Beware the Fed taper? Not quite.

Investors should not race to dump their stocks every time Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke speaks, Brown says. 

Josh Reynolds/AP/File
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke speaks at a conference of the National Bureau of Economic Research on July 10, 2013, in Cambridge, Mass. Bernanke's hints that the Fed will begin tapering in the fall has led investors to falsely believe that interest rates will soar and dividend stocks will underperform, Brown says.

The taper talk that began earlier this summer has led to many investors racing away from dividend-paying stocks under the false impression that:

a) less QE means much higher interest rates

and

b) dividend stocks would underperform thanks to competition from bonds which would now be paying higher yields

This line of thinking is precisely backwards - because nominal yield is not the same thing as total return.

Ned Davis (via BlackRock) has run the numbers - it turns out that high-paying dividend stocks outperform non-paying stocks in both neutral rate environments and in rising rates - the opposite of what many people currently believe ...

From BlackRock:

Dividend paying stocks in the S&P 500 returned 2.2% annualized during such times of tightening (increasing rates), while non-dividend stocks in the S&P gained 1.8%, according to Ned Davis Research. On the other end of the spectrum, during periods of easing (declining rates) by the Federal Reserve, dividend payersgained 10.2% annualized and non-dividend payers lost 1.3%. During times of neutral Fed policy is when dividend payers have performed best, returning 12.3% versus 6.2% for non-dividend stocks. There is no guarantee that stocks will continue to pay dividends.

While I don't believe the excessively rich valuations people had been paying for utilities and telecom stocks made sense, I also don't believe the wholesale dumping of dividend stocks every time Bernanke made a hawkish statement was warranted either.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.