What Canadian Blue Chip Stock is Paying a Dividend Only Yield of 17%?

I hope to fund part of our retirement costs with dividend income. That’s led me to invest in a few dividend paying ultra-low risk stocks over the past few years. When I bought each position, I thought about the dividend yield it was offering and whether it seemed reasonable compared to the interest yields available from fixed income investments. One thing that became obvious was that dividend yields tend to be fairly low at the time of purchase considering the amount of risk you’re taking by investing in the stock market. I do own one blue chip stock, though, that is currently paying me a dividend only yield of 17%.

Percentages Can Be Deceptive

One thing I’d like to warn you is that you can’t live off percentages.

You may have a stock that is paying you a 7% annual dividend. That sounds great. Your bank account is probably only paying you 1.35%. And your one-year GIC is probably only paying 1.65%. At 7% you must be cruising, right?

Well it depends on how much money you have invested at that 7% yield. If you only have $1000 of that stock, your actual take home income is $70 a year before taxes. It’ll pay the high speed internet bill for one month, but it won’t pay the winter’s natural gas bill.

What Is the Real Percentage Yield?

I started this by mentioning I have a stock that’s paying 17%.

It would be more appropriate to say it’s paying $336.53 a year.

The percentage yield is very deceptive.
The initial investment in the stock was $1946.25.
In theory, that could mean the dividend yield for this stock is 17.2912%.

But is that realistic?

Present Day Dollars are Not the Same as Past Dollars or Future Dollars

To calculate a more realistic yield, I think I would have to change the value of the initial investment into “today’s” dollars.

For example, if I spent $1000 on January 1, 2012, that would be comparable to having spent $1012.38 on January 1, 2013. I could have purchased more for the same money a year ago because inflation was less. Or I could have purchased the same amount a year ago for less money because inflation was less. (I used the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator for this example.)

So what would the cost, $1946.25 be in December 2013 if I had to buy those shares then?

According to the Bank of Canada calculator, it would have cost me $2880.64 to buy the same shares in 2013 that cost me $1946.25 all those years ago.

Out of curiosity, I also poked around the internet and found a couple of US inflation calculators.

According to data from Oregon State University and a calculator at http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php, if I was talking USD, the $1946.25 would be $3338.34 in 2013 dollars.

According to the calculator at http://stats.areppim.com/calc/calc_usdlrxdeflxcpi.php, it would be $2997.53 or using CPI data $3 325.39.

Why is there a difference? Because it depends on what values you use for the inflator/deflator.

The actual value doesn’t worry me too much. What I’m trying to point out is that the dividend yield would be more realistic if I divided the payment of $336.53 by $3 338.34, not $1946.25.

So what is that reduced yield? 10.08%

Why It’s Worth Buying Dividend Paying Stocks That Routinely Increase Their Dividend

The yield of 10.08% on this stock is still pretty good.

If I bought more shares in the exact same company today, I’d only get a 2.22% dividend yield.

At the time the first dividend was paid a few years after the shares were purchased, the yield was 0.15%.

You can see that the dividend has increased significantly over the years. In fact, unless I’m screwing up my math again, it has increased faster than the rate of inflation.

If a stock increases its dividend at a rate greater than inflation, and if I buy that stock when the dividend yield seems reasonable, then I consider the purchase to be similar to buying an annuity. Provided I keep that stock (and the company continues to prosper) I can receive a steady income stream that keeps up with or exceeds inflation.

Obviously buying stocks is much more risky than buying an annuity:

  • any company can fail
  • a dividend can be reduced or eliminated without warning
  • a company can decide to stop increasing a dividend without warning
  • if you sell shares of a company you can lose capital

However, unlike an annuity, my money is not actually locked in. If I pay attention to the business fundamentals for the company, and if I’m lucky, I can sell a stock that begins to under perform and buy something else. I may lose capital by doing this!

On the upside, though, I may also find my stock appreciates in value. If so, I can sell part of my stock and use the capital gains to invest elsewhere or to spend. (Of course if I sell the stock I will stop receiving the dividend: it’s that Goose that lays the Golden Eggs thing all over again.)

Is Buying Dividend Paying Stocks a Good Retirement Plan?

I honestly don’t know. It’s part of my strategy but certainly not all of it. I have

  • a big chunk of money in fixed income (and because I am extremely risk averse it is a very big chunk);
  • another big chunk of money in “buy the entire stock market” ultra-low fee ETFs
  • a small amount of money in individual dividend-paying ultra-low-risk stocks

At this point, I would say only my future “vacation for a week somewhere further south than Timmins” retirement money is invested in individual stocks. I can forgo the annual vacation in retirement if I have to. I can’t forgo eating.

Related Reading

Join In
Do you invest in individual companies that pay a steadily increasing dividend to investors? Do you ever check what your “real” yield is? Do the dividends help fund your retirement or do you hope they will some day? Please share your views with a comment.

Retirement Planning: What Rate of Inflation Should I Use?

Michael James on Money started it. Then BigCajunMan took over— trying to estimate how much income he could draw out of a retirement nest egg based on various factors including inflation and the rate that the investments grow before withdrawal. As he says, it is very hard to pick what percentage to use for inflation. CPP is also “indexed” to inflation at a rate picked by the government so your monthly check can go up. I’ve generally found our bills go up more in a year than that government rate, though. So for my personal retirement planning I wondered what rate of inflation I should use.

Being an Information Pack Rat Has Some Uses

I’ve always been an information pack rat. In fact, I could tell you how much income tax I paid for working for the public library one year while in high school. (I can guess how few people are actually going to ask that.) For this exercise, it’s handy though. I know how much we’ve paid each year, actually each month, for most of our billable household costs.

From that information, I can calculate an approximate rate of inflation.

Estimating Inflation When Costs Don’t Always Increase

It gets a bit tricky because costs don’t actually always increase. Our Natural Gas costs, for example, are significantly lower now than in the past. (Thanks to shale gas frac’ing: We now have cheap nat gas but one day when we can’t get any clean drinking water at any price we may not be so thankful.)

During the interval 2001-2012:

  • Highest Natural Gas year: 2006: $1727
  • Lowest Natural Gas year to date: 2012: $924

What should I use to estimate the rate of inflation if it’s actually deflation?

Well, if I estimate inflation too highly I will have extra money to spend on the occasional rutabaga; if I estimate it too lowly I will have to forfeit my semi-annual clementine: I vote over estimate. So I will cheat and pretend the price of natural gas rose from $924 to $1727.

Car insurance can also dip for some people as their car ages. Not for us of course! We live in a “car accident capital of Canada” so we pay almost identical insurance on our brand new Camry as we do on our 15-year-old Corolla. Go figure. We’re insured basically against what we can do to someone else. (Good thing we usually walk to work.)

Our Personal Planning Inflation Estimates Based on Costs from 2001 to 2012

Not all the numbers are in yet for 2013 so these estimates are based on payments from 2001 to 2012.

Our Property Tax Inflation

Our mayor has made a valiant effort to keep these increases as low as possible. Even so our property taxes have increased: 2.9% per year

Our Home and Car Insurance Inflation

I’m lumping these two together since we buy both from the same company and there is a discount involved.

Our insurance costs have increased: 0.46% per year

(Yes, that was surprising! Please remember though that the replacement value for one car in that time has dropped 12 years worth to basically 0.)

Our Natural Gas Inflation

NOTE: This is not the increase in cost per BTU. This is the increase in our total bill. It includes tax increases and if we had any increases in consumption per year.

This is the one I’m lying about and flipping from deflation to inflation. This is my “mad rutabaga” money.

Our natural gas rates have (decreased) increased: 5.8% per year

Our Electricity Inflation

We use more electricity now than we used to. I blame the kids.

Again, this is not the increase in cost per megawatt. This is the increase in our total bill including all the lovely surcharges added by the government and the time of use rates.

Our electricity costs have increased: 1.7% per year

Our Water Inflation

Strictly speaking, we pay for both water, waste water and water infrastructure based on how many m3 of water we use per year.

Our water costs have increased: 4.1% per year

Our Cable TV Inflation

Well, this is a bit misleading. We got rid of our cable this year when they tried to raise my rates again. However, in the interests of historical accuracy, and shock, here goes.

Our cable TV costs had increased: 3.5% per year

Our Telephone (Landline) Inflation

We aren’t really cell phone users having simple pay-as-you-go emergency phones only. So luckily, there’s only one number to report here.

This cost includes our long distance charges. We barely make any long distance calls and when we do we use one of those “dial 10-10-xxx” things so they only cost 25 cents.

Our telephone costs have increased: 0.8% per year

OK, I admit I was surprised by how low that is, too.

Our Internet Inflation

We were “early adaptors” to using high speed internet so we’ve always paid too much.

Our inflation rate is probably lower than people’s because when you start at the top, there’s less distance to climb.

Our internet costs have increased: 2% per year

Our Gasoline Inflation

This one is a bit tough to calculate too. I’m not interested in the percent increase in the cost per litre, although I could tell you that if you forced me to. I’m interested in the percent increase in total annual spending. The problem is that we only go on a major cross-Canada road trip every second year. And after someone totaled my car last year, we went down to one car for 6 months. So I think I’ll just have to skip this one.

It’s not really a mandatory retirement expense anyway, as we’ll probably have to walk everywhere when we retire because we’ll be too broke to afford a car. Unless there’s some way we could power one off those extra rutabagas….Hmmmmmm.

An Overall Personal Rate of Inflation Based on 2001-2012

So what do I get if I try the same overall calculation but based on the sum of our costs for

  • natural gas
  • electricity
  • water
  • property taxes
  • cable
  • telephone
  • internet
  • house and car insurance

Our overall personal rate of inflation for 2001-2012 was: 2.3% a year

OK, I admit it again. I’m surprised. I was expecting more like 4%.

If you want to know how that compares to our single-year rate of inflation for 2011-2012, please see: Budgeting for Retirement Requires a Good Estimate of My Personal Rate of Inflation for 2012.

Related Reading

Join In
Have you ever tried to calculate your personal rate of inflation? (No, I don’t mean pre- and post-turkey dinner!) Please share your horrific results with a comment.