Comparing dividend yields vs. bond yields

Posted by on May 11, 2009 in Dividends

Frequent readers of dividend blogs will know that most sophisticated dividend stock investors compare dividend yields to bond yields (or high yield money market funds) as one quantitative measure of assessing risk and valuation (see Dividends4life’s analysis of Johnson and Johnson as an example). But what are we to make of the strange behavior between dividend yields and bond yields in the last six months?

The conventional pre-1950′s thinking was that, given that equities are, by nature, a riskier investment class than fixed income, equity needed to pay out greater than fixed income returns to over-come the structural risk. After all, why would you invest in something without some cash being returned to you over the life-time of your investment (oh, how times have changed!)? Since anyone could purchase U.S. treasury note with guaranteed payment, dividend yields needed to be greater than treasury yields to entice investors to invest in equities.

How great? One researcher found S&P 500 dividend yields from the period of 1871-1967 were approximately 20% greater than AAA corporate bond yields.

However, from 1958 until December 2008, dividend yields of the S&P 500 have paid less than the interest on a 10 year treasury note by an average margin of 3.6% in favor of bonds. In December 2008, the pre-1958 pattern of dividend yields being greater than bond yields reverted due primarily to plunging stock prices.

But with the recent rise of the stock market, dividend yields on the S&P 500 are now equal to or lower than yields on a 10 year treasury note, meaning a return to the 1958-2008 era. Assuming this pattern continues to hold true, and the period of December 2008 to circa May 2008 a blip in the continuing trend towards bond yields paying more than dividend yields, what do we make of all of this?

On a relative basis, one could argue that our general perception of risk, even 18 months into a economic downturn, may not have undergone a large shift. Unless one assumes that total return of a stock (dividend plus stock price increase) will be greater than a guaranteed fixed income instrument in a % than negates the relative risk of investing in equities,  common sense thinking would dictate that an investor, in a volatile market, demand a dividend yield which would be greater than guaranteed fixed income yield as downside protection of this investing environment. Call this the “bird in the hand” school of investing.

While risk perception individually may be acute, the market, as a whole, by driving down dividend yields below fixed income yields appears to be ignoring the bird in the hand school of investing and thinking that a 1958-2008 era of focusing on total returns is about to return.  It remains to be seem whether this analysis is true but it is premised on the assumption that we should rely on stock price appreciation more than dividend payment as basis of equity valuation. The existence of this school of thought, despite recent market shocks, may be due to the fact that many of  the players who drove the market to bubbles continue to remain in charge, such being the complicated nature of the system created today that the only people who can  steer the economy to a safe landing are the people who crashed the plane in the first place.

On an absolute basis, what are we to make of the fact that dividend yields are heading  below 3%? If you are an old-school investor, a dividend yield of the S & P 500 of 3% or below is conventionally thought of as a warning sign to move from equity to other asset classes; by the middle of this decade, when the first of the bubble warnings begun, dividend yield was hovering around 1.5%-2%.  In other words, plunging dividend yields can be used as an indicator that stocks are over-valued and a correction is forthcoming. Dividend yields of the S & P 500 fell to 3.12% as recently as May 7.

If you are in the glass half empty camp, you read the S &P 500 dividend yield moving down towards 3% as a sign this is a false market recovery: too much money sloshing around with too many active managers with itchy fingers. If you are in the glass half full camp, you believe that this is a return to the go-go days of 1958-2008 and that dividend yields are not as important as a total return analysis. If you a believer that hyper-inflation is coming, then dividend yield will be the only thing that matters going forward since we are approaching not the 1930′s but the 1970′s where the stock market went side-ways for a decade and most of one’s return on equities was based on dividends and not price appreciation.

Is this as clear as mud? Of course it is. It only means that the only certainty is uncertainty (and beware anyone who says they can predict anything with certainty- they suffer from the emperor has no clothes syndrome) and, if you used dividend vs. bond yield as an indicator of asset allocation (which is one of many tests), the recent market uptick of the last 9 weeks is far too small of a sample size to form a basis of large-scale decision making.

7 Comments on Comparing dividend yields vs. bond yields

By Lance on May 11, 2009 at 10:53 pm

One thing that dividend yielding stocks do that bonds do not is (on the average) appreciate in price over time. While bonds may pay out as much or more interest on principal, your principal does not increase. Compare that to most dividend yielding stocks that may have yielded a bit less in dividends but offered a significant capital gain in the process.

By BIGINTOBONDAGE on May 12, 2009 at 1:07 pm

Lance: you seem unfamiliar with the concept of a laddered portfolio of corporate bonds. Working with a high quality financial institution, and a broad knowledge of the investment-grade corporate bond market provides the same appreciation in yields and, for knowledgeable and timely investors, capital gain as well.
Bonds also provide a promise to repay 100% of your capital at maturity- some dislike this aspect, some love it.
read my blog to know about my DIY investor philosophy and strategy, focused primarily on BONDS!

By Dividend Growth Investor on May 15, 2009 at 3:29 am


I find your nickname interesting ;-)


Nice article. I guess my main pro for dividend investing is that over time your dividend income could increase above the rate of inflation with stocks; with bonds however your only choice for hedging income against the eroding power of inflation is buying TIPs, which offer very small yields.

With regular bonds I don’t see how a laddered portfolio of bonds could increase my yield on cost from say 4% to 4.5%? Even if it were possible you could only increase your fixed income to a certain point..

The issue of stocks and bonds is very interesting to me. With bonds you do pay a certain amount that is in most cases given back to you at the end of maturity,, while also enjoying a fixed amount of interest paid out regularly to you. Your gain is limited. With stocks however your gain is unlimited. If you had the choic of going back to 1986, would you want to be the owner of Microsoft, or one of its creditors?

By admin on May 15, 2009 at 9:03 am

There’s actually something interesting going on in the priority between bonds and equity in insolvency and its not good news for bond-holders. Obama has de facto taken “debt before equity” and flipped it around. I’ll see if I can put together enough coherent thoughts to post on this.

By BIGINTOBONDAGE on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 pm

I wouldn’t get too worked up about the priorities of bond holders being diminished or flipped under any American administration or in any legal bankruptcy proceedings.

I admit, stocks usually have more upside. However, volatility is also part and parcel of the opportunity for gain, and a 10-49% increase in the dividend of a stock is meaningless (if you might need the money or if you don’t like losses) in the context of a 50% evaporation of the price of a share.
Microsoft had no creditors in the 80s, when it was a highly speculative growth company. and if it did have 10 year bonds before this year, they would have likely well out-performed the stock the past 10 years.

DGI: I discuss how to use a laddered portfolio to seek out the best possible yields, and having the ability to wait for the best possible bond issues, in my blog I’m currently buying bonds that yield anywhere from 5-8%. No maturity is longer than 7 years, everything is investment-grade, i pay no MER fees other than an included one-time purchase commission, and i receive ‘equity-like’ returns- in cash in my hands- at the end of each month.

the Canadian bond market follows interest rates (which follow inflation and the economy)so having money periodically returned to you each year gives you times to look for new issues. sometimes you can’t find higher yielding bonds and this is a reality that reflects having to deal with fundamentally more conservative investments that guarantee to return your principal and the fact that inflation and interest rates rise and fall over time and your diversified bond portfolio will reflect these shifts.

By Dividend Tree Potpourri – May 17, 2009 | Dividend Tree on May 17, 2009 at 10:10 pm

[...] Dividend yield or bond yield? [...]

By Thicken My Wallet » Blog Archive » What does dividend yield tell us about the economy? on November 18, 2009 at 5:01 am

[...] instrument unless you believed capital appreciation would more than make up the difference of a low dividend yield vs. bond yield. You end up in this particular situation because the market is confident of capital appreciation [...]

Write a Comment on Comparing dividend yields vs. bond yields


Follow comments by subscribing to the Comparing dividend yields vs. bond yields Comments RSS feed.


Read more posts by