### A comparison of investing in high-yield, low dividend growth stock versus investing in a low-yield, high dividend growth stock without capital gains

I was asked before about the reasoning behind my statement that I would buy a stock whose dividend is increasing even by one percentage point per year, if it has a high yield, rather than invest in stocks which increase their dividend payment by at least 10% per year. To answer this question, lets me walk you through my calculations:

Let’s say that you have 2 stocks- A and B in each of which we invest $100,000. We assume that both stocks will always trade at $10 for simplicity sake. Stock A is yielding 5% per year (50 cents per share), while Stock B is yielding 2% (20 cents per share). The dividend growth in Stock A is a meager 1%, while Stock B’s dividend is growing at 5% annually. We will look at two outputs – total return and changes in annual income. It would take stock B 24 years to reach the same annual income level as stock A. In addition, it would take stock B around 40 years to achieve the same total dollar return as stock A. If however we had a growth stock C, which was yielding .5 % at the start of the experiment, and whose dividend was growing at 10% annually, it would take the annual income around 27 years to reach Stock A’s dividend income. It would also take around 42 years for the total dollar return of Stock C to reach the total dollar return of Stock A. I have also included a $100,000 investment in bonds, which yield 6% every year.

The return from the invested capital though, would have been increasing substantially over time assuming that we didn’t reinvest our dividends back into our stocks. After 10 years the yield on cost for Stock A is 5.5%, Stock B is 3.3% and Stock C is 1.3%. After 10 more years stocks A, B and C are yielding 6.1%, 5.3% and 3.4%. An investor, who simply purchased bonds, would have been making the same 6% over and over. I am attaching my spreadsheet below. This file is for informational purposes only; I just tried to make my point that you have to not only buy a stock which has a high dividend growth rate, but also a one which has a pretty decent yield. A major limitation of this analysis was that I assumed that stocks would not realize any capital gains over the period; that’s why the long-term results of Stocks A, B and C are almost identical to long-term results for Bonds. However it shows you that if you reinvest dividends, stocks achieve a higher compounding power than bonds.

You can see the file here or here.

原文網址:

http://www.dividendgrowthinvestor.com/2008/01/comparison-of-investing-in-high-yield.html

**撇開資本利得之高收益低股利成長股與低收益高股利成長股之比較**

之前我被問到我願意買每年平均股利成長1%，但有高收益的個股，而不是投資每年至少股利成長10%個股的理由。為了回答這問題，讓我帶領你走一回我的計算方式：

讓我們來說說當你有兩檔個股-A和B，我們各投資$100,000在這兩檔個股。為了簡化，我們假設兩者一直都在$10交易。A個股每年收益率5%(每股o.5元)，當B個股每年收益率2%(每股0.2元)。每年股利成長率A個股只有少少的1%，而B個股有5%。我們將關注在兩種產出-總報酬與每年收入的變動。B個股將花費24年的時間去達到與A個股相同的年收入水準。此外，B個股將花費近40年的時間去達到與A個股相同的總報酬。然而，如果在實驗一開始我們有成長中的C個股，每年收益率0.5%，每年股利成長率10%，C個股將花費近27年的時間去達到A個股的股利收入。並且C個股也將花費近42年的時間達到與A個股相同的總報酬。我假設也包含投資$100,000在債券，其每年收益率為6%。

假設儘管我們沒有將股利再投資回我們的股票，來自投資資本的報酬也將會隨著時間大幅增加。十年後在A個股成本的收益為5.5%，B個股為3.3%及C個股為1.3%。十幾年後A、B、C個股收益為6.1%、5.3%及3.4%。而一個只單純購買債券的投資人將會持續地有相同的6%。我將我的試算表附於下方。這檔案僅供參考；我試著表達**你必須買到擁有高股利成長率，同時也擁有相當不錯收益的股票這觀點。**在這分析中一個主要的限制是我假設股票沒有隨著時間去認列任何的資本利得；這是為什麼A、B、C個股長期下來的結果幾乎跟債券雷同。不過這表示如果你將股利再投資，股票將會比債券達到更高的複利效果。

本文重點:作者藉由舉例以及圖表說明應尋找具有高股息收益與高股利成長率的股票!

【譯者介紹】

林芳琪，Sharon。淡江大學會計系，除對會計具備專業能力，更對英語能力有一定的信心，日前取得TOEIC成績925。98年12月至100年7月，在菲律賓台灣日立協力廠-樺盛工業擔任會計助理。

對於本文之中文翻譯如有任何問題，歡迎來信指正!allenlinp23@gmail.com