Dividends4Life: Measuring Dividend Stocks Investment Risk Profile

Measuring Dividend Stocks Investment Risk Profile

Posted by D4L | Tuesday, November 18, 2008 | | 9 comments »

As part of defining your investing process, don't forget to spend some time understanding risk. Seasoned investors will tell you that you should know your risk profile before starting to invest. There are several tools available on the web to help you gauge your risk profile. Here are a few:

Once you know your investment risk profile, how do you gauge the risk of individual securities in your portfolio or your portfolio as a whole? I tend to weigh the risk on my portfolio as a whole and make adjustments through the selection of more or less risky investments. For my dividend stocks I look at these measures:

1. S&P Qualitative Risk Assessment + S&P S&P Quality Ranking
My broker provides S&P reports on individual securities and most ETF/CEFs. As part of this report S&P includes a Qualitative Risk Assessment and Quality Ranking. They define these as such:
  • Qualitative Risk Assessment: The S&P equity analyst's view of a given company's operational risk, or the risk of a firm's ability to continue as an ongoing concern. The Qualitative Risk Assessment is a relative ranking to the S&P U.S. STARS universe, and should be reflective of risk factors related to a company's operations, as opposed to risk and volatility measures associated with share prices. The rankings include Low, Medium and High.
  • S&P Quality Ranking: Growth and stability of earnings and dividends are deemed key elements in establishing S&P's Quality Rankings for common stocks, which are designed to
    capsulize the nature of this record in a single symbol. It should be noted, however, that the process also takes into consideration certain adjustments and modifications deemed desirable in establishing such rankings. The final score for each stock is measured against a scoring matrix determined by analysis of the scores of a large and representative sample of stocks. The range of scores in the array of this sample has been aligned with the following ladder of rankings from highest to lowest: A+, A, A, B+, B, B-, C, D and Not Ranked.
For my tracking purposes, I combine the two into a RQ (risk/quality) rating and assign A (low), B (medium) or C (high) for the Qualitative Risk Assessment and 1 (A+) to 8 (D) for the Quality Ranking. Thus a company such as Coca-Cola (KO) that has a Low Qualitative Risk Assessment and a Quality Ranking of A would be represented as an A2 company in my system. Here are some combined rankings on several popular dividend company's:
  • General Electric (GE): B1
  • U.S. Bancorp (USB): A3
  • Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): A1
  • United Technologies Corp (UTX): A1
  • Procter & Gamble Co. (PG): A1
Currently, I don't have any C stocks. My most risky stocks have a rating of B4. I like use this metric to evaluate my dividend stock portfolio in total. The weighted average of my dividend stock portfolio is A3. I am comfortable with that rating, but under the right circumstances I would be willing allow it to fall to B2. If the overall portfolio fell to a B (moderate risk), I would limit the S&P Quality Ranking to a 2 (A). I would never want the overall S&P Quality Ranking to drop below a 3 (A-). Click here to see the RQ rating for all my dividend stock holdings.

2. Current Dividend Yield and NPV of MMA Differential
All things being equal, higher risk stocks command a higher dividend yield. Consider these two extremes:
  • Wal-Mart (WMT) - 1.81%
  • CenturyTel (CTL) - 11.30%
If you had to invest your life's savings in only one of the above stocks, which would you choose? Your answer will reveal something about your risk tolerance. Obviously, the market believes that WMT is less risky than CTL.

When judging risk I like to look at current dividend yield in conjunction with NPV of MMA Differential. A high yield and a high NPV of MMA Differential could indicate a risky stock. Here are some risky stocks and ETF/CEFs that I am holding based on a high current yield and NPV of MMA Differential:
  • Alpine Total Dynamic Dividend Fund (AOD) - 29.8% yield - $1.9 Billion NPV of MMA Differential
  • Eaton Vance Tax-Advantaged Global Dividend Opportunities Fund (ETO) - 17.3% yield - $115,498 NPV of MMA Differential
  • CenturyTel (CTL) - 11.3% yield - $3,487,677 NPV of MMA Differential
  • Paychex Inc (PAYX) - 4.94% yield - $531,399 NPV of MMA Differential
Many of the recent companies that I sold after a dividend cut resided at or near the top of this list when they cut their dividend. Of the two methods, I have found the second one to be a better indicator of future performance.

In addition, I also look at the current market price vs. my calculated Buy Below price. A large disparity indicates the market believes the stock will perform much differently in the future than it has in the past. As with any forward looking exercise, it is a mixture of art and science.

Full Disclosure: At the time of this writing, I was long in GE, USB, JNJ UTX, PG, WMT, AOD, ETO, CTL, PAYX

Related Articles:

Click here to have future posts delivered to you for free!



  1. Anonymous // November 18, 2008 at 11:56 AM

    wow this is an excellent thought out process you have here.

    Thanks for the tip, I think I should start something similar and start rating each company I look into.

  2. Anonymous // November 18, 2008 at 6:50 PM

    Jae: Thanks. I tend to turn everything I do into an analytical exercise.

    Best Wishes,

  3. Anonymous // December 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM

    How are your RQ Ratings ranked? Is an A# always higher than a B#? Or is, say, a B1 higher than a A3 or A4? Is GE more or less risky than USB in your example above? In other words, do you give more weight to the Qualitative Risk Assessment or the Quality ranking or are they considered equal?

    I'm really enjoying your site.

  4. Anonymous // December 8, 2008 at 9:07 PM

    Chris: The Qualitative Risk Assessment (letter) and S&P Quality Ranking (number) are independent of each other, to an extent. In the example you asked about, GE with a B rating is at a higher risk than USB with an A ranking of operationally failing (e.g. bankrupting, etc.) However, GE with a Quality rank of 1 means its growth and stability of earnings and dividend is more predictable/likely than that of USB which is ranked at 3.

    Put another way, GE is more likely to have something bad happen to their business than USB, but GEs earning stream is more predictable than USB's.

    Best Wishes,

  5. Anonymous // January 9, 2009 at 9:16 PM

    This site is excellent. I've been reading it end to end and updating my own dividend analysis strategy based on some of the ideas here.

    I would like to understand your reply to Chris's comment on how you assess your Risk/Quality analysis.

    If GE is more likely to have something bad happen to their business doesn't that mean that something bad is more likely to happen to their earnings stream making their earnings less predictable in the future. It seems like there should be a correlation between the two concepts, I suppose an entity could fail even though earnings are stable (due to a disaster like a credit crunch for example) but less stable and less predictable earnings it seems to me would contribute to the likelihood of a failure.

  6. Anonymous // January 9, 2009 at 10:04 PM

    Anon: What is listed above is all the information that S&P provided. Beyond that it is just my conjecture.

    Best Wishes,

  7. Unknown // February 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM

    Really a great site.

    Ben Graham /Warren Buffett would be proud of you!

  8. Anonymous // February 6, 2009 at 9:03 PM

    Wayne: Thanks for the kind words!

    Best Wishes,

  9. Unknown // August 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    << Currently, I don't have any C stocks. My most risky stocks have a rating of B4. I like use this metric to evaluate my dividend stock portfolio in total. The weighted average of my dividend stock portfolio is A3. >>

    I thought the article was great and I'd like to put some of your suggestions into practice. Can you offer some guidance on how you calculated a weighted average on the RQ score described in the paragraph above?

Post a Comment

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


Popular Posts Last 30 Days