I am not a stock trader; I am a dividend and value based long-term buy-and-hold investor. When I add a stock to my dividend portfolio, it is my intention to hold the stock forever. I am not smart enough to time the daily gyrations of the stock market. When stock prices start dropping, our primal instinct of flight kicks in and we want to sell. In many cases that is the time to be buying. However, sometimes selling a stock is the right thing to do.
In determining when to sell a dividend stock, I have one hard and fast rule: When an individual stock held as a dividend investment lowers its dividend, immediately sell it. This may seem like a stringent rule and I have taken a lot of criticism for it from both directions.
Some have said waiting until a stock drops its dividend is too late. There were rumors and innuendos that Bank of America was going to drop its dividend some time before it was announced. As it turns out, the rumors were correct this time. However, I can't (and won't) base investment decisions on innuendo or rumor.
Others have said that selling a stock after it cuts its dividend is too early. Their argument is the bad news has already been priced into the stock and you are selling into weakness. I feel strongly that an immediate sell is the correct thing to do for the following reasons:
I. Cockroach Theory
When a company that has a long history of raising dividends and suddenly stops, it is usually more than a simple bump in the road. For the one cockroach you have seen (lower dividend) there are probably hundreds waiting to reveal themselves.
II. Adultery Theory
I view a dividend cut as financial infidelity by the company. After a company has raised its dividend 10, 20, 30 or more years that first dividend cut is very hard. Like someone who first has a series of affairs after 30 years of marriage, the first one is guilt ridden, but it is much easier the second time around. Eventually, the guilt goes away. Do you think Citigroup (C) would have the same difficulty cutting its dividend again? In the case of C, I sold part of my position when it became evident that its capital structure could not sustain the company going forward without a substantial cash infusion.
III. Experience
My experience has been once a company cuts its dividend, the stock continues to drop. The following stocks, which I sold after a dividend cut (prices as of 10/13/08) are examples of this:
- Washington Mutual Inc. (WM) - Sold at $18.11 on 12/11/2007; it's now worthless.
- Wachovia Corporation (WB) - Sold at $25.89 on 4/15/2008; it's now trading at $5.85.
- iStar Financial Inc. (SFI) - Sold at $2.32 on 10/3/2008; it's now trading at $1.46.
- Bank of America Corporation (BAC) - Sold at $28.51 on 10/7/2008; it's now trading at $22.79.
Sure BAC will likely come back over time, but WM and WB will never come back. Even assuming BAC will come back at some point in the future, I likely would have been better to sell, wait for the 30-day wash sale window to clear and buy it back (see IV below on why this is not an option for me.)
IV. Portfolio Goals
The most important reason for selling a dividend stock after it cuts its dividend is that the investment is no longer aligned with my dividend portfolio's goal of building an ever-increasing source of dividend income. Some have argued that certain securities are good value plays after a dividend cut. This may or may not be true, but my dividend portfolio's primary objective is dividend income, not capital gains. I have a separate portfolio for that. To date, I have not transferred any dividend stocks to my capital appreciation portfolio.
Finally, some will say that it was the "right" thing to do for the company to cut the dividend given the circumstances. In many cases, I do not disagree. However, in the cases I have been involved with the company was not "given" the circumstances; they created them through their own actions. If a company was truly a victim of circumstances, which couldn't possibly be foreseen or planned for, I would gladly cut them some slack and consider an exception to my rule. This situation rarely ever comes along.
Disclosure: No position in any of the aforementioned securities.
Related Articles
|
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »



This article has 13 comments:
- Jimmy Lathrop
- 190 Comments
My Website
Oct 15 06:21 AM- Dividends Anonymous
- 50 Comments
My Website
Oct 15 07:40 AM- Jersey
- 44 Comments
Oct 15 08:54 AM- Paleo
- 2 Comments
Oct 15 10:44 AM- Norman Lepoff, M.D.
- 252 Comments
Oct 15 11:00 AM- OneRichOne
- 17 Comments
My Website
Oct 15 11:31 AM- jackooo
- 205 Comments
Oct 15 11:58 AM- benf
- 4 Comments
Oct 15 12:15 PM- isherlock
- 6 Comments
Oct 15 05:49 PMIn beginning of this anyone with a decent knowledge of financial history should've realized that Majority of the financial institutions won't survive this, yet the small number of firms that survive will dominate for the next decade and more. It wasn't hard to see even a year ago that WB and WM won't and BAC will.
Good luck!
- bzer
- 1 Comment
Oct 19 01:35 AMDoing your homework is much better than any "sell when [blank]" system ever will be. The reference to buying BAC back after 30 days, while it probably will be a good trade, is just that - a trade. A lower stock price allows you to average down.
Also, I wouldn't count SFI out for a turn-around. Maybe they weren't wrong about buying distressed debt, just early.
- AutoDealerCFO
- 1 Comment
Oct 20 03:29 PM- Olddude
- 1 Comment
Oct 22 12:11 AM- Shawn Ayromloo
- 4 Comments
Oct 22 02:50 PMThe following is one article written a few weeks before WaMu was stolen by FDIC and given to JP Morgan for almost nothing (1.9 billions) - leaving the shareholders with nothing:
WaMu: Intensification of Stealth Buying
by: R.J. Chopin August 13, 2008 | about stocks: WM
R.J. Chopin
In Your Watchlist
About this author:
back to yahoo finance add to my yahoo back to cake
Stealth buying intensifies as 54 new institutional investors quietly acquire shares of Washington Mutual (WM), according to NASDAQ Detailed Institutional Holdings. That’s an astounding 567 institutional investors now holding 52% of the company. Toscafund Asset Management LLP, a British based value player, reportedly snatched up 105.5 million shares, or a 6% interest. Spotting stealth activity requires painstaking analysis. The majority of investors fail to recognize stealth activity until it’s publicly disclosed. The wholesale accumulation of WaMu shares trumpets a clear “Buy Signal.”
WaMu used this past quarter to come clean, cleanse the books, or as Howard Shapiro of Fox-Pitt Kellton put it, “move ahead of the curve on credit, having charged off or provided for 65 % of it expected loss exposure.” WaMu added over 17 billion dollars of fresh capital, enhancing the balance sheet with 50 billion dollars of liquidity. This was not done out of necessity, but more in a sense to silence the mouths of its adversaries that are mostly short sellers that traffic in fear, terror, false rumors, and manipulation.
WaMu’s house keeping has positioned the company to report better than expected results in the next quarter. This will no doubt come as an overwhelming surprise to those that have been seduced by short sellers, but nevertheless, it’s going to be an eventful day. To say that short sellers will be caught unaware is understating the reality of a panic short-cover rally.
The undeniable facts are plain to see. The intensification of stealth buying will only continue. Short sellers can and will lie about