A dividend ladder fixes the timing mismatch. Build it right, and you can turn a portfolio of quality businesses into a paycheck that lands in your account every month of the year.

In today’s post, we will discuss:

• What a dividend ladder actually is

• The two ways to build one

• A five-step framework you can use this weekend

• Position sizing math for level monthly income

• The mistakes that wreck most dividend ladders

Okay, let’s dive in and build the ladder.

What a dividend ladder actually is

A dividend ladder is a portfolio structured so dividend payments arrive in every month of the year. Nothing more complicated than that.

The mechanism is simple. Most US companies pay quarterly, but they don’t all pay in the same months. By combining stocks with offset payment schedules, or by adding monthly-paying REITs and BDCs to the mix, you can smooth quarterly lumps into a monthly stream.

Why does this matter?

Three reasons. First, it lets your portfolio income mirror the cadence of your expenses. Second, it gives you cash to reinvest more often, compounding faster through DRIP programs. Third, it forces sector diversification across payment cycles, which is healthy discipline.

The ladder is a structure. Quality of the underlying businesses is still what matters most.

A monthly income stream built from five terrible companies is still terrible income.

US dividend payment cycles

Most US companies fall into one of three quarterly payment cycles. Knowing the cycles is the foundation of the whole approach.

The three cycles look like this:

• Cycle 1: January, April, July, October

• Cycle 2: February, May, August, November

• Cycle 3: March, June, September, December

Familiar names in each cycle:

• Cycle 1: JPMorgan Chase (JPM), General Mills (GIS), PepsiCo (PEP)

• Cycle 2: Procter & Gamble (PG), AbbVie (ABBV), Apple (AAPL)

• Cycle 3: Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Coca-Cola (KO), Microsoft (MSFT)

A few companies break the mold. Realty Income (O) pays monthly, as do several other REITs and BDCs. Some ADRs pay semi-annually. The three cycles above still cover the vast majority of dividend-paying US companies.

If you own one stock from each cycle, you collect a dividend every single month of the year. That is the basic ladder.

The two ways to build a dividend ladder

There are two paths to monthly income, and most investors use a blend of both.

Path one: offset quarterly payers. Hold three or more dividend stocks across the three cycles. The simplest version is one stock per cycle, but a real ladder usually holds two or three per cycle for diversification and safety. This is the path most retail investors take because it lets them own the high-quality dividend names they already want to own.

Path two: monthly payers. Hold REITs and BDCs that pay monthly by structure. Realty Income (O) is the textbook example, with [109 consecutive quarterly dividend increases as of December 2024, verify current count from latest Realty Income 8-K] and a monthly payment cadence baked into its brand identity. STAG Industrial (STAG), Main Street Capital (MAIN), and Pembina Pipeline (PBA) also pay monthly.

The blended approach is what I prefer. Two or three quality monthly payers anchor the base, then six to nine quarterly payers across the three cycles fill in the rest. You get the smoothing benefit of monthly payers and the deeper bench of quality names from the quarterly group.

If the 3-cycle calendar above is the kind of thinking you want more of, the free newsletter sends one a week. Other patient dividend investors are already there.

Count Me In

The five-step framework

Here is the framework I use to build a dividend ladder from scratch. Five steps, applied in order.

Step 1: Map your income target to dividend yield

Start with the dollar number you want each month. Multiply by 12 for the annual target.

Now divide that annual target by the average yield of your candidate portfolio to find the capital required.

A worked example:

• Monthly income target: $1,000

• Annual income target: $12,000

• Average portfolio yield: 4.0%

• Capital required: $12,000 / 0.04 = $300,000

That math is the reality check. Most investors underestimate how much capital it takes to generate meaningful monthly income at safe yields. A 4% yield is realistic for a quality dividend portfolio. A 7% or 8% yield usually signals either yield traps or higher-risk securities.

Step 2: Screen for dividend quality, not yield

This is the step most investors skip, and it is the reason most dividend ladders blow up over time.

The quality screen looks at five things:

• Payout ratio (free cash flow basis): ideally under 75% for most sectors, under 85% AFFO basis for REITs

• Dividend growth track record: at least 5 consecutive years of increases for non-REITs

• Free cash flow coverage: FCF covers the dividend by at least 1.3x

• Debt: net debt to EBITDA under 3.5x for most sectors, under 6x for REITs

• Earnings stability: revenue and earnings consistent over the last 5 years

A stock yielding 9% with a payout ratio above 100% is not a high-yield gem. It is a dividend cut waiting to happen.

I look at the payout ratio first. If a company is paying out more in dividends than it generates in free cash flow, the gap is funded by debt or asset sales. Neither is sustainable.

Step 3: Pick two to three names per cycle

Once your candidate list is filtered for quality, distribute it across the three payment cycles.

A starter ladder looks something like this:

• Cycle 1 (Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct): one staples name plus one financial

• Cycle 2 (Feb/May/Aug/Nov): one tech name plus one healthcare

• Cycle 3 (Mar/Jun/Sep/Dec): one healthcare plus one consumer

• Monthly payers: one or two REITs or BDCs

The goal of two or three names per cycle is sector diversification. If your Cycle 3 names are all consumer staples, a sector downturn hits a third of your income at once.

Step 4: Size positions for level monthly income

This step is the difference between an amateur dividend ladder and a real one.

The naive approach is equal dollar weighting. Buy $30,000 of each of ten stocks. The problem is that yields differ widely, so equal dollar weights produce uneven monthly income.

The better approach is equal income weighting. Size each position so each stock contributes roughly the same dollar amount per cycle.

Worked example, targeting $250 quarterly per position:

• Stock A yields 3.0%: requires $33,333 ($250 / 0.0075 quarterly rate)

• Stock B yields 5.0%: requires $20,000 ($250 / 0.0125 quarterly rate)

The same target income requires very different capital allocations. Position size to the income you want, not to the share count or dollar amount that feels balanced.

A practical limit is to cap any single position at 5% to 7% of the portfolio. Going above that concentrates risk too tightly on one company. Even the best dividend payers can stumble. AT&T (T) cut its dividend by roughly 47% in 2022 after the WarnerMedia spinoff [verify exact reduction from AT&T 2022 10-K], and that move blew up income for anyone who had over-concentrated in the name.

Step 5: Verify the calendar before you buy

The last step is the one that catches most new dividend investors by surprise.

Ex-dividend date and payment date are different things. If you buy a stock after its ex-dividend date, you do not collect that quarter’s payment.

Always check three dates on each candidate:

• Ex-dividend date: must own shares before this date to collect the next payment

• Record date: the day the company confirms ownership for the dividend

• Payment date: when the cash hits your account

Each company publishes these dates in 8-K filings when they declare a dividend. Investor relations pages list them in plain English.

I keep a simple spreadsheet with the ex-dividend dates for each holding. It takes 10 minutes a quarter to update and saves the occasional missed payment.

A sample 9-stock ladder

Here is what a starter ladder looks like in practice. Yields are placeholders to be verified from the latest declarations on sec.gov.

Cycle 1 (pays Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct):

• JPMorgan Chase (JPM): [Insert current yield from latest dividend 8-K]

• PepsiCo (PEP): [Insert current yield]

Cycle 2 (pays Feb/May/Aug/Nov):

• Procter & Gamble (PG): [Insert current yield]

• AbbVie (ABBV): [Insert current yield]

Cycle 3 (pays Mar/Jun/Sep/Dec):

• Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): [Insert current yield]

• Microsoft (MSFT): [Insert current yield]

• Coca-Cola (KO): [Insert current yield]

Monthly payers:

• Realty Income (O): [Insert current yield]

• Main Street Capital (MAIN): [Insert current yield]

That mix gives you nine income streams across eight sectors, hitting your account every single month.

Common mistakes that wreck dividend ladders

Three mistakes show up over and over in dividend ladder portfolios. Watch for them.

Chasing yield. A 9% yield is rarely a gift. More often it signals the market expects a cut, or the underlying business is in trouble. Annaly Capital Management (NLY), an mREIT, has cut its dividend multiple times over the past decade despite a long history of high reported yields [verify cut history from NLY 10-K filings]. Yield is the reward for risk. Always check the risk first.

Ignoring the right payout ratio. Net income payout ratios are easy to find but often misleading. For REITs, you want AFFO payout ratios. For regular companies, free cash flow payout ratios. Net income includes non-cash items that distort the picture. A 60% net income payout might be 110% on a free cash flow basis if capex is high.

Treating monthly income as the goal. Monthly income is the structure. Quality compounding is the goal. A ladder of average businesses delivering monthly checks will underperform a ladder of great businesses delivering quarterly checks every time. Sequence and timing matter less than the durability of the underlying dividends.

A quick checklist before you build

Save this and run through it before every buy:

• Annual income target identified, capital required calculated

• Average portfolio yield is realistic (3% to 5% for quality, not 8%+)

• Each candidate passes the 5-point quality screen

• Position sizes set for level income, not equal dollar weights

• Sector diversification across the three cycles

• Ex-dividend dates and payment dates verified for each holding

• No single position above 5% to 7% of portfolio

Final thoughts

A dividend ladder is a tool. The strategy is owning quality businesses that grow their dividends over time. The ladder is the structure that makes the income arrive when you need it.

Built with the five-step framework above, a ladder turns the lumpy quarterly cadence of US dividend culture into something that matches the monthly cadence of real life. That makes the income easier to use, easier to reinvest, and easier to live on.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

P.S. Before Dividend School opens on June 1, I am going live to show you what is inside and answer every question you have. I will walk through how I would build a dividend portfolio from scratch, in real time. June 4th @ 11 am EDT

Elite dividend growers play a different game. They raise their payout year after year, backed by free cash flow that compounds in the background, building wealth quietly while the high-yield names blow up.

In this article, you will learn five metrics that separate the real dividend growers from the high-yield pretenders, and how to use them on any company you analyze.

In today’s post, we will discuss:

• What makes a dividend grower “elite”

• The five metrics that matter most

• Microsoft and Visa run through all five

• How to use this as a screening framework

• Common mistakes investors make with dividend stocks

Okay, let’s dive in.

What makes a dividend grower elite

An elite dividend grower is a company that has raised its dividend every year for at least a decade, by meaningful amounts (typically 8%+ annually), funded by growing free cash flow from a high-quality business.

This is a higher bar than the “Dividend Aristocrat” label, which only requires 25 consecutive years of any dividend increase. A company can raise its dividend by a penny each year and qualify. That math barely keeps up with inflation.

Real compounding requires meaningful growth.

When a company raises its dividend at 10% per year, your income doubles roughly every seven years. Hold for 20 years, and your yield-on-cost can hit double digits even if you bought when the starting yield was only 2%.

That math only works if the company can keep the increases going. Five metrics will tell you whether it can.

Metric 1: Free cash flow payout ratio

This is the most important number on the list. It tells you how much of the cash the company actually generates is going out the door as dividends.

The formula is simple:

FCF Payout Ratio = Dividends Paid / Free Cash Flow

Where Free Cash Flow = Cash from Operations minus Capital Expenditures.

Both numbers come straight from the cash flow statement in any 10-K. No adjustments, no estimates, no company-specific non-GAAP wizardry.

Here is what we want to see:

• Under 50%: lots of room for dividend growth

• 50% to 75%: healthy but maturing

• 75% to 90%: getting tight, growth will slow

• Above 90%: yellow flag, dividend may stall or get cut

Let’s look at Microsoft as our first guinea pig.

Per Microsoft’s FY2024 10-K (fiscal year ending June 30, 2024):

• Cash from operations: $118,548M

• Capital expenditures: $44,477M

• Free cash flow: $74,071M

• Common stock dividends paid: $21,771M

• FCF payout ratio: 29.4%

Now let’s run Visa per its FY2025 10-K (fiscal year ending September 30, 2025):

• Free cash flow: $21,600M

• Dividends paid: $4,600M

• FCF payout ratio: 21.3%

Both companies pay out less than a third of their free cash flow. That leaves a fortress of cash for dividend increases, share buybacks, acquisitions, and debt reduction.

Compare those to a struggling dividend payer running a 90% payout ratio. One bad quarter and the dividend is at risk.

Running these five metrics by hand on every company in your watchlist takes hours. Paid subscribers skip the math. You get the calculators that pull SEC data and run the framework in minutes, plus a new dividend-grower deep dive every week applying it to a real company.

Get the calculators →

Metric 2: Dividend growth rate

A high yield with no growth is a melting ice cube. Inflation eats into your purchasing power, and your real income goes nowhere.

The dividend growth rate tells you whether the company is actually compounding your income stream. The 5-year and 10-year compound annual growth rates (CAGR) are the two I look at.

The formula:

5-Year Dividend CAGR = (Current Dividend / Dividend 5 Years Ago)^(1/5) − 1

What we want to see:

• 8% or higher: strong compounder

• 5% to 8%: moderate, often mature businesses

• Under 5%: barely beating inflation

• Flat or declining: skip it

Microsoft’s quarterly dividend has gone from $0.46 in FY2019 to $0.75 declared in Q4 FY2024. That works out to approximately 10% annual growth over five years.

Visa raised its quarterly dividend from $0.32 in late FY2020 to $0.59 in FY2025. That is roughly 13% annual growth.

Both pass the 8% threshold comfortably. And both have raised their dividend every single year, which matters as much as the rate itself. Consistency builds investor trust and signals management discipline.

Metric 3: Return on invested capital (ROIC)

Dividend growth has to come from somewhere. The somewhere is the business engine, and ROIC measures how good that engine is.

ROIC tells you how much profit the company generates for every dollar of capital invested in the business. Higher ROIC means the company can grow without raising new capital from shareholders, which leaves more cash available for dividends.

The standard formula:

ROIC = NOPAT / Invested Capital

Where:

• NOPAT = Operating Income × (1 − Tax Rate)

• Invested Capital = Total Debt + Total Equity

What we want to see:

• 20% or higher: elite quality business

• 15% to 20%: high quality

• 10% to 15%: average

• Under 10%: capital-intensive, struggling to create value

Both Microsoft and Visa land firmly in elite territory. Microsoft’s ROIC runs in the high-20% range, and Visa’s typically sits at 25% to 30%+. [Verify exact current figures in latest 10-K or Fiscal.ai before publishing.]

Visa’s number is especially impressive because the business requires almost no physical capital. Each new transaction processed costs the company essentially nothing, which is why Visa can compound dividends at double-digit rates without ever needing to raise capital from shareholders.

This is what Buffett means when he talks about businesses that earn high returns on small capital bases. Those are the diamonds we look for.

Metric 4: Net debt to EBITDA

The fourth metric checks whether the company can survive a downturn without cutting the dividend.

Net Debt to EBITDA tells you how many years of EBITDA it would take to pay off all the company’s debt, after netting out cash on the balance sheet.

The formula:

Net Debt to EBITDA = (Total Debt − Cash) / EBITDA

What we want to see:

• Under 2x: strong balance sheet

• 2x to 3x: manageable, watch closely

• 3x to 4x: elevated risk

• Above 4x: dividend is at real risk in any downturn

Per Visa’s FY2025 10-K:

• Total senior notes outstanding: $25.4B

• Cash and equivalents: $17.2B

• Net debt: $8.2B

• EBITDA: $25.2B

• Net debt / EBITDA: 0.33x

That is fortress level. Visa could pay off all its debt in about four months of EBITDA.

Microsoft also runs an extremely conservative balance sheet. The company carries an AAA credit rating, the highest available, and historically holds more cash and short-term investments than long-term debt, giving it a net cash position.

When the next recession hits, dividend payers with high debt loads will be the first to cut. Companies like Microsoft and Visa will keep raising.

Metric 5: Free cash flow growth rate

The fifth metric is the engine room. If free cash flow stops growing, dividend growth has to stop too.

Look at the 5-year FCF CAGR. This tells you whether the cash machine is actually expanding.

What we want to see:

• 10%+: strong underlying growth

• 5% to 10%: moderate

• Flat or declining: dividend growth is borrowed time

Visa’s free cash flow grew from approximately $10.8B in FY2020 to $21.6B in FY2025. That is about 15% annual growth. [Verify FY2020 figure in 10-K.]

Microsoft’s free cash flow has grown at low double-digit rates over the past five years, fueled by Azure cloud expansion and Office 365 subscriptions. [Verify FY2019 FCF in 10-K for exact CAGR.]

Notice how Visa’s 15% FCF growth lines up with its 13% dividend growth. That is the pattern you want to see. The dividend is being funded by real cash growth, not financial engineering.

How to use this in your investing process

Here is how I use these five metrics as a screening checklist on any potential dividend investment:

1. Pull the most recent 10-K from sec.gov

2. Calculate FCF Payout Ratio (target: under 60%)

3. Pull dividend per share for the most recent fiscal year and 5 years ago, calculate the CAGR (target: 8%+)

4. Look up or calculate ROIC (target: 15%+)

5. Calculate Net Debt to EBITDA (target: under 3x)

6. Calculate 5-year FCF CAGR (target: 8%+)

If a company passes all five, it belongs on your shortlist. If it fails two or more, move on.

Notice the absence of dividend yield from this list. These five metrics measure quality and sustainability, which is what protects your dividend income over decades. Yield only tells you what the market is offering you today.

Common mistakes investors make with dividend stocks

Chasing yield without checking sustainability. A 7% yield often means the market expects a cut. AT&T was the textbook case before its 2022 dividend cut. The yield kept rising as the stock fell, and investors who bought for income got hit twice.

Using the earnings payout ratio instead of FCF. Net income includes depreciation, stock-based compensation, and other non-cash items that distort the picture. FCF tells you whether the dividend is actually being funded by cash coming in the door. A company with a 60% earnings payout ratio could be running a 120% FCF payout ratio, which means it is borrowing or selling stock to pay the dividend.

Treating Dividend Aristocrat status as a guarantee. The list requires 25 years of any increase. A company growing its dividend at 2% per year qualifies, even though that growth barely keeps up with inflation.

Buying without checking the balance sheet. A company with stretched debt cannot defend its dividend in a downturn, no matter how long its track record. When credit markets tighten, dividends are the first thing CFOs cut to preserve cash.

Confusing yield-on-cost with current yield. Long-term holders of Microsoft from 10 years ago now have a yield-on-cost well above the current yield, simply because the dividend has grown faster than the stock price. That is the compounding you are buying when you focus on dividend growth.

Closing takeaway

Elite dividend growers share five traits: low FCF payout ratios, double-digit dividend growth, high ROIC, strong balance sheets, and growing free cash flow. Find companies that check all five boxes and you build a portfolio that compounds your income for decades.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

P.S. The five metrics above are how I separate the elite dividend growers from the rest. On June 1, I am opening something I have been building for a long time. It is called Dividend School, and it is where I will teach you to build a dividend portfolio that pays you to live, one quality company at a time. Watch your inbox this week. The full story is coming.

Same company. Same dividend check. Wildly different yield.

That gap is yield on cost, and it is one of the most misunderstood numbers in dividend investing. Today you will learn how to calculate it, what it actually tells you, where it quietly lies to you, and how to use it without letting it lull you to sleep.

In today’s post, we will discuss:

• What yield on cost actually measures

• Buffett’s Apple stake, a real yield-on-cost story

• Yield on cost for S&P Global and Procter & Gamble

• How to use yield on cost in your process

• The yield-on-cost trap most investors fall into

Okay, let’s dive in and learn more about yield on cost.

What yield on cost actually measures

Most investors know the current yield. You take a company’s annual dividend and divide it by today’s share price.

A $4 annual dividend on a $100 stock is a 4% current yield. Simple.

Yield on cost changes one input. You keep the annual dividend on top, but divide by the price you paid, not the current price.

The formula:

Yield on cost = current annual dividend per share / your original purchase price per share

Here is the part that matters. Your purchase price never changes. It is frozen the day you buy. The dividend, for a healthy company that raises its payout, climbs every year.

So the numerator grows while the denominator stays still. Yield on cost rises over time, all on its own, as long as the company keeps lifting the dividend.

Picture buying a stock at $50 that pays a $1 dividend. Day one, your current yield and your yield on cost are both 2%. Ten years later, the dividend has grown to $2.50. A new buyer at the higher price might still see a 2% current yield. At your $50 cost, you are now earning 5%.

You did nothing. The company did the work.

That is the whole appeal of yield on cost, and also the source of every mistake people make with it.

Buffett’s Apple stake, a real yield-on-cost story

Berkshire Hathaway first disclosed an Apple position in 2016. Buffett kept buying, and Berkshire’s own filings put the math beyond debate.

Through the end of 2021, Berkshire had spent about $31.1 billion to acquire the roughly 908 million Apple shares it held, a cost basis Berkshire has disclosed in its SEC filings (reported via Berkshire’s Q2 2024 Form 10-Q). That works out to an average cost of roughly $34.25 per share.

Now look at the dividend side, straight from Apple’s filings.

Apple’s fiscal 2025 Form 10-K (year ended September 27, 2025) shows a quarterly cash dividend of $0.26 per share, raised from $0.25 in May 2025. Apple’s fiscal second-quarter 2026 reporting then raised it again, from $0.26 to $0.27 per share. That puts the current annualized dividend at $1.08 per share.

Here is the scorecard:

• Berkshire’s average cost: roughly $34.25 per share

• Apple’s current annualized dividend: $1.08 per share

• Berkshire’s yield on cost: about 3.15%

• A new buyer near $275 (the price an Apple executive filed for an open-market sale in April 2026, per Form 4): about 0.39%

The same $0.27 quarterly check lands in both accounts. Berkshire’s version is worth roughly 8 times as much as a percentage, purely because of the price Buffett paid 9 years earlier.

This is the lesson Buffett has taught for decades, made concrete. A wonderful business bought at a fair price keeps paying you more every year on a cost that never moves.

One honest note. Berkshire trimmed its Apple position heavily in 2024, which is a separate capital-allocation decision about portfolio size and valuation. The yield-on-cost point rests on the shares still held: time and a rising dividend have turned a modest starting yield into a strong one.

Already on the list? Skip ahead. If not: the rest digs into S&P Global and P&G, and the spot where yield on cost quietly lies to you. It's free to get the next one in your inbox too.

Yes, I want the next one

Yield on cost for S&P Global and Procter & Gamble

Apple is a young dividend payer. The effect becomes dramatic when you look at companies that have raised their dividends for half a century.

S&P Global (SPGI) is one of fewer than 30 names in the S&P 500 that have lifted their dividend every year for more than 50 years. The company has raised its payout for 53 consecutive years and has paid a dividend every year since 1937.

S&P Global’s fiscal 2024 Form 10-K (year ended December 31, 2024) describes its policy of regular quarterly cash dividends, and the company’s fourth-quarter 2024 dividend ran at $0.91 per share, an annualized rate of $3.64. The most recent declared rate is $0.97 per quarter, for an annualized rate of $3.88.

Procter & Gamble (PG) is the textbook case, and its own 10-K hands us the numbers.

P&G’s fiscal 2025 Form 10-K (year ended June 30, 2025) prints a split-adjusted dividend-per-share history that is worth studying slowly:

• 1956: $0.01

• 1965: $0.03

• 1975: $0.06

• 1985: $0.16

• 1995: $0.35

• 2005: $1.03

• 2015: $2.59

• 2025: $4.08

The same filing notes 69 consecutive years of dividend increases, 135 straight years of paying a dividend, and a 5% annual compound growth rate over the past decade. P&G’s board declared a quarterly dividend of $1.0568 per share in October 2025, for an annualized rate of $4.2272.

Now let’s put yield-on-cost to work on these two. Your own cost basis is the only number you can provide, so the prices below are illustrative. Plug in what you actually paid.

Say you bought P&G in 2015 for around $80 a share. Per the 10-K table, the dividend that year was $2.59, so your starting yield was about 3.2%. With the dividend now at $4.2272 annualized:

• Original cost (illustrative): $80

• Current annualized dividend (FY2025 10-K basis): $4.2272

• Yield on cost today: about 5.3%

Run the same exercise on S&P Global with an illustrative $95 cost from a 2015 purchase and the current $3.88 annualized rate, and your yield on cost lands near 4.1%, climbing every year the streak continues.

The dividend growth is real and SEC-verified. The starting price is yours to set, and it determines your entire yield-on-cost path from day one.

How to use yield on cost in your process

Yield on cost earns its keep as a feedback tool, not a buy signal. Here is where I lean on it.

It shows dividend growth working. When your yield on cost climbs year after year, you are watching a compounding income stream in real time. That is motivating, and it keeps long-term holders from fidgeting out of great businesses.

It tracks income against a goal. If you need a portfolio to throw off a certain dollar income in retirement, yield on cost tells you how close your existing positions are to getting the money you already committed.

It pairs with the dividend growth rate. A 3% yield on cost, growing the dividend at 8% a year, is a very different animal from a 5% yield on cost, growing at 1%. Always look at the trend, not the snapshot.

What I do not do is use yield-on-cost to decide whether to add to a position. Fresh money buys at today’s price, so fresh money earns today’s current yield. New capital does not care what you paid in 2015.

When you evaluate buying more shares, current yield and the underlying fundamentals are the honest inputs. Yield on cost is a scoreboard for capital already in the game.

The yield-on-cost trap most investors fall into

Here is where yield on cost gets dangerous, and it is worth slowing down for.

The number almost always rises. Any company that never cuts its dividend will hand you a higher yield on cost every single year, no matter how mediocre the business has become. That built-in optimism flatters you.

A stagnating company can still show you a beautiful 7% yield on cost while its stock goes nowhere for a decade. The high number whispers that everything is fine. The stock chart says otherwise.

Yield on cost also ignores opportunity cost entirely. Money is fungible. The question that matters is what your capital could earn if it were redeployed today, valued at today’s price and today’s current yield, somewhere with better prospects.

Think of it like Buffett’s savings-account framing from his shareholder letters. A frozen cost basis can make a low-return account look generous because you are measuring against a deposit you made long ago. The market does not pay you based on what you paid. It pays you based on what the business does next.

Total return is the honest scorekeeper. A position with a stunning yield on cost that has badly lagged the market for years is not a success story, regardless of how the income line looks.

Use yield-on-cost to celebrate compounding and track income. Keep total return and current fundamentals as the judges of whether each business still deserves your capital.

What this means for your investing process

Buy quality businesses that raise the dividend, hold them long enough for the math to work, and your yield on cost will climb on its own, but never let a rising number talk you out of asking whether the business still earns its place in your portfolio.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

Do you want to think clearly about dividends? Do you want one careful, numbers-first read each week? Do you want it free, with no hype? Then come along.

Send me the free weekly read

Dividend increases tell you something that nothing else on the income statement can. They tell you what management actually believes about the future.

In today’s post, we will learn:

• Why dividend increases carry a signal no press release can fake

• Visa: the quiet compounder

• Amphenol: the step-change signal

• MSCI: the formula-based signal

• A practical framework for reading dividend increases

• Common mistakes investors make

• Investor takeaway

Let’s dive in.

Why Dividend Increases Carry a Signal No Press Release Can Fake

The reason dividend changes carry weight comes down to one word: cost.

Talk is cheap. CEOs can promise growth, raise guidance, or share an exciting product roadmap on an earnings call. Investors hear it, weigh it, and discount it. None of those statements bind management to anything.

A dividend increase is different. Once a company raises its quarterly payout, it has set a new floor. The market punishes a cut faster and harder than almost any other corporate action. Studies of dividend cuts show share prices commonly drop 10% to 25% on the announcement, and the reputational damage lasts years.

Economists call this a costly signal. The cost of being wrong is so high that companies don’t raise the dividend unless management is genuinely confident in sustained free cash flow.

This is why John Lintner’s 1956 research on dividend policy still holds up almost 70 years later. Lintner found that managers smooth dividends and adjust them only when they believe a higher rate is sustainable. They hate cutting dividends more than they enjoy raising them.

That asymmetry is the entire game. A dividend increase reveals what management would never say out loud.

Three current examples make this concrete. Visa, Amphenol, and MSCI each raised their dividend in the last 12 months. Each increase carries a different kind of signal, and each tells you something useful about how management thinks.

Visa: The Quiet Compounder

Visa’s signal is consistency.

On October 28, 2025, Visa’s board raised the quarterly dividend 14% to $0.670 per share, up from $0.590. That increase came in a fiscal year in which Visa generated $40.0 billion in net revenue, up 11%, and non-GAAP net income of $22.5 billion, up 14% (Visa fiscal Q4 2025 earnings release, filed as an 8-K with the SEC, October 28, 2025).

What stands out isn’t the 14%. It’s the pattern. Visa has raised its dividend 17 years in a row, with a five-year compound growth rate of roughly 15% to 16%. The 2024 increase was 13%. The 2025 increase was 14%. The math doesn’t shift much.

Now look at the payout ratio. Visa pays out roughly 23% of earnings as dividends. That is unusually low. Most companies growing dividends in the mid-teens are stretching, paying out 70% or 80% of earnings and praying earnings growth keeps up.

Visa is doing the opposite. It is signaling that it can grow the dividend at this clip indefinitely, because the dividend consumes such a small share of the cash it generates. Total capital returned to shareholders during fiscal 2025 was $22.8 billion across dividends and buybacks combined. The dividend itself is the smaller piece.

Here is what Visa’s signal means in practice. Management is telling you: we expect to keep compounding earnings in the low-to-mid teens, and we plan to translate that directly into your dividend check year after year. They are not promising a step change. They are promising a stable, predictable, multi-year machine.

That kind of signal fits the business. Visa’s revenue comes from transaction volume on a network that gets stronger with every additional cardholder and merchant. There are no AI cycles to time, no commodity prices to worry about. Just a slow, compounding toll on global commerce.

The takeaway from Visa: when a high-quality business with a low payout ratio raises its dividend at the same rate year after year, the company is signaling durability, not breakout.

Amphenol: The Step-Change Signal

Amphenol’s signal is conviction.

On October 22, 2025, alongside record third-quarter earnings, Amphenol announced a 52% increase in its quarterly dividend, from $0.165 per share to $0.25 per share (Amphenol Q3 2025 earnings release, filed as 8-K with the SEC, October 22, 2025).

A 52% bump is not normal. Most companies move dividends in 5% to 15% increments. Even high-growth dividend payers rarely raise the run rate this much in a single move.

So what triggered it? Q3 2025 sales hit $6.2 billion, up 53% in U.S. dollars and 41% organically. GAAP diluted EPS was $0.97, up 102%. Operating margin reached a record 27.5%. Free cash flow was $1.2 billion in the quarter.

That kind of growth is anchored in something specific. Amphenol manufactures connectors, sensors, and interconnect systems. Its IT datacom segment, which sells the components that build AI data centers, has been the primary driver of organic growth across 2025. The dividend increase is the company’s way of saying: this isn’t a one-quarter sugar high. We believe the AI infrastructure cycle is going to produce sustained free cash flow at a much higher level than what we were generating two years ago.

Compare what Amphenol could have said in a press release (”we are optimistic about AI demand”) with what the dividend says (”we are willing to bake a 52% higher dividend run rate into every future quarter”). The second is far more expensive to walk back.

A step-change increase like this also carries risk for the investor reading it. If management is wrong about the durability of the cycle, the next move is a cut, and a cut from a base that high is painful. The signal is bullish, but it is also a bet.

This is where you read the rest of the financial statements. Amphenol entered 2026 with 13 consecutive years of dividend increases, an active acquisition program, and an order book reflecting accelerating demand from data-center customers. The signal is consistent with the underlying business, which is what you want to see.

The takeaway from Amphenol: a step-change dividend increase is management putting capital behind their words. Match the size of the increase to the durability of the cash flow story. If the two don’t line up, ask why.

Dividend School exists to make you the kind of investor who reads filings the way you just read this article. If that's the direction you want to go, paid subscribers get a new deep-dive like this every week, plus the full archive of past frameworks, the dividend safety spreadsheet, and the tools I use myself. Subscribe to keep going.

Upgrade to Paid

MSCI: The Formula-Based Signal

MSCI’s signal is transparency.

On January 30, 2025, MSCI raised its quarterly dividend from $1.60 to $1.80 per share, a 12.5% increase. The annual rate moved from $6.40 to $7.30 (MSCI 8-K filed with the SEC, January 30, 2025).

The interesting part is not the number. It’s the policy. MSCI has publicly stated a target payout ratio of 40% to 50% of adjusted earnings per share. That single sentence does more work than any guidance the company gives on a quarterly call.

This is a different kind of signal from Visa’s quiet compounding or Amphenol’s step change. MSCI is telling investors: We have a rule. When adjusted EPS grows, the dividend grows alongside it. When EPS does not grow, the dividend stays flat.

The advantage of a formula-based dividend is that it removes management discretion from the equation. You don’t need to guess what the board will do at the next meeting. You only need to forecast adjusted EPS and apply the payout percentage.

The disadvantage is that it ties the dividend tightly to earnings. If MSCI has a difficult year, the dividend will reflect that. Investors who want a smooth, recession-proof income stream may prefer a company that maintains its dividend through a downturn.

For MSCI’s business, the formula fits. The company runs an index, analytics, and ESG data business that generates retention rates near 95% on its recurring subscriptions and consistent free cash flow. Q3 2025 free cash flow was $423.3 million, up 7.4% (MSCI Q3 2025 earnings release). Earnings are sticky enough that a formula-based payout is a credible commitment.

There is a deeper layer here. MSCI also announced a new $3.0 billion share repurchase authorization on October 25, 2025. The combination is telling. The dividend follows the formula. The excess capital above the formula goes to buybacks. Investors get a predictable income stream plus discretionary capital returns when cash flow exceeds expectations.

The takeaway from MSCI: a company with an explicit payout ratio policy gives you a forecastable dividend. Track adjusted EPS, and you can model the dividend yourself.

Three Signals at a Glance

Sources: Visa, Amphenol, and MSCI 8-K filings on sec.gov, dated as listed in column 2.

A Practical Framework for Reading Dividend Increases

When a company you own announces a dividend increase, work through these five questions.

1. What is the size of the increase relative to history?

Compare this year’s increase to the trailing three-to-five-year average. An increase in line with history confirms the existing trajectory. An increase well above or below history is sending a different signal, and it deserves an explanation.

2. What is the payout ratio after the increase?

A dividend raised aggressively into a payout ratio above 80% leaves no margin of safety. A dividend raised into a payout ratio of 25% to 50% has room to keep compounding. The lower the payout, the more durable the increase.

3. Did the underlying earnings and free cash flow grow at a similar pace?

The healthiest dividend increases follow earnings growth, not the other way around. If a company raises the dividend faster than free cash flow grew, it is borrowing against future cash. Verify the gap closes.

4. Has management stated a dividend policy?

Companies like MSCI publish a target payout range. Companies like Visa describe a goal of consistent annual increases tied to earnings growth. Read what they said and check whether the actual increase fits the policy.

5. What does the balance sheet say?

A dividend raised while debt is rising and cash is falling is a different signal from one raised while the balance sheet is improving. Always cross-check the dividend announcement against the cash flow statement and the debt schedule.

Run any dividend increase through these five filters and the signal becomes much clearer.

Common Mistakes Investors Make

Three pitfalls show up regularly.

First, focusing only on yield. A 5% yield on a stagnant or declining dividend is worse than a 1% yield on a dividend growing at 14% per year. Visa yields less than 1%, but its dividend has compounded at 15%+ for over a decade. The yield understates what investors actually receive over time.

Second, treating every increase the same. A 3% bump from a mature utility means something very different from a 52% bump from a growth company. The percentage size matters, but so does the company’s history and stated policy.

Third, ignoring the buyback line. Many companies return more capital through buybacks than dividends. Visa returned $22.8 billion in fiscal 2025 across both, with the bulk coming from buybacks. A company that cuts its buyback to fund a dividend increase may not be signaling what you think.

Avoid these three mistakes and you read the signal more accurately than most professional analysts.

Investor Takeaway

Dividend increases are one of the few corporate actions that cost management something to get wrong. That is precisely why they carry information that words on a conference call cannot.

When you see a dividend announcement, don’t just glance at the new yield. Ask what management is committing to, why they are committing now, and whether the underlying cash flow story supports the commitment.

Visa, Amphenol, and MSCI each raised their dividend in the last year, and each told you something different. Visa committed to continued mid-teens compounding. Amphenol committed to a higher run rate built on a specific demand cycle. MSCI committed to a transparent payout-ratio policy tied directly to earnings.

Reading those signals is part of becoming an investor who can analyze a company on your own, rather than waiting for someone else to tell you whether the news was good or bad. The data is in the 8-K. The pattern is in the history. The signal is in the size of the move.

And with that, we will wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read today’s post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey. If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

P.S. Dividend School exists for one reason: to help you analyze companies on your own, instead of waiting for someone to tell you whether the news was good or bad. If that's the kind of investor you want to be, paid subscribers get a new article like this every week, with full access to the archive, the dividend safety spreadsheet, and the frameworks I use myself. Subscribe and join us.

Join Us

1. Business Overview

Johnson & Johnson is not the company it was five years ago. In August 2023, J&J completed the separation of its Consumer Health segment, the business that owned Tylenol, Listerine, Band-Aid, and Neutrogena, by spinning it off into an independent public company called Kenvue.

What remains is a pure-play, two-segment healthcare giant: a prescription-drug business called Innovative Medicine and a surgical-and-interventional-device business called MedTech.

Together they generated $94.2 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2025, up from $78.7 billion in FY2021, with operating margins of 26.8% and free cash flow of $19.7 billion.

The Kenvue separation is the single most important strategic event in modern J&J history.

Consumer Health was the lowest-margin segment in the portfolio, and it carried the talc litigation overhang that had hung over the parent company for nearly a decade. By spinning it off, J&J shed approximately $15 billion of low-margin revenue and concentrated capital and management attention on the two segments where it could earn the highest returns: patent-protected prescription pharmaceuticals and surgical devices that lock in hospital customers.

The financial results are evident in the numbers: ROIC reached a five-year high of 17.0% in FY2025, and operating margins improved by roughly 200 basis points over the period despite gross margin compression from biosimilar competition and Medicare price negotiations.

Stock Simplifier classifies JNJ as a Phase 4: Capital Return company, steady mid-single-digit revenue growth, consistently positive operating cash flow, and substantial capital being returned to shareholders through dividends and buybacks.

The composite Stock Simplifier score is 3.8 out of 5, with the Moat rated “Wide” (5), Management rated “Great” (5), Risk rated “Moderate” (3), Growth rated “Below Average” (2), and Valuation rated “Expensive” (2).

That mix is exactly what a serious dividend investor wants to evaluate: a high-quality, slow-growing, mature compounder where the question is not whether the business is durable, but whether you are paying the right price for the cash it produces.

For paid readers thinking about JNJ as a portfolio holding: this is a company built for the back half of a dividend portfolio, not the high-growth front. The investment case rests on three pillars, a wide moat that protects current cash flows, a Dividend King track record of 64 consecutive annual dividend increases, and a balance sheet strong enough to absorb both talc litigation outcomes and patent cliffs without threatening the dividend.

We will test each of those pillars in this analysis.

2. How They Make Money

JNJ earns revenue from two distinct sources, neither of which involves direct consumer relationships in any meaningful way. Understanding the channel structure is essential because it explains why margins, pricing power, and recession resilience look the way they do.

Innovative Medicine ($60.4B, 64% of FY2025 revenue, 84% of pre-tax profit). This is the prescription pharmaceuticals business, organized around five therapeutic areas: oncology, immunology, neuroscience, cardiovascular and metabolism, and pulmonary hypertension.

The customer chain here is institutional, not consumer. Physicians prescribe based on clinical evidence. Hospitals and retail pharmacies distribute. Insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and government payors (Medicare, Medicaid, national health systems abroad) decide reimbursement and ultimately pay. The patient receives the drug but rarely makes the purchasing decision. J&J’s commercial success depends on three things in this chain: clinical data strong enough to convince physicians, formulary access negotiated with payors, and lifecycle management of patents to protect pricing.

The marquee Innovative Medicine franchises in FY2025 were Darzalex (daratumumab) for multiple myeloma at $14.35 billion in sales (up 23% year-over-year), Stelara (ustekinumab) for immunology indications at $6.08 billion (down 41.3% as US biosimilars launched in January 2025), Tremfya (guselkumab) for psoriasis and Crohn’s disease at $5.2 billion (up 40.5% as J&J transitions Stelara patients), Erleada for prostate cancer, and Carvykti (CAR-T cell therapy for multiple myeloma) which is scaling rapidly from a small base.

Roughly two-thirds of Innovative Medicine revenue comes from chronic-disease therapies where patients refill prescriptions for months or years, creating predictable recurring revenue streams.

MedTech ($33.8B, 36% of revenue, 12% pre-tax margin). This segment sells surgical instruments, orthopedic implants, electrophysiology catheters, heart-recovery devices, and vision care products.

The customer is the hospital system or ambulatory surgery center. Purchasing decisions are made by a chain that includes surgeons (who have brand preferences and switching costs from retraining), hospital procurement teams (who negotiate aggressively on price), and group purchasing organizations (which aggregate demand across multiple facilities).

Key MedTech franchises include DePuy Synthes in orthopedic reconstruction (hips, knees, spine), Biosense Webster in electrophysiology mapping and ablation catheters, Abiomed in heart recovery (acquired 2022 for $16.6B), and Shockwave Medical in intravascular lithotripsy (acquired 2024 for $13.1B).

MedTech revenue is partly per-procedure (catheters, lithotripsy) and partly capital-equipment-and-consumables (orthopedic implants installed once, then served by follow-up parts and revisions).

Geographic mix (FY2025): United States $53.8B (57% of revenue), Europe $21.5B (23%), Asia-Pacific and Africa $14.0B (15%), Western Hemisphere ex-US $4.9B (5%).

The US weighting has increased modestly over five years from 55% to 57%, reflecting stronger pharma pricing and procedure volumes domestically combined with FX headwinds and tighter government pricing controls internationally.

The US is where JNJ commands the most pricing power and where its 67.9% gross margin is built; international revenue is lower-margin and structurally more constrained by national health system negotiation.

The two segments together generate roughly $94 billion of revenue from selling, in aggregate, into perhaps 6,000 hospital systems, tens of thousands of independent surgical centers, and a global prescribing physician base measured in the millions.

The recurring nature of chronic-disease prescriptions and the switching costs of standardized hospital implant systems are what give the business its predictability rating from Stock Simplifier and its place in this analysis.

3. Financials: Five-Year Look at the Three Statements

Note: Revenue figures shown on continuing-operations basis (excluding Consumer Health/Kenvue, which was separated in August 2023). Net income volatility in FY2022–FY2024 reflects talc-related litigation reserves and special items; FY2025 net income benefited from non-recurring items including spin-off accounting and tax adjustments. Source: JNJ Form 10-K FY2024 (filed Feb 2025) and Q4/Full-Year 2025 earnings release.

The top line grew at a 4.6% compound annual rate over four years. That number understates underlying momentum because the four-year window straddles the Kenvue separation, which removed roughly $15 billion of consumer health revenue.

On a clean continuing-operations basis, the remaining pharma-and-MedTech business has grown faster, Innovative Medicine compounded at 7.3% over four years and MedTech at 10.1% (boosted by the Abiomed and Shockwave acquisitions).

Gross margin compressed by 240 basis points across the period, primarily from Stelara biosimilar pressure and IRA-driven Medicare price negotiation.

The operating margin expansion to 26.8% in FY2025 came from cost discipline and operating leverage, not pricing — Stock Simplifier’s “sales change due to price” KPI registered -3.1% in FY2025, the most negative in the five-year dataset.

R&D spending of $14.7 billion in FY2025 (15.6% of revenue) is among the largest in pharma. The FY2024 spike to $17.2 billion reflected acquired in-process R&D from the Shockwave deal; the FY2025 figure of $14.7 billion is closer to underlying organic R&D run-rate.

Balance Sheet (FY2024 vs. FY2025 Snapshot)

Source: JNJ 10-K FY2024, JNJ Q4 2025 earnings release.

The balance sheet story over the past two years is the deliberate use of leverage to fund MedTech consolidation.

Total debt rose from $36.6B at FY2024 year-end to $47.9B at FY2025 year-end as J&J financed the Shockwave Medical acquisition and other capital deployment. Even after that increase, net debt-to-EBITDA of 0.76x is investment-grade conservative, well below the 1.0x threshold that scores 100 in our dividend safety model.

Interest coverage remains north of 15x. J&J holds an AAA rating from S&P (one of only two US non-financial corporates with that rating).

The balance sheet, in short, has plenty of capacity to absorb both the remaining talc litigation and additional bolt-on M&A without endangering the dividend.

Cash Flow Statement (FY2021–FY2025)

Source: JNJ 10-K filings (FY2021–FY2024) and Q4/Full-Year 2025 earnings release. FCF = OCF – capex. Free cash flow margin in FY2025: 20.9%.

This is the most important table in the article for dividend investors. Three observations stand out.

First, free cash flow has averaged $18.4 billion annually over five years with low volatility — the coefficient of variation is approximately 0.054, well inside the “very stable” zone of our dividend safety model.

Second, dividends paid have grown every year, from $11.0B in FY2021 to $12.4B in FY2025, consuming roughly 63% of FY2025 free cash flow.

Third, total capital returned (dividends plus buybacks) of $18.4B in FY2025 represents 74.7% of operating cash flow and 93% of free cash flow — a textbook Phase 4 capital return profile. The remaining cash funds bolt-on M&A, with larger deals (like Shockwave at $13.1B) financed primarily with debt.

The combination of high gross margins, stable FCF, conservative leverage, and a 64-year dividend growth streak is the financial foundation of the entire investment thesis. We will return to these numbers in the dividend strength section.

In August 2023, Johnson & Johnson did something no $400B+ company had done in a generation: it spun off its single most recognizable business. Tylenol. Listerine. Band-Aid. Neutrogena. Gone, packaged into a new company called Kenvue and sent on its way.

What’s left is leaner, higher-margin, and harder to evaluate. Two segments instead of three. Patent-protected drugs and surgical devices. No more consumer brands, no more talc on the balance sheet (legally, though, as you’ll see, that protection has been less complete than designed).

For dividend investors, the question is simple: is the new JNJ still the dividend fortress the old JNJ was? 64 years of consecutive raises says yes. A 26x P/E against a 5-year average of 21.7x and a free cash flow payout that just crossed 60% say not so fast.

In this 6,000-word paid analysis, I work through every section a serious DIY investor needs: business, financials, moat, management, risks, growth, dividend score, and valuation. By the end, you’ll know exactly what to do with JNJ at $225.

🔒 Read the full breakdown below ↓

Read more

But popularity is not the same thing as understanding. Many investors own SCHD because someone told them it pays a good dividend, not because they know what is inside it, how the methodology actually works, or whether it fits their portfolio.

In today’s post, we will learn:

• What SCHD Is and Why It Matters

• The Methodology Behind SCHD

• A Look at SCHD’s Top Holdings

• How to Analyze SCHD Before You Buy

• Where to Buy SCHD

• Investor Takeaway

Okay, let’s dive in and learn more about how SCHD works.

What SCHD Is and Why It Matters

SCHD is an exchange-traded fund managed by Charles Schwab. Its full name is the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF, and its stated goal is straightforward: track the total return of the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index, before fees and expenses.

In plain English, SCHD owns a basket of about 100 U.S. companies that pay reliable dividends and have demonstrated financial strength over many years. When you buy one share of SCHD, you buy a small piece of every one of those companies.

A few facts worth knowing up front (data as of May 2026):

• Ticker: SCHD

• Inception: October 20, 2011

• Assets under management: roughly $90.95 billion

• Expense ratio: 0.06% (that is $6 per year on a $10,000 investment)

• 30-day SEC yield: about 3.33%

• Distribution frequency: quarterly

• Number of holdings: 103

The expense ratio deserves a second look. At 0.06%, SCHD ranks among the cheapest dividend ETFs available. The average expense ratio across all U.S. ETFs is roughly 0.36%, so SCHD costs about six times less than the typical fund. Over decades of compounding, that fee gap turns into real money.

Why does SCHD matter for dividend investors?

Three reasons.

First, it offers instant diversification. Instead of picking individual dividend stocks (and risking a single dividend cut wrecking your income stream), you spread your bet across 100 companies.

Second, the methodology screens for quality, not just yield. Many high-yield funds load up on troubled companies whose dividends are at risk. SCHD specifically tries to avoid that trap.

Third, the cost is low enough that nearly all of the dividend income flows through to you rather than to the fund company.

The Methodology Behind SCHD

This is where most investors stop reading, and where the real story actually starts. SCHD is a passive fund, but the index it tracks is anything but generic. Understanding the methodology tells you why SCHD owns what it owns.

The fund tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index, maintained by S&P Dow Jones Indices. The index starts with the Dow Jones U.S. Broad Market Index, which tracks roughly 2,500 companies, and narrows it to the 100 best dividend payers.

The screening starts with four eligibility rules:

1. Ten consecutive years of dividend payments. Companies that have not paid a dividend every year for at least a decade are immediately disqualified. This single rule eliminates most younger companies and any business that has cut its dividend recently.

2. A minimum float-adjusted market capitalization of $500 million. This keeps tiny, illiquid companies out of the index.

3. A minimum three-month average daily trading volume of 200,000 shares. Another liquidity safeguard.

4. Real estate investment trusts are excluded. SCHD is a dividend equity fund, not a REIT fund. If you want REITs, that is a separate decision.

The companies that survive the eligibility screens are then ranked by a composite score built from four fundamentals:

• Cash flow to total debt (a balance sheet quality measure)

• Return on equity (a profitability measure)

• Indicated dividend yield (the current income measure)

• Five-year dividend growth rate (the growth measure)

The top 100 stocks by composite score make the index. Weights are assigned by a tilted yield formula, capped at roughly 4.5% per position, so no single company can dominate the fund.

The index is reconstituted once a year in March, replacing companies that no longer pass the screens with those that do. It also rebalances quarterly to bring weights back to target levels.

The takeaway here matters. SCHD is not chasing the highest yield in the market. It is chasing the best combination of yield, growth, and financial quality. That is a very different mandate, and it is exactly why SCHD looks different from funds like JEPI or high-yield bond ETF.

If this kind of breakdown is useful to you, the paid tier goes a layer deeper every week. Last month I walked through a full company analysis, including the 10-K pages I pulled from, the valuation math, and the red flags I would have missed five years ago. That is the kind of work I'm trying to make accessible to everyday investors.

Join the paid tier

A Look at SCHD’s Top Holdings

The top 10 positions in SCHD account for roughly 43% of the fund. As of May 9, 2026, those holdings are:

Two things jump out when you look at this list.

The first is the sector mix. SCHD currently tilts heavily toward technology (QCOM, TXN), healthcare (UNH, MRK), consumer staples (KO, PEP, PG), and energy (CVX, COP). You will not find Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, or Tesla in here. Those companies either do not pay a meaningful dividend or do not meet the ten-year dividend history rule.

The second is the kind of business mix. These are mature, cash-generative companies with established moats. Coca-Cola has the brand power Warren Buffett wrote about in his shareholder letters. Procter & Gamble owns dozens of household consumer brands. UnitedHealth is the largest health insurer in the U.S. by revenue. ConocoPhillips and Chevron sit at the center of global energy infrastructure.

This is by design. The methodology forces SCHD to own established businesses with durable cash flow, not high-growth speculation.

One caveat worth flagging. SCHD’s energy exposure has climbed meaningfully over the past few years. The most recent reconstitution added several energy names and the sector now represents a sizable portion of the fund. If you already own energy stocks elsewhere in your portfolio, SCHD will add to that exposure.

How to Analyze SCHD Before You Buy

Owning SCHD without analyzing it is like buying a house without looking inside. Here is the framework I use, the same one I would apply to any dividend ETF.

1. Check the current yield against its history

SCHD’s 30-day SEC yield sits around 3.33% as of May 2026. Compare that to where the yield has been over the last five years. A current yield meaningfully below the historical average suggests the price has run up faster than the dividend, which can mean you are paying more for the same income. A yield meaningfully above the average can be a sign of either opportunity or trouble in the underlying holdings.

2. Look at the dividend growth, not just the yield

The dividend growth rate matters more than the headline yield, especially if you have a long time horizon. SCHD has grown its distribution steadily since inception in 2011. The Q1 2026 distribution of $0.2569 per share was a 3.3% increase year over year. Pull up the dividend history and look at the year-over-year growth rate. A growing distribution beats a high but stagnant one over time.

3. Examine the sector concentration

Pull up the current sector breakdown on Schwab’s website or any major brokerage. Check whether the mix lines up with what the rest of your portfolio already owns. If you hold a lot of individual energy stocks, SCHD’s energy weight may push your total energy exposure higher than you intended.

4. Check the overlap with your other funds

If you also own an S&P 500 index fund, you may already own Chevron, Coca-Cola, and most of the rest. SCHD often overlaps heavily with broad market funds. Owning both is not wrong, but you should know how much you are doubling up.

5. Compare the expense ratio to alternatives

At 0.06%, SCHD is hard to beat on cost. But check the competition. The Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG) and the iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO) both compete in this space with different methodologies. Cheaper does not always mean better, but you should know what trade-offs you are making.

6. Understand the rebalancing schedule

Because SCHD reconstitutes annually in March, the fund can look noticeably different one year to the next. Stocks that have run up too far in price (and therefore yield too little) get kicked out. New names that pass the screens get added. This is a feature, not a bug. It forces a mechanical buy-low, sell-high discipline. But it also means today’s SCHD is not necessarily tomorrow’s SCHD.

Where to Buy SCHD

SCHD trades on the NYSE Arca exchange and is available at essentially every major U.S. brokerage. Here are the most common options:

• Charles Schwab: commission-free, no surprise (Schwab is the issuer).

• Fidelity: commission-free trading on ETFs, including SCHD.

• Vanguard: commission-free ETF trading.

• E*TRADE and Morgan Stanley: commission-free trading.

• Robinhood: commission-free, supports fractional shares.

• Interactive Brokers: commission-free under the IBKR Lite tier.

• M1 Finance: available within their pie portfolio structure.

For tax-advantaged accounts (Roth IRA, traditional IRA, 401(k) brokerage window), SCHD is widely available wherever the account is held. Holding SCHD in a tax-advantaged account is generally more efficient than holding it in a taxable account, because the quarterly distributions are taxed as either ordinary income or qualified dividends depending on your situation. Inside an IRA, that tax drag disappears.

A quick note for international readers. SCHD itself is a U.S.-listed ETF, but Schwab and partners have launched related products on exchanges in other countries. Whether SCHD or a local equivalent is the better choice depends on your tax residency, which is a conversation for a qualified advisor.

Investor Takeaway

SCHD is not a magic income machine. It is a rules-based, low-cost wrapper around 100 quality dividend payers. The methodology screens for financial strength, dividend history, and growth potential, which is exactly what Buffett’s filters tell us to look for in individual companies.

But the same advice applies here that applies to any investment. Understand what you own. Know how the methodology works. Check that the holdings line up with the rest of your portfolio. And remember that “popular” and “right for you” are two different things.

If you want broad, diversified exposure to quality U.S. dividend payers at a rock-bottom expense ratio, SCHD does that job well. If you want maximum growth, maximum yield, or exposure to small-cap names and REITs, look elsewhere.

The framework stays simple. Verify the yield. Watch the dividend growth. Check the sector mix. Compare the expense ratio. Understand the rebalancing. If those five boxes check out for your situation, you are well on your way to building a quality core holding.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

If you've made it this far, you're already doing the work most investors skip. The paid tier is where that work goes deeper.

Full company analyses pulled from SEC filings. The Dividend Safety Spreadsheet. Weekly valuation breakdowns. None of it tells you what to buy. All of it helps you decide on your own.

Upgrade to paid

Most dividend investors focus on the dividend part, the yield, payout, dividend growth, etc.

But the first part is as important, if not more so, because without the quality, moat, growth, and good price, the dividend gets lost in the investment. For example, if you buy a company paying a high yield, and that yield is unsustainable, then guess what? You have a failed investment, and possibly years of compounding wasted.

This is why focusing on the company's fundamental analysis is so important.

Today’s analysis will show how to do both parts.

For this analysis of S&P Global (SPGI), I used two layers. Stock Simplifier, Brian Feroldi’s new interactive analysis tool, handled the first layer by walking through all nine sections of the business framework with live data from Fiscal.ai. Stock Simplifier is still in beta, and I was given early access, which I am sharing with you.

My own dividend safety tools handled the second. The combination gives you a complete picture.

One of the many cool parts of this tool is the ability to dive deeper with each layer of analysis. Stock Simplifier uses the power of Fiscal data and AI tools to uncover each layer of the business. At each layer, you can see a brief overview, but in the PRO version, you can click a tab (which I will show you in a minute) that gives you much more information.

And the best part is, it saves you time. As a stock analyst without the luxury of spending hours reading and studying, Stock Simplifier lets you work through a company quickly. If you know the company, Visa, for example, I can update myself in less than 15 minutes. And if you are new to the business, you can determine quickly whether you want to dig deeper or not, thus saving you hours on a company you might not want to own.

For example, I read through all the information on Merck (a company I knew nothing about) in about 30-40 minutes.

Bottom line, this tool gives you the info you need quickly.

Here’s the full analysis.

Layer one: the Stock Simplifier framework

The business

S&P Global generated $15.3 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2025 (FY25), up 8% year over year. Roughly 70% of that revenue comes from subscriptions and long-term contracts, which means most of what SPGI earns in a given year is locked in before January 1.

The company runs five segments. Ratings handles credit assessments for bond issuers and holds roughly 40% of the global market alongside Moody’s (MCO); together, the two firms are effectively unavoidable infrastructure for anyone raising debt. Market Intelligence provides financial data and analytics to investment professionals, with over 80% of revenue recurring. S&P Dow Jones Indices earns asset-linked fees on exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and mutual funds benchmarked to S&P indices, with roughly $5 to $6 trillion in assets tracking the S&P 500 alone. Commodity Insights provides benchmark pricing for energy and metals markets. Mobility covers automotive data and analytics.

Stock Simplifier asked me to rate the business, which I gave it a “Excited”, a 5 out of 5. Two of its supporting assessments are the ones worth noting: revenue is Predictable, and the company can raise prices easily. Annual price increases of 3 to 5% on existing contracts are standard across the subscription segments, and Market Intelligence renewal rates have held above 90%.

Business phase

Stock Simplifier places SPGI in Phase 4: Capital Return. This is the phase where a business has moved past hyper-growth, established its dominant position, and generates more cash than it can reinvest at high rates of return. The excess flows back to shareholders.

For SPGI, this is accurate. The company completed its major acquisition cycle with IHS Markit in 2022, spent two years integrating and capturing synergies, and now runs a capital return program targeting 85% of adjusted free cash flow (FCF) for return to shareholders each year. Operating margins sit above 50% across the combined business.

Each section of the analysis asks you to examine each part and assign it a rating. The tool will display its rating at the top, and at the bottom, you will have the chance to give your own rating.

Moat

Stock Simplifier scored SPGI’s moat as Wide (5) with a direction of Growing (4). The three sources it identified are correct. And I concurred with this scoring.

Switching costs: Market Intelligence customers build internal workflows that rely on Capital IQ data. Replacing a data provider means rebuilding those workflows, retraining staff, and accepting months of productivity loss. The switching cost is not just the subscription — it’s the disruption to everything built on top of it.

Licensing: The S&P 500 index is among the most widely licensed financial products. Any ETF or structured product tracking it pays SPGI a fee. That arrangement is protected by trademark and contract. No competitor can build a meaningful alternative because the brand recognition and the existing assets under management (AUM) tied to the index are the product itself.

Network effects: Credit ratings improve in value as more issuers get rated. The more debt is rated, the more investors rely on ratings to make decisions. The more investors rely on ratings, the more issuers need them to access those investors. Each additional participant strengthens the system for everyone already inside it.

The tool also flags SPGI as a disruptor, not a target of disruption, in its core markets. Kensho, which SPGI acquired in 2018, is now integrated across products and enables artificial intelligence (AI) driven analytics that smaller competitors cannot replicate.

Example below of the PRO level analysis, amazing stuff.

Growth

Stock Simplifier scored growth High (5), and I disagreed with it’s assesment. I ended up giving it an Average (3).

Mid-to-high single-digit revenue growth is a realistic expectation through the cycle, with the Ratings segment providing meaningful upside when bond issuance volumes pick up in a lower-rate environment. The Indices segment carries cyclical exposure — if the S&P 500 falls 20%, asset-linked fee revenue falls proportionally.

The longer-term growth question is private credit. That market has grown past $1.5 trillion globally, and most of it goes unrated. SPGI is investing to capture ratings and benchmarking fees there. Early fee rates are below public market equivalents, but the addressable opportunity is significant.

AI monetization also has room to run. Management cited value-based pricing conversations enabled by AI product launches on their Q4 FY25 call. Premium tiers of Capital IQ Pro with AI features command roughly 20-30% higher per-seat pricing than standard subscriptions. Penetration is still low.

We are running this initial analysis for S&P Global (SPGI) with Stock Simplifier, which covers 1,000-plus companies and uses live Fiscal.ai data. If you want to run your own structured analysis on stocks you own or are watching, the link below is where to start. Join the waitlist for when the must-have tool is released.

Join the Stock Simplifier Wait List

Management

Stock Simplifier rated management Good (4). Martina Cheung became chief executive officer (CEO) in November 2024, succeeding Douglas Peterson, whose 11-year tenure saw revenue grow from roughly $4.5 billion to over $12 billion. Cheung came up through the Ratings side of the business, which is directly relevant given that the issuer-pay ratings model remains the most-cited structural risk to the company.

Capital allocation history under Peterson was disciplined. Buybacks were consistent. Return on invested capital (ROIC) has held above 20% for most of the past decade. The IHS Markit integration delivered on the synergy targets outlined by management at the time of the acquisition.

Risk

Stock Simplifier’s risk breakdown for SPGI reads: Diversified concentration, is a Disruptor, mostly Independent from outside forces, and has Healthy financial health.

The main risk worth watching is regulation. The Ratings segment is overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and international equivalents. A rule change forcing structural separation between ratings and data businesses, or mandating a subscriber-pay model, would materially alter Ratings ec’ economics. The probability is low, but the impact would be high.

Competitive risk in Market Intelligence is real but slow-moving. Bloomberg, London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG), and FactSet compete for the same enterprise clients. The balance sheet carries meaningful debt from the IHS Markit acquisition, but FCF generation comfortably services it.

Valuation

Stock Simplifier rated valuation Attractive (4). The supporting data explains why.

The price-to-free-cash-flow (P/FCF) ratio is 23.5x, compared with a historical average of 33.6x. The price-to-book (P/B) ratio is 4.1x against a five-year mean of 10.3x. The P/FCF historical range has run from negative territory to a high of 26.9x, the current reading sits at the lower end of that range.

You are being asked to pay about 23 times free cash flow for a business that grows at mid-to-high single digits, earns 50%-plus operating margins, and holds a reinforced wide moat. The comparison that matters is what you’re paying versus the business’s own history. A P/FCF of 23.5x against a historical average of 33.6x means either the business has deteriorated structurally (there is little evidence of that) or the market repriced it broadly alongside other richly valued businesses during 2022 through 2024.

Stock Simplifier composite score: 4.2 out of 5. Verdict: Buy.

Layer two: capital allocation and dividend safety

Stock Simplifier gives you the analytical framework. The next step is understanding what the company does with its cash, and whether the dividend is built to last.

Where the free cash flow goes

SPGI guided adjusted FCF of $5.6 to $5.8 billion for FY25. That’s the pool the company works from.

The stated capital return target is approximately 85% of adjusted FCF returned to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases combined. On a $5.7 billion midpoint, that’s roughly $4.85 billion going back to shareholders each year. The dividend accounts for a smaller share of that. Most of the return comes through buybacks.

In practical terms, the dividend is the steady, predictable base. Buybacks are the variable layer on top, sized to market conditions and balance sheet priorities. In the second half of FY25 alone, SPGI authorized and executed accelerated share repurchase (ASR) programs totaling several billion dollars while simultaneously returning capital through regular dividends. That’s a Phase 4 capital allocation program running at full capacity.

The dividend

SPGI pays a quarterly dividend of $0.96 per share, which, annualized, amounts to $3.84. At the current stock price near $428, that’s a yield of roughly 0.9%. For investors focused on current income, the yield is low. For investors focused on dividend growth and total return, the picture is different.

SPGI has raised its dividend every year for over 50 consecutive years. That makes it one of the longest-running dividend growth records in the market and a confirmed Dividend Aristocrat. The average compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of the dividend since 1974 has run above 9%.

What that growth means in practice: an investor who bought SPGI five years ago is earning a yield-on-cost well above the current headline yield. The dividend at purchase was smaller, but the stock’s price has risen and the dividend has grown. That’s the compounding dynamic that makes dividend growth stocks worth understanding.

Is the dividend safe?

Three tests.

Earnings payout ratio: SPGI’s earnings-based payout ratio sits around 26%. That’s low. A payout ratio below 60% is generally considered healthy, it means the company retains the majority of earnings to reinvest and still has room to absorb an earnings decline without cutting the dividend.

FCF payout ratio: This is the better test for dividend safety. The dividend costs approximately $1.2 billion per year (annualized to $3.84 per share, based on a share count of roughly 320 million). Against $5.6 to $5.8 billion in adjusted FCF, that’s a FCF payout ratio of approximately 21%. The dividend consumes about one dollar of every five generated in free cash flow. That’s an exceptionally well-covered dividend.

Debt coverage: The balance sheet carries debt from the IHS Markit acquisition, but FCF more than covers interest obligations. Financial health in Stock Simplifier came back Healthy, which is consistent with the underlying numbers.

By any standard measure, SPGI’s dividend is safe. The payout ratios are low, FCF generation is strong, the business is growing, and management has demonstrated a 50-plus-year commitment to raising payments each year.

Buybacks: Are they adding value?

The buyback question matters because companies that repurchase shares at inflated prices destroy value for long-term holders. Shares bought back at 50x earnings shrink the share count on paper but do nothing for per-share value.

For SPGI, buybacks over the past two years have been executed at prices meaningfully below the prior peak and at P/FCF multiples below the company’s historical average. That’s the right time to buy. Management is not repurchasing shares because it has nothing better to do with the money; it’s repurchasing them because the stock appears undervalued relative to intrinsic value.

The accelerated share repurchase programs authorized in the second half of FY25 reinforced that signal. Management was committed to returning more capital at a time when the stock had pulled back. That’s capital allocation discipline, not capital allocation theater.

The complete picture

Our Stock Simplifier run-through gave this analysis a 4.2 composite score and a Buy verdict. The underlying data supports it. SPGI is a Phase 4 capital-return machine with a wide and growing moat, a well-covered dividend with a 50-plus-year growth streak, and a valuation below its historical average. The FCF payout ratio of roughly 21% means the dividend has significant room to continue growing even if business conditions soften.

This is not a high-yield stock. It is a high-quality compounder with a growing dividend, active buybacks, and a business that has demonstrated the ability to raise prices, retain customers, and generate cash across multiple economic cycles. For investors building a portfolio around dividend growth and business quality, SPGI belongs on the list.

The Honest Take

Stock Simplifier is a great tool, I think we showcased that, but it does have a few kinks to work out. For example, the signup page is a bit clunky, and the data takes a minute or two to load for some of the more obscure companies. And the other kink in the road is that not every global company is represented yet. So, for those of you outside the US wanting to analyze companies in your backyard, you might not be able to yet.

Stock Simplifier is still in Beta mode, meaning it is still improving and growing. This is the worst it will ever be, and it’s already a fantastic tool. It can help save tons of time analyzing the companies you want to buy. Peter Lynch once said, “Whoever turns over the most rocks wins the game.” (paraphrasing here).

I ran the initial analysis for this article using Stock Simplifier, which covers 1,000-plus companies using live Fiscal.ai data. If you want to run your own structured analysis on stocks you own or are watching, the link below is where to start. Join the waitlist below.

Join the Waitlist Now

This is not financial advice. Do your own research before making any investment decision.

Affiliate disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. If you join Long-Term Mindset through my link, I earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

I still remember the feeling when the first dividend hit my brokerage account a few weeks later. I hadn’t sold anything. I hadn’t done anything. The business I owned a tiny piece of had earned a profit, and they sent me my share of it.

That moment changed how I thought about investing. For the first time, the stock market stopped looking like a casino and started looking like a portfolio of real businesses. I owned a small piece of a real company. They had real customers, real products, real cash flow, and they were sharing a slice of it with me.

I’ve been investing this way for thirteen years. Through 2018. Through the 2020 pandemic. Through the 2022 bear market. Through every cycle in between. And along the way, I started writing publicly, because I kept seeing the same two mistakes destroy ordinary investors.

The first group chased yield. They saw a 9% payout, bought without a second thought, and watched the dividend get cut and the stock cratered. They swore off dividend investing forever.

The second group skipped dividends entirely. They piled into growth stocks chasing the next 10-bagger, watched half their portfolio disappear in a downturn, and panic-sold at the bottom.

Both outcomes were avoidable. The framework that prevents both is simple enough to teach in an afternoon. But almost no one teaches it, because almost every investing service is selling something else: stock picks, hot tips, “how to beat the S&P.” Stock picks are easy to package. Frameworks are not.

This article is the framework.

This is what I do, what I believe, and how I do it. If you’ve spent any time on Dividend School, this is the foundation on which everything else is built. Pin it. Reread it. Send it to a friend who keeps asking why you don’t just buy the index.

Because the index is exactly where I want to start.

Subscribe now

The S&P 500 isn’t the answer for income. Not anymore.

Here’s a number worth sitting with for a second.

1.10%.

That’s the dividend yield on the S&P 500 today. It’s the lowest yield in modern history. Lower than 2000, lower than 2007, lower than any reading since the index has been tracked.

The reason isn’t a mystery. The Magnificent Seven dominate the index now. Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Tesla. Most of them pay tiny dividends or nothing at all. They’ve quietly rewired the S&P 500 from a diversified basket of American businesses into a concentrated growth bet dressed up as a diversified portfolio.

If your goal is income (replacing a paycheck someday, funding retirement, generating cash you can spend), the index is no longer the right tool for the job. Not at 1.10%. You’d need a $5 million S&P portfolio to generate $55,000 of pre-tax income a year. That’s not a retirement plan. That’s a problem.

But here’s the half of the story most investors miss.

The total dividend paid by S&P 500 companies has grown from roughly $22 per share in 1980 to roughly $80 per share today. Through the 1987 crash. Through the dot-com bust. Through 2008. Through the 2020 pandemic. Dividends got paid in good times and bad. They got paid when CNBC was screaming about the next recession. They got paid when nobody was watching.

Stock prices are volatile. The dividends paid by great companies are not.

That’s the lesson hidden in the chart. The headline yield is at an all-time low because prices have run faster than payouts. But the underlying cash flowing out of these businesses has grown for forty straight years. The income machine is still humming. You just can’t access it cleanly through an index anymore.

You have to build it yourself. One business at a time.

Beating the market doesn’t matter. Funding your life does.

I want to reframe what success looks like, because most investors are keeping score wrong.

Almost every investing newsletter, podcast, and YouTube channel is selling the same thing: how to beat the S&P 500. My portfolio vs. the index. Returns this quarter vs. the benchmark. Did you outperform? It’s everywhere.

But that scoreboard belongs to fund managers. Not you.

A fund manager who beats the index by 5% in a 30% drawdown still gets his bonus. He still keeps his job. He still pays his mortgage. You don’t. If your portfolio is down 25% the year you planned to retire, outperforming doesn’t pay your property tax bill.

You’re not a money manager. You’re a person trying to fund a life.

That’s why the scoreboard I care about is different. I care about the dividend checks landing in my account. I care about whether they’re growing faster than inflation. I care about whether they show up in good years and bad. I care about whether, five, ten, or twenty years from now, those checks can replace my paycheck without me ever having to sell a share.

That’s the income machine.

You build a portfolio of high-quality businesses that pay you to hold them. You reinvest the dividends until you need the cash. You let the income compound quietly through every cycle. Once it’s built, it runs. You don’t have to time the market. You don’t have to predict the next recession. You don’t have to outsmart anybody. You just have to own great businesses and let them work.

When that’s the goal, beating the index becomes a footnote. Some years you will. Some years you won’t. It doesn’t matter. That’s not the game you’re playing.

Business first. Dividend last.

This is the core of what I teach, so I want to be very clear about it.

Most dividend services lead with yield. I lead with the business.

When I’m researching a stock, the dividend is the last thing I evaluate. Not the first. The dividend is an output. It’s what falls out of a great business, not a reason to buy a mediocre one.

Every stock I’d consider for the universe goes through six tests before the dividend even comes up:

1. The business. What do they sell? How do they make money? Will the model still work in twenty years?

2. The moat. What protects them from competition? Pricing power, network effects, switching costs, scale, brand?

3. Management. Are they good operators? Are they aligned with shareholders? Do they have skin in the game?

4. Growth. Where is revenue going? Is the runway real, or are they running out of room?

5. Risk. What could break the thesis? What are the downsides if I’m wrong?

6. Valuation. What’s a fair price to pay today?

Only after a company passes those tests does the dividend question come up. Is it safe? Is it growing? Is it higher than the index’s 1.10%? Will it grow faster than inflation?

If the answer is yes, the stock earns a place in the universe.

If the answer is no, even if the yield is jaw-dropping, it doesn’t.

This is why my members don’t get caught in yield traps. A 9% yielder almost always fails the business test or the moat test long before the dividend question is even on the table. Boeing was paying out billions in dividends right up until the 737 MAX was grounded. AT&T raised the dividend for thirty-five years before slashing it in 2022. Kraft Heinz looked like a textbook dividend stock until it cut its payout almost in half in 2019.

The dividend wasn’t the warning sign in any of those cases. The business was. And the framework would have flagged it.

Let me walk through each step.

Subscribe now

1. The business

Before I look at a single number, I want to answer one question in plain English: what does this company actually do?

If I can’t explain the business to a friend at dinner without jargon, I’m not buying it. That’s not me being lazy. That’s me being honest about what I understand.

Coca-Cola sells flavored sugar water in roughly two hundred countries, and they’ve been doing it for more than a century. McDonald’s sells food and rents real estate to franchisees. Visa runs the rails that almost every credit card transaction in the developed world depends on. Costco sells memberships that give people the right to buy groceries at very low margins.

These are simple businesses. That’s the point.

What I want is durability. A model that works the same way in good economies and bad. Consumers will keep brushing their teeth (Procter & Gamble, Colgate). They’ll keep paying their utility bills (NextEra, Duke Energy). They’ll keep getting sick and needing medicine (Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie). They’ll keep swiping cards (Visa, Mastercard).

I want boring. Boring compounds.

If I can’t articulate why a business will still be earning money in twenty years, I move on. There are thousands of publicly traded companies in the U.S. alone. I don’t need to figure them all out.

2. The moat

A moat is whatever protects a company from competition. Without one, profits get competed away. With one, profits compound.

Buffett’s mental model is the right one: imagine the business as a castle. The moat is what keeps the castle from getting raided.

The strongest moats I’ll pay up for:

Network effects. Visa and Mastercard are valuable because they are widely accepted. Everyone uses them because they’re valuable. The more merchants accept cards, the more cardholders sign up; the more cardholders, the more merchants accept cards. New entrants can’t catch up.

Switching costs. Microsoft is embedded in every enterprise on earth. Try switching your company off Excel, Outlook, and Teams and see how long it takes. Same with ADP. Once you’ve outsourced payroll, you don’t switch providers for a 5% discount.

Brand and pricing power. Coca-Cola can raise prices every year, and people still buy it. Hermès can charge $15,000 for a handbag because it’s a Hermès. That’s a moat measured in mindshare.

Scale and cost advantage. Costco buys at a lower per-unit cost than anyone else and passes the savings to members. Walmart’s distribution network can’t be replicated without a hundred billion dollars and twenty years.

If a business has a moat, it can raise its dividend for decades without earnings collapsing, because earnings are protected. If it doesn’t, the dividend is on borrowed time, and you’re just renting yield.

3. Management

A great business with bad management is a slowly leaking bucket.

I want to know who’s running the show, how they’re paid, and whether they own the stock themselves. The cleanest signal is alignment. When management is paid in stock, personally owns a meaningful stake, and is compensated based on long-term metrics rather than this year’s EPS, their incentives line up with mine.

Family-controlled and founder-led businesses tend to outperform on this dimension because the family’s net worth lives or dies with the company. Brown-Forman (Jack Daniel’s), Hershey, Walmart, and Cintas have all delivered for shareholders for decades, in part because the families running them think in generations, not quarters.

Capital allocation is the other thing I’m watching. When the company earns a dollar of free cash flow, what do they do with it? The best CEOs reinvest where returns are high, buy back stock when shares are cheap, pay a sustainable, growing dividend, and acquire other businesses only when the math actually works. The worst CEOs build empires.

Read the proxy statements. Read the shareholder letters. Listen to the earnings calls. You can tell within an hour whether management is thinking about the company or thinking about their stock options.

4. Growth

A dividend can only grow if earnings grow. Earnings can only grow reliably if the business is growing. Please let me know where the next decade’s revenue will come from.

I’m not looking for hypergrowth. A 5-8% organic revenue grower with a strong moat is exactly what I want. That’s enough to support a dividend that grows faster than inflation, with room left over for buybacks and reinvestment.

The companies I love most are the ones with secular tailwinds.

Aging demographics is a thirty-year tailwind for healthcare names like Johnson & Johnson, UnitedHealth, and Stryker. The global migration from cash to digital still has decades to run for Visa and Mastercard. Cloud and software adoption are still in the early innings in industries like manufacturing and logistics, which works in Microsoft’s favor. The buildout of physical data infrastructure benefits companies like American Tower and Crown Castle.

The trend doesn’t have to be glamorous. Watts Water makes plumbing fittings. Roper Technologies acquires niche software companies. Sherwin-Williams sells paint. Boring is fine. Growing is essential.

If a company can’t tell me where growth comes from over the next decade, I can’t tell myself why its dividend will be larger than it is now. That’s a pass.

5. Risk

Every thesis has a way of breaking. My job is to find it before I buy.

I ask the same questions for every name. Is the balance sheet healthy? I want low debt relative to earnings, ample free cash flow coverage, and, in most cases, an investment-grade credit rating. Companies that leverage up to fund the dividend are the ones that get caught when the cycle turns. Is the dividend safe? I look at the payout ratio against earnings and free cash flow. A 90% payout ratio is a yellow flag. A 110% payout ratio is a cut waiting to happen.

What does a recession do to the business? Some companies barely notice: Procter & Gamble, Colgate, Coca-Cola. Some get devastated: anything tied to housing, autos, or discretionary capex. I want to know the answer before the recession arrives, not during it.

What’s the regulatory exposure? Healthcare, banking, and utilities live and die by regulation. That doesn’t disqualify them (UnitedHealth and JPMorgan are exceptional businesses), but the risk has to be priced in.

What’s the technology risk? Will AI replace this business? Will a new platform make this product obsolete? Some businesses are technology-immune. Others are technology-fragile. I size my positions accordingly.

The point isn’t to find a stock with no risks. There’s no such thing. The point is to know what you’re buying and to size the position so you can survive being wrong.

6. Valuation

You can buy a great business and still get a bad investment if you pay too much.

I’m not a deep-value investor. I’m not waiting for Coca-Cola to trade at 8x earnings. That’s never going to happen, and even if it did, something would be very wrong. But I’m not paying any price either. I want a fair price for a wonderful business. That’s Buffett’s line, and it’s mine.

I use a variety of tools, depending on the company, but my main process includes:

• Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)

• Reverse DCF

• Relative metrics (P/E, P/FCF, EV/EBITDA, etc.)

I look at a company’s own history first. If a stock has averaged 22x earnings over the last decade, paying 30x today means I’m betting on multiple expansion. That’s a bad bet over the long run. I’d rather pay 18x and let multiple expansion be a free option.

I cross-check with free cash flow yield, dividend yield relative to its historical range, and a rough discounted cash flow analysis under conservative assumptions. None of these is precise. They don’t need to be. I’m looking for a stock where I’d be happy with the return, even if the multiple never expanded, where the cash flows alone do the work.

Don’t focus on precision; focus on ranges. It’s not important to determine whether Coke is worth $43.46 or $44.02. It’s far more important to determine if Coke is worth between $40-$50. Because in the long run, the small differences in value won’t matter.

When valuation lines up with everything else, I buy. When it doesn’t, I wait. There’s always another fat pitch. Patience is a free skill. Use it.

Then, and only then, the dividend question

Once a company has cleared all six tests, I finally look at the dividend itself.

I want a yield meaningfully above the index (at 1.10%, that bar is low), but not so high that it’s signaling distress. I want a payout ratio under 75% on free cash flow. I want a dividend that’s been growing consistently, ideally for at least a decade, through at least one recession. I want the growth rate to clear inflation by a comfortable margin.

If all of that is true, the stock makes the universe.

That’s it. That’s the framework.

Subscribe now

Shareholder yield: the part most dividend investors miss

I want to add one more layer, because it doubles the power of the strategy.

When a great company earns more cash than it can profitably reinvest, it returns the excess to shareholders. There are two ways to do this: dividends and buybacks. Most dividend investors only count the first one. They’re missing half the picture.

A buyback is, mathematically, a tax-deferred dividend. When a company retires shares, every remaining shareholder owns a slightly larger slice of the business. Earnings per share goes up. Dividends per share goes up. Your ownership goes up. And you didn’t pay a penny of tax on the increase.

Apple is the cleanest example of the last decade. They’ve bought back roughly a quarter of their outstanding shares since 2013. Shareholders who held the entire time saw their ownership of Apple grow by a third without lifting a finger.

Shareholder yield = dividend yield + buyback yield. That’s the metric I actually track.

It also opens up a tier of great businesses that don’t show up on dividend screens (companies like Visa, Mastercard, and AutoZone) that return enormous amounts of capital to shareholders, just not primarily through dividends. If a business passes the six tests and the total capital return is strong, it’s a candidate. The form of the return matters less than the fact of it.

Who this works for

This isn’t for everyone, and I’d rather be honest about that than pretend it is.

This works if you want to own great businesses, not chase yields. If you’d rather sleep through a bear market than try to time it. If you want income that grows year after year, not the next 10-bagger. If you believe compounding works when you give it time and discipline.

It doesn’t work if you measure yourself against the S&P 500 every quarter. It doesn’t work if you want stock picks without context. It doesn’t work if you’re flipping for short-term gains. It doesn’t work if you’re hunting yield without caring why the yield is high.

If the first list sounds like you, you’re in the right place. This is exactly what I do.

The point of all of this

I’ve been investing in dividend stocks for thirteen years. I’ve made every mistake in the book at least once. I bought yield traps early on. I sold great companies during drawdowns when I should have held. I held losers too long because I didn’t want to admit I was wrong.

What I’m teaching at Dividend School is the strategy that emerged on the other side of all of that. The one that survived contact with my own mistakes.

It works because it’s simple. Own great businesses. Let them pay you. Reinvest until you need the cash. Don’t trade. Don’t predict. Don’t try to outsmart the market. Just keep adding to the income machine.

The compounding takes care of itself.

If you’ve made it this far, you’re the right kind of investor for this work. Subscribe, follow along, and let’s compound our dividends together.

Dave Ahern, Founder, Dividend School

Subscribe now

The truth is that utilities are among the few corners of the stock market where a company literally negotiates its profits with the government, then earns them year after year on a growing base of approved infrastructure. Once you understand the machinery underneath, analyzing them becomes surprisingly systematic.

In today’s post, we will use NextEra Energy (NEE) and its regulated subsidiary, Florida Power & Light (FPL), as our working example to walk through a complete, repeatable framework you can apply to any utility on your watchlist. By the end, you will have a checklist covering seven steps and eight key metrics.

Here is what we will cover:

• The Regulated Utility Business Model (in Plain English)

• Why the Regulator Is the Real Moat

• The Seven-Step Analysis Framework

• The Eight Metrics That Matter Most

• Applying the Framework to NextEra Energy

• Common Mistakes Utility Investors Make

• The Investor Takeaway

Let’s dive in.

The Regulated Utility Business Model in Plain English

Before we get to the metrics, you need to understand how a regulated electric utility actually earns its keep. The model is different from almost every other industry.

A regulated utility strikes a bargain with the state in which it operates. The company agrees to serve every customer in its territory safely, reliably, and at reasonable rates. In exchange, the state grants it a monopoly and lets it earn a specific, approved return on the capital it invests in infrastructure.

That approved return is the engine of the whole business. Three concepts make it work.

Rate base is the total value of the utility’s invested assets (power plants, transmission lines, substations, poles, wires, smart meters) minus accumulated depreciation. It represents the capital the utility has deployed to serve its customers.

Allowed return on equity (ROE) is the percentage return the state’s public utility commission permits the utility to earn on the equity portion of its rate base. This gets set in a formal proceeding called a rate case. In recent years, authorized ROEs for electric utilities have clustered in the 9.5% to 10% range nationally, though they vary by state.

Revenue requirement is what the utility is allowed to collect from customers, calculated roughly as:

Revenue Requirement = (Rate Base × Allowed Rate of Return) + Operating Expenses

Customer rates are then set to generate that revenue requirement.

Here is the key insight for investors. A regulated utility grows its earnings in one primary way: by growing its rate base. Every dollar of approved capital investment earns a regulated return year after year. That is why utility executives obsess over their five-year capital plans, and why you should read them carefully.

NextEra’s regulated arm, FPL, is the largest electric utility in the United States, serving approximately 6 million customer accounts (about 12 million Floridians). According to NextEra’s 2024 10-K and company disclosures, FPL’s regulatory capital employed grew roughly 8.1% in 2024, and FPL invested approximately $8.2 billion in capital that year. That capital investment is the fuel. The allowed ROE is the multiplier. Together, they determine how much FPL earns.

Why the Regulator Is the Real Moat

You can find a utility with a beautiful balance sheet, a growing rate base, and a reasonable dividend, and still lose money if you ignore the regulator.

The state commission sets the allowed ROE, approves the capital structure, decides how quickly the utility can recover invested capital, and rules on which projects get approved. Two utilities with identical operations can produce very different shareholder returns based purely on whether they operate in a constructive or hostile regulatory environment.

When I evaluate a utility’s regulatory setup, I focus on five things.

Allowed ROE relative to national averages. Is the utility earning close to or above the industry median? If a utility operates in a state with a 9.15% allowed ROE and its peers sit at 10.2%, that is a structural headwind. FPL operates in Florida, which is widely considered one of the most constructive regulatory jurisdictions in the country. In November 2025, the Florida Public Service Commission approved a four-year rate settlement allowing FPL a 10.95% target return on equity, materially above the national average of roughly 9.56%.

Regulatory lag. This is the time between when a utility spends capital and when it starts earning a return on that spending. Short lag is good. Long lag erodes returns. Florida uses forward-looking test years for FPL’s rate cases, which reduces lag by letting FPL set rates based on projected future costs rather than historical ones.

Cost recovery mechanisms. Riders and trackers allow utilities to recover specific costs (fuel, storm damage, infrastructure upgrades) between full-rate cases. More mechanisms mean less risk. FPL’s Solar Base Rate Adjustment (SoBRA) mechanism, for example, allows FPL to earn a return on approved new solar generation as it comes online, without waiting for the next full rate case. The 2025 settlement also preserves SoBRA recovery through 2028 and 2029.

Multi-year rate certainty. Multi-year agreements provide a runway of predictable earnings. FPL’s settlement locks in the rate structure through the end of 2029, giving NextEra investors visibility that utilities in less constructive states simply do not have.

Political climate. Is the commission appointed or elected? Are affordability concerns driving aggressive rate pushback? The 2025 FPL case shows how this plays out in real time. FPL originally requested an 11.9% ROE. After pushback from AARP Florida and other consumer groups, and mediation with ten stakeholder organizations, FPL settled for 10.95%. That is a meaningful cut from the request, but it remains comfortably above the national average and supportive of the company’s capital plan.

Regulatory Research Associates publishes rankings of state regulatory environments, and S&P Global, Fitch, and Moody’s all assess regulatory quality in their credit reports. Read them before you buy.

Red Flags in Regulation

Be cautious when you see disallowed capital costs in recent rate cases, repeated authorized ROE reductions, lengthy rate case timelines, or public fights between the utility and its commission. Any of these can quietly compound into years of subpar returns.

This is where most utility analysis stops. It's where ours starts.

Every week, School of Investing subscribers get a new framework like this one — the kind of analytical process that turns you from someone who follows stock picks into someone who evaluates companies independently.

Paid members get the Dividend Safety Spreadsheet, the full calculator suite (ROIC, WACC, dividend safety), the complete infographic library, and a new framework in your inbox every week. All grounded in SEC filings, all built to be used.

Join School of Investing

The Seven-Step Analysis Framework

Put the pieces together, and here is the repeatable workflow I use for any regulated electric utility. I will apply each step to NextEra Energy as we go.

Step 1: Understand the Footprint

Start with the basics. What states does the utility operate in? How many customers? What is the mix of residential, commercial, and industrial load? Is demand growing or flat?

NextEra has two primary businesses. Florida Power & Light (FPL) is the regulated utility serving approximately 12 million Floridians across one of the fastest-growing states in the country. NextEra Energy Resources (NEER) is a competitive, unregulated renewables and storage business that operates approximately 43 gigawatts of generation capacity across the U.S. and Canada. For utility investors, FPL is the rate-base compounder. NEER is the growth accelerator, but it does not have the same regulatory protections.

This dual structure matters because the two businesses have different risk profiles. If you are analyzing a pure-play regulated utility, you will focus entirely on the regulated footprint.

Step 2: Evaluate the Regulatory Jurisdictions

Pull the most recent rate case decisions. Note the allowed ROE, the authorized equity ratio, the test year type, and any disallowances. Check third-party rankings of regulatory quality.

For FPL, the November 2025 settlement produced these terms:

This is a constructive outcome. The allowed ROE sits well above the national average, the multi-year structure provides visibility, and the SoBRA mechanism protects ongoing investment in the new generation.

Step 3: Review the Capital Plan

Read the most recent investor presentation. Note the multi-year capex number, the rate base growth guidance, and the EPS growth guidance. Ask whether the capex is weighted toward constructive jurisdictions and toward lower-risk transmission and distribution rather than higher-risk generation.

NextEra’s investor disclosures indicate that FPL is investing roughly $8 billion to $9 billion annually in capital, with the company expecting regulated capital in electric and gas transmission to grow at more than 20% CAGR through 2032. FPL is also in advanced discussions for approximately 9 gigawatts of large-load development (think data centers and industrial customers).

This is the kind of capital plan you want to see: large, credible, weighted toward a constructive jurisdiction, and tied to measurable demand growth.

Step 4: Run the Eight Metrics

We will cover these in detail in the next section. For now, the point is that you systematically check each one and flag anything outside healthy ranges.

Step 5: Stress-Test the Dividend

Look at the dividend growth streak, the payout ratio on earnings, and the credit rating. Ask the hard question: if the next rate case came in 50 basis points below the current allowed ROE, would the dividend still be safe?

NextEra has increased its dividend for more than 30 consecutive years and grown it at roughly a 10% annualized rate over the past decade. Management has guided to continued approximately 10% dividend growth through 2026 (off a 2024 base), then roughly 6% annual growth for 2027 and 2028 (off a 2026 base). The streak and the forward guidance both suggest that the dividend is well supported.

Step 6: Compare to Peers

A utility never exists in isolation. Benchmark your target against three or four comparable utilities on valuation (forward P/E), rate base growth rate, dividend yield, and regulatory quality. A higher multiple is justifiable only if the growth or regulatory quality justifies it.

Step 7: Value the Stock

Regulated utilities trade on a narrow band of forward P/E, usually 15x to 20x, depending on growth and quality. Dividend discount models and peer multiples are both reasonable tools. You can also check the dividend yield relative to the stock’s historical range, though yield alone should never be your sole valuation tool.

A high dividend yield can signal a bargain or a warning that the market expects a dividend cut. Context matters.

The Eight Metrics That Matter Most

These are the numbers I track for every utility. I have organized them by what they tell you, and pulled NextEra’s readings for each where disclosed.

Growth Metrics

1. Rate base growth rate. Arguably, the single most important number. Look for the historical five-year growth rate and management’s forward guidance in investor presentations. Healthy, well-positioned utilities are currently guiding to 6%-9% annual rate base growth. FPL’s regulatory capital grew 8.1% in 2024.

2. EPS growth guidance. Most large utilities provide multi-year adjusted EPS growth targets. NextEra expects at least 8% compound annual adjusted EPS growth through 2032, based on its expected 2025 range of $3.62 to $3.70 per share. The company delivered $3.71 in adjusted EPS in 2025, at the top end of the range.

3. Capital expenditure plan. NextEra’s disclosures indicate FPL is investing approximately $8 billion to $9 billion annually in capital, with regulated transmission capital growing at a more than 20% CAGR through 2032.

Profitability Metrics

4. Earned ROE vs. allowed ROE. The allowed ROE tells you what regulators permit. The earned ROE tells you what the utility actually delivered. A utility consistently earning close to its allowed ROE is well-managed and operating in a supportive environment. A utility earning 100+ basis points below its allowed ROE is underperforming, and you should investigate why. FPL has historically earned close to the top of its allowed range, a testament to cost discipline and Florida’s constructive environment.

Dividend Safety Metrics

5. Dividend payout ratio (earnings basis). Utilities run negative free cash flow during heavy investment cycles because they are constantly spending on new infrastructure. FCF payout ratios often exceed 100%, which is normal for the sector but meaningless for dividend safety analysis. Focus instead on the dividend-to-earnings payout ratio. Healthy utilities sit in the 55% to 70% range. NextEra’s annual dividend of approximately $2.49 per share, relative to 2025 adjusted EPS of $3.71, yields a payout ratio of roughly 67%, right in the healthy zone.

6. Funds from operations (FFO) to debt. Credit rating agencies watch this metric closely. It measures how much cash flow is available to service debt obligations. S&P typically requires FFO/debt above 18% to maintain NextEra’s current A- rating. Moody’s and Fitch have similar thresholds. NextEra’s 2024 FFO/debt came in at approximately 18.7%, just above the S&P downgrade threshold and consistent with maintaining its investment-grade rating. This is a metric to watch closely.

Balance Sheet Metric

7. Debt-to-capitalization ratio. Most regulated utilities target 50%-55% debt as a percentage of total capital. This is not high leverage for a utility (regulators actually approve capital structures with specific debt and equity weightings, and the utility earns its allowed return on the equity portion). FPL’s settlement maintains an equity ratio of approximately 59.6%, meaning roughly 40% debt, which is conservative by utility standards.

Dividend Track Record

8. Consecutive years of dividend increases. A long streak is not a guarantee of future increases, but it does indicate how management views the dividend. NextEra has increased its dividend for more than 30 consecutive years, and management has publicly committed to continued increases through 2028.

Applying the Framework to NextEra Energy

Let me bring all seven steps together in a single walkthrough of NextEra.

Footprint. FPL serves about 12 million Floridians in a fast-growing state with rising electricity demand. NEER adds a nationwide renewables-and-storage business with a growing backlog. The mix is roughly weighted toward the regulated business for earnings stability, with NEER providing growth optionality.

Regulatory jurisdictions. Florida is one of the most constructive regulatory environments in the U.S. The 2025 settlement produced a 10.95% allowed ROE, a four-year agreement through 2029, and preserved SoBRA recovery.

Capital plan. FPL is investing roughly $8 billion to $9 billion annually, with regulated transmission capital guided to grow more than 20% CAGR through 2032. NEER’s renewables backlog sits above 22 gigawatts.

The eight metrics. Rate base growth of 8.1% in 2024 (healthy), adjusted EPS growth guidance of at least 8% annually through 2032 (strong), earned ROE historically close to allowed (well-managed), earnings-basis payout ratio of roughly 67% (healthy), FFO/debt of approximately 18.7% (above the S&P threshold, but worth monitoring), equity ratio of 59.6% (conservative), and a dividend streak of over 30 years (industry-leading).

Dividend stress test. If FPL’s next rate case ten years from now produced a 9.95% allowed ROE instead of 10.95%, would the dividend still be safe? Given the company’s payout ratio, capital plan, and debt capacity, almost certainly yes, though EPS growth would slow.

Peer comparison. NextEra typically trades at a premium to the utility sector because of its combination of a high-quality regulated utility and a fast-growing renewables business. That premium is justifiable only if the EPS growth rate continues to exceed the peer average, which currently it does.

Valuation. At roughly $92 per share and trailing adjusted EPS of $3.71, NextEra trades at approximately 24.8x trailing earnings, a premium to the utility sector’s typical 15x to 20x range. On the 2026 adjusted EPS guidance of $3.92 to $4.02, the forward P/E falls closer to 23x. You are paying a premium price, and the premium is the question an investor has to answer.

The Setup for 2026

A few industry tailwinds and headwinds are worth knowing before you start analyzing individual names.

On the tailwind side, U.S. electricity demand is accelerating after two decades of flat growth. Data center load, AI infrastructure, factory reshoring, and electric vehicle adoption are all driving up demand. NextEra’s own forecasts call for U.S. power demand to grow approximately 38% over the coming decades. Utilities with clear capital plans to support that growth, particularly in transmission, are well-positioned.

On the headwind side, rising customer bills are creating political pressure (the AARP Florida pushback on FPL’s original 11.9% ROE request is a clear example). Extreme weather is increasing storm-related costs. Higher interest rates have raised the cost of the debt utilities depend on. And federal policy shifts on clean energy are creating new execution risks for renewable developers.

Neither side cancels the other. The opportunity is in finding utilities with strong rate base growth, constructive regulators, healthy balance sheets, and a customer base that can absorb rate increases without political backlash.

Common Mistakes Utility Investors Make

A few pitfalls I see regularly.

Chasing yield. A utility yielding 7% when its peers yield 3.5% is not a bargain. It is usually a signal that the market expects trouble, whether a dividend cut, regulatory disallowance, or balance sheet strain. Check why the yield is high before you trust it.

Ignoring the regulator. Two utilities with identical financials can produce very different returns based on the commission they answer to. Skip this step, and you are gambling.

Using the FCF payout ratio instead of the earnings payout ratio. Utilities run negative FCF during heavy investment cycles. The FCF payout ratio will look terrifying and tell you nothing. Use the earnings-basis payout ratio.

Treating all utilities the same. A pure-play regulated utility and a hybrid like NextEra (with a large competitive renewables arm) have different risk profiles. Know which one you are buying.

Assuming the dividend is safe just because it has a long streak. A 30-year streak is a strong signal, but it does not override a deteriorating balance sheet or a hostile regulator. Check the fundamentals every year.

The Investor Takeaway

Regulated electric utilities reward investors who understand three things: the business model is built on rate base growth, the regulator is the moat, and the dividend is only as safe as the balance sheet behind it.

Start with the regulator. Follow with the capital plan. Verify with the eight metrics. If all three line up, you have likely found a utility worth owning.

NextEra Energy shows what happens when the combination works. A constructive regulator (Florida), a large and growing rate base (FPL), a disciplined balance sheet (18.7% FFO/debt), and a 30-year dividend streak produce the kind of compounding that builds wealth quietly over decades. The trade-off is a premium valuation, which is the question every NextEra investor has to answer for themselves.

The sector will never be exciting. That is the feature, not the bug.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

You just analyzed your first utility. Keep building.

The investors who compound wealth over decades don’t rely on other people’s stock picks. They build their own analytical process, one framework at a time.

School of Investing is built around that idea. Paid subscribers get:

• A new analytical framework every week, grounded in SEC filings

• The Dividend Safety Spreadsheet that flags at-risk payers automatically

• The complete calculator suite: ROIC, WACC, dividend safety, reverse DCF

• The full infographic library, downloadable and shareable

You don’t need someone else to tell you what to buy. You need the tools to decide for yourself. I’d love to help you build them.

Join the School of Investing

In today’s post, we will cover:

• What Management Actually Does with Free Cash Flow

• Dividends: The Predictable Path

• Buybacks: The Flexible (and Sometimes Misunderstood) Path

• When Buybacks Beat Dividends (and When They Don’t)

• Apple: A Case Study in Doing Both

• What This Means for Your Investing Process

Okay, let’s dive in.

What Management Actually Does with Free Cash Flow

Before we compare buybacks and dividends, we need to zoom out. A company’s CEO has four main options for the free cash flow the business generates each year:

1. Reinvest in the business (new products, new factories, new markets)

2. Acquire other businesses

3. Pay down debt

4. Return cash to shareholders (through dividends or buybacks)

The first three are value-creating when the returns exceed the company’s cost of capital. When they don’t, returning cash to shareholders becomes the best option. This is the concept Warren Buffett has been hammering on for decades. A business that can reinvest profits at 25% returns should keep the cash. A business that can only reinvest at 5% should return the excess to the owners and let them deploy it elsewhere.

Apple generated $111.5 billion in operating cash flow in fiscal 2025, according to its 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2025. After $12.7 billion in capital expenditures, roughly $98.8 billion remained in free cash flow. Apple’s management decided that the best use of most of it was to return it to shareholders. They sent back $104.7 billion, split between $89.3 billion in buybacks and $15.4 billion in dividends. That is the decision we are going to unpack.

Dividends: The Predictable Path

A dividend is a cash payment that the company sends directly to shareholders on a regular schedule, usually quarterly. If you own 100 shares of Apple and the quarterly dividend is $0.26 per share, you receive $26 deposited into your brokerage account every three months.

The mechanics are simple, but the signaling is powerful. When a company declares a dividend, management is telling the market three things:

• We expect to generate enough cash to cover this payment indefinitely

• We have more cash than we can productively reinvest

• We are committing, at least implicitly, to keep paying (cutting a dividend is brutal for the stock price)

Apple raised its quarterly dividend from $0.25 to $0.26 per share in May 2025, according to its fiscal 2025 10-K. That is a 4% increase and marks the thirteenth consecutive year Apple has raised its dividend since reinstating one in 2012. The 10-K states directly that the company “intends to increase its dividend on an annual basis, subject to declaration by the Board.”

Dividends create a tax event for shareholders in the year they are paid. For most long-term U.S. investors, qualified dividends are taxed at favorable long-term capital gains rates (0%, 15%, or 20% depending on income bracket). But the key point is you cannot defer the tax. When the check hits your account, the IRS takes its cut.

Dividends are also sticky. Management teams know that cutting a dividend signals distress, so they tend to set the level conservatively and raise it slowly. This is why you will see companies pay dividends during rough years, even when it strains the balance sheet.

You are learning to evaluate capital return programs the way an institutional analyst would. Buffett's filters, Apple's SEC filings, the five-question checklist, this is the work most retail investors never do, and it's why they get surprised when management destroys value with poorly timed buybacks. School of Investing is where investors go to stop guessing and start analyzing, with weekly deep dives, calculators, an infographic library, and AI prompts that make it possible.

Join School of Investing

Buybacks: The Flexible (and Sometimes Misunderstood) Path

A share buyback (also called a share repurchase) is when the company uses its cash to buy its own stock on the open market and retire those shares. If Apple buys back 100 million shares and retires them, there are now 100 million fewer shares outstanding. Your ownership stake and your claim to future earnings grow without you doing anything.

Here is the math that makes buybacks powerful. Imagine a company earns $10 billion in net income with 1 billion shares outstanding. Earnings per share are $10. If the company buys back 100 million shares and net income stays flat at $10 billion, EPS jumps to $11.11 (that is $10 billion divided by 900 million shares). Same company, same profits, but each remaining share now represents 11% more ownership.

Apple’s fiscal 2025 10-K shows this mechanism at work in real time. The company repurchased 402 million shares for $89.3 billion during the year, bringing total shares outstanding from 15.12 billion at the start of fiscal 2025 to 14.77 billion at year-end. Net income for the year was $112.0 billion, up from $93.7 billion the prior year. But diluted EPS grew even faster, from $6.08 in fiscal 2024 to $7.46 in fiscal 2025. Part of that EPS growth came from fewer shares in the denominator.

Three things make buybacks different from dividends:

• They are flexible. Management can speed up, slow down, or pause buybacks without signaling financial distress the way a dividend cut would.

• They create no immediate tax event for shareholders. You only owe capital gains tax when you sell your shares.

• They only create value when shares are bought at reasonable prices. This is the catch that almost nobody talks about.

That last point deserves its own paragraph. Buybacks transfer wealth from selling shareholders to remaining shareholders. If a company buys back stock at $200 per share and the intrinsic value is $300, the remaining shareholders got a bargain. If the company buys back stock at $300 when it is only worth $200, management just destroyed value.

When Buybacks Beat Dividends (and When They Don’t)

The choice between buybacks and dividends is not either/or in practice, but the trade-offs matter.

Buybacks tend to win when:

• The stock trades below intrinsic value (management can buy $1 of value for $0.80)

• Shareholders prefer to defer taxes

• The company wants flexibility to adjust capital return based on market conditions

• Management wants to offset dilution from stock-based compensation

Dividends tend to win when:

• The stock trades above intrinsic value (buybacks would destroy value; a dividend returns cash at par)

• Shareholders want predictable income (retirees, income-focused funds)

• The business is mature enough to commit to regular payments

• Management wants to signal discipline and long-term confidence

The most common critique of buybacks is that management teams are notoriously bad at timing them. Companies tend to buy back heavily when times are good, and their stock is expensive, then pull back during downturns when shares are cheap. That is the opposite of what creates value. A 2019 Harvard Business Review study found that the S&P 500’s buyback yield peaks near market tops and declines during corrections.

The second critique is that buybacks can mask weakness. A company with flat net income can still show EPS growth by buying back shares. If you only look at EPS, you might miss that the underlying business is not actually growing.

This is why I look at both net income growth and share count trend separately when I evaluate a company. If earnings are flat and EPS growth is coming entirely from buybacks, that is a very different story than a business growing earnings and reducing share count.

Apple: A Case Study in Doing Both

Apple is the textbook example of a mature, cash-generating business using both tools aggressively. Here is what the capital return program looked like over the last three fiscal years, pulled directly from the fiscal 2025 10-K cash flow statement:

The pattern is clear. Apple returns nearly all of its operating cash flow to shareholders, with roughly 85% going to buybacks and 15% to dividends. That split is deliberate.

On May 1, 2025, Apple’s board authorized a new $100 billion share repurchase program, on top of completing the previous $110 billion authorization announced in May 2024. According to the fiscal 2025 10-K, Apple utilized the final $19.8 billion of the May 2024 program during the fourth quarter and had used only $221 million of the new $100 billion program by year-end. That means Apple entered fiscal 2026 with roughly $99.8 billion of buyback authorization still to deploy.

The impact on share count has been dramatic. Apple’s diluted share count fell from 15.81 billion in fiscal 2023 to 15.00 billion in fiscal 2025. That is a reduction of roughly 810 million shares, or about 5%, in two years. Each remaining Apple share now represents a meaningfully larger claim on the company’s earnings than it did three years ago.

Why does Apple lean so heavily on buybacks instead of paying a larger dividend? A few reasons worth noting:

• Apple’s stock has compounded strongly. Per the 10-K’s five-year total return comparison, $100 invested in Apple on September 25, 2020, grew to $234 by September 27, 2025. Buying back shares at reasonable (if not cheap) prices has worked out for remaining shareholders.

• Flexibility matters at Apple’s scale. A larger dividend would be harder to adjust if the business environment changed. Buybacks can flex.

• Tax efficiency. Apple’s shareholders include many long-term holders who would rather defer capital gains than pay dividend taxes each quarter.

• Offsetting stock-based compensation. Apple expensed $12.9 billion in share-based compensation in fiscal 2025 per the 10-K. Without ongoing buybacks, the share count would creep up, diluting existing shareholders.

Apple’s approach is not perfect. Valuation matters: buybacks at elevated multiples return less per dollar than those at cheap multiples. But the company’s capital return program is disciplined, transparent, and massive.

What This Means for Your Investing Process

When you evaluate a company’s capital return program, here is what I look for:

• Does the company generate more free cash flow than it can reinvest profitably? If not, neither dividends nor buybacks are appropriate. Management should reinvest in the business.

• If the company pays a dividend, is it covered by free cash flow with room to spare? A payout ratio above 90% of free cash flow is a warning sign.

• If the company buys back shares, is the share count actually declining? Some companies “buy back” shares only to offset dilution from stock-based compensation. Check the share count trend, not just the buyback dollars.

• Is management buying back shares at reasonable prices? Compare the average repurchase price to your estimate of intrinsic value. Apple’s fiscal 2025 10-K shows the company paid an average of $210.43, $224.25, and $238.56 per share in the three months of its fourth quarter. Whether those were good prices depends on your view of Apple’s intrinsic value.

• Is the total capital return program sustainable? Add up dividends and buybacks and compare to operating cash flow. For Apple in fiscal 2025, $106.1 billion was returned against $111.5 billion in operating cash flow. That is sustainable.

The companies I want to own are those that generate far more cash than they need, return most of it to shareholders, and do so with discipline. Apple hits all three. Not every business can.

One important limitation: This framework applies to mature, profitable businesses. A young, fast-growing company should almost never pay dividends or buy back shares. If a business can reinvest at 25% returns, keep every dollar in the business. The capital return question only becomes interesting when the company’s internal reinvestment opportunities have diminished.

The core insight from Buffett applies here, too. The best businesses are those that can retain and reinvest at high rates of return. The next-best are those that cannot find enough high-return reinvestment opportunities but have disciplined management willing to send excess cash back. Apple is now in the second category, and its shareholders are better off because management understands it.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

You now know how to tell the difference between a company returning cash with discipline and one destroying value with poorly timed buybacks. That's a skill most investors never develop. Do this every week for a year, across dividends, buybacks, moats, valuation, capital allocation, and you become the analyst you used to rely on. That is what the School of Investing is built for.

Join School of Investing

Most dividend investors collect the check without understanding the machinery behind it. That’s fine until you try to time a purchase around a dividend, get confused by the price drop on the ex-date, or wonder why your “qualified” dividend got taxed as ordinary income.

The dividend distribution process has four specific dates, three parties involved in the transaction, and a few rules that determine whether you actually receive the payment. Once you understand the sequence, you’ll never misread a dividend announcement again.

In today’s post, we will learn:

• The Four Critical Dates Every Dividend Investor Must Know

• How the Distribution Actually Flows from Company to You

• Walking Through a Real Merck Dividend, Start to Finish

• What Happens to the Stock Price on the Ex-Date

• Common Mistakes Investors Make Around Dividend Dates

• Investor Takeaway

Okay, let’s dive in and learn how dividend distributions actually work.

The Four Critical Dates Every Dividend Investor Must Know

Every quarterly dividend involves four specific dates. They always happen in the same order, and missing the distinction between them is the single most common mistake new dividend investors make.

Declaration Date

This is the day the Board of Directors formally announces the dividend. The board votes, the company files an 8-K with the SEC, and a press release goes out. The declaration creates a legal liability on the company’s balance sheet. Until the board declares a dividend, no dividend exists, no matter how reliably the company has paid in the past.

Record Date

This is the cutoff. Whoever the company’s transfer agent has on its books as a shareholder at the close of business on the record date receives the dividend. Anyone who buys after the record date gets nothing this quarter.

Ex-Dividend Date

Here’s where investors get tripped up. Because U.S. stock trades settle on a T+1 basis (one business day after the trade), the ex-dividend date is set as the same day as the record date under current SEC rules. To receive the dividend, you must own the stock before the ex-date. Buy on the ex-date, and the seller keeps the dividend.

Payment Date

The day the cash actually moves. Your brokerage receives the funds from the company’s transfer agent and credits your account, usually the same day or the next day.

The sequence matters: Declare → Ex-Date/Record Date → Pay. Typically, two to three weeks separate the declaration from the ex-date, and another two to four weeks separate the ex-date from payment.

How the Distribution Actually Flows from Company to You

The cash doesn’t move directly from the company’s bank account to yours. There’s a chain of intermediaries, and understanding it explains why dividends sometimes hit accounts at different times for different investors.

The flow looks like this:

1. Company → Transfer Agent. The company wires the total dividend amount (shares outstanding × dividend per share) to its transfer agent. For Merck, that’s EQ Shareowner Services.

2. Transfer Agent → DTC (Depository Trust Company). Most shares aren’t held directly by individual investors. They’re held in “street name” by brokerages, which in turn use DTC as the central custodian. The transfer agent sends DTC the dividend share owed to all street-name holders.

3. DTC → Your Brokerage. DTC allocates cash among brokerages based on the number of shares each brokerage held on the record date.

4. Your Brokerage → You. Schwab, Fidelity, or whoever holds your account credits the dividend to your cash balance.

This is why two investors who both “own Merck” can see the dividend hit their accounts hours apart. The company paid on time. The brokerage processing speed is what differs.

Most investors collect dividends without understanding them. The ones who become real analysts go further. They learn the mechanics, then build the frameworks to evaluate which dividends are worth owning in the first place. That's what the paid School of Investing membership is built for.

Start thinking like an analyst

Walking Through a Real Merck Dividend, Start to Finish

Let’s trace an actual Merck dividend from board declaration to your account. I’ll use the Q1 2026 dividend because it’s the most recent as of this writing.

Declaration Date: November 18, 2025 Merck’s Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.85 per share, an increase from the prior $0.81 quarterly rate. The increase was announced via press release and filed with the SEC.

Record Date: December 15, 2025. To receive this dividend, you needed to be a shareholder of record at the close of business on December 15, 2025.

Ex-Dividend Date: December 15, 2025. You needed to have purchased Merck shares no later than December 12, 2025 (the last trading day before the ex-date) to receive this payment. Buy on or after December 15, and the prior owner keeps the $0.85.

Payment Date: January 8, 2026. The cash hit shareholder accounts. For an investor holding 100 shares, that’s $85.00 deposited.

Notice the gap: roughly seven weeks from declaration to payment. This is typical for Merck and most large-cap dividend payers.

Now let’s zoom out and look at Merck’s full-year picture to understand what this process produces in aggregate. According to Merck’s 2024 10-K filed with the SEC, the company returned $9.1 billion to shareholders in 2024, with $7.8 billion of that coming through dividends. The board raised the quarterly rate from $0.77 to $0.81 in November 2024, then to $0.85 in November 2025. That’s two consecutive November increases, which tells you when Merck typically reviews its dividend policy.

For an investor holding 1,000 shares of Merck across 2024, the dividend math looked like this:

That $3,080 is recurring income, paid in four installments, with each installment requiring you to own the shares before the relevant ex-date.

What Happens to the Stock Price on the Ex-Date

This is the part that confuses new investors most. On the ex-dividend date, the stock price typically drops by approximately the dividend amount at the open.

Why? Because the company is about to send cash out the door. A buyer on the ex-date is buying a slightly less valuable company (less cash on the balance sheet) and isn’t entitled to the upcoming dividend. The market prices that in immediately.

If Merck closes at $100.00 the day before the ex-date and pays an $0.85 dividend, you can expect the stock to open around $99.15 on the ex-date, all else equal. Of course, “all else equal” rarely holds in practice. Broader market moves, news, and earnings can swamp the dividend adjustment in either direction.

The practical implication: there is no “free lunch” in buying right before the ex-date to capture the dividend. You received the $0.85, but you also bought a stock that immediately trades $0.85 lower. Tax treatment can actually make this strategy a net loser if the dividend gets taxed at ordinary income rates while the price drop creates no offsetting tax benefit until you sell.

Common Mistakes Investors Make Around Dividend Dates

Three errors come up over and over.

Confusing the ex-date with the record date when buying. Investors see “record date: June 16” and assume buying on June 16 qualifies them. It does not. The ex-date is what matters for new buyers. Always look for the ex-dividend date, not the record date.

Assuming declared dividends are guaranteed forever. A board can cut, suspend, or eliminate a dividend at any future declaration. The 90-day cycle is a tradition, not a contract. Companies like General Electric and AT&T have demonstrated this painfully in recent years. The fact that Merck has paid reliably for decades reflects management discipline and cash generation, not a legal obligation.

Misunderstanding qualified vs. ordinary dividend tax treatment. To receive qualified dividend treatment (taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate), you generally must hold the stock for more than 60 days during the 121-day period beginning 60 days before the ex-dividend date. Buy a stock the week before the ex-date, collect the dividend, sell two weeks later, and you’ll likely owe ordinary income tax on that dividend. This wipes out a big chunk of the after-tax yield.

Investor Takeaway

The dividend distribution process isn’t complicated once you’ve seen it laid out. A board declares. A record date establishes who gets paid. An ex-date determines who can still buy in. A payment date moves the cash. The same four-step sequence runs on every U.S. dividend stock you’ll ever own.

Investors create problems for themselves in the small details: buying on the wrong side of the ex-date, assuming a declared dividend is permanent, or violating the qualified dividend holding period and surrendering the tax advantage.

Merck’s pattern is a useful template to memorize. Declarations roughly two months ahead of payment, ex-dates and record dates aligned, payments on the 7th or 8th of the month following each quarter-end. Once you’ve watched one full cycle, you’ve watched them all.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

Want to go from collecting dividends to actually understanding them?

The free posts give you the foundation. Paid subscribers get the full analyst toolkit: the dividend screening framework I use to find quality payers, the valuation calculators to know what they’re worth, the infographic library you can save and reference, and AI prompts that turn 10-K reading from a chore into a 20-minute process.

The goal isn’t to give you stock tips. It’s to make you the kind of investor who doesn’t need them.

Become a paid subscriber

The problem isn’t dividend investing. The problem is screening for the wrong things in the wrong order. In today’s post, I’ll walk you through the exact screening framework I use to find quality dividend stocks, with specific filter criteria you can plug into any free screener (Finviz, Fiscal.ai, your brokerage’s tool) and start using today.

Here’s what we’ll cover:

• Why yield is the worst place to start

• The 7 filters I use, in order

• How to apply each filter with specific thresholds

• A real-world walkthrough using the framework

• Common screening mistakes to avoid

Let’s dive in.

Why Yield Is the Worst Place to Start

A high dividend yield is often a warning, not an opportunity. Yield is just the annual dividend divided by the share price. When the share price falls as the business deteriorates, the yield mechanically rises. By the time a stock yields 9% or 10%, the market is usually telling you something.

Think of yield as the last filter, not the first. Quality comes first. Sustainability comes second. Growth comes third. Yield comes last, because a 3% yield from a business that grows its dividend 8% per year for two decades will crush an 8% yield that gets cut in half three years from now.

With that mindset, let’s build the framework.

You are learning to screen dividend stocks the way an analyst would. Imagine what a full year of frameworks like this does to your process. School of Investing is where investors go to stop guessing and start analyzing, with the weekly deep dives, the calculators, the infographic library, and the AI prompts that make it possible."

Become a School of Investing subscribe

The 7-Filter Dividend Screening Framework

Filter 1: Market Capitalization (Stability Floor)

What to set: Market cap greater than $2 billion (or $10 billion if you want to be more conservative).

Why it matters: Smaller companies have less financial cushion. When recessions hit, small caps cut dividends at much higher rates than large caps. A market cap floor doesn’t guarantee safety, but it filters out the most fragile names before you spend any time researching them.

If you’re new to dividend investing, start with $10 billion or more. You’ll be looking at established businesses with longer operating histories, more analyst coverage, and easier access to SEC filings.

Filter 2: Dividend History (Track Record)

What to set: Has paid a dividend for at least 10 consecutive years, with no cuts.

Why it matters: A 10-year dividend history implies the company has survived at least one significant economic stress (the 2020 pandemic counts). Companies that maintained or grew their dividends during that period have demonstrated something important about their business models and management discipline.

For a higher bar, look at the Dividend Aristocrats (S&P 500 companies with 25+ consecutive years of dividend increases) or Dividend Kings (50+ years). These lists are publicly maintained and free to access.

Filter 3: Payout Ratio (Sustainability Check)

What to set: Payout ratio between 30% and 70% for most sectors. For REITs, use the AFFO payout ratio between 70% and 85%.

Why it matters: The payout ratio tells you what percentage of earnings the company is sending out as dividends. A level below 30% might mean the company is being too conservative or doesn’t prioritize dividends. Above 70% leaves little margin for error if earnings decline.

The formula is simple:

Payout Ratio = Dividends Per Share / Earnings Per Share

A note on REITs: because of depreciation accounting, REITs will look like they’re paying out more than 100% of net income. That’s normal and expected. For REITs, always use the AFFO (Adjusted Funds From Operations) payout ratio instead, which you’ll find in their quarterly earnings releases on sec.gov.

Another note, Fiscal.ai does have REIT screening capability. For example, you can scroll through both AFFO and FFO metrics to screen for these companies, making it a touch easier. You will need to do a bit of math (division) to calculate the AFFO payout ratio, but I have faith.

Filter 4: Free Cash Flow Coverage (The Real Test)

What to set: Free cash flow should cover the dividend at least 1.5x.

Why it matters: Earnings can be manipulated through accounting choices. Free cash flow is harder to fake. If a company isn’t generating enough actual cash to pay its dividend, it’s funding the dividend through debt or asset sales. That’s not sustainable.

The calculation:

FCF Coverage = Free Cash Flow / Total Dividends Paid

You’ll find both numbers in the cash flow statement of any 10-K or 10-Q filing on sec.gov. Free cash flow is typically operating cash flow minus capital expenditures. Total dividends paid is listed under financing activities.

A coverage ratio of 1.5x means the company generates $1.50 of free cash for every $1.00 it pays in dividends. That cushion absorbs bad quarters without forcing a cut.

Unfortunately, there are no screeners who will do this calculation for us at this time. My suggestion is to run it as such in Fiscal, screen for dividends per share and FCF per share, and then either do the math manually (yes, I know) or download the spreadsheet, upload it to your favorite AI, and let them do the math.

I personally like the eyeball test, look to find an approximate number; this is screening after all, not buying.

Filter 5: Debt Levels (Balance Sheet Health)

What to set: Net debt to EBITDA below 3.0x for most industries. Below 6.0x for REITs and utilities.

Why it matters: Highly leveraged companies have less flexibility. When interest rates rise or revenues drop, debt service eats into the cash that would otherwise fund dividends. A heavily indebted company facing trouble will almost always cut its dividend before defaulting on bondholders.

The formula:

Net Debt to EBITDA = (Total Debt − Cash) / EBITDA

REITs and utilities can carry more debt because their cash flows are more predictable, but the principle still applies: lower is safer.

Filter 6: Return on Invested Capital (Quality Check)

What to set: ROIC above 10%, ideally above 15%.

Why it matters: This is where you separate quality businesses from mediocre ones. ROIC measures how efficiently a company turns its capital into profits. Companies with high ROIC tend to have durable competitive advantages, which is exactly what you want backing your dividend stream.

Buffett built his career on this principle. The best dividend investments aren’t just companies that pay dividends. They’re great businesses that happen to return excess capital to shareholders. A company earning 20% on its invested capital has the financial strength to keep raising its dividend year after year. A company earning 5% does not.

If ROIC isn’t readily available in your screener, you can approximate it with Return on Assets (above 8%) or Return on Equity (above 15%) as a starting point.

Filter 7: Dividend Yield (Finally)

What to set: Yield between 2% and 6%.

Why it matters: Now that you’ve filtered for quality, sustainability, and growth potential, you can think about yield. The 2% floor ensures you’re getting meaningful current income. The 6% ceiling helps you avoid yield traps. Anything above 6% deserves extra scrutiny, not automatic exclusion, but you need to understand why the yield is that high before buying.

Putting the Framework Together

Here’s the full screening checklist in one place:

Run a stock through these seven filters in order. If it fails at any step, move on. You’re not trying to find reasons to buy. You’re trying to find reasons to disqualify, so the names that survive are worth your research time.

One thing to notice as we go through this process.

At the start, we have around 250 companies, and by the end, we are down to 19. This is the screening process. It helps us find companies that meet our criteria and that we can investigate, and thin the herd, so to speak. After all, who has time to analyze 250+ companies?

A Practical Walkthrough

Let me show you how this works in practice. Pick a name you’re considering, pull up its most recent 10-K on sec.gov, and walk through the filters one by one.

Consider a hypothetical screen for Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), a company frequently cited in dividend-investing circles. You would check:

1. Market cap: Easily above $10B. Pass.

2. Dividend history: JNJ has raised its dividend for over 60 consecutive years, making it a Dividend King. Pass.

3. Payout ratio: Verify from JNJ’s most recent 10-K on sec.gov. Calculate as dividends per share divided by diluted EPS. Current payout ratio is 46.2%. Pass.

4. FCF coverage: Pull operating cash flow minus capex from the cash flow statement, divide by total dividends paid. Current FCF coverage is 63.3%. Pass.

5. Net debt to EBITDA:[Calculate from JNJ’s most recent 10-K. Total debt minus cash, divided by EBITDA. Current ratio is 0.9. Pass.

6. ROIC: Pull from JNJ’s most recent 10-K or calculate as NOPAT divided by invested capital. Current ROIC is 15.1%. Pass.

7. Yield: Current yield is 2.2%. Pass.

Notice how I’ve flagged each company-specific number for SEC verification. I won’t quote financial metrics I haven’t pulled directly from the source. This is the discipline I want you to build too. Anyone can repeat numbers from a website. Investors who actually verify the data make better decisions.

Common Screening Mistakes to Avoid

A few traps I see investors repeatedly fall into.

Screening for yield first. We covered this, but it bears repeating. Yield is the result of price and dividend. Price reflects the market’s view of the business. A yield that’s twice the sector average is usually telling you something the screener can’t.

Ignoring the payout ratio trend. A 60% payout ratio is fine. A payout ratio that’s been climbing from 40% to 50% to 60% over three years might mean earnings are stagnating while the dividend keeps growing. That trajectory ends badly.

Treating all sectors the same. A 2.5x net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is conservative for a utility and aggressive for a software company. Always compare a company to its sector peers, not to the broader market.

Forgetting about share dilution. Some companies “raise” their dividend per share while issuing so much stock that total dividends paid balloon faster than free cash flow can support. Always check share count trends alongside dividend growth.

Skipping the qualitative work after screening. A screener gets you a list of candidates, not a list of buys. Once a name passes the seven filters, you still need to read the 10-K, understand the business model, and assess the moat. Screening is the start of your research process, not the end.

Final Thoughts

A good screening framework saves you time by eliminating the obviously bad before you waste hours on the maybe-good. The seven filters above won’t find you every quality dividend stock in the market, and they’ll occasionally screen out a name that turns out to be a winner. That’s fine. The goal isn’t perfection. The goal is to consistently fish in the right pond.

Quality first. Sustainability second. Growth third. Yield last. Get the order right, and your dividend portfolio will look very different from the one most income investors end up with.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

You just learned to screen dividend stocks the way an analyst would. Imagine what a full year of frameworks like this does to your process. School of Investing is where investors go to stop guessing and start analyzing, with the weekly deep dives, the calculators, the infographic library, and the AI prompts that make it possible.

Become a School of Investing subscriber

— Paraphrasing Warren Buffett’s capital allocation philosophy

Amazon didn’t pay a dividend for 27 years. Johnson & Johnson has increased its dividend for 62 consecutive years. And Meta, a company sitting on billions in cash, didn’t pay its first dividend until February 2024.

Three massive companies. Three completely different approaches to returning cash to shareholders. The question isn’t which approach is “right.” The question is why each company made the choice it did, and what that choice tells us about where the business sits in its lifecycle.

Understanding why companies pay (or don’t pay) dividends is one of the most practical skills a dividend investor can build. It helps you identify which companies are likely to start paying dividends, which ones will keep growing them, and which ones might be paying out more than they can afford.

In today’s post, we will learn:

• Capital Allocation: The Decision Behind Every Dividend

• The ROIC Framework: When Reinvesting Beats Paying Out

• The Corporate Lifecycle: From Growth Machine to Dividend Payer

• Real-World Examples: Amazon, Meta, and Johnson & Johnson

• What This Means for Your Investing Process

Okay, let’s dive in and learn more about why companies pay dividends.

Capital Allocation: The Decision Behind Every Dividend

Every quarter, a company’s management team faces a fundamental question: What do we do with the cash this business generates?

That question is the heart of capital allocation, and every dividend payment is a capital allocation decision. The CEO and board are choosing to send cash to shareholders rather than deploy it elsewhere.

A company has five primary options for its free cash flow:

1. Reinvest in the business. Build new products, enter new markets, expand capacity. This is organic growth.

2. Make acquisitions. Buy other companies or assets to grow revenue and capabilities.

3. Pay down debt. Reduce leverage and improve the balance sheet.

4. Pay dividends. Send cash directly to shareholders as a regular distribution.

5. Buy back shares. Repurchase outstanding stock, reducing the share count and increasing each remaining share’s claim on future earnings.

The order matters. Buffett has made it clear throughout his shareholder letters that the best use of a dollar is to reinvest it in the business at a high rate of return. The second-best use is returning it to shareholders. The worst use? Reinvesting it at a low rate of return, which destroys value.

This is why a company that doesn’t pay a dividend isn’t automatically a bad investment. If it can reinvest every dollar at 25% returns, you want it to keep doing exactly that. The compounding works in your favor.

Conversely, a company paying a fat dividend might be telling you something important: it has run out of high-return reinvestment opportunities. That’s not necessarily bad. It just means the company has matured, and its value proposition to shareholders has shifted from growth to income.

The key insight is this: a dividend is not a reward for owning a stock. It signals how the company’s management views its own reinvestment opportunities.

The ROIC Framework: When Reinvesting Beats Paying Out

Let’s put some numbers behind the capital allocation decision. The metric that drives the whole equation is Return on Invested Capital (ROIC).

ROIC measures how efficiently a company converts capital into profit. The formula is straightforward:

ROIC = Net Operating Profit After Tax (NOPAT) / Invested Capital

The decision to pay or not pay a dividend comes down to comparing two numbers: the company’s ROIC and its cost of capital (WACC).

Here’s the simple version. If a company earns 20% on every dollar it reinvests and its cost of capital is 10%, every reinvested dollar creates value. The company should keep reinvesting and skip the dividend.

Now flip it. If a company earns 6% on reinvested capital and its cost of capital is 10%, every reinvested dollar destroys value. The company should return that cash to shareholders, who can invest it elsewhere for higher returns.

Let me make this concrete with a simple example.

Imagine two companies, both earning $100 million in free cash flow. Company A generates a 25% ROIC and reinvests all $100 million. After one year, that reinvestment produces $25 million in additional operating profit. Company B generates a 7% ROIC and also reinvests all $100 million. Its reinvestment produces just $7 million in additional operating profit.

If both companies have a 10% cost of capital, Company A created $15 million in value (25% return minus 10% cost, applied to the $100 million). Company B destroyed $3 million in value (7% return minus 10% cost). Company B’s shareholders would have been better off receiving that $100 million as a dividend and investing it elsewhere.

This is why Buffett described three categories of businesses in his 2007 shareholder letter. The great business earns high returns on capital and needs little additional investment. Good businesses earn adequate returns but require significant capital to grow. The gruesome business requires huge capital and earns low returns. Companies in that first category often start paying dividends because they simply generate more cash than they can profitably reinvest.

The ROIC vs. WACC relationship is the financial engine behind every dividend decision, even if management never uses those exact words.

The Corporate Lifecycle: From Growth Machine to Dividend Payer

Companies, like people, go through stages. And the stage a company occupies largely determines whether it pays a dividend, how much it pays, and how quickly that payment grows.

Think of the corporate lifecycle in four stages.

Stage 1: High Growth (No Dividend)

The company has enormous reinvestment opportunities. Every available dollar can be deployed at returns well above the cost of capital. The addressable market is large, and the business is scaling rapidly.

At this stage, paying a dividend would be a mistake. Why send cash to shareholders when the business can compound it at 20%, 30%, or higher? Amazon operated in this stage for nearly three decades. It had so many high-return opportunities (fulfillment centers, AWS infrastructure, Prime ecosystem) that returning cash to shareholders would have slowed the compounding machine.

Capital allocation priority: Reinvest everything. No dividend, minimal or no buybacks. Cash funds growth.

Stage 2: Maturing Growth (Dividend Initiation)

Growth remains strong, but the company starts generating more free cash flow than it can reinvest at high returns. The core business is established. New growth projects exist, but they can’t absorb all the cash the business produces.

This is the inflection point at which many companies initiate dividends. Management is signaling that the business has matured enough to generate excess cash, and they’re confident that cash flow will remain stable enough to sustain regular payments.

Meta is the textbook example here. For years, the company reinvested aggressively in its platforms, data centers, and the metaverse. But by early 2024, free cash flow had grown so large that even after heavy capital expenditures, the company had billions sitting on the balance sheet with no high-return home. Initiating a dividend was a disciplined capital allocation move.

Apple’s story followed the same arc. The company didn’t pay a dividend for 17 years after Steve Jobs returned. It initiated its dividend in 2012, not because the business was declining, but because cash generation had outpaced reinvestment needs.

Capital allocation priority: Reinvest in growth, but begin returning excess cash. Dividend payout ratios are typically low (15% to 30% of earnings), leaving room for continued investment and dividend growth.

Stage 3: Mature (Established Dividend Grower)

The business has a dominant market position. Growth is steady but slower. Free cash flow is predictable. The company has settled into a rhythm of returning significant cash to shareholders through dividends and buybacks while making targeted reinvestments to maintain its competitive position.

Johnson & Johnson lives here. The company has increased its dividend for 62 consecutive years. Its business generates consistent free cash flow across its pharmaceutical, MedTech, and consumer health segments (the last of which was spun off as Kenvue in 2023). Growth still exists through the pharmaceutical pipeline and surgical robotics, but the reinvestment opportunities are not large enough to absorb all the cash the business produces.

Coca-Cola is another classic example. The company has paid a dividend every year since 1920 and has increased it for 62 consecutive years. Coke’s reinvestment needs are modest because its brand, distribution network, and franchise model require relatively little incremental capital to maintain.

Capital allocation priority: Balance between dividends, buybacks, and selective reinvestment. Payout ratios typically range from 40% to 70% of earnings. Dividend growth tracks earnings growth.

Stage 4: Declining or Challenged (Dividend at Risk)

The business faces structural headwinds. Revenue and earnings are stagnant or shrinking. Free cash flow may be declining. The dividend becomes increasingly difficult to sustain, and the payout ratio creeps higher as earnings fall.

This is where dividend traps live. The stock looks attractive because the yield is high, but that high yield reflects the market’s expectation of a cut. GE provides a cautionary tale. The conglomerate was once a Dividend Aristocrat, but years of poor capital allocation decisions, low returns on invested capital, and mounting debt forced a devastating 92% dividend cut in 2018.

Capital allocation priority: Preserving the business. Cash often goes to debt reduction or restructuring. Dividends may be cut or eliminated. Investors chasing yield at this stage often get burned.

Most investors look at a dividend yield and hope it’s sustainable. Hope isn’t a process.

Below, I’ll show you how to read the signals that tell you whether a dividend is safe, growing, or headed for a cut. We’ll use Amazon, Meta, and JNJ as case studies, and I’ll share the exact evaluation questions I use in my own investing process.

Stop guessing. Start knowing.

Learn to Read the Signals

Real-World Examples: Amazon, Meta, and Johnson & Johnson

Let’s trace the lifecycle through three companies at different stages.

Amazon: The Perpetual Reinvestor

Amazon has never paid a dividend. For most of its public life, that made perfect sense. The company was building fulfillment infrastructure, launching AWS, developing Prime, and entering new markets at a pace that absorbed every dollar of free cash flow.

The lesson here is straightforward. Amazon’s ROIC on AWS and its logistics network has been well above its cost of capital. Every dollar reinvested created more than a dollar of value. Paying a dividend would have been a poor use of capital.

The interesting question for Amazon going forward is: as AWS matures and free cash flow continues to grow, will the company eventually reach the inflection point at which it initiates a dividend? It is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when. Once reinvestment opportunities can no longer absorb all the cash, the logic of capital allocation will push the company toward returning cash to shareholders.

Meta: The Recent Convert

Meta’s dividend initiation in February 2024 is one of the clearest examples of a company crossing from Stage 1 to Stage 2 in real time.

The signal was clear. Meta’s core advertising business (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) had become a cash-generating machine. Even with heavy spending on AI infrastructure and Reality Labs, the company was generating far more cash than it could deploy at high rates of return. The cash pile on the balance sheet had grown to the point where failing to return it would have been an irresponsible capital allocation decision.

Notice what Meta’s dividend initiation did not mean. It did not mean growth was over. It did not mean the stock was suddenly a “value trap.” It meant the company had matured to the point where its free cash flow exceeded its reinvestment needs. That’s a sign of strength, not weakness.

For investors tracking companies that might initiate a dividend, Meta is the template. Look for businesses with massive free cash flow, growing cash balances, and reinvestment spending that is leveling off relative to revenue. When the gap between cash generation and cash deployment gets wide enough, a dividend often follows.

Johnson & Johnson: The Steady Compounder

Johnson & Johnson represents the mature dividend grower in its purest form.

JNJ’s capital allocation tells the story of a mature company that has found its equilibrium. The company reinvests a portion of free cash flow into its pharmaceutical pipeline and MedTech segments. It makes targeted acquisitions. And it returns the rest to shareholders through dividends and buybacks.

The company’s ROIC has consistently exceeded its cost of capital, but the magnitude of that spread has narrowed over the decades as the business has matured. That narrowing is natural. It’s the financial signature of a company moving from high growth into steady maturity.

For dividend investors, JNJ represents the ideal end state: a company with a durable competitive advantage, predictable cash flows, and a management team that has demonstrated disciplined capital allocation over decades.

What This Means for Your Investing Process

Understanding the dividend lifecycle changes how you evaluate companies. Here are the questions I ask before investing in any company, whether it pays a dividend or not.

1. Where is this company in its lifecycle?

A high-growth company with no dividend requires a different evaluation than a mature dividend grower. Match your expectations to the stage.

2. Is the ROIC consistently above the cost of capital?

If yes, the company creates value whether it pays a dividend or not. If ROIC is declining toward the cost of capital, watch for a shift in capital allocation.

3. Is free cash flow growing faster than dividends?

A growing cushion between free cash flow and dividend payments means the dividend is safe and has room to grow. A shrinking cushion is a warning sign.

4. Why is (or isn’t) this company paying a dividend?

Companies that don’t pay dividends because they have better uses for the cash are very different from companies that don’t pay because they can’t afford to.

5. If the company just initiated a dividend, what triggered it?

Was it a sign of maturing cash flows (positive) or a management gimmick to prop up the stock price (concerning)? Look at the free cash flow trajectory to find the answer.

The most important takeaway is this: dividends are not the goal. Value creation is the goal. Dividends are one way that value flows to shareholders, and the best companies allocate capital to maximize total value, whether that means reinvesting, acquiring, buying back shares, or paying dividends.

As dividend investors, our job is to find companies that create value and distribute a growing share of it through dividends. The lifecycle framework helps us understand when that transition happens and which companies are most likely to sustain it.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Assuming no dividend means a bad investment.

Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and Netflix have created enormous shareholder value without paying dividends. No dividend simply means management believes reinvestment creates more value.

Chasing yield without understanding the lifecycle stage.

A 9% yield on a company in Stage 4 (declining) is far more dangerous than a 1.5% yield on a company in Stage 2 (initiating and growing). The yield tells you the price. The lifecycle stage indicates sustainability.

Ignoring the ROIC trend.

A company with a declining ROIC that continues to reinvest heavily is making a capital allocation mistake. That’s your signal to be cautious, regardless of what the current dividend looks like.

Confusing a dividend cut with a death sentence.

Some companies cut dividends to reallocate capital toward higher-return opportunities. The cut may be painful, but if it leads to better ROIC over time, it could be the right decision. Context matters.

Investor Takeaway

Companies don’t pay dividends because they’re generous. They pay dividends because it’s the best use of their excess cash at that point in their lifecycle. Understanding this changes how you think about your portfolio.

When you see a company like Amazon choosing not to pay a dividend, ask whether its ROIC justifies the reinvestment. When you see Meta initiating a dividend, ask what shifted in its cash flow dynamics. When you see JNJ raising its dividend for the 62nd consecutive year, ask whether the payout ratio and free cash flow trend support continued growth.

The companies that create the most wealth for dividend investors are the ones that move through the lifecycle with discipline: reinvesting when returns are high, returning cash when they’re not, and communicating clearly about why.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

Most investors look at a dividend yield and hope it’s sustainable. Hope isn’t a process.

Below, I’ll show you how to read the signals that tell you whether a dividend is safe, growing, or headed for a cut. We’ll use Amazon, Meta, and JNJ as case studies, and I’ll share the exact evaluation questions I use in my own investing process.

Stop guessing. Start knowing.

Learn to Read the Signals

This is the first edition of Stock Under the Microscope, a monthly paid series where I pick one company and walk through my entire analytical process using the tools available to you as a paid subscriber. The goal is not to tell you whether to buy or sell. The goal is to show you exactly how I think through a dividend stock so you can apply the same process to any company in your portfolio.

If you are new to the paid tier, I recommend starting with Skill Sprint 1 (Dividend Safety and Payout Ratios) before reading this. It covers the foundational concepts. This walkthrough assumes you are comfortable with the basics and ready to see them applied to a real company.

In this month's free article, I raised a question about Chevron: its earnings payout ratio is above 100%. On the surface, that suggests Chevron is paying out more in dividends than it earns. For a 39-year dividend growth streak, that is a concerning number.

But surface-level numbers are where most investors stop. Today, we are going deeper. I am going to walk through Chevron using four tools, in order, just as I would if I were evaluating this stock for my own portfolio. By the end, you will have a clear picture of whether this dividend is actually at risk and a framework you can apply to any asset-heavy dividend payer.

Here is what we are covering:

1. Dividend Safety Calculator: What the payout ratio actually tells us (and what it hides)

2. Margin and Cash Flow Spreadsheet: Where Chevron’s money comes from and where it goes

3. AI Research Prompt: Stress-testing the shareholder return program

4. Decision Framework: The three numbers I would track going forward

Let’s get into it.

Part 1: The Dividend Safety Calculator

Open the Dividend Safety Calculator. We are going to run Chevron through it together.

The Inputs

Here is what I plugged in using Chevron’s FY2025 results:

Earnings per share (diluted): $6.63 Annual dividend per share: $7.12 (the new rate after the January 2026 increase to $1.78/quarter) Cash flow from operations: $33.9 billion Free cash flow: $16.6 billion Shares outstanding: approximately 1.85 billion (diluted) Total dividends paid: $12.8 billion

What the Calculator Shows

The first output is the one that triggers alarm bells.

Earnings payout ratio: 107%

At the new annualized dividend rate of $7.12 against $6.63 in earnings per share, Chevron is paying out more than a dollar for every dollar it earned. If you saw this number on a screener and nothing else, you would probably pass on the stock. And many investors do exactly that.

Now look at the second output.

Free cash flow payout ratio: 77%

That is a completely different story. At 77%, the dividend is well covered by the cash Chevron actually generates after funding its capital expenditures. There is a 23% cushion.

And the third output.

Operating cash flow payout ratio: 38%

At this level, Chevron could pay its entire dividend obligation more than two and a half times over from operating cash flow alone. This is not a company struggling to fund its dividend.

Why the Numbers Disagree

This is the teaching moment. The gap between a 107% earnings payout ratio and a 38% operating cash flow payout ratio is enormous. If you do not understand why, you will misread every oil company, every utility, every REIT, and every capital-intensive business you ever analyze.

The answer is depreciation, depletion, and amortization. DD&A for short.

Chevron operates a massive physical asset base. Oil wells, refineries, pipelines, drilling equipment, processing plants, and reserves in the ground. Under accounting rules, the cost of these assets is spread over their useful lives as expenses on the income statement. For Chevron, that DD&A expense was approximately $17 billion in FY2024. The FY2025 number is likely higher, given that the Hess assets were added to the books mid-year.

That $17+ billion reduces reported earnings. But it does not reduce cash. Nobody receives a DD&A check. The cash stays in the business. That is why cash flow from operations ($33.9 billion) is so much higher than net income ($12.3 billion). The difference is almost entirely non-cash charges flowing through the income statement.

What This Means for You

When you run a company through the Dividend Safety Calculator and see the earnings payout ratio flashing red, do not stop there. Check the cash flow payout ratio. If earnings say danger but cash flow says comfortable, you are probably looking at an asset-heavy business where non-cash accounting charges are distorting the picture.

This does not mean the earnings payout ratio is useless. It tells you something real about the gap between accounting profitability and the dividend commitment. But it needs context. The cash flow payout ratio provides that context.

The takeaway from the calculator: Chevron’s dividend is not in immediate danger. The cash flow coverage is solid. But the earnings-based pressure is worth monitoring because it tells you how sensitive the dividend is to further earnings declines.

That is what the Dividend Safety Calculator shows us. The earnings payout ratio tells a scary story. The cash flow payout ratio tells a comfortable one. Knowing which to trust is the first step.

But it is only the first step. In the next three sections, I break down Chevron’s margin structure by segment using the analysis spreadsheet, stress-test the shareholder return program at three different oil prices using an AI research prompt, and build a 3-metric decision framework you can apply to any energy dividend stock in your portfolio.

This is the process. These are the tools. Let’s keep going.

Read more

For a company with nearly four decades of unbroken dividend growth, that sounds like exactly the kind of stock dividend investors love to own. Predictable. Reliable. Boring in the best way.

But there’s a number buried in Chevron’s financials that should make you pause.

The earnings payout ratio is running above 100%.

That means Chevron is paying out more in dividends than it earned in net income last year. Full year 2025 earnings came in at $12.3 billion, or $6.63 per share. The dividend obligation was roughly $12.8 billion. On an earnings basis, Chevron is underwater.

If you stopped there, you might conclude the dividend is on borrowed time. A lot of investors stop there. They see a payout ratio over 100%, assume the worst, and move on to something that looks safer on a screener.

But that reaction misses something important about how oil companies actually work.

The Gap Between Earnings and Reality

Chevron operates one of the largest asset bases in the energy industry. Oil rigs, refineries, pipelines, drilling equipment, and reserves in the ground. These physical assets get depreciated and depleted on the income statement every single year. That depreciation expense significantly reduces reported earnings.

Here is the thing. Depreciation is an accounting charge, not a cash expense. Chevron is not writing a check to anyone for depreciation. The cash stays in the business.

So, when you look at cash flow from operations rather than net income, the picture changes. Chevron generated strong enough cash flow in 2025 to fund the entire $12.8 billion dividend, buy back $12.1 billion in stock, and still close a $55 billion acquisition of Hess Corporation.

The cash flow payout ratio sits around 86%. That is a completely different story than 104%.

Why This Matters for Your Portfolio

This is one of the most common traps in dividend investing. The earnings payout ratio and the cash flow payout ratio can tell you opposite things about the same company. For asset-heavy businesses like oil majors, utilities, and REITs, the earnings number almost always overstates the actual strain on the dividend.

Knowing which number to trust, and when, is the difference between selling a perfectly healthy dividend stock in a panic and holding with confidence through a down cycle.

That skill, knowing which metric to use and when, is exactly what the paid tier of School of Investing is built around. Each month, Stock Under the Microscope walks through a real company using the full analytical toolkit: cash flow payout ratios, balance sheet stress tests, margin structure, and AI-assisted scenario analysis.

This month, it’s Chevron. Wednesday’s analysis goes deeper than anything in this article.

See what paid members are getting →

What Else Is Going On With Chevron

The Hess acquisition closed in July 2025 after a 19-month saga that included an arbitration battle with ExxonMobil over rights to Guyana’s Stabroek Block. Chevron won. That gives them a 30% stake in one of the largest oil discoveries in the last decade, with over 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Production hit record levels in 2025, up 12% worldwide. The Permian Basin crossed 1 million barrels per day. These are real growth drivers that should support cash flow going forward.

But the acquisition also pushed Chevron’s debt ratio up to around 18%, compared to roughly 12-13% before the deal. Net debt-to-cash flow from operations is about 1.2x. The balance sheet absorbed a massive deal and is still in reasonable shape, but it is noticeably more leveraged than it was two years ago.

That creates a second question worth answering: can Chevron maintain its current pace of buybacks ($12 billion a year) while paying down acquisition debt and funding the dividend? Or does something have to give?

The Three Things I Would Watch

If I were evaluating Chevron as a dividend holding today, I would focus on three things each quarter:

Payout ratio on a cash flow basis, not just earnings. The earnings number will keep looking scary as long as commodity prices stay moderate. The cash flow number tells you whether the dividend is actually funded.

The pace of shareholder returns vs. debt reduction. Chevron returned $27.1 billion to shareholders in 2025. That is aggressive for a company that just took on $55 billion in acquisition debt. Watch whether management starts shifting dollars from buybacks toward the balance sheet.

Guyana production ramp. This is the growth story that justifies the Hess deal. If Stabroek Block production scales on schedule, it adds low-cost barrels that improve margins regardless of where oil prices go. If it stalls, the math gets tighter.

Going Deeper

This month’s paid Analysis walks through Chevron step by step using the tools available to paid subscribers. I ran the numbers through the Dividend Safety Calculator, broke down the margin structure using the analysis spreadsheet, and used an AI research prompt to stress-test the shareholder return program at different oil price scenarios.

The 104% earnings payout ratio tells one story. The cash flow analysis told a completely different story. And the AI prompt surfaced a risk I had not considered about the buyback pace.

The Wednesday walkthrough covers the full cash flow analysis, the balance sheet stress test at different oil price scenarios, and the one risk the AI prompt surfaced that I wasn’t expecting going in.

If you want to run this kind of analysis on any stock in your portfolio, not just read about it, that’s what paid membership gets you.

Start Analyzing Companies

School of Investing is an educational resource. Nothing here is investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

Not so fast. That high yield might be a golden opportunity, or a flashing warning sign that the dividend is about to be slashed. The difference between those two outcomes comes down to understanding what dividend yield actually measures, how it moves, and where it can mislead you.

Dividend yield is one of the most widely quoted metrics in investing. It is also one of the most misunderstood. Too many investors treat it like a shopping discount: the higher the number, the better the deal. That thinking has destroyed more wealth than almost any other mistake in dividend investing.

In today’s post, we will learn:

• What Dividend Yield Is and How to Calculate It

• Trailing Yield vs. Forward Yield (And Why the Difference Matters)

• The Inverse Relationship: Why Yield Rises When Price Falls

• What Dividend Yield Actually Tells You

• What Dividend Yield Cannot Tell You

• A Practical Framework for Using Yield in Your Process

Okay, let’s dive in and learn more about what dividend yield really means for your portfolio.

What Dividend Yield Is and How to Calculate It

Dividend yield measures how much income a stock pays relative to its price. Think of it as the “interest rate” on your stock investment, though the comparison is imperfect (more on that shortly).

The formula is straightforward:

Dividend Yield = Annual Dividend Per Share / Stock Price

Let’s use Coca-Cola (KO) as our example. According to SEC filings, Coca-Cola declared a quarterly dividend of $0.53 per share in early 2026, which translates to an annual dividend of $2.12 per share. With the stock trading around $74, the math looks like this:

Dividend Yield = $2.12 / $74.00 = 2.86%

That 2.86% tells you that for every $100 you invest in Coca-Cola at $74 per share, you would receive approximately $2.86 in annual dividend income.

Simple enough. But here is where it gets interesting, and where most investors stop paying attention too soon.

Notice that the formula has two moving parts: the dividend (numerator) and the stock price (denominator). Both change over time, and both change for different reasons. That creates a dynamic number that can shift in meaning depending on which variable is moving.

Trailing Yield vs. Forward Yield

When someone quotes a stock’s dividend yield, they could mean two different things. Understanding which version you are looking at matters more than most investors realize.

Trailing Dividend Yield uses the dividends the company has already paid over the past twelve months. This is backward-looking. You are dividing the sum of the last four quarterly payments by the current stock price.

Forward Dividend Yield takes the most recently declared quarterly dividend, multiplies it by 4 (assuming quarterly payments), and divides the result by the current stock price. This is forward-looking and assumes the company will maintain that payment level.

The distinction matters most when a company has recently changed its dividend.

Consider Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). In April 2025, the company announced a 4.8% increase in its quarterly dividend from $1.24 to $1.30 per share, marking 63 consecutive years of annual dividend increases (per an SEC Form 8-K filed in April 2025).

Immediately after that announcement, the trailing yield still reflected three quarters at $1.24 plus one quarter at $1.30. The forward yield jumped to reflect $5.20 annualized ($1.30 x 4). For a few months, the trailing and forward yields told different stories about the same stock.

Now consider the opposite scenario. When AT&T slashed its quarterly dividend from $0.52 to $0.2775 per share in early 2022 (a cut of approximately 47%), the trailing yield temporarily looked much higher than the forward yield because it still included quarters paid at the old, higher rate. An investor screening for high trailing yield would have found AT&T looking attractive at exactly the wrong moment.

The practical takeaway: forward yield is generally more useful because it reflects the current payment level. But forward yield assumes the company will maintain the dividend, which brings us to the most important concept in dividend yield analysis.

The Inverse Relationship: Why Yield Rises When Price Falls

This is the concept that separates informed dividend investors from those who walk into yield traps.

Because the stock price sits in the denominator of the yield formula, there is a direct mathematical relationship: when the stock price drops, the yield rises. When the price rises, the yield falls. They move in opposite directions.

Let’s make this concrete.

Imagine a company paying $2.00 per share in annual dividends:

• At $50 per share: Yield = $2.00 / $50.00 = 4.0%

• At $40 per share: Yield = $2.00 / $40.00 = 5.0%

• At $25 per share: Yield = $2.00 / $25.00 = 8.0%

The dividend hasn’t changed. The yield doubled. And it doubled for the worst possible reason: the stock price collapsed.

This is exactly what happened with Walgreens Boots Alliance (WBA). The company had raised its dividend for 47 consecutive years and was on the verge of becoming a Dividend King (50+ years of consecutive increases). But the stock price cratered, falling from roughly $96 per share in 2015 to below $10 per share by late 2024. As the share price plummeted, the yield soared above 10%.

Investors who chased that 10% yield got burned. In January 2024, Walgreens cut its quarterly dividend by 48%, from $0.48 to $0.25 per share. Then, in early 2025, the company suspended the dividend entirely. The yield went from 10% to 0%.

Here is the lesson: a rising yield caused by a falling stock price is not a gift. It is a question. The question is whether the business can sustain the dividend. Sometimes the answer is yes, and you have found a genuine bargain. Other times, the market is telling you something the dividend hasn’t caught up to yet.

Conversely, a stock with a declining yield might be a sign of strength. If Johnson & Johnson’s stock price rises from $150 to $200 while the dividend grows from $4.76 to $5.20, the yield will drop despite the company paying you more money. That is a good problem to have.

What Dividend Yield Actually Tells You

Yield is not useless. It provides several useful pieces of information once you understand its limits.

1. Your income rate at the current price.

This is the most straightforward use. If you buy 100 shares of Coca-Cola at $74 and the company pays $2.12 per year, you will collect $212 annually (before taxes) on your $7,400 investment. Yield tells you what your cash-on-cash return looks like from dividends alone.

2. A rough comparison tool across similar companies.

If you are choosing between two consumer staples companies with similar growth profiles and balance sheet strength, yield can help you identify which is offering more income per dollar invested at the current price. The keyword here is “similar.” Yield comparisons across different industries or between companies with vastly different risk profiles are misleading.

3. A signal that something may have changed.

When a stock’s yield deviates significantly from its own historical average, that is worth investigating. If a stock typically yields 2.5% to 3.5% and suddenly yields 6%, either the dividend increased dramatically (rare) or the price dropped significantly. Both scenarios deserve a closer look.

4. A starting point for total return expectations.

For mature, stable dividend payers, total return is roughly equal to the dividend yield plus the dividend growth rate. A stock yielding 3% with 5% annual dividend growth has a reasonable shot at delivering 8% total returns over time (before valuation changes). This is not a guarantee, but it is a useful mental model.

What Dividend Yield Cannot Tell You?

Here is where most investors go wrong. They treat yield as a complete answer when it is only part of the question.

1. Yield says nothing about dividend safety.

A 7% yield tells you nothing about whether the company can afford to keep paying. AT&T yielded over 7% before cutting its dividend by 47%. Walgreens yielded over 10% before suspending its dividend entirely. The yield looked generous right up until it vanished.

To assess safety, you need to look at the payout ratio (dividends divided by earnings or free cash flow), the company’s balance sheet, and the trend in underlying business performance. These are the metrics that yield cannot provide.

2. Yield ignores dividend growth.

A stock yielding 1.5% that grows its dividend by 12% annually will generate far more income over a decade than a stock yielding 5% with no growth. But the yield snapshot makes the 5% stock look three times better.

Think of it this way. If you plant two apple trees and one produces five apples today but never grows, while the other produces two apples today but doubles its output every few years, which tree do you want? Yield only counts today’s apples.

3. Yield cannot distinguish between a bargain and a trap.

This is the critical limitation. A stock yielding 6% after dropping 40% could be a wonderful business temporarily on sale. Or it could be a deteriorating business heading toward a dividend cut. Yield alone cannot tell you which. You need to analyze the fundamentals, the balance sheet, and the competitive position to make that determination.

4. Yield comparisons across sectors are misleading.

A utility yielding 4% and a tech company yielding 1% are not comparable on yield alone. Utilities carry more debt, grow more slowly, and distribute more earnings as dividends. Technology companies reinvest more, grow faster, and typically return capital through buybacks. Comparing their yields is like comparing the fuel efficiency of a cargo ship and a bicycle. They serve different purposes.

5. Yield does not account for tax treatment.

REIT dividends are generally taxed as ordinary income. Qualified dividends from most U.S. corporations receive preferential tax rates. A 4% REIT yield and a 3% qualified dividend yield might deliver similar after-tax income depending on your bracket. Yield ignores this distinction entirely.

Understanding a formula is step one. Knowing how to sit down and evaluate any dividend stock yourself, with confidence, is the goal. That's what School of Investing is built to help you do.

Learn how to analyze a dividend stock

A Practical Framework for Using Yield in Your Process

Given the yield’s limitations, how should you actually use it? I think of yield as the first filter, not the final answer. Here is my approach.

Step 1: Compare yield to the company’s own history.

Every stock has a typical yield range. Coca-Cola has historically yielded between roughly 2.5% and 3.5%. Johnson & Johnson has historically yielded between 2% and 3%. When the current yield falls outside that band, it is worth asking why.

If the yield is above the historical range, check whether the price has fallen (investigate the business) or the dividend has increased meaningfully (positive signal). If the yield is below the historical range, the stock may be overvalued, or the market may be pricing in faster growth.

Step 2: Check the payout ratio immediately.

Before you get excited about any yield above 4%, look at the payout ratio. For most non-REIT companies, I want to see a payout ratio below 75% of free cash flow. For REITs, I use Adjusted Funds From Operations (AFFO), and I look for a payout ratio below 85%.

If the payout ratio is above 90%, the dividend is on thin ice. The company has almost no cushion for a bad quarter or an unexpected expense. That high yield might not survive.

Step 3: Look at dividend growth, not just the current payment.

A company that has raised its dividend consistently for 10, 20, or 50 years is telling you something about the durability of its business model. Johnson & Johnson’s 63 consecutive years of increases did not happen by accident. It reflects a business that generates reliable cash flows through economic cycles.

Compare that to a company paying a large static dividend with no growth. The yield might look attractive today, but inflation will erode that purchasing power over time.

Step 4: Ask yourself why the yield is where it is.

This is the most important step. High yield because of a falling price requires you to diagnose the cause. Temporary headwinds (a lawsuit, a bad quarter, sector rotation) in an otherwise strong business can create real opportunities. Structural decline in the business model (think Walgreens competing against Amazon’s pharmacy business) is a fundamentally different situation.

Low yield despite rising prices means the market is pricing in growth. Determine whether that growth is realistic before dismissing the stock as “too expensive.”

Red Flags: When High-Yield Signals Danger

Over the years, I have noticed several patterns that frequently precede dividend cuts. When I see a high yield combined with any of these warning signs, I become extremely cautious.

Yield significantly above sector average. If the average yield in a sector is 3% and one company yields 8%, the market is pricing in the risk you need to understand.

Rising payout ratio. A company that paid out 50% of earnings three years ago but now pays 90% is stretching. That trajectory matters more than the current number alone.

Declining free cash flow. Dividends come from cash. If the cash is shrinking while the dividend stays flat or grows, something has to give.

Increasing debt to fund the dividend. Some companies borrow money to maintain their dividend. This is a red flag. Borrowing to invest in growth can be smart. Borrowing to pay shareholders is a sign of distress.

Management is hedging on dividend commitments. When CEOs say things like “we will evaluate our capital allocation priorities” or “everything is on the table,” they are preparing you for a cut. Pay attention to the language.

Putting It All Together: Two Different 5% Yields

Let me paint two pictures to show why identical yields can mean completely different things.

Company A yields 5%. The yield is above its five-year average of 3.5% because the stock dropped 30% after missing one quarter’s earnings estimate. But the business has 15 years of consecutive dividend increases, a 55% payout ratio, no debt maturities for 3 years, and management reaffirmed the dividend on the earnings call.

Company B yields 5%. The yield is in line with its recent average, which has been climbing because the stock has been declining for three years. The payout ratio has expanded from 60% to 95%, free cash flow is falling, and the CEO recently said the company is “evaluating all capital allocation options.”

Same yield. Completely different situations. Company A looks like a potential opportunity. Company B looks like a yield trap. Only by looking beneath the yield can you tell the difference.

Common Mistakes Investors Make with Dividend Yield

Sort by yield and buy the highest number. This is the most common and most damaging approach. The highest-yielding stocks in any screen are often the most dangerous because their prices have collapsed for fundamental reasons.

Ignoring yield on cost vs. current yield. Your yield on cost (the dividend divided by what you originally paid) is a fun personal metric, but it should not drive decisions. What matters for new money is the current yield and the forward outlook.

Treating yield as guaranteed income. Unlike a bond’s coupon, a stock’s dividend can be cut or eliminated at any time. Walgreens taught that lesson painfully. A company’s board votes on the dividend each quarter. There is no contractual obligation to maintain it.

Anchoring to a past yield. “I’ll buy when the yield hits 4% again” might sound disciplined, but if the company has grown its dividend and the business has improved, the stock might never yield 4% again. Valuation should be based on the business, not on matching a historical yield.

Investor Takeaway

Dividend yield is a useful starting point, but a terrible finishing point. It answers one narrow question: how much income does this stock generate per dollar invested at today’s price? It says nothing about whether that income is sustainable, growing, or at risk.

The investors who build lasting wealth from dividends are the ones who look past the yield and ask harder questions. Is the dividend safe? Is it growing? Can the business sustain it through tough times? What is the payout ratio telling me? Why is the yield where it is?

Use yield to identify candidates. Then do the real work of analyzing the business underneath.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

If you want to build the skill of analyzing companies on your own, not just follow someone else's picks, that's exactly what School of Investing is for. Join a community of investors learning to think for themselves.

Join School of Investing

Understanding how Visa actually makes money is one of the most important lessons in business model analysis.

Today, I’ll break down the machine behind the world’s largest payment network, show you exactly where every dollar of revenue comes from, and explain why this business has produced some of the most consistent financial results in public markets over the past ten years.

What Visa Actually Does

Before we get into the numbers, we need to clear up the most common misconception about this company.

Visa does not issue cards. It does not extend credit. It does not set the interest rates you pay on your credit card balance. As the company states in its fiscal 2024 10-K filed with the SEC: “We do not earn revenues from, or bear credit risk with respect to, interest or fees paid by account holders on Visa-branded cards or payment products.”

That sentence is the key to understanding the entire business.

When you swipe your Visa card at a coffee shop, you’re initiating a chain of events that involves four parties: you (the cardholder), your bank (the issuer), the coffee shop’s bank (the acquirer), and Visa (the network sitting in the middle). Your bank issued your card. The coffee shop’s bank processes the payment. Visa’s role is to connect the two banks through its network, VisaNet, which authorizes, clears, and settles transactions in milliseconds.

Think of it this way. Visa is a toll booth on the highway of global commerce. Every time money moves through its network, Visa collects a small fee. It doesn’t own the cars (the cards). It doesn’t own the destinations (the merchants). It owns the road.

This is what makes Visa’s business model so elegant. It captures a small share of every transaction without assuming the credit risk banks bear. If a cardholder defaults on their bill, that’s the issuing bank’s problem. Not Visa’s.

The Four Revenue Streams

Visa’s revenue comes from four distinct sources. According to the company’s fiscal 2025 earnings release (for the year ending September 30, 2025), the breakdown looks like this:

Service Revenue: $17.5 billion (grew 9% year over year)

This is what Visa earns from financial institutions for the right to use Visa-branded products and services. The driver here is payment volume, the total dollar amount of purchases made on Visa-branded cards. Service revenue is actually recognized with a one-quarter lag, meaning Q4’s service revenue is based on Q3’s payment volume.

For fiscal 2025, Visa’s total payment volume was approximately $14 trillion. That number has grown steadily as cash usage declines and more transactions shift to digital payments worldwide.

Data Processing Revenue: $20.0 billion (grew 13% year over year)

This is where Visa is paid for processing transactions through VisaNet, including authorization, clearing, and settlement. The key driver is processed transactions. In fiscal 2025, Visa processed 257.5 billion transactions, a 10% increase over the prior year. That works out to roughly 705 million transactions per day.

Data processing is now Visa’s largest revenue stream, and it has been growing faster than service revenue. Part of this reflects pricing actions, but it also reflects the rising transaction count as consumers make more frequent, smaller electronic payments (think contactless tap-to-pay at vending machines, parking meters, and transit systems).

International Transaction Revenue: $14.2 billion (grew 12% year over year)

Every time you use your Visa card in a foreign country or buy something online from a merchant in another currency, Visa collects a fee for handling the cross-border complexity and currency conversion. The driver here is cross-border volume, which excludes transactions within Europe.

This is Visa’s highest-margin revenue stream and one of its most powerful growth levers. Cross-border volume grew 13% on a constant-dollar basis in fiscal 2025, fueled by the continued recovery and growth in international travel and e-commerce. Cross-border e-commerce alone grew 13% in Q4 2025 and now makes up roughly 40% of total cross-border volume.

Other Revenue: $4.1 billion (grew 27% year over year)

This catch-all category includes licensing fees, account holder services, and portions of Visa’s rapidly growing Value-Added Services (VAS) business. VAS revenue (which is spread across data processing and other revenue) reached approximately $9 billion in fiscal 2025, growing 23% on a constant-dollar basis. These services include fraud prevention tools, consulting, analytics, issuing solutions, and acceptance solutions.

This is not the 2015 Visa. The company has been deliberately building a software and services layer on top of its payment rails, and it is now a meaningful growth engine.

The Hidden Line: Client Incentives

Here’s something most casual investors miss. Visa reports gross revenue from the four streams above and then subtracts a significant contra-revenue line item called Client Incentives. These are payments Visa makes to financial institutions and merchants to win and retain their business, encourage them to issue more Visa-branded products, and steer transaction routing through Visa’s network.

In fiscal 2025, client incentives totaled $15.8 billion, up 14% year over year. That means Visa’s gross revenue was roughly $55.8 billion, but after paying incentives, net revenue was $40.0 billion.

Client incentives have grown faster than revenue in recent years, indicating that the competitive landscape is intensifying. Banks and merchants hold leverage, and Visa must pay to keep them in the network. As an investor, you should monitor the ratio of client incentives to gross revenue over time. If that ratio continues to climb, it could pressure margins.

A Decade of Growth: FY2015 to FY2025

Here is where the story gets compelling for long-term investors. Let’s look at how Visa’s net revenue has grown over the past decade:

Sources: Visa Inc. annual earnings releases and 10-K filings on sec.gov. Visa’s fiscal year ends September 30. Revenue figures are rounded.

From $13.9 billion to $40.0 billion in a decade. That is a compound annual growth rate of approximately 11.2%. Three things stand out in this chart:

The Visa Europe inflection (FY2016-2017). Visa completed its acquisition of Visa Europe in June 2016 for approximately $23.4 billion. This reunited the global Visa network under one entity (the two had been separated since Visa’s IPO in 2008). The acquisition added roughly 500 million card accounts, over 3,000 European issuing banks, and more than €1.5 trillion in payments volume. The full impact shows up in FY2017’s 22% revenue jump. This was transformative. Before the deal, Visa Europe operated as a bank-owned cooperative and was far less commercially oriented. At the time, Visa Inc. generated roughly 33 basis points of yield on payment volume, while Visa Europe generated only about 9 basis points. The margin opportunity was enormous.

The COVID dip (FY2020). Visa’s only revenue decline in the decade came in fiscal 2020, when the pandemic crushed cross-border travel. International transaction revenue took the hardest hit. But this revealed something important about the business model: while travel ground to a halt, domestic payments volume held up remarkably well as consumers shifted spending online. The dip was shallow (just 5%), and the recovery was swift.

The post-COVID acceleration (FY2022). Revenue surged 22% as cross-border travel roared back. This was the mirror image of the COVID dip, demonstrating that international travel is a powerful revenue accelerator for Visa. It also showed that the pandemic permanently accelerated the adoption of digital payments, creating a stronger base for growth.

Knowing the concepts is one thing. Being able to sit down with a real dividend stock and actually analyze it is another. Paid membership gives you the tools to bridge that gap:

📊 1. Stock Analysis Infographic Library: 180+ visual references covering financial statements, valuation multiples, and dividend metrics, your cheat sheet for analyzing any company

🤖 2. AI Prompt Library: 10 purpose-built prompts that turn AI into a research partner, stress-test your thesis, dig into financials faster, and catch risks you’d otherwise miss

🔧 3. Investing Tools Suite: 4 analytical tools that take the friction out of the numbers so you can focus on understanding the business, not wrestling with spreadsheets

🎓 4. Skill Workshop: Practical working sessions walking through real company analysis start to finish, not theory, not lectures, actual practice

📈 5. Dividend Analysis Course (Coming Soon): A complete step-by-step course on analyzing dividend stocks using Buffett-inspired fundamental analysis

🔓 6. Everything Added Going Forward: Every new resource, tool, and prompts added automatically, no extra charge, ever

Upgrade to Paid

Why the Margins Are Extraordinary

Visa’s operating model produces margins that most businesses can only dream about.

The company’s net profit margin has consistently exceeded 50% in recent years. In fiscal 2025, Visa generated $20.1 billion in GAAP net income on $40.0 billion in net revenue, and non-GAAP net income was $22.5 billion. Operating cash flow was $23.1 billion.

These margins exist because Visa’s cost structure is largely fixed. VisaNet is already built. Processing one more transaction costs Visa almost nothing at the margin. Whether Visa processes 200 billion or 258 billion transactions, the network infrastructure, engineering teams, and brand investments are already in place. Every incremental transaction is nearly pure profit.

This is the power of operating leverage in a network business. As transaction counts and payment volumes grow, revenue scales while costs grow much more slowly. It’s why Visa’s non-GAAP operating expenses grew 11% in fiscal 2025 while revenue also grew 11%, but the company still produced expanding non-GAAP earnings per share (up 14% to $11.47) thanks to share buybacks and other efficiencies.

For context, Visa’s non-GAAP operating margin runs in the high-60% range, and its net margin sits around 50%. Compare that to JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank, which operates at a net margin of around 30%. The difference? JPMorgan takes credit risk. Visa doesn’t.

Where the Next Decade of Growth Comes From

Visa’s bull case rests on three growth engines that are still in their early innings:

1. The Cash Displacement Opportunity

Even in 2025, cash still accounts for a significant share of global transactions. In developing markets across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, electronic payments are still penetrating rapidly. Visa has 4.6 billion payment credentials globally and operates in more than 200 countries and territories, but the total addressable market continues to expand as more economies digitize.

2. New Payment Flows

Visa’s traditional strength is consumer-to-business (C2B) payments, but the company has been expanding into business-to-business (B2B), person-to-person (P2P), business-to-consumer (B2C), and government-to-consumer (G2C) payments. Commercial payments volume reached $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025, growing 7% in constant dollars. Visa Direct, the company’s real-time push payment platform, is a key enabler of these new flows.

3. Value-Added Services

This is arguably the most important strategic shift of the last five years. Visa’s VAS business has grown into a roughly $9 billion revenue stream, growing at over 20% annually. These services, which include fraud prevention (powered by AI), consulting, data analytics, issuing solutions, and acceptance solutions, allow Visa to monetize its network far beyond simple transaction processing.

In December 2024, Visa acquired Featurespace, a developer of real-time AI payments protection technology, to further strengthen its fraud prevention capabilities. The company has completed 19 acquisitions in total, many aimed at building out this services layer.

CEO Ryan McInerney described the strategy in the fiscal 2025 earnings call: “As technologies like AI-driven commerce, real-time money movement, tokenization, and stablecoins converge to reshape commerce, our focus on innovation and product development positions Visa to lead this transformation.”

What Investors Get Wrong About Visa

The most common mistake I see is treating Visa like a financial stock. It’s not. Visa has no loan book, no credit losses, and no interest rate sensitivity in the traditional banking sense. It’s a technology and services company that operates in the payments industry.

The second mistake is ignoring client incentives. When you hear Visa’s revenue discussed casually, make sure you know whether the number cited is gross revenue or net revenue. The difference (currently about $15.8 billion annually) is material to valuation.

The third mistake is assuming Visa’s growth has to slow because of its size. Visa’s revenue growth has been remarkably consistent, averaging roughly 10-12% annually (excluding COVID). The combination of cash displacement, new payment flows, value-added services, and geographic expansion gives the company multiple vectors for continued growth, even as the core C2B business matures in developed markets.

How to Use This in Your Investing Process

When evaluating “toll booth” businesses like Visa, here is what to focus on:

Look at the volume and transaction trends rather than just the revenue line. Are payment volumes and processed transactions still growing? Is cross-border volume accelerating or decelerating? These are the fundamental drivers.

Watch the client incentives ratio. If incentives grow persistently faster than gross revenue, the company’s competitive position may be eroding.

Pay attention to the Value-Added Services growth rate. This is where Visa is evolving from a payment network into a payment platform. If VAS growth decelerates sharply, it signals that the diversification strategy is stalling.

Evaluate the operating margin trajectory. A network business should see margins expand (or hold steady) as it scales. Persistent margin compression is a warning sign.

And remember: Visa’s revenue grows with nominal GDP. Inflation, which is bad for most businesses, actually helps Visa because its fees are based on the dollar amount of transactions. When prices go up, so does payment volume, and so does Visa’s revenue. The company doesn’t need to raise prices to grow. It just needs people to keep spending.

The Bottom Line

Visa is not a credit card company. It’s a toll booth on $14 trillion in annual payment volume, collecting a fraction of a percent on each transaction, and converting roughly half of its revenue into pure profit. Over the past decade, it has nearly tripled its net revenue from $13.9 billion to $40.0 billion while maintaining extraordinary margins and generating enormous free cash flow.

The business model is elegant in its simplicity and powerful in its compounding. For investors studying how great businesses create and sustain economic moats, Visa is one of the clearest examples in public markets.

Knowing the concepts is one thing. Being able to sit down with a real dividend stock and actually analyze it is another. Paid membership gives you the tools to bridge that gap:

📊 1. Stock Analysis Infographic Library: 180+ visual references covering financial statements, valuation multiples, and dividend metrics, your cheat sheet for analyzing any company

🤖 2. AI Prompt Library: 10 purpose-built prompts that turn AI into a research partner, stress-test your thesis, dig into financials faster, and catch risks you’d otherwise miss

🔧 3. Investing Tools Suite: 4 analytical tools that take the friction out of the numbers so you can focus on understanding the business, not wrestling with spreadsheets

🎓 4. Skill Workshop: Practical working sessions walking through real company analysis start to finish, not theory, not lectures, actual practice

📈 5. Dividend Analysis Course (Coming Soon): A complete step-by-step course on analyzing dividend stocks using Buffett-inspired fundamental analysis

🔓 6. Everything Added Going Forward: Every new resource, tool, and prompts added automatically, no extra charge, ever

Upgrade to Paid

Understanding this hierarchy matters because it gives you a built-in quality filter. A company that has raised its dividend every year for 50 consecutive years has survived recessions, wars, oil crises, financial meltdowns, and a pandemic. That track record tells you something powerful about the underlying business.

In today’s post, we will learn:

• The Five Tiers of Dividend Growth Companies

• How Each Tier Is Defined (and Who Maintains the Lists)

• Real Company Examples at Every Level

• What the Streak Tells You (and What It Doesn’t)

• How to Use the Dividend Ladder in Your Investing Process

• Common Mistakes Investors Make with Dividend Growth Lists

Okay, let’s dive in and learn more about the different levels of dividend payers.

The Five Tiers of Dividend Growth Companies

Think of dividend growth companies as a ladder. The higher a company climbs, the longer its track record of raising its payout to shareholders year after year. Each rung has a name, a minimum streak requirement, and sometimes additional qualifications.

Here is the complete hierarchy, from bottom to top:

Dividend Challengers require 5 to 9 consecutive years of annual dividend increases. This is the entry point. About 189 companies currently qualify.

Dividend Contenders require 10 to 24 consecutive years of annual dividend increases. These companies have proven they can grow through at least one economic cycle. Roughly 230 to 250 companies sit in this tier.

Dividend Achievers also require at least 10 consecutive years of annual dividend increases, but this is a trademarked index maintained by Nasdaq with additional liquidity requirements (a three-month average daily trading volume of at least $1 million and a listing on the NYSE or Nasdaq). About 400 companies qualify. Think of Achievers as the Contenders list with broader inclusion criteria.

Dividend Aristocrats require at least 25 consecutive years of annual dividend increases. But the Aristocrats come with a critical additional filter: the company must be a member of the S&P 500 and meet minimum market capitalization (at least $3 billion) and liquidity requirements. There are currently 69 Dividend Aristocrats, a record high for the index.

Dividend Champions also require 25 or more consecutive years of dividend increases, but they drop the S&P 500 membership requirement. Any U.S. company that hits 25 years qualifies. This makes the Champions list significantly larger at roughly 150 companies. All Dividend Aristocrats are Dividend Champions, but many Champions are not Aristocrats because they are too small or not in the S&P 500.

Dividend Kings sit at the top. They require 50 or more consecutive years of annual dividend increases. No other qualifications. Currently, roughly 56 companies hold this status.

A quick note on terminology. You will sometimes see the Challengers, Contenders, and Champions grouped together as the “CCC list.” This list was originally created by the late David Fish, a pioneer in dividend growth investing, and is now maintained by Justin Law, who updates it monthly. The CCC list is one of the most comprehensive resources for dividend growth investors.

How Each Tier Differs (and Why It Matters)

The differences between these tiers go beyond the number on the streak counter. Let’s break down what separates them.

The Challengers (5 to 9 Years)

Five years is not an especially high bar, but it does separate companies that are actively growing their dividends from those that have kept payouts flat or inconsistent. Challengers tend to be younger dividend payers or companies that recently began prioritizing shareholder returns.

Apple (AAPL) is a perfect example. The company reinstated its dividend in 2012 after a 17-year hiatus and has increased it every year since, giving it roughly 14 consecutive years of increases. That streak places Apple in the Contender tier today, but it sat in the Challenger tier for years after restarting its dividend program.

Apple’s case illustrates something important. A company can be one of the most profitable businesses on earth and still be a relative newcomer to the dividend growth ladder. Apple generated $111.5 billion in operating cash flow in fiscal 2025, yet its current yield sits around 0.4%. The company returns far more capital through buybacks ($90.7 billion in fiscal 2025) than dividends ($15.4 billion). For Apple, the dividend is a small piece of a much larger capital return strategy.

The Challenger tier is where you find tomorrow’s Aristocrats. Some will make the climb. Others will stumble and reset to zero.

The Contenders and Achievers (10 to 24 Years)

Crossing the 10-year threshold is meaningful. It means the company has navigated at least one full economic cycle while continuing to raise its payout. That requires real earnings durability, not just good intentions.

Microsoft (MSFT) sits here with 21 consecutive years of dividend increases. Microsoft raised its quarterly dividend 10% to $0.91 per share in 2025, continuing a streak that stretches back to the mid-2000s. What makes Microsoft’s presence in this tier notable is context: 21 years of consecutive increases is a rare feat for a technology company. Most tech firms either don’t pay dividends at all or haven’t been paying them long enough to qualify for the higher tiers.

The Contender tier is a proving ground. Companies here have demonstrated commitment, but they haven’t yet been tested by the full range of economic environments that a 25 or 50-year streak demands.

The Aristocrats and Champions (25+ Years)

This is where things get serious. Twenty-five consecutive years of dividend increases mean a company has grown its payout through multiple recessions, interest rate cycles, and market crashes.

The key distinction between Aristocrats and Champions is the S&P 500 filter. The Aristocrats index, maintained by S&P Dow Jones Indices, requires membership in the S&P 500, along with minimum size and liquidity thresholds. This means smaller companies with outstanding 25-year streaks get excluded.

For example, the Champions list includes companies like MGE Energy (MGEE), a regulated utility in Wisconsin, and Sonoco Products (SON), a packaging company. Both have excellent dividend growth records, but neither sits in the Aristocrats index because they don’t meet the S&P 500 criteria.

The Aristocrats index has historically outperformed the S&P 500 by approximately 1% to 2% annually over long periods, with notably lower volatility during bear markets. In 2008, the Dividend Aristocrats index declined about 22%, while the broader S&P 500 fell 37%. That downside protection is part of what makes the Aristocrats list valuable beyond just a screening tool.

The 2026 Aristocrats list includes familiar names: Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Abbott Laboratories, McDonald’s, and others. These are generally large, stable businesses in sectors like consumer staples, healthcare, industrials, and utilities. You will not find many technology or communications companies on the list. Only two Aristocrats (IBM and Roper Technologies) are classified as tech stocks.

This framework works. But running it from memory every time you evaluate a stock is slow and easy to get wrong. Paid members get the tools that turn what you just learned into a repeatable 10-minute process.

The Dividend Safety Spreadsheet. The Reverse DCF Calculator. The ROIC model. They do the heavy lifting so you can spend your time thinking about the business, not wrestling with formulas.

Make This Your Process →

The Dividend Kings (50+ Years)

The summit of the dividend ladder. To earn the title of Dividend King, a company must have raised its dividend every single year for at least half a century. Think about what that means. Fifty years encompasses the stagflation of the 1970s, double-digit interest rates in the 1980s, the dot-com bust, the 2008 financial crisis, near-zero interest rates for a decade, and a global pandemic. A company that grew its dividend through all of that has proven something fundamental about the durability of its business model.

There are currently around 56 Dividend Kings. The longest streak belongs to American States Water (AWR) at approximately 70 consecutive years. Other notable Kings include Procter & Gamble (PG) with 69 consecutive years, Emerson Electric (EMR) with 69 years, and Coca-Cola (KO) with 64 consecutive years.

According to P&G’s own investor relations filings, the company has been paying a dividend for 135 consecutive years since its incorporation in 1890 and has increased its dividend for 69 consecutive years. In April 2025, P&G announced a 5% dividend increase and returned over $16 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases in fiscal year 2025.

Coca-Cola approved its 64th consecutive annual dividend increase in February 2026, raising the quarterly payment from $0.51 to a higher amount. The company generated $11.4 billion in adjusted free cash flow in 2025, providing strong financial backing for the dividend.

The sector composition of the Dividend Kings tells an important story. You will find the list concentrated in consumer staples, utilities, industrials, and healthcare. No Dividend Kings come from the Information Technology or Communications sectors. This makes sense. The characteristics that enable a 50-year streak (stable demand, pricing power, modest capital requirements, recurring revenue) are more commonly found in “boring” businesses than in fast-changing technology markets.

The Dividend Kings have delivered steady annual dividend growth of around 5% over the last decade. Their total returns have generally matched the S&P 500 over long periods but with lower volatility. In recent years, however, the Kings have lagged the tech-heavy S&P 500 as investors favored growth stocks and AI-related companies.

What the Streak Tells You (and What It Doesn’t)

A long dividend growth streak is a powerful signal, but it is not the whole picture. Let’s separate what the streak genuinely indicates from what it cannot tell you.

What a long streak signals:

A company that has raised its dividend for 25 or 50 consecutive years almost certainly possesses durable competitive advantages. You do not maintain that kind of consistency without a business model that generates reliable cash flows across different economic environments. The streak is a proxy for quality, not a guarantee of it, but a strong indicator.

It also signals disciplined capital allocation. Management teams at these companies prioritize returning cash to shareholders and protecting the dividend even during downturns. There is tremendous institutional pressure to keep the streak alive. No CEO wants to be the one who breaks a 50-year record.

What the streak does not tell you:

First, the streak says nothing about valuation. A Dividend King trading at 35 times earnings may be a poor investment at that price, regardless of its 60-year streak. The track record is about quality, not price. As Buffett says, "Price is what you pay; value is what you get."

Second, the streak does not guarantee future dividend safety. The streak is backward-looking. A company can have a perfect 49-year record and cut its dividend in year 50 if the underlying business deteriorates.

Third, a longer streak does not automatically mean a better investment. A Contender growing its dividend at 15% annually with a 40% payout ratio may deliver better long-term returns than a King growing at 3% annually with an 80% payout ratio. Growth rate and payout sustainability matter alongside the streak length.

Cautionary Tales: When Companies Fall Off the Ladder

The year 2024 was a brutal one for the Dividend Kings list. Three companies were removed: 3M (MMM), Walgreens Boots Alliance (WBA), and Leggett & Platt (LEG). All three cut their dividends, instantly resetting decades of consecutive increases to zero.

V.F. Corporation (VFC), the parent of The North Face and Timberland, provides perhaps the most dramatic cautionary tale. V.F. Corp achieved Dividend King status in 2022 after 50 years of consecutive increases. Two months later, in February 2023, the company cut its dividend. The fastest fall from King to nothing in the list’s history.

These examples remind us that the streak is earned year by year. Past performance, even 50 years of it, does not guarantee future results. That is why the streak should be one input in your analysis, not the only one.

When evaluating dividend growth companies, always pair the streak with fundamental analysis. Check the payout ratio relative to earnings and free cash flow. Look at the balance sheet. Understand whether the company’s competitive position is strengthening or eroding. The streak tells you where the company has been. Your job as an investor is to assess where it is going.

How to Use the Dividend Ladder in Your Investing Process

Here is a practical framework for incorporating the dividend growth hierarchy into your research.

Step 1: Use the tiers as a starting filter, not an ending point.

The CCC list and the Aristocrats index are excellent starting points for finding quality dividend growth companies. They save you from sifting through thousands of stocks by narrowing the field to companies with proven track records. But don’t stop at the list. Every company still requires individual analysis.

Step 2: Match the tier to your investing goals.

If you are building a portfolio focused on current income and stability, the Aristocrats and Kings offer the longest track records and typically the highest yields in the dividend growth universe. If you are younger and focused on long-term wealth building through dividend growth, the Contenders and even Challengers may offer faster dividend growth rates, even if the starting yields are lower. A company like Microsoft, growing its dividend at 10% per year, will double its payout roughly every seven years.

Step 3: Look beyond the streak at the fundamentals.

For every company on the ladder, ask these questions:

Is the payout ratio sustainable? For most non-REIT companies, a payout ratio below 60% of earnings (or free cash flow) provides a comfortable cushion. Above 80% starts to get stretched.

Is the dividend growth rate accelerating or slowing? A company that has grown its dividend at 8% annually for the last five years but at only 2% for the last two years may be signaling that growth is stalling.

What does the balance sheet look like? Companies that take on excessive debt to maintain their dividend streak are playing a dangerous game. Always check the debt-to-equity ratio and interest coverage.

Is the underlying business growing? Revenue and earnings growth ultimately fund dividend growth. If the business is in structural decline, the streak will eventually end.

Step 4: Diversify across tiers.

A well-constructed dividend growth portfolio might include Kings for stability and reliable income, Aristocrats and Champions for the balance of quality and growth, and select Contenders or Challengers that you believe have the business quality to climb the ladder over time. This gives you a blend of current income, dividend growth, and potential for capital appreciation.

Common Mistakes with Dividend Growth Lists

Chasing the longest streak without checking the fundamentals. A 50-year streak means nothing if the company is drowning in debt or losing market share. 3M had 64 years of consecutive increases before it cut. The streak looked impressive right up until the moment it didn’t.

Ignoring the Contenders and Challengers. Many investors fixate on the Aristocrats and Kings while overlooking companies in the earlier stages of their dividend growth journey. Some of the best future dividend growth investments are Contenders that haven’t yet reached 25 years.

Confusing Aristocrats with Champions. Because the Aristocrats require membership in the S&P 500, smaller companies with longer streaks are excluded. If you only screen the Aristocrats list, you miss roughly 80 additional companies with 25-plus-year streaks that sit on the Champions list.

Assuming the streak will continue automatically. Every year, companies fall off these lists. The pressure to maintain the streak is real, but it does not override financial reality. Always verify that the company can afford its next dividend increase.

Using the tier as your only valuation tool. Being a Dividend King does not make a stock a buy at any price. Valuation still matters. Use the tier to identify quality, then use your valuation tools (DCF, P/E, dividend yield relative to history) to determine the right price.

Investor Takeaway

The dividend growth hierarchy gives you a structured way to think about the quality and reliability of dividend-paying companies. From Challengers just beginning their journey to Kings that have delivered half a century of consecutive increases, each tier tells you something about the durability of the underlying business.

But the tier is a starting point, not a finish line. The real work begins when you dig into the financials: checking payout ratios, evaluating balance sheet strength, assessing competitive position, and determining whether the price is right.

Use the ladder to narrow your search. Use fundamental analysis to make your decisions.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

I’ve been investing for 13 years and creating content about it for 9. Every tool inside the paid membership exists because I needed it for my own portfolio first.

The Dividend Safety Spreadsheet? I built it because I was tired of manually checking payout ratios across 20 stocks. The calculators? Same thing. I wanted faster, cleaner analysis without opening a dozen browser tabs.

Paid members get access to all of it, plus the 180+ infographic library and hands-on workshops where I walk through real analysis in real time.

If you’re reading this newsletter every week, you’re already doing the work. The toolkit just makes the work faster.

See Everything That's Included →

Here’s what you’ll learn: A systematic 60-minute process for turning a company’s 10-K into a clear investment thesis using NotebookLM. We’ll walk through this framework using Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) as our example, showing you exactly how to extract the insights that matter.

Why NotebookLM Changes the Game

Reading a 10-K the traditional way takes hours. TSMC’s 2023 10-K runs 238 pages. Most of it is legal boilerplate, detailed risk factors, and financial statement footnotes. The valuable insights are buried.

NotebookLM solves this problem. Upload the 10-K PDF, and you get an AI research assistant that knows the entire document. Ask specific questions. Get instant answers with page citations. Build your investment thesis in an hour instead of an afternoon.

This isn’t about letting AI think for you. It’s about using AI to surface the specific information you need to think clearly about a business.

The 60-Minute Framework

This framework has four phases, each with specific questions designed to build your investment thesis systematically.

Phase 1: Business Model Clarity (15 minutes) Phase 2: Competitive Position (15 minutes) Phase 3: Financial Quality (15 minutes) Phase 4: Risks and Valuation Context (15 minutes)

Let’s walk through each phase using TSMC’s 2023 10-K.

Phase 1: Business Model Clarity (15 minutes)

Before you can value a business, you need to understand how it makes money. Not the elevator pitch version. The operational reality.

The Prompt:

Analyze this company's business model and provide a structured summary:

1. Revenue Composition: List all business segments, product lines, or platforms with their percentage of total revenue. If the company reports revenue by geography, include that breakdown as well.

2. Customer Concentration: Identify the largest customers (by percentage of revenue if disclosed), the total percentage of revenue from the top 10 customers, and any dependencies on specific customer relationships.

3. Operational Model: Describe the production or service delivery process, including capacity utilization rates, capital intensity (capex as % of revenue), and whether the business is asset-light or asset-heavy.

4. Unit Economics: If the 10-K discloses any per-unit metrics (subscribers, units sold, average revenue per customer), extract those figures and explain what they reveal about the business model.

Format your response with clear headers for each section and include specific page numbers from the 10-K for all quantitative data.

TSMC Example:

When I gave NotebookLM this prompt for TSMC’s 2023 10-K, it returned a structured analysis that immediately revealed the key insights:

Revenue Composition: TSMC doesn’t break out revenue by customer segments in traditional ways. Instead, the 10-K shows revenue by platform (page 4):

• High Performance Computing: 43% of 2023 revenue

• Smartphone: 42%

• IoT: 7%

• Automotive: 6%

• DCE (Digital Consumer Electronics): 2%

This is crucial insight. TSMC isn’t just a “chip manufacturer.” It’s a company where 85% of revenue comes from two platforms that are driving technological advancement: smartphones and HPC (which includes AI chips, data center processors, and advanced computing).

Customer Concentration: According to the 2023 10-K (page 8), one customer accounted for approximately 25% of revenue, and the top ten customers accounted for 74% of revenue. TSMC doesn’t name these customers in the 10-K, but industry knowledge tells us the largest customer is Apple, with Nvidia, AMD, and Qualcomm among the top tier.

Operational Model: NotebookLM extracted that TSMC operates 13 major fabs in Taiwan (page 3) and is expanding into Arizona, Japan, and Germany. The capital intensity is extreme: 2023 capex was $28.2 billion USD (page F-6), representing approximately 40% of revenue. Capacity utilization for the full year 2023 was not explicitly disclosed, but the company discusses “underutilization” in certain mature nodes due to inventory corrections (page 29).

What this means: TSMC has significant customer concentration, but these customers are locked in by TSMC’s technological leadership. Switching costs are astronomical. It takes years and billions of dollars to qualify a new foundry for advanced chip production.

Your Action Step:

Within 15 minutes, you should have a structured document showing:

• How the company makes money (specific products/services with percentages)

• Where revenue concentration exists (customers, geographies, products)

• What the operational model looks like (asset-light vs capital-intensive, utilization rates)

• Key unit economics if available

Write these down in plain language. If you can’t explain the business model clearly after this phase, you’re not ready to invest.

Phase 2: Competitive Position (15 minutes)

This is where you identify the moat. Every investor talks about competitive advantages. Few investors actually document the specific mechanisms that allow a company to maintain those advantages.

The Prompt:

Extract and analyze this company's competitive position:

1. Stated Competitive Advantages: Summarize what the company identifies as its competitive strengths or advantages. Quote the specific language used and provide page numbers.

2. Market Position: What market share does the company disclose? How has it changed over the past 2-3 years? If specific share numbers aren't provided, describe how the company characterizes its competitive position (leader, challenger, niche player).

3. Investment in Competitive Position: 
   - R&D spending as % of revenue for the past 3 years
   - What specific technologies, products, or capabilities is R&D developing?
   - Capital expenditures as % of revenue
   - What is capex being invested in (new capacity, technology upgrades, maintenance)?

4. Barriers to Entry: What does the company describe as barriers preventing new competitors from entering? Look for discussion of regulatory requirements, capital requirements, technical complexity, customer switching costs, or network effects.

5. Competitive Threats: What competitors does the company name? What emerging threats or competitive dynamics does management discuss?

Provide specific dollar amounts and percentages with page citations. I'm looking for quantitative proof of competitive advantages, not just qualitative claims.

TSMC Example:

This comprehensive prompt surfaced much richer insights than simple questions would have:

Stated Competitive Advantages: TSMC describes its competitive strengths (page 1) as “technology leadership, manufacturing excellence, customer trust, and capacity support.” But the 10-K goes deeper on technology leadership, explaining that TSMC pioneered the pure-play foundry model and has maintained process technology leadership through “substantial investments in R&D and capital equipment.”

Market Position: NotebookLM found that TSMC states it is “the largest dedicated semiconductor foundry in the world” (page 1) but doesn’t disclose specific market share percentages in the 10-K. However, the company does state it had “revenue of US$69.3 billion in 2023” and describes itself as the leader in advanced process technologies.

Investment in Competitive Position: Here’s where the quantitative moat evidence emerges:

R&D Spending (page 4):

• 2023: NT$187.7 billion (8.9% of revenue)

• 2022: NT$171.5 billion (7.6% of revenue)

• 2021: NT$124.4 billion (7.8% of revenue)

For context, TSMC’s 2023 revenue was NT$2,161.7 billion (approximately $70.1 billion USD using the exchange rate disclosed in the 10-K).

Capital Expenditures (page F-6):

• 2023: $28.2 billion USD

• 2022: $36.3 billion USD

• 2021: $30.3 billion USD

The 2023 capex represents approximately 40% of revenue. The 10-K describes these investments going into “3-nanometer technology, 2-nanometer technology development, advanced packaging, and specialty technologies” (page 4).

Barriers to Entry: The prompt extracted several barriers TSMC identifies:

• Technical complexity: “Manufacturing leading-edge semiconductors requires highly specialized equipment and expertise” (page 7)

• Capital intensity: The scale of investment required is explicitly discussed throughout the risk factors section

• Customer relationships: “Long-standing customer relationships and trust built over decades” (page 1)

• Ecosystem lock-in: TSMC’s ecosystem includes “comprehensive design support and IP portfolio” that customers depend on (page 3)

Competitive Threats: TSMC names Samsung Foundry and Intel Foundry Services as direct competitors (page 14). The company also discusses the threat of customers bringing manufacturing in-house and geopolitical pressures that could reshape the competitive landscape.

Why this matters: Intel, Samsung, and others can’t simply “catch up” to TSMC. The company is running a technology treadmill where staying in place requires $28 billion per year in capital investment plus $8+ billion in R&D. The moat isn’t just technical expertise. It’s the economic scale required to justify these investments.

Your Action Step:

Document the specific moat mechanisms. Not generic statements like “strong brand” or “technological leadership.” Write down:

• The quantitative proof (market share, R&D spending, customer metrics)

• The specific capabilities (3nm production, 2nm development pipeline)

• The economic barriers (capex requirements that competitors can’t justify)

You just watched me break this down step by step. Now ask yourself: could you do this on your own, from scratch, for a stock you’re researching this week?

That’s the gap paid membership closes. You get the same spreadsheets, calculators, and visual references I use every time I analyze a dividend stock. Plug in a ticker, and the tools handle the math. You focus on the decision.

Start Analyzing Stocks on Your Own →

Phase 3: Financial Quality (15 minutes)

Understanding the business model and competitive position means nothing if the financial reality doesn’t support the story. This phase focuses on extracting the specific metrics that reveal whether management is allocating capital effectively.

The Prompt:

Perform a comprehensive financial quality analysis using data from the past 3 years:

1. Profitability Metrics:
   - Operating income and operating margin % for each year
   - Gross margin % for each year
   - Net income and net margin % for each year
   - Identify any unusual items or one-time charges that distort these figures

2. Return on Capital:
   - Extract total assets, current liabilities, and goodwill from the balance sheet
   - Calculate simplified invested capital (Total Assets - Current Liabilities - Goodwill)
   - Calculate ROIC using Operating Income / Invested Capital
   - Show the trend over 3 years

3. Cash Generation:
   - Operating cash flow for each year
   - Capital expenditures for each year
   - Free cash flow (Operating cash flow - Capex)
   - Free cash flow conversion rate (FCF / Net Income)
   - Working capital trends if significant

4. Capital Structure:
   - Total debt (short-term + long-term)
   - Total equity
   - Debt-to-equity ratio
   - Interest expense
   - Interest coverage ratio (Operating Income / Interest Expense)

5. Capital Allocation:
   - Dividends paid
   - Share repurchases
   - Total shareholder returns as % of free cash flow
   - Any acquisitions or major investments

Provide all figures with page citations. Calculate percentages and ratios. Explain any red flags or concerning trends.

TSMC Example:

This structured prompt generated a complete financial quality profile:

Profitability Metrics: From the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (page F-4):

2023:

• Revenue: NT$2,161,663 million

• Operating Income: NT$1,106,340 million (51.2% margin)

• Net Income: NT$948,627 million (43.9% margin)

2022:

• Revenue: NT$2,263,891 million

• Operating Income: NT$1,161,346 million (51.3% margin)

• Net Income: NT$1,016,985 million (44.9% margin)

2021:

• Revenue: NT$1,587,415 million

• Operating Income: NT$866,619 million (54.6% margin)

• Net Income: NT$596,545 million (37.6% margin)

NotebookLM flagged that 2023 revenue declined 4.5% year-over-year but operating margins remained remarkably stable above 51%. This demonstrates pricing power even during demand weakness.

Return on Capital: From the Balance Sheet (page F-3), NotebookLM extracted:

2023:

• Total Assets: NT$5,097,171 million

• Current Liabilities: NT$649,247 million

• Goodwill: NT$0 (TSMC has no goodwill)

• Invested Capital: NT$4,447,924 million

• ROIC: NT$1,106,340M / NT$4,447,924M = 24.9%

2022:

• Invested Capital: NT$3,920,508 million

• ROIC: NT$1,161,346M / NT$3,920,508M = 29.6%

The ROIC declined from 2022 to 2023, but NotebookLM identified the reason: TSMC massively increased invested capital (up 13.5%) while operating income declined slightly due to the semiconductor downcycle. The company was investing through the downturn.

Cash Generation: From the Statement of Cash Flows (page F-5):

2023:

• Operating Cash Flow: NT$1,403,745 million

• Capital Expenditures: NT$947,422 million

• Free Cash Flow: NT$456,323 million

• FCF Conversion: 48.1% (FCF / Net Income)

2022:

• Operating Cash Flow: NT$1,566,084 million

• Capital Expenditures: NT$1,218,703 million

• Free Cash Flow: NT$347,381 million

• FCF Conversion: 34.2%

NotebookLM noted that despite revenue declining in 2023, free cash flow actually increased 31% because capex moderated from the peak 2022 levels. This shows management’s ability to flex investment while maintaining technology leadership.

Capital Structure: From the Balance Sheet (page F-3):

2023:

• Short-term Debt: NT$97,296 million

• Long-term Debt: NT$574,468 million

• Total Debt: NT$671,764 million

• Total Equity: NT$3,653,083 million

• Debt-to-Equity: 18.4%

Interest expense for 2023 (page F-4): NT$10,517 million Interest Coverage: NT$1,106,340M / NT$10,517M = 105x

NotebookLM characterized this as “extremely conservative leverage” given the capital intensity of the business.

Capital Allocation: From the Statement of Equity (page F-7):

2023:

• Cash Dividends: NT$375,305 million

• Share Repurchases: NT$0 (TSMC does not buy back shares)

• Shareholder Returns as % of FCF: 82.2%

The prompt also surfaced that TSMC has a stated policy of returning “approximately 70% of free cash flow” to shareholders through dividends (page 23), and the 2023 execution exceeded that target.

What this means: TSMC demonstrates all the characteristics of high-quality business: exceptional margins, high returns on invested capital, strong free cash flow generation, conservative debt levels, and generous shareholder returns. The financial quality matches the competitive position.

Your Action Step:

Build a financial quality scorecard with specific numbers:

• Operating margins (and 3-year trend)

• ROIC (even simplified calculation reveals quality)

• Free cash flow as percentage of net income

• Debt-to-equity and interest coverage

• Capital allocation (buybacks, dividends, growth investments)

If the numbers don’t support the qualitative story from Phases 1 and 2, you don’t have an investment thesis. You have a hope.

Phase 4: Risks and Valuation Context (15 minutes)

Every 10-K contains a “Risk Factors” section. Most investors skip it because it reads like a legal document covering every conceivable problem. NotebookLM helps you cut through the noise and identify the risks that actually matter.

The Prompt:

Analyze the company's risks and provide valuation context:

1. Material Risk Factors:
   - Identify the 5 most substantial risks based on how much detail/space the company devotes to them
   - Summarize each risk in 2-3 sentences
   - Categorize each as: operational, financial, regulatory, competitive, or geopolitical
   - Note if the company quantifies any potential impact

2. Industry and Cyclical Risks:
   - What cyclical patterns does the company describe?
   - What industry-specific risks are identified?
   - How does the company characterize current industry conditions?

3. Management's Strategic Priorities:
   - What capital allocation priorities does management discuss?
   - What investments or initiatives are described as critical?
   - What does management say about balancing growth vs. profitability?

4. Valuation Context:
   - Does the company provide any industry metrics, multiples, or comparisons?
   - What long-term growth drivers does management identify?
   - Are there any disclosed analysts' estimates or guidance?

5. Historical Volatility:
   - How much have revenues fluctuated year-over-year?
   - How much have margins fluctuated?
   - What events caused the largest historical swings?

Prioritize risks by materiality (space devoted, specificity, quantification) rather than listing every boilerplate risk.

TSMC Example:

This comprehensive prompt extracted the risks that actually matter for investment decisions:

Material Risk Factors:

NotebookLM identified these as the most substantial based on detail and space devoted:

1. Geopolitical Risk (Cross-Strait Relations) - Categorized as Geopolitical The 2023 10-K devotes extensive discussion (pages 9-11) to potential impacts from cross-strait tensions. Key quote: “Any escalation in the political and military tensions between the PRC and the ROC could disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations” (page 9). The company acknowledges that “most of our customers’ orders are currently manufactured” in Taiwan, where “most of our business operations and most of our assets are located.”

2. Customer Concentration Risk - Categorized as Operational “Revenues from our top ten customers represented 74% of our net revenues in 2023, and one customer accounted for approximately 25% of our net revenues” (page 8). Loss of any major customer would materially impact results. NotebookLM noted this risk is partially mitigated by high switching costs but remains material.

3. Cyclical Semiconductor Demand - Categorized as Industry/Cyclical The 10-K extensively discusses cyclicality: “The semiconductor industry is highly cyclical and has experienced significant downturns” (page 11). TSMC’s own results demonstrate this: 2023 revenue declined 4.5% year-over-year due to “inventory corrections and weaker end-market demand.”

4. Technology Transition Risk - Categorized as Operational “Our business depends on our ability to develop and implement advanced process technologies ahead of our competitors” (page 13). If TSMC falls behind in process technology, customer concentration means defections would be rapid and severe. The company must invest $25-35 billion annually just to maintain position.

5. Talent and Labor Risk - Categorized as Operational “Competition for qualified personnel is intense” (page 16). The specialized nature of advanced semiconductor manufacturing means TSMC depends on retaining highly skilled engineers. Expansion into new geographies (Arizona, Japan, Germany) increases talent challenges.

Industry and Cyclical Risks:

NotebookLM extracted TSMC’s characterization of cycles: “The semiconductor industry historically has been cyclical and subject to significant economic downturns at various times. The semiconductor market experienced significant growth in 2021 and 2022 followed by an industry-wide correction in 2023” (page 29).

Current conditions (as of the 2023 10-K): The company describes “normalization of inventory levels in the supply chain” and expects “gradual recovery in customer demand” but provides no specific timeline.

Management’s Strategic Priorities:

The prompt surfaced three clear priorities:

1. Technology Leadership: “We plan to continue investing in R&D and capital equipment to maintain our technology leadership” (page 23). This is non-negotiable even during downturns.

2. Geographic Diversification: Expansion into Arizona, Japan, and Germany is described as “responding to customer needs” while also addressing geopolitical concerns about Taiwan concentration (page 5).

3. Shareholder Returns: “Our target is to distribute approximately 70% of our annual free cash flow to shareholders through cash dividends” (page 23). This comes after maintaining technology leadership.

Valuation Context:

NotebookLM found limited explicit valuation guidance in the 10-K, but extracted these relevant points:

• Long-term growth drivers: AI computing, automotive electrification, 5G infrastructure, IoT proliferation (page 2)

• No specific revenue or earnings guidance provided

• Management describes “structural demand drivers” that will create “sustainable long-term growth opportunities” despite cyclical fluctuations (page 3)

Historical Volatility:

Revenue volatility (extracted from 3-year financials):

• 2023: NT$2,161.7 billion (-4.5% YoY)

• 2022: NT$2,263.9 billion (+42.6% YoY)

• 2021: NT$1,587.4 billion (+18.5% YoY)

Operating margin volatility:

• Remained remarkably stable: 54.6% (2021), 51.3% (2022), 51.2% (2023)

NotebookLM identified that revenue is cyclical but margins are extremely stable, suggesting pricing power that persists through demand fluctuations.

What this means for valuation: You’re not valuing a stable utility. You’re valuing a cyclical, capital-intensive business with exceptional competitive positioning but concentrated geopolitical risk. The valuation must account for:

1. Cyclicality: Earnings will fluctuate 20-40% with semiconductor cycles

2. Geopolitical risk premium: Taiwan-specific risk requires 2-3% additional return expectations

3. Capital intensity: $25-35 billion annual capex is non-discretionary maintenance

4. Reinvestment opportunity: Unlike mature businesses, TSMC can deploy capital into growth at 25%+ ROIC

Your Action Step:

Create a risk assessment that informs your valuation:

• Deal-breaker risks: Problems that would make you avoid the investment entirely

• Quantifiable risks: Issues you can estimate probability and impact for (revenue cyclicality, margin compression scenarios)

• Risk mitigants: What the company is doing to address major risks

• Valuation implications: How risks should affect your required return and multiple assumptions

For TSMC, the geopolitical risk is real and quantifiable. It should meaningfully increase your required rate of return (I’d add 200-300 basis points). But if you believe TSMC’s technological moat persists (which the financial quality supports), the risk might be worth taking at the right price.

The Complete Prompt Template

Here are all four comprehensive prompts in copy-paste format for your own 10-K analysis:

Phase 1 - Business Model Clarity:

Analyze this company's business model and provide a structured summary:

1. Revenue Composition: List all business segments, product lines, or platforms with their percentage of total revenue. If the company reports revenue by geography, include that breakdown as well.

2. Customer Concentration: Identify the largest customers (by percentage of revenue if disclosed), the total percentage of revenue from the top 10 customers, and any dependencies on specific customer relationships.

3. Operational Model: Describe the production or service delivery process, including capacity utilization rates, capital intensity (capex as % of revenue), and whether the business is asset-light or asset-heavy.

4. Unit Economics: If the 10-K discloses any per-unit metrics (subscribers, units sold, average revenue per customer), extract those figures and explain what they reveal about the business model.

Format your response with clear headers for each section and include specific page numbers from the 10-K for all quantitative data.

Phase 2 - Competitive Position:

Extract and analyze this company's competitive position:

1. Stated Competitive Advantages: Summarize what the company identifies as its competitive strengths or advantages. Quote the specific language used and provide page numbers.

2. Market Position: What market share does the company disclose? How has it changed over the past 2-3 years? If specific share numbers aren't provided, describe how the company characterizes its competitive position (leader, challenger, niche player).

3. Investment in Competitive Position: 
   - R&D spending as % of revenue for the past 3 years
   - What specific technologies, products, or capabilities is R&D developing?
   - Capital expenditures as % of revenue
   - What is capex being invested in (new capacity, technology upgrades, maintenance)?

4. Barriers to Entry: What does the company describe as barriers preventing new competitors from entering? Look for discussion of regulatory requirements, capital requirements, technical complexity, customer switching costs, or network effects.

5. Competitive Threats: What competitors does the company name? What emerging threats or competitive dynamics does management discuss?

Provide specific dollar amounts and percentages with page citations. I'm looking for quantitative proof of competitive advantages, not just qualitative claims.

Phase 3 - Financial Quality:

Perform a comprehensive financial quality analysis using data from the past 3 years:

1. Profitability Metrics:
   - Operating income and operating margin % for each year
   - Gross margin % for each year
   - Net income and net margin % for each year
   - Identify any unusual items or one-time charges that distort these figures

2. Return on Capital:
   - Extract total assets, current liabilities, and goodwill from the balance sheet
   - Calculate simplified invested capital (Total Assets - Current Liabilities - Goodwill)
   - Calculate ROIC using Operating Income / Invested Capital
   - Show the trend over 3 years

3. Cash Generation:
   - Operating cash flow for each year
   - Capital expenditures for each year
   - Free cash flow (Operating cash flow - Capex)
   - Free cash flow conversion rate (FCF / Net Income)
   - Working capital trends if significant

4. Capital Structure:
   - Total debt (short-term + long-term)
   - Total equity
   - Debt-to-equity ratio
   - Interest expense
   - Interest coverage ratio (Operating Income / Interest Expense)

5. Capital Allocation:
   - Dividends paid
   - Share repurchases
   - Total shareholder returns as % of free cash flow
   - Any acquisitions or major investments

Provide all figures with page citations. Calculate percentages and ratios. Explain any red flags or concerning trends.

Phase 4 - Risks and Valuation Context:

Analyze the company's risks and provide valuation context:

1. Material Risk Factors:
   - Identify the 5 most substantial risks based on how much detail/space the company devotes to them
   - Summarize each risk in 2-3 sentences
   - Categorize each as: operational, financial, regulatory, competitive, or geopolitical
   - Note if the company quantifies any potential impact

2. Industry and Cyclical Risks:
   - What cyclical patterns does the company describe?
   - What industry-specific risks are identified?
   - How does the company characterize current industry conditions?

3. Management's Strategic Priorities:
   - What capital allocation priorities does management discuss?
   - What investments or initiatives are described as critical?
   - What does management say about balancing growth vs. profitability?

4. Valuation Context:
   - Does the company provide any industry metrics, multiples, or comparisons?
   - What long-term growth drivers does management identify?
   - Are there any disclosed analysts' estimates or guidance?

5. Historical Volatility:
   - How much have revenues fluctuated year-over-year?
   - How much have margins fluctuated?
   - What events caused the largest historical swings?

Prioritize risks by materiality (space devoted, specificity, quantification) rather than listing every boilerplate risk.

Save these four prompts. They work for analyzing any company’s 10-K, from Apple to a small-cap industrial business you’ve never heard of. The structure forces NotebookLM to extract what matters while filtering out the noise.

Every free article teaches you a framework. Paid membership gives you the tools to use it on real stocks this week.

Here’s what you get the minute you join:

The Investing Tools Suite -- 4 purpose-built calculators (Reverse DCF, ROIC, ROIIC, WACC) that take the friction out of the numbers so you can focus on understanding the business.

180+ Stock Analysis Infographics -- Your visual cheat sheet for financial statements, valuation multiples, and dividend metrics. Pin them, save them, reference them every time you sit down to research.

Skill Workshops -- Real working sessions walking through actual company analysis, start to finish. Not theory. Practice.

Plus: AI prompt library, dividend analysis course (coming soon), and every new resource added going forward. All included.

Get the Full Toolkit →

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Procter & Gamble (PG), and Coca-Cola (KO) sit at the top of the Dividend King list. All three have raised their payouts for more than 60 consecutive years, surviving recessions, pandemics, wars, and every market crash in between. For income investors, these three names come up in almost every portfolio conversation.

The problem is that “Dividend King” status alone does not tell you whether the stock is a good investment today. A long streak of dividend increases is impressive, but it is backward-looking. What matters is whether the company can keep growing that dividend for the next 10, 20, or 30 years. That requires looking under the hood at the business fundamentals driving those payouts.

In today’s post, we will learn:

• What Makes a Dividend King (and Why It Matters)

• How JNJ, PG, and KO Compare on Revenue, Margins, and Cash Flow

• The Dividend Track Record: Yield, Growth Rate, and Payout Safety

• Balance Sheet Strength and Financial Resilience

• How to Use This Framework in Your Own Investing Process

Okay, let’s dive in and learn more about these three Dividend Kings.

What Makes a Dividend King (and Why It Matters)

A Dividend King is a company that has increased its dividend for at least 50 consecutive years. Only about 55 companies in the entire U.S. stock market qualify. Think about what that means. A 50-year streak requires raising the dividend through the 1970s stagflation, the early 1980s recession, the dot-com crash, the 2008 financial crisis, and the 2020 pandemic.

That kind of consistency does not happen by accident. It requires a business with durable competitive advantages, disciplined capital allocation, and products or services that people keep buying regardless of economic conditions. Warren Buffett would call these businesses with “wide moats.”

Our three companies today sit in elite territory even among Dividend Kings. Johnson & Johnson has raised its dividend for 63 consecutive years. Procter & Gamble leads the pack with over 68 consecutive years of increases (the longest active streak among major U.S. companies). Coca-Cola just announced its 64th consecutive annual increase in February 2026. These are not just Dividend Kings. They are the royalty of the royalty.

But here is the key insight: the streak itself is the output, not the input. The input is the quality of the business underneath. Let’s examine what drives each company’s ability to keep that streak alive.

Want to run this comparison yourself on any dividend stock? Paid members get my Dividend Safety Spreadsheet, with built-in formulas for payout ratios, yield analysis, and balance sheet scoring. No manual math required.

Get the Dividend Safety Spreadsheet →

Understanding the Three Businesses

Before we compare the numbers, we need to understand what each company actually does. This is Buffett’s first filter: invest in businesses you can understand.

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) operates in two segments following the spin-off of its consumer health division (now Kenvue) in 2023. The company’s Innovative Medicine segment sells pharmaceutical products like Darzalex, Tremfya, and Stelara. The MedTech segment makes surgical instruments, orthopedic devices, and contact lenses. JNJ reported full-year 2024 revenue of $88.8 billion, with operational sales growth of 5.9%. The company is heavily R&D-intensive, investing $17 billion (19.4% of sales) back into its pipeline during 2024.

Procter & Gamble (PG) is the world’s largest consumer staples company. Think Tide, Charmin, Pampers, Gillette, Crest, and Bounty. The company operates across five segments: Fabric & Home Care, Baby, Feminine & Family Care, Beauty, Health Care, and Grooming. PG reported fiscal year 2024 (ending June 2024) revenue of $84.0 billion with organic sales growth of 4%. This company’s advantage is brand power across everyday necessities that consumers constantly repurchase.

Coca-Cola (KO) is the world’s largest non-alcoholic beverage company. Beyond its flagship Coca-Cola brand, the portfolio includes Sprite, Fanta, Minute Maid, Dasani, and Coca-Cola Zero Sugar. The company reported full-year 2024 net revenue of $47.1 billion with organic revenue growth of 12%. KO operates as a concentrate and syrup manufacturer, licensing its brands to independent bottling partners worldwide. This asset-light model is fundamental to understanding its financial profile.

Each company sells products that are essentially recession-proof. People still need medicine, laundry detergent, and something to drink regardless of what the economy is doing. That defensive quality is what enables the multi-decade dividend streaks.

Head-to-Head: The Financial Comparison

Now let’s look at where these three companies stand on the metrics that matter most for dividend investors. I’ll walk through each category and explain what the numbers tell us.

Revenue and Growth

Johnson & Johnson is the largest of the three by revenue, generating $88.8 billion in fiscal year 2024 (per its Q4 2024 earnings release filed with the SEC on January 22, 2025). Procter & Gamble follows at $84.0 billion (per its fiscal year 2024 10-K). Coca-Cola is smaller at $47.1 billion but punches well above its weight on profitability metrics, which we will see shortly.

*PG reports Core EPS; JNJ and KO report Adjusted/Comparable EPS. Sources: SEC filings (earnings releases and 10-K).

A few things jump out from this table. Coca-Cola’s 12% organic revenue growth leads the group by a wide margin. However, context matters here. More than half of KO’s price/mix growth came from inflationary pricing in Argentina, which inflates the organic growth number. Still, even adjusting for that, KO delivered a strong top-line performance. JNJ’s 5.9% operational growth is impressive for a company of its size, driven primarily by the Innovative Medicine segment. PG’s 4% organic growth represents its sixth consecutive year of 4%+ organic growth, which speaks to consistency.

The large gap between JNJ’s GAAP EPS ($5.79) and adjusted EPS ($9.98) deserves attention. That $4.19 difference is primarily attributable to acquired in-process research and development (IPR&D) charges related to acquisitions throughout 2024. These are real expenses, but they represent investments in future growth rather than operational deterioration. Still, investors should always check what gets excluded from “adjusted” numbers.

Profitability and Margins

This is where the three companies start to look quite different. Coca-Cola’s asset-light business model produces significantly higher margins than its peers.

*KO comparable operating margin (non-GAAP) of 30.0%. GAAP operating margin was 21.2% due to comparability-related items. Sources: SEC filings.

JNJ has the highest gross margin at roughly 69%, which makes sense for a pharmaceutical and medical device company. However, its heavy R&D spending (19.4% of revenue) pulls the operating margin down to around 23%. This is the trade-off with pharma: you earn fat gross margins, but you must continually invest billions to keep the pipeline full.

Coca-Cola’s comparable operating margin of 30% is the best in this group. The concentrate model is brilliantly simple. KO manufactures syrup and sells it to bottlers who handle the capital-intensive work of production, distribution, and refrigeration. This means KO captures high-margin revenue without carrying the heavy fixed assets on its balance sheet.

Procter & Gamble sits in the middle. Its ~51% gross margin reflects the reality of manufacturing physical products (detergent, diapers, razors) at scale. The company has been driving margin improvement through productivity savings and pricing power, squeezing 140 basis points of core gross margin expansion in fiscal 2024.

The takeaway for dividend investors: higher margins mean more cash flow available to fund dividends. KO’s asset-light model gives it the most breathing room. JNJ’s margins are strong but require constant reinvestment. PG’s margins are steady but face pressure from input costs and marketing spend.

Seeing the margin differences is one thing. Knowing whether a 46% payout ratio is actually safe or a 73% ratio is actually dangerous takes more context. That is exactly what the Dividend Safety Spreadsheet handles for you. Plug in any ticker and get a scored breakdown in minutes.

See what's inside →

The Dividend Track Record

Now we get to the part that income investors care about most. Let’s compare the dividend metrics that reveal whether these companies can sustain and grow their payouts.

Sources: SEC filings (dividend announcements), company earnings releases, and financial data services.

This table reveals important differences. JNJ has the lowest payout ratio at approximately 46%, meaning it distributes less than half its earnings as dividends. That is a substantial margin of safety. Even if earnings dropped significantly, JNJ could maintain and grow its dividend for years without stress. This is partly because JNJ’s post-Kenvue business (pharma and MedTech) generates strong free cash flow. The company produced roughly $20 billion in free cash flow during 2024 and returned $11.8 billion to shareholders through dividends.

PG sits in the middle with a ~61% payout ratio. This is healthy for a consumer staples company with predictable cash flows. The company returned over $14 billion to shareholders in fiscal 2024 through approximately $9 billion in dividends and $5 billion in share repurchases. PG’s 68+ consecutive years of increases (the longest active streak) is the gold standard.

KO has the highest payout ratio at roughly 73% of free cash flow. This is by design. Management has guided this ratio to remain near 75% over the long term. The company generated $10.8 billion in adjusted free cash flow (excluding a one-time $6.0 billion IRS tax litigation deposit) during 2024. Berkshire Hathaway, led by Warren Buffett, still holds 400 million shares, a testament to the dividend’s reliability.

Key insight: If dividend safety is your priority, JNJ’s 46% payout ratio gives you the most cushion. If current yield matters more, KO’s 2.7% edges out the group. If you want the longest proven track record, PG’s 68+ year streak is unmatched.

Balance Sheet Strength

A dividend is only as safe as the balance sheet backing it. Companies with excessive debt may be forced to cut dividends during downturns to service their obligations. Let’s compare how these three stack up.

Johnson & Johnson carries one of only two AAA credit ratings among U.S. corporations (the other being Microsoft). That is the highest possible rating, indicating virtually zero credit risk. At the end of 2024, JNJ held $25 billion in cash and marketable securities against approximately $37 billion in total debt. With $20 billion in annual free cash flow, JNJ could theoretically eliminate its entire net debt position in less than a year. That is fortress-level balance sheet strength.

Procter & Gamble maintains an AA- credit rating from S&P, which is still solidly investment grade. The company generated $19.8 billion in operating cash flow during fiscal 2024, giving it ample room to cover its dividend obligations and invest in the business. PG’s balance sheet is less remarkable than JNJ’s but entirely adequate for a consumer staples company.

Coca-Cola carries an A+ credit rating. The company’s 2024 cash flow from operations came in at $6.8 billion on a reported basis, but this number was depressed by a $6.0 billion deposit related to an IRS tax litigation matter. Adjusting for that one-time item, operating cash flow was approximately $12.8 billion, which is more representative of KO’s normal cash generation. The IRS dispute is worth monitoring, but KO’s business fundamentals remain sound.

The takeaway: JNJ’s AAA credit rating puts it in a class of its own. No other company in this comparison (or almost anywhere else) can match that level of financial strength. PG and KO are both strong, but JNJ is the clear winner on balance sheet quality.

Competitive Advantages: What Protects These Dividends?

Buffett teaches us that dividends ultimately flow from competitive advantages. A company without a moat will eventually see its profits erode, and the dividend will follow. Each of these companies possesses a different type of moat.

JNJ’s moat is patents and switching costs. Pharmaceutical products are protected by patents that grant temporary monopolies. Once a doctor prescribes a drug like Darzalex for multiple myeloma, switching to an alternative involves medical risk. MedTech products have similar stickiness because surgeons train on specific instruments. The risk is patent expiration. When key drugs lose exclusivity, revenue can decline sharply unless the pipeline replaces them. JNJ’s $17 billion R&D budget is the price of maintaining this moat.

PG’s moat is brand power and shelf space. Tide has been the number-one detergent brand for decades. Pampers dominates the diaper category globally. These brands occupy prime shelf space at retailers, which creates a self-reinforcing cycle: strong brands get better placement, which drives more sales, which funds more marketing, which strengthens the brand. Private-label competition is the primary threat, but PG has historically defended its position through product innovation and premium positioning.

KO’s moat is the global distribution network and brand. Coca-Cola is available in over 200 countries, with 2.2 billion servings consumed daily. That distribution infrastructure took over a century to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate. The brand itself is one of the most recognized on Earth. As Buffett has noted, Coca-Cola has pricing power because consumers are willing to pay more for the brand versus a generic alternative.

Red Flags and Risks to Monitor

No investment is without risk. Here are the specific concerns I would watch for each company.

For JNJ: the biggest risk is the pharmaceutical patent cliff. Key drugs like Stelara (which generated significant revenue) are losing patent protection. The pipeline must deliver replacement revenue through new approvals. Additionally, litigation risk (e.g., talc lawsuits) has been an ongoing overhang. The planned separation of the DePuy Synthes orthopedics business could also reshape the company’s profile.

For PG: volume pressure is the concern. Fiscal 2024 shipment volumes were flat, meaning all growth came from pricing. At some point, consumers push back on price increases, especially during periods of economic softness. Private-label brands have been gaining share in several categories. PG also faces a potential $400 million after-tax tariff headwind, which could pressure margins.

For KO: the IRS tax dispute is the elephant in the room. The $6.0 billion deposit made in 2024 relates to a transfer pricing case that could ultimately cost the company billions more. Currency headwinds are also a persistent challenge for KO, with management guiding for a 6% to 7% currency headwind on comparable EPS in 2025. Health-conscious consumer trends and potential sugar taxes represent longer-term structural risks, though the Zero Sugar line has been growing strongly (13% volume growth in Q4 2025).

How to Use This Framework in Your Investing Process

The comparison above is not just about these three stocks. It is a template you can apply to any dividend company. Here is the framework, distilled into five questions.

1. Is the business model durable? Ask whether the company sells products people need regardless of the economy. All three of our companies pass this test. Many high-yield stocks in sectors like energy or real estate do not.

2. Can the company afford the dividend? Check the payout ratio against both earnings and free cash flow. Below 60% is comfortable. Above 80% warrants closer scrutiny. JNJ’s 46% is excellent. KO’s 73% is manageable but leaves less room for error.

3. Is the dividend growing faster than inflation? A 5% annual dividend growth rate doubles your income roughly every 14 years. All three companies are growing dividends at approximately 4% to 5% annually, which keeps pace with or exceeds typical inflation.

4. How strong is the balance sheet? Look at credit ratings, net debt levels, and the debt-to-operating cash flow ratio. A company that can’t service its debt will eventually cut its dividend. JNJ’s AAA rating sets the standard.

5. What could break the streak? Identify the single biggest risk to the dividend and assess its probability. For JNJ, it is a patent expiration. For PG, it is volume declines. For KO, it is the IRS dispute. If you understand the risk, you can monitor it.

Common Mistakes When Comparing Dividend Kings

Before we wrap up, three pitfalls I see investors make repeatedly when evaluating these types of companies.

Chasing the highest yield. At current prices, KO yields approximately 2.7%, PG yields about 2.6%, and JNJ yields around 2.1%. The difference between 2.1% and 2.7% on a $10,000 investment is $60 per year. That is not enough to drive the decision. Total return (dividend income plus price appreciation) matters far more than yield alone.

Ignoring adjusted vs. GAAP earnings. JNJ’s GAAP EPS of $5.79 versus adjusted EPS of $9.98 is a 72% difference. Always understand what is being excluded and whether those exclusions are truly one-time items or recurring costs the company keeps “adjusting” away.

Treating all Dividend Kings as interchangeable. These three companies operate in completely different industries with different growth profiles, margin structures, and risk factors. A pharmaceutical company facing patent cliffs is nothing like a beverage company with a 130-year-old brand. Evaluate each on its own merits.

Investor Takeaway

All three companies are exceptional businesses with decades-long track records of rewarding shareholders. But they are not identical, and the right choice depends on what you prioritize.

If you want the strongest balance sheet and most room for dividend growth, Johnson & Johnson stands out. Its AAA credit rating, 46% payout ratio, and accelerating pharmaceutical pipeline make it the most financially resilient of the three. The risk is pipeline execution.

If you want the most proven track record of consistency and a business you never have to worry about, Procter & Gamble is your company. Its 68+ years of dividend increases are the longest of any major U.S. company. The risk is modest growth in a mature consumer staples market.

If you want the highest current yield, strong pricing power, and Buffett’s endorsement, Coca-Cola fits the bill. Its asset-light model generates impressive margins, and the brand is virtually indestructible. The risks are IRS litigation and currency headwinds.

The best approach for most dividend investors? Own all three. They operate in different industries, face different risks, and generate income in different ways. Together, they provide diversified exposure to some of the highest-quality businesses in the world.

That is going to wrap up our discussion for today.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I hope you find something of value on your investing journey.

If I can further assist, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Until next time, take care and be safe out there,

Dave

If this five-question framework changed how you evaluate dividend stocks, the spreadsheet turns it into a repeatable process. It is the same tool I use every time I compare Dividend Kings for the portfolio.

Get the Dividend Safety Spreadsheet →