The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

[Supercilious]

Re: The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

Mine uses current dividends and current prices. #^*@)# has found a source for dividend data that may have a built-in time lapse by virtue of summing dividends over a year's time, and then comparing them to a price (presumably) taken at some specific point in time.

The data calculated by S&P is 12 months trailing. Period. This is also the data you get ( unless you are calculating yourself the today dividends, as the dividends collected during those 24 hours corresponding to today. The data you get from Barons is 12 month trailing for S&P. Read in Investopedia what the indicative dividend really is.... (and Investopedia is just one notch above the Sesame Street Investing Society)

The indicated dividend is the estimated cash dividends a stock will pay in the next four quarters, based on what it paid in the most recent period. Stock tables commonly include the indicated dividend to tell investors the annual cash return they can expect from payouts of earnings; the indicated dividend can then be compared with returns from other securities, like bonds. In the Wall Street Journal stock tables, the indicated dividend comes directly after the stock name; in Barron's tables, the indicated dividend is in the last column. While the indicated dividend is based on what the stock paid in the most recent quarter, be aware that companies declare dividend rates for varied time-spans. Thus the indicated dividend rate in a stock table may reflect the declared dividend rate for the company's most recent quarterly, six-month, or annual period.

Gee.... is it so hard to acknowledge you were wrong all this time ???

If you get your data from Barron's then it is 12 month trailing. Period.

[Finster]

Re: The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

Mine uses current dividends and current prices. #^*@)# has found a source for dividend data that may have a built-in time lapse by virtue of summing dividends over a year's time, and then comparing them to a price (presumably) taken at some specific point in time.

The data calculated by S&P is 12 months trailing. Period. This is also the data you get ( unless you are calculating yourself the today dividends, as the dividends collected during those 24 hours corresponding to today. The data you get from Barons is 12 month trailing for S&P. Read in Investopedia what the indicative dividend really is.... (and Investopedia is just one notch above the Sesame Street Investing Society)


Gee.... is it so hard to acknowledge you were wrong all this time ???

If you get your data from Barron's then it is 12 month trailing. Period.

Is this a problem for anyone else?

[Supercilious]

Re: The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

I'm still trying to find out where is that elusive today's data published in Barron's, that only Finster seems to have access to. If we look at Barron's Market Lab we see the following statements on top of their table with yields and dividends:

http://online.barrons.com/public/pag...speyields.html

DJ latest 52-week earnings and dividends adjusted by Dow Divisors at Friday's close. S & P Dec. 4-quarter's earnings as reported and indicated dividends based on Friday close.S & P 500 P/E ratios based on earnings as reported. For additional earnings series, please refer to www.spglobal.com. DJ latest available book values for FY 2007 and 2006, and S & P latest for 2007 and 2006.

So where are those current and today's data only Finster seems to have access to ?:rolleyes:

[Finster]

Re: The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

Is this a problem for anyone else?

Looks like no one else thinks my data source is a meaningful issue. So long as that appears to be the case, I won't waste any further time on it.

[Supercilious]

Re: The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

Looks like no one else thinks my data source is a meaningful issue. So long as that appears to be the case, I won't waste any further time on it.

C'mon Finster...
And what do you want them to say? To start throwing rocks at you, because you made an error? Let's put things into perspective. At least for the FDI, your picture is on my piano and it will stay there regardless what is happening with the indicated dividend.

I just believe with respect to this issue you made a mistake because you got "corrupted" data from Barron's. And with minor adjustment your chart from " Are the stocks cheap yet?" can become even more interesting.

My problem is that you like many smart persons, who are right almost all the time, may have been mislead into believing you ought to be right every time. Well, nobody holds the monopoly over absolute truth... Erare Humanum Est, Perseveram Diabolicum.

People here will not start to believe that you are suddenly dumb,just because you got the wrong data/interpretation once...I believe they are rather annoyed this heated debate still lingers, because it is distractive. With a capital of sympathy you have, and with the number of people I've severely annoyed on iTulip, in normal conditions I would have been torn to pieces. But things are quite obvious.

We had this discussion of inflation and dividends a few month ago, and at that time I said nothing. Now well my fuse was shorter and I couldn't take anymore your explanation.... That is all.

[Finster]

Re: The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

C'mon Finster...
And what do you want them to say? To start throwing rocks at you, because you made an error? Let's put things into perspective. At least for the FDI, your picture is on my piano and it will stay there regardless what is happening with the indicated dividend.

I just believe with respect to this issue you made a mistake because you got "corrupted" data from Barron's. And with minor adjustment your chart from " Are the stocks cheap yet?" can become even more interesting.

My problem is that you like many smart persons, who are right almost all the time, may have been mislead into believing you ought to be right every time. Well, nobody holds the monopoly over absolute truth... Erare Humanum Est, Perseveram Diabolicum.

People here will not start to believe that you are suddenly dumb,just because you got the wrong data/interpretation once...I believe they are rather annoyed this heated debate still lingers, because it is distractive. With a capital of sympathy you have, and with the number of people I've severely annoyed on iTulip, in normal conditions I would have been torn to pieces. But things are quite obvious.

We had this discussion of inflation and dividends a few month ago, and at that time I said nothing. Now well my fuse was shorter and I couldn't take anymore your explanation.... That is all.

$#*. I take the position I do because it is correct. If you think this is about some kind of psychological hang-up about admitting error, you haven’t been following my posting much. I have done so numerous times here in iTulip, for example just a few days ago here: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...4732#post84732. I simply see no need to individually rebut every post you put up when all the information needed for rebuttal lies in the preceding posts. Nor will I repeatedly call attention to the same factual errors in your comments even if you repeatedly make them; it will have to suffice for me to point out that your assertions about indicated dividends and Barron’s data are false just once. I will not re-plow already-plowed ground for the sole benefit of someone who does not appear to be sincerely in pursuit of the truth, but rather has either 1) closed his mind to the facts and logic already posted that contradict or moot his assertions, or 2) actually realized I am right and is desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel for scraps of technicalities that he might weave together to snow onlookers into thinking he has a point and thereby avoid personal embarrassment at having made such a big to-do about nothing.

I opened this thread with an example of a typical stock data series with time-aligned dividends and prices. As I have already pointed out, I am glad to try and help anyone who sincerely wants to understand why the associated stock index dividend yields need not be "adjusted for inflation".

Why do I suspect you do not fall into that category of sincere seekers of truth on this matter? Simple. Time and again you have ignored what has actually been presented, preferring to seize upon any available substitute that strikes you as contravening. For instance, having noted the potential confusion in the other thread between data published in online and print versions of Barron’s, I chose a different data set for this thread. Did you even notice? If so, you haven’t acknowledged it, instead repeating ad nauseum diatribes about Barron’s data and semantic minutiae about an "intended" [sic] dividend, tying yourself into a Gordian knot of differential calculus and Riemann integrals while the basic ninth-grade algebra soars clean over your head; so obsessed with counting gnats on the screen door you miss the elephant in the middle of the living room. If you have even read what I wrote, let alone sincerely attempted to understand it, you give little hint of it.

Meanwhile, you theorize that you stand alone because others don’t want to "start throwing rocks". Is it not possible that they actually looked at that simple ninth-grade algebra and saw the inflation terms cancel out for themselves? Or that they actually did the simple calculation I suggested - on real life data - and saw for themselves that the nominal and real yields were identical? The very stuff you could have done yourself if you weren’t so busy scrounging about for rocks?

No sir. I cannot help you if you refuse to listen, and I will not waste time trying. I have a band to run, investments to manage, family and friends to … well, in short, I have a life. I repeat, if any reader sincerely wants to get to the bottom of this and still harbors doubt of the truth of what I am saying, I am glad to try to address that doubt. But the interlocutor who persistently and loudly if unwittingly proclaims ulterior motives will have to do so without my involvement.

[xela]

Re: The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

Go ahead then and ask, like Finster does, for a 'yay' by each person which happens to agree to your revolutionary approach of the application of an estimated (or past) inflation on an estimated (or current) dividend

[Supercilious]

Re: The Miniseries Of Dividends Mythology

your assertions about indicated dividends and Barron’s data are false just once.

They are not my assertions. This is how S&P calculates the data Barron's is publishing. If you know better than the people at S&P who are calculating that data ... then ... :rolleyes:

I am glad to try and help anyone who sincerely wants to understand why the associated stock index dividend yields need not be "adjusted for inflation".

In the case of a 12 month trailing sum of dividends divided by today's S&P value the inflation doesn't "cancel" anymore. That is a basic fact. You can spin around this fact as much as you want, but the reality doesn't change.

Or that they actually did the simple calculation I suggested - on real life data - and saw for themselves that the nominal and real yields were identical?

If they did the real vs nominal calculations correctly, they could see for themselves it is not necessarily the same...If they repeated you mistake they saw identical numbers ...:rolleyes:

and I will not waste time trying. I have a band to run, investments to manage, family and friends to … well, in short, I have a life.

.... and you write this in a long lukesterian message ... that makes sense ...