Dividends Growing Faster than Cost of Capital
I don't think the method falls short, it's the premise that is wrong. If the dividend stream really did grow faster than the cost of capital indefinitely, eventually the company behind the share would become larger than the entire economy. Logically, at some point, the growth must slow down.
"I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need.  People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend.  You are correct though Pfizer might be considered ""more growth."" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon.  Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products.  Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend.  Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible.   The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company.  Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income.  You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well." I think the dividend fund may not be what youre looking for. You mentioned you want growth, not income. But I think of dividend stocks as income stocks, not growth. They pay a dividend because these are established companies that do not need to invest so much in capex anymore, so they return it to shareholders. In other words, they are past their growth phase. These are what you want to hold when you have a large nest egg, you are ready to retire, and just want to make a couple percent a year without having to worry as much about market fluctuations. The Russel ETF you mentioned and other small caps are I think what you are after. I recently made a post here about the difference between index funds and active funds. The difference is very small. That is, in any given year, many active ETFs will beat them, many wont. It depends entirely on the market conditions at the time. Under certain conditions the small caps will outperform the S&P, definitely. However, under other conditioned, such as global growth slowdown, they are typically the first to fall. Based on your comments, like how you mentioned you dont want to sell, I think index funds should make up a decent size portion of your portfolio. They are the safest bet, long term, for someone who just wants to buy and hold. Thats not to say they need be all. Do a mixture. Diversification is good. As time goes on dont be afraid to add bond ETFs either. This will protect you during downturns as bond prices typically rise under slow growth conditions (and sometimes even under normal conditions, like last year when TLT beat the S&P...) There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more. DRiPs come to mind as something that may be worth examining. If you take the Microsoft example, consider what would happen if you bought additional shares each year by re-investing the dividends and the stock also went up over the years. A combination of capital appreciation in the share price plus the additional shares purchased over time can produce a good income stream over time. The key is to consider how long are you contributing, how much are you contributing and what end result are you expecting as some companies can have larger dividends if you look at REITs for example. The sum of the dividend yield plus capital growth is called total return. In your examples, you get to a total return of 7% through several different (and theoretically equivalent) paths. That is the right way of thinking. "Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) ""Flat"" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A ""neutral"" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just ""bad news.""" I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation.  It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid.  Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares.   Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however.  That does seem like a loss to the investor.  For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend.  I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions?  One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program.  Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value?  Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price. "In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month.  But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to ""sell"" dividends to clients." Profits go to the owners of the corporation for providing capitol. CAT is paying around 2% ... a little under $2/year/share in dividends. (note that dividends come out of profits, not before.) A 2% return on investment isn't a terrible thing. It's not great, but in current economic conditions, it's respectable.  Looking at their financial statements, they don't have tons of cash on the books relative to what they spend in a quarter. They do have a fair chunk of their assets tied up in inventory. On the books, that goes down as a profit - kinda. It's mostly neutral accounting wise - money went out, inventory came in. You now have an asset worth exactly what you spent on it. The biggest growth in assets over the last couple of years has been in inventory. The amount in inventory is greater than assets minus liabilities. Then again, so is cash on hand, but the cash flow rate is also pretty high because the margins are low.  So... yeah... they're making more money, but they're also investing most of that back into the capital costs of growing the business. New machinery, inventory that they can sell, business development in new markets, etc. Remember that capital costs are considered neutral - you receive an asset in return. This is distinct from operating costs which come straight to the bottom line. Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio. You can use long-term options called LEAPS to increase dividend yield. Here's how it works: Let's say you buy a dividend-yielding stock for $38 that pays an annual dividend of $2 for a 5.3% yield. Next, you SELL a deep-in-the-money LEAPS options. In this hypothetical we'll sell the $25 call option for $13. That now reduces our cost basis from $38 to $25. Since the dividend remains @ $2, our yield is now $2/$25 = 8%. Now there are issues that may need to be dealt with like early assignment of the option where rolling the option may be necessary.  More details of this strategy can be found on my website. What you're referring to is the yield.  The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared.  It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter.   Regarding question number 2.  Yield is generally an after the fact calculation.  Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings.  If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price.   As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance.  The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share.  Dividend per share is a declared amount.  Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared.  The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend.  Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria.  Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios. GDP growth is one of several components of nominal equity returns; the (probably not comprehensive) list includes:  Real GDP/earnings growth  Inflation  Dividend payouts and share buybacks  Multiple expansion (the market willing to pay more per dollar of earnings)  Changes in interest rate expectations  As other comments mention you could also see larger companies tending to deliver higher returns as for any number of reasons related to M&amp;A, expansion into foreign markets, etc. "This effect has much empirical evidence as googling ""dividend price effect evidence"" will show. As the financial economic schools of thought run the gamut so do the theories.  One school goes as far to call it a market inefficiency since the earning power thus the value of an equity that's affected is no different or at least not riskier by the percentage of market capitalization paid. Most papers offer that by the efficient market hypothesis and arbitrage theory, the value of an equity is known by the market at any point in time given by its price, so if an equity pays a dividend, the adjusted price would be efficient since the holder receives no excess of the price instantly before payment as after including the dividend since that dividend information was already discounted so would otherwise produce an arbitrage." A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period.  Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period.  To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%.  The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.