Dividends4Life: When Is Enough, Enough

Dividend Growth Stocks News

When Is Enough, Enough

Posted by D4L | Thursday, May 22, 2008 | | 8 comments »

I am reminded of the old story about a farmer that said to his wife, "I told you 'I love you' when we got married and if anything changes, I'll let you know." Most of us require a little more frequent feedback than once-in-a-lifetime. The same is true with my dividend investments.

In the U.S. and Canada, most companies pay dividends quarterly. In other parts of the world, it is not uncommon for companies to pay an annual or a simi-annual dividend. Looking at some ADRs for non-U.S. companies Barclays PLC (BCS), ING Groep NV (ING), Toyota Motor Corp. (TM) all pay semi-annual dividends.

That is not to say that North American companies sometimes choose not to pay quarterly dividends. For many years McDonald's (MCD) paid an annual dividend. Since 2000, Walt Disney Co. (DIS) has paid an annual dividend and Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (RT) has paid a semi-annual dividend. Going in the other direction, there are some companies and ETFs that pay monthly dividends. These include Realty Income Corp (O) and Alpine Total Dynamic Dividend Fund (AOD).

Ironically, in a June 19, 2000 BusinessWeek article, Harry M.J. Kraemer Jr., chairman and chief executive of Baxter International Inc (BAX) stated he would be very surprised if a "majority of companies did not move to an annual dividend within four or five years". There has not been much movement in that direction. To the contrary, MCD has moved back to paying quarterly dividends. Around the year 2000, several other companies such as AT&T (T), Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), Coca Cola Co. (KO), 3M (MMM) and Home Depot (HD) considered moving to annual dividends, but ultimately rejected the change. So why would a company risk annoying its shareholders' and moving to an annual dividend?

Reasons For an Annual Dividend

  1. Save on Administrative Costs: Many companies popular with kids such as McDonald's and Disney, have a large number of shareholders that hold a small number of shares. It cost 4 times as much to mail four $0.50 dividend checks instead of one $2.00 check.

  2. Generate Additional Income: In March of 2008, MCD paid $426.4 million in dividends. If that was not paid in March, but paid in December the company would have earned around $10 million in interest on the money (assuming a 3% rate).

Reasons Against an Annual Dividend
  1. Shareholders Have Come to Expect Quarterly Dividends: Some shareholders of dividend companies use the dividends to pay living expenses. Receiving a single annual distribution and allocating it over the upcoming year would be difficult for some. In addition, the transition would prove financially problematic for those with insufficient resources.

  2. Dividends Provide Frequent Assurances of the Company's Health: In November 2007 when HD held their dividend flat it was an indication to the market the extent to which the company was struggling. Since you can't fake cash, dividends are a strong scorecard in judging the company's financial health. If you had a treatable disease would you rather know in 3 months or 12 months?
For me, quarterly dividends provide a perfect balance between to much administrative work (for me and the company) associated with monthly dividends and too little financial feedback from the company associated with annual dividends. How do you feel about annual dividends?

At the time of this writing, I owned shares of AOD, HD, MCD, O and WMT.

Related Articles:



  1. Dividend Tree // May 22, 2008 at 8:55 AM


    You said is correctly. Additionally, for long term investor, the benefit of dividend compounding is lost.


  2. Anonymous // May 22, 2008 at 4:44 PM

    I think it is quite the same to have dividends come quarterly or annually. Infact I would even prefer to have dividends come in annually as the company can atleast use it as retained earnings for the year and generate better returns on those. Gneerally ROE on the dividend paying companies definitely beat the tresuries in the long run. Also it is much better for the people who do the budgeting for the companies. Infact I am all for even reporting semi annually instead of quarterly. A lot of efoort can be saved by businesses by doing this.

  3. Anonymous // May 22, 2008 at 10:07 PM

    Dividend Tree: For a life-long dividend investor, the compounding could be significant.

    Anon: As the guy responsible for quarterly reporting in a public U.S. company, I would would be all for semi-annual reporting. But I still want my dividends quarterly. :)

    Best Wishes,

  4. Anonymous // May 23, 2008 at 6:45 AM

    I much prefer quarterly dividends as well. I generally roll them into more stock. Lots of companies allow you to do this at no cost.


  5. Anonymous // May 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM

    For re-investors, the more frequent the dividend, the more impact compounding will have. Not to mention the "dollar-cost-avg" risk of 1x per year vs 4 or 12.

  6. Anonymous // May 25, 2008 at 12:56 AM

    An interesting question to pose indeed. Is it better to try to profit more from the compounding effect of receiving dividends more often or strengthen the company you have a stake in by being amiable to the idea of annual dividends.

    Personally, I think I would stick with the quarterly dividends.

  7. Anonymous // May 25, 2008 at 6:20 AM

    Greener Pastures: Yes, me too.

    Anon: There is a compounding cost of annual or semi-annual dividends.

    Ralph: In most, not all, the dividend companies that I invest in are cash rich. They are unable to find sufficient internal and external projects above the cost of capital use up all their cash.

    Best Wishes,

  8. Super Saver // May 27, 2008 at 10:51 PM

    How about letting each shareholder choose and splitting the savings between the shareholder and the company? :-)

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.