#$dvy

“Learning to choose is hard. Learning to choose well is harder. And learning to choose well in a world of unlimited possibilities is harder still, perhaps too hard.”

— Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less

A search for all equity ETF's available to U.S. investors in Bloomberg leads to a list of 969 candidates, a surprisingly large number of options for a relatively new investment vehicle. Given that most focus on large capitalization stocks here in the U.S. (not all, but most), this means that there has to be overlap in the underlying stock holdings...in some cases a lot of overlap.

The unfortunate result is that investors are lured into believing that 1) their exists choice within ETF categories, and 2) building portfolios of ETF's represent a diversified set of exposures. This is generally not the case.

A distinction without a difference

When I wrote about my concerns with Low Volatility ETF's here, here, and here, I noticed that the turnover in those ETF's was very low, which suggested that the billions of dollars flowing into the low volatility theme were being channeled into a relatively concentrated group of stocks. It turns out, dividend ETF's are more popular by a factor of five, and there tends to be a lot of overlap in the underlying holdings.

As you can tell from the chart below, dividend ETF's are by far the largest "Smart Beta" ETF category, having amassed $126 billion in assets as of the third quarter of 2016.

The challenge with dividends as an investment factor, as opposed to Value, Momentum, or Quality, is that only so many companies pay dividends. As buybacks have become more popular in the U.S., the share of stocks paying high dividend yields has declined. The chart below breaks down dividend payers listed on the S&P 500 by their level of yield. While the share of companies paying small yields of less than 1% has decreased, the share of companies paying greater than 4% has also declined. Historically, about 12% of S&P 500 stocks offer a yield of 4% or greater. As of the third quarter, the tally is half that at 6%.

So, as a generation of Baby Boomers seeks alternative solutions for income generation in the face of low fixed income yields, the dividend opportunity set is also shrinking. Even still, with average dividend yields in excess of most fixed income, you can bet dividend ETF's will continue to be recipients of investment dollars.

Circling back on the point of overlap, let's take for example, four of the most popular dividend ETF's by assets:

Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF ($VIG)

iShares Select Dividend ($DVY)

Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF ($VYM)

SPDR S&P Dividend ETF ($SDY)

After pulling the holdings as of 1Q 2016, I used some fancy programming pyrotechnics to generate a map of their holdings. The graphic below illustrates the overlap between these ETF's. The large circles represent an ETF ticker. Each of the spokes is an individual stock holding and is scaled to its weight across the ETF's. The spokes connect each stock to the ETFs in which it is held. For the sake of simplification, only underlying holdings with a greater than 3% weight receive a label.

A few observations. The largest names tend to be those that are held in common between all of the ETF's--those stocks in the middle of the map. The stocks that are unique to an ETF tend to be the smallest weights and line the periphery. It's surprising how similar the ETF's are; only 20% of the total weight across the 4 ETF's is unique. 80% of the assets have at least one holding in common with the other three ETF's. 30% have two holdings in common. And 9% of the assets are held in common across all four ETF's.

Self-perpetuating momentum

Here's why this matters. I mentioned earlier that $126 billion resides in dividend ETF's. If the stocks occupying the largest weights are the ones that are most commonly held across dividend ETF's, then the massive flows we have seen over the last few years have disproportionately gone into these stocks.

The characteristics of the most highly-weighted names across these popular ETF's betray exactly this point. Flows have pushed up valuations of the stocks holding the greatest weights, and those with the greatest weights have substantially better momentum (momentum being the average of 12 month trailing total return).

The table below takes all of the stocks held in the four popular dividend ETF's and treats them as one super portfolio. It then segregates the super portfolio into stocks that occupy weights greater than and less than 1%. I then calculate average characteristics on the two groups of stocks.

The <1% group is cheaper by 37%, 17%, 28%, and 32% relative to sales, earnings, cash flows and book value than the >1% group, and their dividend yield is 10% higher. Given the choice between these two groups of stocks, any competent investor would choose the <1% group! Unfortunately, the <1% group represents a disproportionately small amount of the ETF's holdings, just 19%. The more expensive and lower-yielding group represents a whopping 81% share.

Why?

Image Source: Robert Lyle Bolton

“In some ways, a cash dividend is like paying shareholders with their own money, and making a big deal about it!” -- Brian Nelson, CFA

To the Board Rooms of America:

We learn a lot from the culture we live in, the education system we promote, and the games we play. Who hasn’t played Monopoly, the age-old game that Hasbro scooped up from Parker Brothers, first published in 1935? For more than 80 years now, men and women of all ages have been collecting $50 from the “bank” after pulling one of the more-fortuitous Chance cards. Ingrained in society has become the belief that a “dividend” is incremental, that something is “given” to shareholders that otherwise was not there. After all, the Monopoly player now has $50 when prior to pulling the Chance card, he or she didn’t.

But unlike the “make-believe” Monopoly game, a stock’s dividend is nothing like this. A stock’s dividend is “already owned” by the shareholder.  Stockholders own everything about the company, all of its assets, including the cash used to pay the dividend prior to it being paid. How can I know this for sure? Well, because I am a business owner myself. If the board of Valuentum, for example, wants to pay a dividend, Valuentum’s cash balance would be reduced by the amount of the dividend payment. Valuentum’s owners already owned that cash balance on its books prior to the dividend payment, and now they would own the cash outright after the dividend is paid--it’s a wash for the stockholder, tax implications aside. The dividend is neither a source of value nor a transfer of value. Value is created by the future earnings and cash flows of the business--not in the dividend payment.

Today, with most of the world muddling through a negative interest rate environment, I believe we’re in the early stages of a “dividend” bubble, and I am writing this note because the future consequences are unknown. I am concerned. I believe that most shareholders do not know that when they receive a dividend, they are being paid with their own money. One might argue that most of the “value” of the dividend payment, whether a monthly or quarterly one, is just the structure and timing of the income “payment” to the investor. That it keeps excess capital out of the hands of management may be another reason, but I’d like to think that the owners like management—after all, they vote them in.

Here is the deal: shouldn’t the focus of investing be on the company, not on the company’s arbitrary dividend policy? Shouldn’t management teams do a better job of explaining what a cash dividend is and what it is not? Can’t financial advisors structure income payments in other ways to meet their clients’ requests without stretching needlessly for “getting paid with their own money (i.e. the dividend)?” Is the tail (the ease of income policy with dividend payments) wagging the dog (the decisions in setting prudent investment policies for retirees)? Wasn’t the tulip bulb arbitrary? Wasn’t valuing companies on the basis of “eyeballs” arbitrary during the dot-com bubble? Dividend policies are arbitrary. You see what I’m getting at?

Partly because the dividend is fueled by future earnings and free cash flow, I’d never go so far as to say that picking a stock on the basis of its dividend is like following the advice of Evangeline Adams, an astrologer in the 1920s, but estimating the value of a company on the basis of dividend policy or liking a company "because of its dividend" is an arbitrary practice. The value of a company is based on its net cash position on the books and the present value of its future enterprise free cash flows. I don’t want to see investors hurt, and I think management teams would perform a great service by working with their owners in explaining the concept of a dividend--that the value of the company is reduced once the dividend is paid, that they own the company, including the balance sheet, or the source of the dividend payment.

It is an honor and a privilege to identify some of the strongest dividend payers via Valuentum’s Dividend Cushion ratio and publish some of our best ideas in Valuentum’s Dividend Growth Newsletter portfolio, but we always emphasize the importance of business analysis and valuation at Valuentum, independent of a company’s dividend policy. I believe there are thousands (maybe millions) of investors out there today that do not understand what a dividend truly is, and I ask the board rooms of America to aid in the continued education of their owners. It is often the most trusting investors that get hurt the most in “bubbles,” and I do not want this to happen.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards,

Brian Nelson, CFA President, Investment Research & Analysis [email protected]

Related tickers: SDY, NOBL, VIG, DVY, TDIV, DGRW, SCHD, QDEF, DIA, SPY

--------------------------------------------------

Jared Dillian is an old friend of mine and one of the top editors at Mauldin Economics. Here’s a great read from him that I recommend for everyone interested in high-dividend stocks.  

BY JARED DILLIAN

Every once in a while, investors go through these convulsions where people think they can get a free lunch. Remember, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. There is even an acronym for it: TANSTAAFL. Yet people try.

The latest attempt to do so is buying “low volatility” stocks.

Everyone knows that some stocks are more volatile than others. It’s not uncommon for some biotech stocks or gold miners to move 10% in a day. McDonald’s will move a half-percent a day—if that.

Where people get confused is that they think they can get even more reward for the same amount of risk. We could follow up here with a diagram and a chart of the efficient frontier, but I don’t feel like getting all academic on you today.

Let’s just say there is a positive relationship between risk and reward, which should be obvious to everyone here.

And yet, an ETF of low-volatility stocks has actually outperformed the S&P 500—over quite a long period of time.

Not just by a little. By a lot.

That shouldn’t happen in theory. But it is happening. An ETF that is full of things like…

AT&T

Verizon

Johnson & Johnson

Procter & Gamble

General Mills

PepsiCo

Paychex

McDonald’s

Con Edison

Automatic Data Processing

Etc.

…is vastly outperforming the S&P 500… and has been for a while. People have become enamored of low-volatility strategies, and so they pile into them, forming yet another bubble.

It isn’t strictly low-volatility stocks that people buy, though. It’s also high-dividend payers (which are essentially the same thing).

Here’s a chart of the iShares Select Dividend ETF (DVY). It looks the same as the iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol USA ETF (USMV).

Some people call it a “consumer staples bubble.” A lot of these stocks fit that description.

I guess the 10th Man conclusion that you can draw from this is that… if people can pile into these names, people can pile out of them.

What would the catalyst be?

Never ask me what the catalyst would be. I never know. My job is to point out a market distortion and figure out what to do about it. The thing about market distortions is that they can persist for a really long time.

We could be talking about low-volatility stocks three years from now.

But I will speculate. Since these are all high-yielders, my guess is that people have been piling into dividend-paying stocks for the same reason they piled into high-yield bonds: fed funds at zero, can’t get anything in a savings account, need to live off some income.

All Baby Boomers are in the same boat. That’s at least part of it.

It could take a small crisis or correction to turn low-volatility stocks into high-volatility stocks. There is some hidden gamma/convexity in these names that nobody is really aware of.

Up on an escalator, down on an elevator.

Subscribe to Jared’s Insights Into Behavioral Economics

I have used this space many times to discuss how fundamentals drive stock prices over the long run. Additionally, in the midst of (sometimes severe) volatility and rising uncertainties that come with it, I’ve often made the point to stay focused on what really matters in terms of equity prices these days including:

U.S. GDP expected to expand at a roughly 2% rate in 2016

Earnings weakness in the first half of the year with an expected recovery of double digit growth in the second half of 2016

Europe poised to gain growth momentum with an expected full-year growth of around 1%

U.S. inflation could pick up to a comfortable 1%-1.5% as the year progresses and crude prices stabilize further

Interest rates remain low globally. In the U.S., the Fed raises overnight rates more gradually than expected, and pressure on the 10-year eases (making for an upward sloping yield curve—good for growth)

Global GDP expected to post in the ~3% range—modest but healthy

In Zacks Investment Management’s view, each of these fundamental factors makes a strong case for expansion in 2016, not recession. And, as I’ve said many times, only very rarely have we seen a bear market without a recession.

But, there’s the sentiment factor. We just saw how sentiment can drive markets in the first three months of this year. In the first six weeks, as fears mounted over China’s slowdown and government intervention, the S&P 500 fell some -10%. But, as pessimism continued to grow, this eventually paved the way for the market to climb the proverbial ‘wall of worry,’ and markets love climbing that wall. Indeed, by the end of the first quarter, the S&P 500 was already back in positive territory.

Can Sentiment Derail a Bull Market?

The short answer is ‘yes.’ But, in my experience, market ‘derailment’ is more likely to occur when sentiment becomes too positive (and not the other way around).

Legendary investor John Templeton famously said, “bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism and die on euphoria.” In the short term, when pessimism builds on false or overblown fears, we would usually expect the market to power through it—like we saw in the first three months of the year.

This can, and does, happen often during bull markets. That’s why you often see me ‘raise an eyebrow’ when rapid-onset downside volatility is accompanied by negative news stories that aren’t likely to be impactful (the fiscal cliff, European sovereign debt crisis, Greece leaving the European Union, Ebola, China slowdown, etc.…).

In my view, what we really need to look for in the current market is growing optimism, which may emerge as complacency (versus outright optimism or euphoria).

Many times, we’ve seen Templeton’s quote play-out nearly perfectly. For example, the late 1920’s euphoria that erupted as Americans migrated to cities seeking a slice of industrial sector riches, resulted in the banking sector boom. Similarly, in 2000, the tech bubble saw investors pouring money into start-ups with billion dollar valuations and negative earnings. In both cases, euphoria caused equity prices to balloon and overly positive sentiment killed the bull.  

Today, with modest growth rates likely here to stay, I’m not convinced that we’ll see outright euphoria this late in the cycle. There isn’t enough artificial wealth being created for investors to grow euphoric over. But, we could see complacency seep into the markets. Complacent investors tend to ignore risk, meaning they could be more likely to pay too much for already overvalued stocks. And, when that happens the market could easily move from fairly-valued to over-valued. If fundamentals quietly start to break down as that’s happening, I think that could trigger the next bear market.  

Bottom Line for Investors

While fundamentals remain strong, I still think plenty of pessimism remains. In my view, that’s a recipe for a market that can, and should, grind higher. The things to watch out for, from a sentiment point of view, are:

Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East eased

Oil prices stabilize and fade as a news story

Europe and China post convincing growth

U.S. earnings turn out much better than expected.

If all of these things happen, which is possible, then sentiment could improve dramatically to the point of supporting complacency. And, that’s when I’d start becoming more cautious.

FREE Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: May, 2016

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has released a preliminary reading of U.S. GDP, which estimates that GDP grew by 0.5% over the quarter. Of course, this being the first release, we expect the final figure to change by at least 50 basis points in either direction. According to the BEA, a deceleration in PCE (personal consumption expenditures), a downturn in federal government spending, an upturn in imports and larger decreases in private inventory investments in exports were partly offset by an upturn in state and local government spending and acceleration in residential fixed investment. What’s perhaps most notable here is that federal government spending is set to rise over the course of the year, which should help keep it from weighing on future GDP readings for 2016. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 1.4 percent, and the BEA noted that the deceleration reflected a larger decrease in nonresidential fixed investment.

FREE Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: May, 2016

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

Earnings season is on the menu now and bears everywhere are drooling. Why? Because looking at Q1 as a whole, total earnings are expected to be down -10.3% on -0.6% lower revenues versus the same period last year. This will be the 4th quarter in a row of negative earnings growth for the S&P 500, and only very rarely do you see that without a recession.

I’ve belabored the point concerning the disproportionate impact of the Energy Sector on aggregate S&P 500 earnings many times in this space – and you are probably tired of hearing it. So, I won’t rehash that whole argument here. It’s true that earnings outside of Energy have seen better days, but the drag caused by resource-sensitive companies has been profound. Excluding energy, earnings have been weak for the last few periods but not negative in every quarter.

Regardless, earnings “optics” have been bad and I have a feeling that the media is really going to focus on it this quarter. The media loves a good bearish narrative and, given that Q1 could deliver close to double-digit earnings declines while marking the fourth quarter of negative earnings growth, they could have their golden child of storylines.

That’s where the “making money” part comes in. I’ve always been a believer in the wall of worry. If negative sentiment rises so substantially that it makes most investors lose sight of positive fundamentals, stocks generally tend to thrive. I could point to dozens of times in history when this was the case. It even dates back to the time of Sir John Templeton, who famously said,“bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism, and die on euphoria.” Earnings weakness could help “skepticism” build.

Earnings revisions are one way to measure sentiment. Generally, as optimism about future growth fades, companies will temper their earnings expectations. Setting the bar too high and not reaching it can crush shares, so companies would rather see the opposite occur and set the bar low.

Q1 estimates followed this pattern as the quarter unfolded. As noted earlier, total S&P 500 earnings for the quarter are expected to be down -10.3% on -0.6% lower revenues versus the same period last year, a sharp drop from what was expected at the start of the period. The chart below shows how growth expectations have evolved since the start of the quarter:

Source: Zacks Investment Research, Inc.

Not only is the magnitude of negative revisions suffered in Q1 the largest compared to other recent quarters, but they are also broad-based and not just a function of Energy Sector issues. The Energy Sector’s estimates have unsurprisingly suffered the most, but the reality is that estimates for 14 of the 16 Zacks sectors have come down since the start of the period.

All of this combined could be bullish. With negative earnings on the quarter coupled with negative revisions looking ahead, it feels like a recipe for sentiment to take a turn for the worst. But, at the same time, it gives companies a better shot at beating earnings expectations later, and markets love positive surprises.  

We’re optimistic about that possibility, because we continue to forecast a strong Q3 and Q4 in 2016 for earnings.

Source: Zacks Investment Research, Inc.

This positive expectation reflects an anticipated end to the Energy Sector’s drag based on consensus expectations for stabilized oil prices. But, it’s not unusual for Wall Street analysts to be optimistic about the outer periods; they start out with a positive tone and start pacing back as the period gets closer. If history is any guide, then we should see estimates in the second half of the year start to come down in the upcoming months – which again, can give companies an even better shot at surprising to the upside.

The chart below gives a breakdown of how we see earnings shaking out by sector, which gives investors some ideas as to where to look for value.

Source: Zacks Investment Research, Inc.

Bottom Line for Investors

There are numerous variables that factor into making investment decisions. But, sometimes it’s best to simply take a step back and think like Sir John Templeton. In this case, what I’m suggesting is that if you see and believe that positive fundamentals remain intact, but that other factors (negative earnings and earnings revisions) are causing investors to lose optimism, what you may discover is a wall of worry that the stock market is eager to climb.

FREE Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: April, 2016

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

While many are crying out to the markets, “bring out your dead”, this bull is letting us know “I’m not dead yet!” On March 9th, 2009, the current bull market was born – and it is still alive today. Indeed, March 9th, 2016 marked this bulls 7th “birthday” making it one of the longest on record. During this time, the S&P 500 index rose by approximately 190% making this one of the biggest bulls on record.

The S&P 500 since March 9, 2009

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

This uptrend not only reflects America's recovery from the Great Recession but also underscores the resilience of the most diverse economy in the world. It is often taken for granted, but during this expansion the economy has been dealt several set-backs that have been overcome: the U.S. fiscal cliff, fears of major bank failures, the Eurozone’s long sovereign debt crisis, fears that the Eurozone would cut Greece loose, China’s economic ‘crisis,’ a commodity price collapse and, most recently, fears of a British exit from the European Union.

Despite some dark clouds hovering over the market for some time now, this has been the third longest market upswing in U.S. history and has replenished around $14 trillion back into the equities markets.

Bull Market by Length (current bull market is the 3rd longest in history)

Bull Market by Percentage Gain (Red) and Length (Blue in # of Months)

Despite volatility in the market of late, the S&P 500's 10 sectors have increased over the past 84 months. The NASDAQ stocks in IT companies, consumer, financial and industrial sectors grew by 284%, 400%, 250% and 250%, respectively. Medical and pharmaceutical companies have seen robust growth as well with values nearly tripling in aggregate.

Bottom Line for Investors

Given an eight year bull market, old by historic standards, it’s easy to understand why investors might be mentally preparing for this bull’s demise. But, bull markets don’t die of old age. They die when fundamentals collapse and growth ceases, two conditions we’re not seeing now. So, stay steady and keep an eye on the fundamentals as you consider your next investment moves.

FREE Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: April, 2016

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

In the “good old” days, investment professionals would focus on boring numbers like days sales outstanding, operating margins, cost of goods sold, accounts payable, and paid in capital.

Today, however, what passes for analysis is the dissection of every syllable that comes out of Janet Yellen and Mario Draghi’s mouths. I never thought I’d see the day on Wall Street when linguistics was more important than things like revenues and profits.

I still, however, believe in the basics of old-fashioned fundamentals like balance sheet and financial statement analysis. If you’ve been around long enough, you know that fundamentals do matter and that the current rally based on monetary steroids is doomed to fail. 

In fact, the warning signs are really starting to pile up.

Warning Sign #1: The Bull Market Turns 7

This bull market is more than seven years old, and only one rally in history has lasted longer—from December 1987 to March 2000. After that, we had a two-and-a-half-year bear market that chopped the stock market in half.

Warning Sign #2: The Adjusted P/E Ratio Is at 24

One of John Mauldin’s pals is Nobel laureate Robert Shiller, and his cyclically adjusted P/E or CAPE ratio is screaming “Danger” at 24 times earnings compared to the historical average of 16.  

Warning Sign #3: The PEG Ratio Is at an All-Time High

Even more telling to me is that the US stock market is the most expensive it has ever been as measured by the PEG (price-earnings-to-growth) ratio. The S&P 500’s current PEG ratio is 1.7, an all-time high.  

Warning Sign #4: Falling Bond Prices

Falling junk bond prices have been a very good canary in the stock market coal mine.

•    Junk bond prices tumbled well in advance of the dot-com implosion. •    Junk bonds peaked shortly before the Financial Crisis slaughtered investors.

Junk bond prices started falling around 18 months ago, and the S&P 500 shouldn’t be far behind.

Warning Sign #5: Overvalued Housing Market

The stock market isn’t the only market that appears overvalued. I’m talking about real estate. My reasoning is simple: home prices are up, but incomes aren’t.

  •    In 2007, the median household income in the United States was $57,936, but in 2014, it dropped to $53,657.

•    In 2007, the average home in the US cost $247,900, but prices increased to $278,800 in January 2016.

Those two polar opposite forces just cannot go on forever. Either Americans have to start earning more money or real estate prices have to fall. My bet is for lower prices.

So What’s an Old-Fashioned Investor Supposed to Do?

So what should you do? I think there are just three basic strategies that will protect your portfolio:

Survive & Thrive Strategy #1: load up on generous dividend-paying stocks. In this topsy-turvy world of ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and NIRP (negative interest rate policy), stocks that pay out generous, sustainable dividends will be one of the few places that will hold their value.

Here’s proof: Through the beginning of March, two dividend-focused ETFs—iShares Select Dividend ETF (DVY) and SPDR S&P Dividend ETF (SDY)—outperformed the S&P 500 both going down and going up.

These two dividend ETFs lost significantly less money than the S&P 500 from December 31, 2015 through February 11, 2016. Not only that, they maintained that outperformance even as the stock market recovered.

Survive & Thrive Strategy #2: Raise cash... lots of it. Of course, cash pays almost nothing thanks to our hallucinating central bankers, but zero will be your hero when things turn ugly.

Survive & Thrive Strategy #3: If you have some capital you can afford to speculate with, you should consider taking out some portfolio insurance with inverse ETFs and/or put options.

In reality, you probably need all three of the above strategies, but more importantly, you need to remember that old-fashioned investment values never go out of style.

In the current edition of Yield Shark, I’m talking at length about what dividend stocks can do for you—and recommend a winner whose revenues were up 44% year over year in the last quarter.

Subscribe to Tony’s Free Weekly Newsletter