Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (1137)	1/24/1999 1:13:00 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) of 1722

Dividend Yield Models etc... >>>>"... Price can be estimated as the present value of future dividends, discounted at the required rate of return .... A bit of mathematics shows that this measure is roughly equal to one divided by the difference between the required rate of return and the anticipated dividend growth rate. "The long-term historical growth rate of corporate dividends is is about 8%, but over the past 20 years the rate has been about 10%. Assuming future growth of 9% and a required return of 11%, the two-percentage-point difference between 9% and 11% is 1/50. Thus, the appropriate ratio of price to dividends is 50, just about what it is now"<< I don't where this guy gets his information from but it's total nonsense. Fist of all, dividends cannot grow faster than earnings over the long haul or dividends would eventually be greater than earnings. When we are talking about dividend discount models that's what we are talking about, the long term. The long term growth rate of corporate profits is around 5.4% +/-. In recent decades or so it has been slightly faster than that due to declining interest rate costs and other temporary tail winds that were catchups from the inflationary periods. These tailwinds cannot continue indefinitely. Second, profit growth cannot outstrip the gains in nominal GDP either, or profits would eventually be greater than GDP. Third, dividends are not what is important. Free cash flow or the amount that "could" be paid out in dividends is the value related number. That is the amount of money left over after capital expenditures, working capital additions, acquisitions and other required spending that produces the growth to begin with. These numbers should be measured not on a short term basis. Expenses like these vary from period to period. So what we are left with is that given a steady payout ratio, dividend/free cash growth will track profit and nominal GDP growth over the long haul give or take a very minor amount. The present assumptions for the sustainable growth in real GDP in the U.S. are between the 2.5% and 3.5%. I have seen no higher estimates. The Fed believes it is lower than that upper range presented. Present assumptions are that inflation will average 1%-1.5% over the next 30 years. That would give us between 3.5%-5% free cash flow growth. If inflation assumptions turn out to be too low over the long or medium haul, the growth numbers will move up but so will the required return. Crunching the numbers of many companies indicates that some "with extra free cash flow" are repurchasing shares instead of paying dividends. This is tax efficient and wise. So the actual dividend/free cash flow yield is about .5% higher (give or take) than the 1.3%-1.5% that is presented for the DOW and S&P500. I have not seen the aggregate payout or dividend yield for the country but I suspect that the overall dividend yield is higher and the buybacks are much lower. You can do some estimates from this information about what range of rates of return are possible from here. Wayne Crimi Value Investor Workshop members.aol.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next