The S&P 500 Is Overvalued These 10 Dividend Growth Stocks Are Not: Part 3

 | Apr 15, 2018 01:02AM ET

Introduction

This is the third of a five-part series presenting 50 dividend growth stocks that I have screened for current fair value. With this article, I will be covering 10 additional dividend growth research candidates with moderate to higher yields in addition to the initial 20 that I presented in part 1 and part 2. This will be the last part of this series where I am primarily presenting dividend growth stocks with current dividend yields of 3% or better.

As I have been moving down the dividend yield curve, the reader might notice that both historical and estimated earnings growth and/or cash flow growth will be higher on many of these companies. Therefore, there will be several candidates in this group that I believe can generate above-average total long-term returns in addition to consistent dividend growth. Nevertheless, the future total return will be a function of the relative current valuation in conjunction with each company’s earnings and dividend growth potential.

The Ying and Yang of Valuation

Since this part 3 represents the middle of this five-part series, I felt it only appropriate to provide insights into the opposite of fair or attractive valuation. On many occasions throughout this series, I alluded to finding value in an otherwise generally overvalued market. Therefore, I offer the following earnings and price correlated FAST Graphs on the S&P 500.

For those not familiar with FAST Graphs, there are three important lines on the graph that I would like to focus the reader’s attention on. The first two lines (orange and dark blue) represent important valuation references.

The orange line is generated based on a widely accepted formula for valuing a business – or in this case the S&P 500. What’s important to note is that the orange line on this graph is calculated as a P/E ratio of 15. To be clear, each year’s earnings reported at the bottom of the graph are plotted as a multiple of 15. Therefore, the orange line is a P/E ratio of 15 across the entire graph. This reference line is offered as a theoretical fair or optimum value calculation.

The dark blue line is essentially a normal P/E ratio calculated as a trimmed average over this time frame. Trimmed average simply means that one high and one low valuation is removed to normalize this valuation reference. However, please note that the normal P/E is exaggeratedly high due to the initial high valuations. The dark blue color-coded rectangle in the “FAST FACTS” boxes to the right of the graph indicate that the dark blue line (the normal P/E ratio that the market has applied over this time frame) is drawn as an historically normal multiple of 18.5.

The third line I draw the reader’s attention to is the black line, which is simply a plotting of the S&P 500’s monthly closing stock prices over this timeframe. Consequently, whenever the price is above the dark blue line is a time when the S&P 500’s P/E ratio is above 18.5, and when the price is above the orange line is a time when the S&P 500’s P/E ratio is above 15. Simply stated, this represents a rational and/or normal valuation range for the S&P 500 since 1999.

Get The News You Want
Read market moving news with a personalized feed of stocks you care about.
Get The App

With these perspectives in mind, important insights into the S&P 500’s historical and current valuation are revealed. For starters, we see the effects of extreme valuations for the S&P 500 during the “irrational exuberance” time frame 1999 through 2000. Utilizing the built-in FAST Graphs return calculator I have included a performance calculation on the S&P 500 from its peak valuation in September 2000 to its trough valuation on April 30, 2009.

It should be obvious and clear to the reader that this was not an optimum time to be invested in the S&P 500 index. More importantly, it should also be obvious and clear that the principal culprit that led to such poor long-term returns for the S&P 500 can be primarily attributed to overvaluation. Of course, negative earnings growth over the time frame 2007 through 2009 also contributed to what has been referred to as the “lost decade.”