One of the questions I received recently from several readers of my site across platforms concerned my total returns performance and my benchmarks. As a long-term dividend investor, I doubt that sharing performance adds much in value.
My benchmark is S&P 500. I benchmark both my total returns and dividend income relative to this index. However, benchmarking my dividend income is more important to me than looking at my total returns relative to the market. I look at this information probably once an year, if not less often. I believe that focusing too much on comparative total return performance does not add much value to long-term dividend investors.
The stock market can value shares as it pleases, but I cannot control the price it would place on a stock or relative performance versus a basket of other stocks. I try to do the best using factors that are within my control. This includes identifying companies with strong competitive advantages and pricing power, which are able to grow earnings and pay higher dividends over time.
I would then try to purchase shares in those companies at what I believe to be attractive valuations. Because my investment thesis relies on long-term momentum in earnings and dividends, I simply hold on to that security for as long as possible. One of the few factors that would make me sell include dividend cuts or an situation of extreme overvaluation relative to the underlying security’s growth prospects.
While I do not care about performance versus S&P 500, I have found that my methods for stock selections have delivered decent results since I started investing in 2008:
As a result, you can see that focusing on items such as benchmarking against S&P 500 for example, are simply items you can put on a checklist, but nothing that is purely actionable.
Overall, I expect my portfolios to at least match the total returns of indices such as S&P 500. However, that would mean that I would underperform some portion of the time, and then outperform another portion of the time. I usually outperform during flat or declining markets, as well as situation where stocks as a group are up slightly. During strong up moves when growth stocks are bid up in a frenzy, dividend stocks would likely underperform.
Because I am investing for the long-term, I focus on items that could translate into more profits in one or two decades down the road. Thus, the data points I look at are usually annual fundamental results such as earnings per share, revenues, dividends, returns on equity etc. While the stock price of a company changes every nano-second, the underlying fundamentals are not materially affected that often. As a result, I only look at annual data points, although in rare situations I could look into quarterly sets of fundamental performance. This is why I refer to a period of about one or two years as simply noise. Nothing intelligent could ever come from noise, and most income investors who buy a stock today with the intention of flipping it in five months to an year are mostly kidding themselves.
One thing that intelligent investors should consider is that investment gains come unexpectedly. While it is commonly accepted that stocks have delivered a 10% annual return over the past 80 years or so, it is not commonly known that these returns are not straightforward. You don’t get 10% every year but are signing up for volatility in annual returns. You can as easily lose 50% in one year, and then recover and make 50% more. As an investor, you need patience and if you do not have it, this could indicate that you didn’t do enough due diligence or blindly followed stock tips.
Of course, if there was a material change like a dividend cut, or major headwinds that’s ok. For example, neither Procter & Gamble (PG) nor Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) stock moved much between 2010 and 2012. Investors who simply held on to the stock didn’t see much in capital gains during this period. Over the past year and a half however, these companies have delivered very strong total returns. Investors who lost patience in the stock missed out on very good gains and the rising stream of dividend payments.
The other reason why I do not see much value in comparing my total returns relative to S&P 500 is because I find the index to be flawed. First of all, the components of S&P 500 index are subjectively selected by a committee, which considers certain factors such as liquidity, float and market capitalization in their inclusion decisions.
If I had the requirements to only include stocks that trade at least 500,000 shares a day and have a market capitalization of $5 billion, I would have missed out on purchasing Hingham Insitutions for Savings (HIFS) at $34.90 in 2010. However, besides these factors, I do not know why they include certain companies, and exclude others. The flaws are evident if you study the history of some components in the index. For example, S&P 500 included a lot of technology companies in the late 1990s, just when they were selling at stratospheric valuations. Herd behavior such as this is destructive to long-term shareholder returns.