Tag Archives: cat

Singer Meghan Trainor Knows, It’s All About That Central Bank Stimulus

Just how powerful is the combination of quantitative easing (QE), zero percent rate policy and even negative percent rate policy? Omnipotent. With the recent revelation from the ECB, and the predictable reaction of market participants, is it time to amplify your risk taking? Quite possibly. On the other hand, there are at least two reasons to exercise some restraint. Nearly one-third of S&P 500 corporations have reported earnings and revenue from the third quarter. With 147 companies chiming in, profits are down -0.6% and sales are down -2.7% from a year earlier. One might have thought that several quarters of contraction in earnings and revenue (a.k.a. an “earnings recession” and a “revenue recession”) might have weakened stocks. After all, if robust sales and hearty profits are the primary drivers behind price appreciation for companies in the Dow and the S&P 500, shouldn’t diminishing sales and dwindling profits lead to price drops for the Dow and S&P 500? Welcome to the mixed-up world of centralized bank planning. For example, at a news conference today (10/22/2015), the president of the European Central Bank (ECB) underscored the downside risks to the euro-zone economy. Mario Draghi emphasized everything from the impact of China’s slowdown to the rapid-fire fall in commodity demand. His prescription? More central bank stimulus up-and-above the ECB’s existing bond-buying program and negative interest rate policy. On the news, developed world benchmarks (e.g., Dow, S&P 500, Stoxx Europe 600) surged by more than 1% across the board. Did it matter that Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT ) discussed its expectation for 2016 revenue to collapse by 5% across all of its segments (i.e., transportation, construction, resources)? Nope. Did investors fret 3M’s (NYSE: MMM ) intention to reduce its global workforce by 1500 positions on dismal earnings? Hardly. Investors have come to expect huge rewards for taking risk when central planners engage in extraordinary levels of borrowing cost manipulation. Perhaps ironically, weakness in multinational earnings and revenue simply confirms weakness in the global economy. Indeed, the weaker the results, the greater the likelihood that the ECB will step up its stimulus measures and the greater the probability that the U.S. Federal Reserve will leave 0% lending rates intact. Bad news is good news yet again. Just how powerful is the combination of quantitative easing (QE), zero percent rate policy and even negative percent rate policy? Omnipotent. Take a look at the performance of the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (NYSEARCA: VTI ) as it relates to the creation of electronic dollar credits for the purpose of buying debt, or QE. Specifically, in mid-December of 2012, the U.S. Federal Reserve upped its QE3 program to $85 billion per month in the acquisition of U.S. treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. The program began winding down in 2014 during the “Great Taper,” though the final day of the last asset purchase actually occurred in mid-December of 2014. The 2-year performance for VTI? Approximately 52%. Now take a look what happened from the removal of the stimulus “punch bowl” through October 21st of this year. The gains have been so paltry, an all-cash position provided a better risk-adjusted return. With the recent revelation from the ECB, and the predictable reaction of market participants, is it time to amplify your risk taking? Quite possibly. On the other hand, there are at least two reasons to exercise some restraint. First, extreme stock valuations challenge the notion that you should always follow the central banks (e.g., Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, etc.). Warren Buffett’s favorite measure of stock valuation, total-market-cap-to-GDP, sits at 117.7%. That is the second highest in history and it is higher than the 2007 peak of 110.7%. Market-cap-to-GDP fell to 62.2% at the 2009 March bottom. In addition to clear concerns regarding fundamental valuation, the most widely regarded technical indicator still points to a long-term downtrend. The S&P 500 has yet to reclaim its 200-day moving average since falling below the level in mid-August. (Note: That might change by the time this article hits the Internet!) Prior to the start of the mid-August correction, our tactical asset allocation moved moderate clients from a 65%-70% equity stake (e.g., domestic, foreign, large, small, etc.) to a 50%-55% equity stake (mostly large-cap domestic). Similarly, we shifted the 30%-35% income allocation (e.g., short, long, investment grade, higher yielding, etc.) to something akin to 20%-25% income (mostly investment grade). The aim? Reduce exposure to riskier assets and raise cash equivalents to roughly 25% for a future move back into risk assets. Granted, valuations represent a significant concern over the longer-term . This bull market in stocks is unlikely to carry on indefinitely regardless of central bank rate manipulation and monetary stimulus. That said, trendlines and other market internals give us the best indication of near-term risk preferences. It follows that a break above 200-day trendline resistance coupled by continued improvement in credit spreads and advance-decline lines would be a reason to put some capital back to work. Where might I add some risk? At present, our equity holdings include funds like the iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: USMV ), the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (NYSEARCA: VOE ) and the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSEARCA: VYM ). Certain sector funds that have already reestablished respective uptrends – The Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLK ), the Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLP ) and the Vanguard REIT Index ETF (NYSEARCA: VNQ ) – are funds on my radar screen. By the same token, investors may wish to hedge against a longer-term bearish turn of events. The ECB’s comments this morning did not just create demand for “risk-on” assets; that is, “risk-off” assets are holding their own. German bunds catapulted higher on Draghi’s comments. The U.S. dollar via the PowerShares DB USD Bullish ETF (NYSEARCA: UUP ) skyrocketed. And risk-off treasuries at the long-end of the curve also gained ground. In fact, a second-half-of-the-year comparison between the FTSE Multi-Asset Stock Hedge Index (a.k.a. “MASH”) and the S&P 500 shows the value of multi-asset stock hedging. Components of “MASH” include zero-coupons, TIPS, munis, long-dated treasury bonds, gold, German bunds, Japanese government bonds, the yen, the dollar and the Swiss franc. Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

The Generation Portfolio: Target

Summary The quarter’s first full earnings week treated the Generation Portfolio kindly with the exception of Wal-Mart, whose unexpectedly dismal report blew a hole in the entire retail space. I took the sympathy weakness in big box retailers to add some Target Corporation shares, given that it is a recovery play whose situation is unrelated to Wal-Mart’s issues. Looking ahead, the Fed appears to be on hold for the time being, which is affecting the REIT and banking sectors. Background This is a weekly column that I write about an account that I manage for others, which I call the Generation Portfolio . I also discuss the current trading environment, my general investing philosophy, and any other ideas that seem relevant. Last week , for instance, I threw out some ideas about the herd-like mentality that has taken over the market due to the growth in index funds . To summarize that discussion, I have nothing against index funds in theory, and in fact own a few myself . In practice, though, the mass popularity of index funds tends to create distortions in the market. They are not quite the panacea that many would dearly love to believe they are, though they serve many investors well. The Generation Portfolio is built of stocks, not funds, because I find stocks to be easier to analyze and better suited to my cash flow objectives. So far, that strategy has worked as intended. The Importance of Cash Flow Regarding my income objectives, I have written about my own views of the importance of cash flow before . My theory is that a portfolio should be run like a business, with the cash that it generates reinvested into the enterprise whenever possible after you take out whatever expenses you need to cover. Thus, it is essential for a portfolio to generate enough cash flow to fund continuing operations – which, in the context of a portfolio, means the addition of new sources of cash flow which will keep the business thriving. It is a variation on the “buy low, sell high” mantra. The objective, in fact, is not to buy low and sell high, though of course that’s always preferable. I think that confuses some people, as not having as your objective the sale of what you buy at a higher price seems vaguely un-American or something. So, let me explain what I mean by that. The “buy low, sell high” objective is for speculators, or to use another word that annoys some people, “gamblers.” Nothing wrong with gambling, and life itself is a gamble. Some people are very good gamblers, and everyone has their own talents. However, for most people, you need to arrange matters to give you better table odds than they typically give you in Vegas (or the market) if you want to succeed at investing. My own view is that if you speculate enough and don’t have a good dollop of luck or some edge, you will speculate all your money away eventually. I’ve heard enough stories from people who have blown out accounts to reinforce that view. The speculator table is tilted against you because powerful, well-funded market interests collectively have more of whatever it is that you, the individual investor, can ever bring to the table – knowledge, brains, experience, capitalization, research tools, anything that makes a difference. They can outlast you, they have research and algorithms you’ve never heard of, and they can react faster than you. You may beat them sometimes because everything in the market is about probabilities, and even the biggest investment firms can’t control those. Those victories, though, just encourage you to continue onward until you aren’t quite so lucky. The odds are always in the house’s favor, though by a slim margin. Those with the odds in their favor are the ones with the fancy office buildings and slick marketing tactics. Some folks just learn that too late, or deny it forever. So, instead, if you want to win, the objective (as I see it) for the core of a prudent portfolio (there is always room for some fun speculation) is not to buy low and sell high, because that game is for likely losers. As the classic poker saying (repeated by Warren Buffett) goes, “If you don’t know who the patsy at the table is, it’s you.” Instead, my objective is to buy growing, dependable, and in other words quality cash flow cheap and then keep it so long as it remains quality. If you do that, the “selling high” part will take care of itself. And, best of all, you may not need to sell at all. However, you will have to ride out the shifting currents and forget about current prices except in a grand strategic fashion. That’s tough to do. There are many ways to build cash flow, and some investors just don’t like dividends. Those folks usually have studies from this, that or the other place to back up the theory that it is better to sell part of your portfolio to generate cash flow rather than rely on dividends for it. It’s a valid strategy, though I could spin out all sorts of issues with it. Whatever works for you is terrific. My preference is to generate cash flow by collecting dividends from Quality Stocks . Dividends are automatic and don’t require any transactions or thought, and the less thought I have to devote to a mundane task, the better. If you have sufficient funds to diversify across and even within sectors, that also is a good strategy to put into practice to minimize risk. Thus, the Generation Portfolio pursues an income strategy across companies and sectors that is designed to generate reliable and growing cash flow and minimize damage from random stock disasters. “It is a market of stocks, not a stock market.” If you’ve been following the market long enough, you have seen someone go on one of the financial channels and grandly announce, “it is a market of stocks, not a stock market.” Broadly speaking, my interpretation is that people who say that mean to emphasize that stock picking is still important. I tend to agree, because someone has to choose among and between stocks. Plus, there are so many index funds these days that advising someone to buy an index fund is pretty meaningless. If everyone simply bought the same index fund, there wouldn’t be much of a stock market left, and different index funds can have vastly different performance. If everyone buys different index funds, that creates the same type of performance differentials between them that individual stocks themselves offer. Ultimately, the whole rationale behind index funds collapses and you get a market of stocks, um, funds again. As the monastery leader in James Hilton’s “Shangri La” said, “moderation in all things.” This week was a good example of the need for such moderation. The herd was moving one way – the broader market was up – but parts of the herd went the other way (down). The biggest part heading lower was being led by a mad cow, and if you had all your calves in that particular group, your family wound up in the prickly bushes. Ultimately, the misled followers will rejoin the main herd, but it’s a painful experience until they do. I think you’ll figure out what I mean by all that by reading on. The Week That Was The market dipped slightly in the middle of the week. Ultimately, though, it surged higher despite some earnings weakness. The move higher was likely due to growing consensus that the Fed will not raise interest rates in the current weak economic environment. The market now has been up for three straight weeks, but the losses of August and September have not been fully recovered. The Nasdaq is up 3.2% this year, but the Dow is down 3.4%, and the S&P 500 is down 1.3%. Transactions I prefer to buy on weakness and the overall market didn’t provide much of that this past week. I did pick up some Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT ) due to its price decline following a terrible Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT ) earnings report. Target is recovering from its Canadian discontinued business charges, but its core operations appear sound. Generation Portfolio to Date Below are the transactions to date in the Generation Portfolio. The Generation Portfolio as of 17 October 2015 Stock Purchase Date Purchase Price Latest Price Change Since Purchase WFC 8/25/2015 $ 51.75 $ 52.88 2.18% DIS 8/25/2015 $ 98.75 $108.16 3.26% BMY 8/25/2015 $ 59.75 $ 64.49 7.93% MFA 8/25/2015 $ 7.05 $ 7.03 0.28% OHI 8/31/2015 $ 33.95 $ 36.28 6.86% CVX 9/02/2015 $ 77.90 $ 91.20 17.19% PG 9/03/2015 $ 69.95 $ 74.90 7.08% CYS 9/04/2015 $ 7.68 $ 7.93 3.26% KO 9/09/2015 $ 38.50 $ 42.02 9.14% MPW 9/10/2015 $ 10.89 $ 11.73 7.71% WMT 9/10/2015 $ 64.40 $ 58.78 (8.56%) VTR 9/10/2015 $ 52.80 57.09 7.90% KMI 9/11/2015 $ 29.95 $ 32.43 7.55% WPC 9/14/2015 $ 56.75 $ 61.46 8.30% T 9/17/2015 $ 32.50 33.78 4.09% VZ 9/17/2015 $ 44.95 44.80 (0.56%) MMM 9/18/2015 $139.90 $148.66 6.29% JPM 9/22/2015 $ 60.89 $ 62.43 2.87% PX 9/23/2015 $101.30 $109.43 8.03% VER 9/25/2015 $ 7.87 $ 8.34 5.97% WMB 9/28/2015 $ 39.48 $ 42.28 7.09% MAIN 9/28/2015 $ 27.47 $ 29.32 6.73% PFE 9/28/2015 $ 32.69 $ 34.41 5.26% TGT 10/16/2015 $ 75.15 $ 75.05 (0.13%) Latest prices and percentages are those supplied by the broker, TD Ameritrade, as of the close on 16 October 2015. A large legacy position in Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F ) and some other small legacy positions are omitted. There currently are 21 positive positions and three negative positions in the Generation Portfolio (I go strictly by the broker’s calculations of gain and loss, as they know best). According to a spreadsheet that I maintain, the Generation Portfolio overall currently is up between 5-6%, just as it was last week. That does not include dividends received to date, and some of the positions may have gone ex-dividend but not yet paid the distributions. Dividends One of the aims of the Generation Portfolio is to generate dividends, hence the name. Some will hit the account this week, but there was no change from last week. Dividends Received To Date Stock Date Received Type VTR 9/30/2015 Ordinary KO 10/01/2015 Qualified CYS 10/14/2015 Ordinary VER 10/15/2015 Ordinary MPW 10/15/2015 Ordinary WPC 10/15/2015 Qualified For now, at least, I am receiving the dividends in cash and will use them opportunistically as they accumulate. Analysis of Holdings While there were many earnings reports delivered during the week, the only one that really rocked the establishment was Wal-Mart’s on Wednesday. In some ways, that one should have been the most foreseeable, but it took everyone by surprise. Wal-Mart is the country’s largest private employer , and giving even a fraction of its workforce a raise will always have consequences for its bottom line. Those consequences did show up in its lowered guidance for the next few fiscal years. Wal-Mart gave no updates to its guidance before earnings to suggest this, which puzzled some analysts. Wal-Mart is the best possible example of why I keep individual positions relatively small and diversify. Since Wal-Mart dragged the entire big box retail sector lower, I decided to take advantage of the lower prices and add some Target. It may not have been at an ideal price, but Target’s issues are completely different than Wal-Mart’s. I had to ignore headlines such as “Wal-Mart’s Disappointing Sales And Earnings Forecasts Spell Doom For The Industry,” but someone has to provide goods to communities across the country. I wrote up an article on my reasons for adding Target here . Aside from Wal-Mart, my personal biggest surprise of the week was how well oil/gas energy stocks held up after their bonanza performance a week ago. Just goes to show how oversold the entire sector was. The REITs also are moving higher, which is gratifying. I’ve spent the past year studying them, and they appear to have stabilized for now. The banks had some difficult moments during the week after Generation Portfolio stock JPMorgan Chase delivered a sketchy earnings report . As I have written elsewhere, my view is that REITs and banks will tend to move in opposite directions . Bank weakness was in part due to the growing belief that the Fed will remain on hold at least until next year; banks want higher interest rates to increase their spreads. However, another factor behind their stability was simply that banks were already oversold and haven’t really recovered like some other sectors since the August sell-off. General Discussion This is the section where I basically just ramble on about what I am seeing in the investing world that might affect my investments. I don’t expect everyone (or anyone) to agree with my perspective, but it is how I see things right now. There is growing saber rattling in the world. Events in Syria are in flux, Putin is on the loose, North Korea is making its usual noises. Defense stocks have been showing some life recently. That also, in my opinion, is why oil stocks have recovered a little ground despite the continuing supply/demand situation; good sectors to be in if things get worse. The key to the next Fed move in my view lies in the next two jobs reports. If those reports are strong, the Fed may gather up its courage and raise rates. In my humble opinion, that would be the wrong move, but they typically don’t ask me. However, I don’t expect strong reports and don’t expect the Fed to raise rates. Taking a more strategic perspective, in my opinion, the next Fed move is completely up in the air now. Everyone assumes that the Fed will raise rates. However, the market has forced treasury yields lower recently, not higher. That is not a good environment for the Fed to raise rates, because they would be fighting the market. That can lead to an inverted yield curve, as in 2004-2006, which can be a precursor to a recession – as in 2004-2006. (click to enlarge) As the chart shows, the 10-year Treasury bond yield has fallen recently. It currently sits at 2.04%. Not only is it down from the heights of the summer, but it is even down slightly from its 2.06% rate at the end of the third quarter just a few weeks ago. I can’t tell you how many times over the past year someone has said to me with great authority that rates are headed higher, and soon. The simple fact is that, at least so far, they’re not trending higher unless you cherry-pick dates. Whenever I see someone state with great confidence that the Fed’s next move must be to raise rates, because everyone says that and we are all supposedly waiting in great trepidation of the great event, I like to pose a simple question: what if the economy weakens further? What does the Fed do then? Raising rates in the teeth of a weakening economy or, knock on wood, a recession would be foolhardy. It’s simply unrealistic at the moment. If the economy does weaken for whatever reason, the Fed doesn’t have a lot of tools left to fulfill its dual mandate of stable prices and full employment. It does have one that it could always resort to again that nobody seems to expect: another round of quantitative easing. Since nobody is talking about it, it can’t happen – right? We shall see. Returning to energy stocks again, I find it amusing that now some folks are starting to question the viability of the entire solar sector. This is one of those hot-button cult areas that invites negative comments whenever I go near it, but I like to provide alternate viewpoints and welcome them in comments. Solar has its place, but it is not quite the end-times panacea its proponents wish. Back in 2014, when I wrote my positive article about Hawaiian Electric – shortly before it rose about 50%, that is – people were predicting the doom of the entire utility sector and lambasting me for questioning the inevitable hegemony of solar and the temerity to recommend a dinosaur utility in a Mesozoic-era industry. Now, strangely enough due to events in Hawaii , that wheel has turned. Go figure. Actionable Ideas l have been watching defense stocks such as LMT and RTN closely, and would add one on a buying opportunity. I also have a couple of more high quality REITs on the radar screen, there still are some good values in the sector. The healthcare sector also still has some opportunities, though the Generation Portfolio has a couple in there already. Still, I’m not averse to over-weighting a defensive sector that is undervalued. I am watching a few other stocks like Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON ), which sold off despite a fairly decent earnings report, and a few other big names. So far, earnings reports for the third quarter have been a touch weak, which fortunately were somewhat expected . The market can handle anything, it just doesn’t like unnecessary surprises (Wal-Mart). We’ll see how the coming week’s earnings go, led by IBM (NYSE: IBM ), Google’s parent Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG ), Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ), Boeing (NYSE: BA ), GM (NYSE: GM ) and Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT ). Of particular interest to the Generation Portfolio will be: Verizon Communications on Tuesday before the open; Coca-Cola Company on Wednesday before the open; CYS Investments, Inc. after the close on Wednesday; 3M Company on Thursday before the open; and Procter & Gamble Co. and Ventas, Inc. before the open on Friday. Conclusion It was an upbeat week for the market despite some weak earnings reports from industry bellwethers. A dismal earnings report from Wal-Mart sent it sharply lower and induced sympathy selling in other big box retails. I took the weakness as an opportunity to add some Target stock $10 below its very recent price. Looking ahead, the Fed appears to be on hold for now, which should give some strength to interest-sensitive sectors such as REITs. Overall, the Generation Portfolio had another good week despite the Wal-Mart disaster, and dividends are starting to accumulate.

Strongest Market Sectors Since 1933: Smoking Wins, Steel Rusts Away

Summary A new review sorts the performance of 30 sectors over the past 82 years. So-called ‘sin stocks’ such as tobacco and beer run away with the best returns. Cyclical sectors and basic materials tended to fare poorest. The article specifically considers the implications of these data for DG investors. Philosophical Economics, one of my must-read financial blogs, recently put up a fascinating post showing the returns of the US market by industry with dividends reinvested since 1933. If you’re wondering about the methodology used to create the results, check the linked post, it’s too complicated to explain here briefly. The winning sectors showed a truly shocking degree of outperformance. The #2 performing sector, beer turned $1,000 in 1933 into $26 million today! By contrast, the worst sector, steel, turned that same $1,000 into just $57,000 today. $57,000 isn’t bad, but over an 82 year investment period, it certainly isn’t great. $57,000 pales in comparison to $26 million for sure. Here’s some key takeaways for dividend growth investors. The Worst Investment Sin? Socially Responsible Investing For long-term investors, the message is clear, you need to own the so-called sin stocks. Hold your nose and donate profits to charity if you must, but these stocks can’t be passed up if you want market-beating performance. The top 3 sectors over the past 82 years were cigarettes at 8.34% real annualized return, beer at 7.51%, and oil at 6.84%. Investors in “ethical” funds that avoid these sectors are virtually guaranteeing drastic underperformance. I heard recently, and I’d love to attribute it but I can’t remember the source, that socially responsible investing suffers from two primary flaws. That is, by choosing not to invest in these sorts of companies, you’re actually rewarding both the sinful investors and giving the sinful companies an easier ride. Stock prices, on a day to day basis are set by supply and demand. If you convince a large portion of the investing public not to back an alcohol, tobacco, or oil company, for example, you lower that company’s share price. Since the share price is artificially lowered due to lessened demand, shares will return higher than otherwise anticipated returns. Companies that regularly buy-back shares perform particularly well if their shares remain artifically depressed for long periods of time. Thus ‘sinful’ investors, along with the ‘sinful’ managers of these companies see their investments become more profitable thanks to the socially conscious investor. Management in particular earns fat performance bonuses for their superior stock returns. In short, you’re depriving yourself of investing profits so people that aren’t as morally upstanding as you can earn more money. What good does that accomplish? Perhaps more problematically, by not owning companies, you lose the ability to influence them. If you own an oil company and its operations destroy a water supply and poison the local population you and other ethical investors can raise hell and force them to change their ways. If only morally oblivious people own oil companies, there will be no reaction and the company can continue in its unethical behaviors. Mining companies, for example, engage in ethically questionable behavior and only rarely get called on it because their shareholder bases don’t tend to complain about bad practices. By contrast, a Nike (NYSE: NKE ) for example, if it tries to mistreat its employees hears no end of it from upset shareholders. Finally, it should be noted that most of the sin stocks don’t need fresh capital frequently, if ever. How often does Altria (NYSE: MO ) or Diageo (NYSE: DEO ) need to offer new stock to the market? By not buying their shares, you aren’t even depriving the company of capital – you’re only depressing the after-market value of shares already issued. To actually harm these companies, you’d have to be able to block them from getting the capital necessary to expand their operations. Not buying the shares of companies that generate sufficient free cash flow to buy small nations; you aren’t really going to set them back too much. Other Top Performing Sectors Of The Past 82 Years The #4 returning sector, electrical equipment (6.61%) is a bit surprising, at least to me. For people thinking about Emerson Electric (NYSE: EMR ), it’s an encouraging result. I’d guess this segment of the market is probably significantly underweighted in most of our DGI portfolios. Mainstays of many folks DGI portfolios, #5 food and #6 healthcare come in nicely, though they trail the sin stocks dramatically. While necessary for life, these products simply don’t have the addictive function that drives the returns of the very top performing stocks. Still, they’re key sectors we should all own in large quantities. The 7th top performing sector, paper and business supplies is a real head-scratcher. And returns have been very steady over the past 8 decades, it’s not like this one got a fast start and trailed off recently. I’m not sure how to incorporate this into my DGI portfolio. Ideas anyone? Next up, retail at #8 isn’t too surprising. Though for the DG investor be careful, these names tend to come and go. I don’t like Target (NYSE: TGT ) and seems I’m one of the view that likes even Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) anymore. Next up is a classic picks and shovels example. Transportation vehicles (ships, aircraft, railcars) came in at 9th, while transportation (the operation of said vehicles) was 26th, among the worst five industries. It’s frequently better to supply the tools to run a business rather than to be the actual operator, and transportation is one of those categories. Boeing (NYSE: BA ) is a great business. The airlines? Not so much. Rounding out the top 10 would be chemicals, an indispensable though under-the-radar segment of the modern economy. Middle of the Pack Sectors Coming up in the middle third are quite a few of the DGI mainstays. Doing less well than you might expect, for example, would be consumer goods which come in at only #14. Utilities (#15), and Telecom (#17) rank in the middle of the 30 sector pack, showing you’re giving up a good deal of total return for that high yield. If I’d had to guess, I would have thought telecom would beat utilities though, I’m honestly impressed that utilities came in the dead middle of the 30 sector spread despite being very low growth names. Restaurants and hotels came in 12th, but that almost comes with an asterisk, as a great deal of the performance came from 2005 onward. This sector has lagged for long periods of time – between 1992 and 2005 for example, you lost half your money in this sector and that includes reinvested dividends. Compared to the steady gains most of these top sectors made over the decades, this one stands out as a real dud despite the reasonable overall ranking. Financials came in at 16th, but they were in the top 6 until 2008, when the US financial system rudely decided to self-immolate. The lesson I’d take from this is that financials are a must-own sector, but you should avoid the wild west gamblers’ market that is large US banks. The US weighs in poorly, with the world’s 49th soundest banking system. The lesson here seems clear: Buy sound banks in foreign countries that don’t lever their balance sheet to massive degrees and bet heavily on opaque instruments. The Worst Sectors: Tread Carefully The worst sectors tend to either involve basic materials or be highly cyclical. And that makes sense, to compound money effectively over an eight decade span, you need to avoid wiping out your equity too frequently, as these sectors are prone to do. The very worst sectors were steel and textiles, both of which were effectively terminated by foreign competition. Offshoring and globalization essentially destroyed these industries inside the US’ borders. As DG investors, we must be aware of changing global trends that threaten to not just destroy an individual company but potentially a whole industry. #25 Printing and Publishing is another one that has suffered greatly with recent changes to the entire industry’s dynamic. A dividend investor buying a newspaper stock like Gannett (NYSE: GCI ) 15 years ago would likely never have imagined what would happen in the coming years. Mining at #21 and coal at #23 also fair poorly being cyclical industries. Autos and trucks at #22 also came in with weak results. I’m always amazed at the number of DGIs that own stocks like General Motors (NYSE: GM ) that I wouldn’t buy in a million years. But we all have our weaknesses, I own Barrick (NYSE: ABX ) in the equally pitiable mining sector. My personal lowest-ranked holding comes in the 27th ranked sector of the 30, construction. I’m frankly shocked, given just how much stuff the world has built over the last 80 years how badly this segment has done. I know construction is hyper-cyclical, but businesses like Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT ), which I own, seem to be strong and have a decent moat. Takeaways For me, I only have a few companies in the bottom performing sectors, namely Caterpillar and Barrick mentioned above. From the top 5, I lack electrical equipment and smoking. I want to buy a tobacco stock but I haven’t seen any near what I’d judge to be a fair value, unlike in alcohol, where a stock like Diageo screams “buy me” every time I look at its long-term fundamentals. And for electrical equipment, I’d never viewed this to be a must-own sort of asset. Consider me interested now. My top weighted sector is financials which only scored 16th. Though noted above, this was a top 6 segment until 2008, and the financials I own all grew earnings and raised dividends during the 2008-09 stretch. Since I avoid US financials, I think I get a pass here – banking is still a must-own area. For investors heavily overweighted in popular sectors outside the top 10, say, consumer goods, telecoms, and utilities, think about some potential reallocation. Those segments are all very popular with DGIs, and with good reason, they offer nice yields and defensive stock performance. However, moving more of your money into higher performing areas such as tobacco, oil, liquor, and food might boost your returns without taking more risk. Here’s the full 30 in a table and the link again if you want to see the original post where you can see charts of each industry over the decades.