Why ‘Best of Breed’ Investing Is No Passing Fad
Aug 4th, 2009 | By Andrew Gordon | Category: Stock Market InvestingIf you want to do well in today’s market, ignore this rally. Pay all your attention instead to the only class of companies you need to know about. I call these companies the “best of breed.” They’re probably the least-talked about companies in the market. Many investors are missing the boat. And that’s a shame.
This has been a tough quarter for companies. Compared to last year’s second quarter, profit is down roughly 31 percent and revenue is down even more. Wall Street thought it was going to be even worse. So in one of the worst quarters ever, the market has rallied.
Investors learn all the wrong lessons from a rally like this. Nothing about it makes sense. The smallest companies are outgunning the biggest one. The most heavily shorted stocks are doing better than the least shorted stocks. The companies with the worst analyst ratings are outshining the ones with the best ratings. Everything about this rally is backwards.
Over the past 37 years – from 1972 to 2009 – these “best of breed” companies have made shareholders 2.3 times more money than the stock market as a whole. For every $100 you made from the stock market, you would have made $230 from these “best of breed” companies.
That’s not just slightly outperforming the market. That’s lapping the market and then some. And it’s even more impressive when you take into account everything this period covered. It’s been an eventful 37 years of embargoes, stagflation, a savings & loan crisis, an Asian economic crisis, a Russian national debt default, a near collapse of the Mexican peso, 9/11, two gulf wars, the bankruptcy of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund, the dotcom rise and fall, a bursting of the housing bubble, credit bubble and spending bubble. Forgive me if I’ve left some “minor stuff” out like the fall of the “Iron Curtain” and the rise of China.
Through all this, these companies gave their shareholders a steady and rising stream of revenue and a return that, as I’ve said, was more than 2.3 times what the markets gave. Who wouldn’t want that?
Everybody would. And that’s a big problem for all those mutual funds which don’t touch these companies … and for the hyper-active Wall Street press which makes a fuss over a dozen things every day but somehow misses the biggest story of all…
The existence of a class of companies which know how to put ever-increasing amounts of cash into the pockets of their shareholders, year in and year out, decade in and decade out.
Almost as bizarre as our junk rally are dividend-paying companies that can do no wrong. The ones strong enough and confident enough to raise dividends are going up in price. And the ones that are cutting dividends? Many of them are going up too.
Shareholders have recently been accepting smaller checks without protest and without selling their shares. They are evidently willing to take the hit today so the company can grow profits tomorrow. It’s easier to do when investors think that some kind of recovery is around the corner. If that recovery doesn’t materialize, these shareholders will be showing much less forgiveness to dividend cutters. I don’t want to own these companies when that happens.
If I were an investor in any of those companies, I’d sell my shares right away. The whole point of investing in the “best of breed” companies is that you get paid no matter what.
Everybody is cutting costs, the strong and weak companies alike. But not all dividend companies are cutting their dividends. Just slightly more than half are these days. It pays to invest in the dividend hikers, not so with the cutters. Let other investors be forced to rely on a recovery to reverse their portfolio losses.
You should be and can be making money even if the economy remains weak. As long as there are “best of breed” companies still raising their dividends, there’s no reason why you should sacrifice your pay “for the good of the company.”
The scary thing (for us and the Fed) is that low-interest rates aren’t speeding up the recovery. People aren’t willing to borrow. And banks aren’t willing to lend. The amount of money floating around the economy is pretty stagnant. The Fed should be pretty discouraged. They have $2 trillion on their balance sheet. And all they have to show for it are some banks which should have gone under but are instead giving its employees million-dollar bonuses.
Dividend companies are getting a little respect again. They may even have become the “new fad” according to the UK’s Telegraph. Here’s the money quote…
Few professional investors are banking on a return to the super-charged capital gains we have seen from equities in the past. Rather, the new fad is for companies capable of delivering reliable sources of income. Historically, dividends have been responsible for more than half the return on equities. In the more risk-averse environment which is the new norm it may be rather more than that.
But why be satisfied with just a “reliable source of income” when you could get income which is both reliable and growing. Perhaps the Telegraph doesn’t realize that with “best of breed” companies, you can have your cake and eat it too. But the Telegraph isn’t the only newspaper or media outlet that doesn’t “get it.”
Nobody is talking about these companies providing reliable revenue to shareholders for decades (yes, I said decades) and increasing their dividends at rates of 25-40 percent every year. Yes, I said 25-40 percent every year.
Do the math. A company raising its cash payments to you by 25 percent every year will double the money it pays you every three years! If you’re getting $10,000 in cash every year from a company now, in six years you’ll be getting $40,000.
These aren’t junk bonds. They’re not risky derivatives. They don’t depend on a bull market. These payments come from some of the safest and strongest companies in the market. When companies provide rising cash payments for decades and generate plenty of cash with above average profit margins, they qualify for “best of breed” status.
Actually, some people out there do “get it.” One of them is Hersh Cohen. He has managed the Legg Mason Partners Appreciation fund for the past 30 years. Over these three decades, his fund has done better than the S&P 500, the dividend-company benchmark index and the average return for large-capitalization stock funds. Cohen, who holds a doctorate in psychology, says he focuses on companies with “superior balance sheets and rising dividends.”
Cohen says his academic training helps him when the market goes to extremes. During such times he likes to go against the flow, cutting back when the market is euphoric and increasing his bets when others panic “and stuff is being given away.”
I’m not a fan of mutual funds. I think they’re terrible instruments, trapping investors into very narrow styles of investment long past the time when those styles made a buck. And I don’t think mutual fund managers are the sharpest tools in the investment shed. So when I see an exception, I try to point him out. Cohen is an exception.
If you’re interested in doubling your money every three years with very little risk, there’s only one way to do it. Invest in “best of breed” companies.
To your investing success,
Andrew
Source: Why ‘Best of Breed’ Investing Is No Passing Fad
Advertisement
Wall Street Lies EXPOSED!
They've led you to believe that investors who want outsized gains must take on ridiculous risks.
Click here to learn how a Small One-Time Investment Could Grow Until It's Larger Than All of Your Other Investments Combined.
Andrew is currently the Editor-in-Chief of two monthly investment research services INCOME and The Wealth Advantage. He has also become a leading expert in utilizing Exchange Traded Funds to profit from rising and falling market sectors.
