Why I Have Never Said To Invest With Warren Buffett

Article Image

I have never advised my readers to invest in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A).

And it's not because a single share of the class A stock costs $130,300 or because I think it is overvalued, or any of the other usual reasons for that matter.

The reason is actually quite simple…

It's because Warren Buffett has vowed time and time again to never pay Berkshire shareholders a cent in dividends.

Consider this…

In the most recent quarter, Berkshire Hathaway collected more than $1.34 billion from its 31 dividend paying holdings — enough to pay $812 per share. Yet none of that money made its way back to shareholders.

Granted, Buffett's style is to try and turn that money into more money. But for me, I'd rather collect a steady stream of cash that I can do with what I please.

This is not to say buying shares of Berkshire's class A or B (NYSE: BRK-B) stocks are a terrible investment. In fact, it could be a nice addition to an income portfolio for people also looking for capital growth.

But investing in dividend paying stocks is one of the wisest choices an investor can make.

Apparently I'm not the only one that feels with this way… Other investors seem to prefer dividend stocks over non-dividend payers as well. From 1972 through 2011, U.S.-based dividend stocks in the S&P 500 returned 7.1% annually, far exceeding the 1.5% return for non-dividend payers.

This chart tells the whole story. $1,000 invested in 1972 in non dividend-paying stocks would be worth just $1,700, at the end of 2011. The same amount in dividend-paying stocks would be worth about $26,000. That's more than 15 times more.

This study supports my conviction that dividends are one of the most powerful investing tools available. But, as Chief Investment Strategist behind High Yield-Investing, I am biased.

So don't just take my word for it, listen to what another investor had to say about dividend investing:

And one look at Warren Buffett's portfolio shows that the man likes dividend paying stocks himself. Of his 38 holdings, 31 pay dividends. Not to mention that many of those companies have a proven track record of raising or maintaining dividends.

The simple fact is that if you're ignoring dividends, you're missing out on one of the safest ways to make money in the market.

But not all dividend stocks are created equal. You can't just go out and buy a stock simply because it sports a high yield. Remember, there are two ways a stock's yield can go up… either the company raises its dividend, or the company's share price falls, thus the yield goes up.

When picking stocks to add to my High Yield-Investing portfolio, these are some of the of the criteria I look at when evaluating an income investment:

1. Long track record of paying consistent and rising dividends

2. Matching history of improving earnings

3. Strong cash flow sufficient to pay dividends and then some

4. High projected growth that can lead to dividend increases

5. Zero or little debt, because debt-free companies have more cash to distribute

6. Noncyclical business models that can profit in all markets and at all times

Very few stocks actually possess all these criteria, but if you're researching a company and it has one or more of these metrics, you may have found a winner.

Even after passing this screen, there's no guarantee a pick will put in solid returns. Any investment, short of a U.S. Treasury Bond, can lose money… no matter how sound the investment may seem.

But history clearly shows that investing in dividend-paying stocks is one of the best ways to invest in the stock market.

— Carla Pasternak

[Note: StreetAuthority has just identified 10 high-yield stocks that could give you the second income stream you're looking for. Not only do these stocks pay fat dividend yields up to 15.2%, but they also have the potential to pay you an extra $25,000, $45,000, and even as much as $55,000 a year… To learn more about these stocks — including several names and ticker symbols — follow this link now.]

Carla Pasternak does not personally hold positions in any securities mentioned in this article. StreetAuthority LLC does not hold positions in any securities mentioned in this article.

This article originally appeared on StreetAuthority
Author: Carla Pasternak
Why I Have Never Said To Invest With Warren Buffett

Share the News | facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedin |

This post is over 2 years old. Sometimes images and links no longer work since they are from other sites. We have no control over these sites and we are sorry for this if it makes harder to understand the article.

Related Articles

Click for a Random Article: [This Month] | [This Year] | [All Time]

One comment on “Why I Have Never Said To Invest With Warren Buffett

  1. WillieLee on said:

    This is such a disingenuous article. The author states that Berkshire Hathaway should not be bought because it doesn’t pay a dividend then to “prove” that she is right she compares the returns of $1000 invested in various equities and how much they would be worth now so she can trumpet that the dividend paying stocks would have returned the most out of all the investments. 

    However, the article is based on the idea of investing in Berkshire Hathaway. Why did the author not compare the performance of $1000 invested in Berkshire Hathaway in 1972 and what it would be worth now? Let’s see, $1000 invested at the 1971 year end price of $74 would have given you 13.5 shares. Let’s round down for the sake of convenience. At the closing price today that would give you an investment worth over $1.7 million.

    How is that “outperformance” figure of $36317 looking in comparison to the never recommended Berkshire Hathaway figure of over $1.7 million? While investing in dividend paying companies is a sensible method, the author should know better than to try to downplay the performance of Berkshire Hathaway. But I think we all know that the only reason Berkshire was mentioned was to increase the internet traffic to this site.