hasn’t war always been good for business? As for the excuse that they need to hold cash in case a great acquisition opportunity comes along, Apple, Google and numerous other NASDAQ world-beaters could borrow all they want for next to nothing, at any time. And so they have been. We reported on the surge in corporate borrowing a while back, mystified as to why a corporate sector with nearly $2 trillion to spare was nevertheless borrowing hand-over-fist. The ostensible reason is that the money can be borrowed for nearly nothing – and so, why not? Indeed. Even so, we can’t help thinking that a wave
