In this podcast, Motley Fool analysts Matt Argersinger and Anthony Schiavone join host Mary Long to discuss:
- How a company enters into their “Dividend Seven.”
- If Home Depot can still be a growth stock.
- The metrics that dividend investors need to understand.
- Companies that have raised their dividend for decades.
To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool’s free podcasts, check out our podcast center. To get started investing, check out our beginner’s guide to investing in stocks. A full transcript follows the video.
This video was recorded on Dec. 08, 2024.
Matt Argersinger: If you think about that, how many recessions, business cycles, wars, calamities happen over a 50 year period? And yet, here’s a company that’s raised its dividend every year.
Ricky Mulvey: I’m Ricky Mulvey and that’s Motley Fool senior analyst Matthew Argersinger. Look, dominant tech companies have their own category, the Magnificent Seven. You probably already know it. But on today’s show, Matthew Argersinger and Anthony Schiavone unveil their own group of seven the Dividend Seven, powerful companies that pay investors income. They joined Mary Long to discuss a big retailer that’s insulated itself from Amazon, a dominant financial company with $10.7 trillion in assets under management, and what it takes for a company to enter the Dividend Seven.
Mary Long: Matt and most listeners are likely already familiar with the Magnificent Seven, this basket of tech stocks that have dominated the market recently. But you two have come up with a different set of stocks. You’ve called it the Dividend Seven. What exactly is the criteria for making it into this group? How did you land on these requirements? There are seven of them. I’m correct.
Matt Argersinger: That’s right. Well, thank you, Mary. This was a fun exercise for us. We’ve seen, of course, the Magnificent Seven. Be this, I don’t know, this major force in the market that investors have just been magnetized to. We thought, well, we talk a lot about dividends. We do a dividend show here at the Motley Fool every other week, and we thought, a fun topic would be, could we we do our own version of the Magnificent Seven and layer in dividends and come up with this Dividend Seven or DIV seven group. The Magnificent Seven was our inspiration. And so I think that’s feeds into the seven criteria we use to select the stocks. We’ll start with the first one, which is just dominance. If we think about the Magnificent Seven, these are some of the most dominant companies, if not the most dominant companies in the world, if you think about, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, Tesla.
We thought, OK, let’s start with that. Let’s only pick companies that we think are dominant. Of course, sizable. They have tremendous scale, and they have leadership in the markets that they serve and in most cases, they’re the leading number one market share company within that space. But then of course, since this is a Dividend Seven and not just a Magnificent Seven, we had to have some dividend criteria. The next three are dividend criteria. We have dividend growth, we wanted each of the companies to have grown their dividend by at least 100% over the last 10 years, so a doubling of their dividend. We wanted companies that were committed to a dividend. This is our third criteria, which is they had a sizable payout ratio. They were prioritizing the dividend in the way they allocate capital for the business. Then our fourth criteria was dividend yield. This is something, of course, investors are always looking for when they’re looking for dividend stocks. What is the stock yield? Well, we wanted yields that were at least 50% higher. Then the current yield on the S&P 500, which right now is around 1.2%. It’s near a historic low.
We were looking for a dividend yield of about 2% minimum for each of the companies that we were looking for. Then the fifth criteria we just wanted growth. In other words, we call it business growth, but we wanted confidence that this wasn’t a business that was stagnating. This was a business where revenue, earnings cash flow, we can see all that moving higher in the future. In other words, the business has tailwinds to it. The sixth criteria is financial strength, so strong balance sheet, cash flows that are robust that can withstand business cycles, a company that’s built to withstand unexpected circumstances or macroeconomic issues, things like that. Then the seventh and final criteria I’ve drone here bit was we’re looking for special. Is there something with this company or the set of companies that make them unique, make them stand out, make them visible in the minds of investors, consumers, beyond just them being a corporation in the US. Those were the seven criteria we used.
Mary Long: We got seven companies here today. We’re going to take a moment to spotlight each of them briefly. But before we get there, thinking about this group as a whole. There’s a push pull in dividend investing between yield and growth, a lot of times. Both are factors that you considered, obviously, when pulling this particular group together, as a whole, do you find that it favors growth over yield or vice versa? What’s the thinking behind that here?
Matt Argersinger: Yes, that’s I wouldn’t call it dilemma, but it is something that dividend investors in particular struggle with is do I buy companies that have big yields, yields of 3, 4, 5%? Or do I buy companies that are paying a dividend but might have a smaller yield, but are capable of growing their earnings and therefore, their dividend at a faster rate over time? The good news is with the seven companies we picked, it actually is quite balanced. The average dividend yield for the group is about 2.5%. Now, some investors might consider that low, but remember, the yield on the S&P 500 right now is 1.2%. It’s a historic low. This group on average is double that yield. I think that’s important. But at the same time, remember, because we were looking at companies that were growing their dividend or doubling their dividend over the last 10 years, you’re still getting a lot of growth here as well. I love the list because I think each of the companies, again, on average, has a pretty nice balance between yield and growth.
Mary Long: We’re going to spotlight each of these companies. There’s quite a varied group. We’ve got a REIT, a bank, a consumer goods company, a retailer, a fast food chain, drug developer, an asset manager. First up is that REIT that I mentioned. This one likely will not be a shocker to anybody who follows the dividend show or listens to a lot of Fool content pretty closely. We got Prologis. It’s the world’s largest REIT and a global leader in logistics, real estate, in particular. It’s got more than $200 billion in assets under management. It’s grown its dividend and returned over 190% in the last 10 years. Guys, the CEO and the co-founder, co-founder of Prologis’ predecessor company, he’s described this Prologis as “Basically the toll taker in the world of global commerce.” What does he mean by that?
Matt Argersinger: We’re big fans of Hamid Moghadam who’s the CEO and co-founder of Prologis. Well, if you think about Prologis, its size and scale. We’re talking 5,600 buildings spanning 1.2 billion square feet on four continents. It really is the real estate backbone of global commerce. So much transaction, so much inventory flows through Pelagius facilities every year. The company estimates that 2.5% of global GDP, which I don’t know the number off the top of my head, but that’s a big, big number. 2.5% of global GDP flows through Pelagius’ real estate every year.
If you think about the importance of supply chain management, of inventory management, among companies today, especially companies who are doing business in omni channel ways. They might have a brick and mortars presence. They might have these days, have an e-commerce presence. The need to have physical infrastructure to support that is more critical than ever. Especially if you think about since COVID, the effect that the pandemic had on supply chains and the need for companies to have more control over their inventory and their sourcing was so huge. That’s why I just think there’s so many tailwinds to Prologis’ business, and, of course, it’s been a wonderful dividend company and one of the best REITs, if not the best REIT that Ant and I come across all the time. We had to have Prologis in our DIV seven, at least our inaugural DIV Seven.
Mary Long: Matt, you mentioned these tailwinds, and I buy everything that you’re saying, but you look at the stock price of Prologis, and it’s down about 14% year to date. Why do you think that is?
Matt Argersinger: Ant, do you want to take a crack at that?
Anthony Schiavone: Yeah. Let’s go back to 2017 for a minute. The Fed was raising interest rates, and on a conference call, an analyst asked Hamid Moghadam, what’s the impact of higher interest rates on your business? And Hamid responded, the short term impact of higher interest rates on our business will be a 10-15% drop in our stock price. Then he continued saying, interest rates are going up because the economy is hot. It will translate into rents and growth and activity. In six months, the impact of higher interest rates on our business will be exactly zero. If we fast forward to today, the 10 year treasury rate was around 3.6% in September, and now it’s around 4.2% today. Over that time period, you’ve seen a roughly 14, 15% decline in Prologis’ share price. So that’s essentially exactly what Hamid Moghadam said seven years ago. As a Prologis shareholder myself, I’m not too worried about Prologis’ recent share price underperformance. You’re still collecting a 3.5% dividend yield, and the payout is growing at a double digit rate. As a shareholder, I’m fine with that.
Mary Long: It sounds like if you were to add smart management as an eighth checkbox for the Dividend Seven, Prologis would check that box as well, for sure.
Anthony Schiavone: Good point.
Mary Long: One more question here before we move on to the next in this group. Funds from Operations or FFO is a key number for REIT investors. For folks listening who are less familiar with rates or kind of newer to this space. What does FFO measure exactly? And how does Prologis stack up on that front?
Matt Argersinger: REITs are a little bit of a different entity in the stock market. They’re publicly traded just like stocks, but they have some special rules, which we don’t have time to really get into. But the best way to measure the cash flow of REITs is not through earnings. It’s really through this term funds from operations, FFO. What FFO does, it does a number of things, but the two big things it does is it excludes depreciation. If you think about the biggest cost for a real estate company is depreciation. Real estate gets depreciated over time. No matter what it is, residential real estate, commercial real estate, it depreciates over time, and that’s a non cash expense that FFO adds back to earnings.
Then also gains losses on property sales. REITs if you are buying and selling properties all the time, and it’d be strange if you’re trying to measure the operational prowess of a company to include those because that can be volatile. A company might decide to sell a bunch of properties one quarter, buy a bunch of properties in another quarter and so smoothing that out and taking that away gets you a better idea of what the operational cash flow of the business is, and that’s what FFO is.
Mary Long: Up next in our DIV Seven basket, we’ve got JPMorgan. This is the world’s largest bank by market cap, probably a very familiar name to most everybody. It is a massive company, steady dividend growth, a commitment to that dividend, dividend yield of more than 2%, which is higher than a lot of other banks. Over 200% dividend growth in the past 10 years. There’s a lot of good here. And again, it seems even if you strip the numbers away, the name JP Morgan has such power? [laughs]
Matt Argersinger: Yeah, that’s right.
Mary Long: It’s like I hear all this stuff, and I’m like, OK, what is the bear case against JP Morgan is it ever going away? Why might someone not want to invest in this company?
Matt Argersinger: This was a natural fit for our DIV Seven. And you mentioned, Mary, the 200% dividend growth last 10 years. That was a big draw for why we wanted to have it in the list. But, yeah, if I had to take the bear case for JP Morgan, I would say, banks have benefited finally from the higher interest rates that we’ve gotten over the last few years. That’s done wonders for the net interest margin. Banks have still been able to pay really ultra low rates to depositors on checking accounts and savings accounts, but then turn around and lend those borrowings or that capital at much higher rates for the first time in really 15 years.
That’s been a huge benefit to banks. If we do get lower interest rates and the Fed has already embarked on an easing cycle, that could hurt the net interest margin for a bank like JP Morgan. You also you’re talking about a bank, and for some reason, in the US, we just have thousands of banks, whereas you go to most other countries, including Canada, just up north, they have like five banks. We somehow have thousands of banks in the US. There’s always competition. I think JP Morgan, of course, is the most dominant, but even JP Morgan has competition from Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and investment banks as well. Then there also has been a very strict regulatory environment for banks since the global financial crisis. That’s really limited. The capital allocation flexibility of banks. Even JP Morgan every year has to ask permission from federal regulators to raise its dividend, to do buybacks and things like that. That’s been a bit of a bit of a cloud. Who knows? This is not my area of expertise, but we do have, you’ve seen the rise of Bitcoin.
Now over $100,000 a coin, I can’t believe it. But the whole rise of decentralized finance coming out of the whole market crypto ecosphere. Also at the same time, you’ve had this rise of private credit, non bank lenders. That’s competition for JP Morgan, so that would be my bare case, but gosh, talk about a dominant company and one that we had to have in the DIV Seven.
Mary Long: Such a dominant company that we’re going to just do a quick spotlight there and now move on to the next because we’ve got a number of companies to still get through today. The third company in the DIV Seven is another one that really needs no introduction PepsiCo. This is, again, unsurprisingly yet another steady dividend grower. One of the things that stuck out to me, it’s got a payout ratio of 70%, pretty high. For the listener who again, might be newer to dividend investing, what does that number mean exactly?
Anthony Schiavone: So the dividend payout ratio is one of the most important metrics for did investors. A couple of different ways you can calculate it, but one simple approach is to take the annualized quarterly dividend rate and divide it by the expected earnings per share for that year. Let’s just say Pepsi is expected. I’m making this up, but let’s say they pay out 70 cents in dividends this year, and management expects to generate $1 in earnings. The payout ratio will be 70%. In other words, earnings would have to fall more than 30% for the dividend payout to become unsustainable.
For a company like Pepsi that has very stable recurring revenue like model, they can afford to have a relatively high payout ratio at around 70% because they have a strong balance sheet, they have predictable revenue. Earnings growth is going to occur pretty much every year, and they also have a strong track record of dividend growth. For another sector like oil and gas stocks, for example, they tend to be a lot more cyclical. You’d want to have a payout ratio that lower than 70%, preferably less than 50% because their earnings are more volatile. Generally speaking, a payout ratio less than 50% tends to be pretty safe, but companies like Pepsi can certainly pay out more than that, and a high payout ratio for a quality company like Pepsi can even signal higher earnings growth in the future.
Mary Long: There’s certainly a lot of quality and steadiness that you get when you invest in Pepsi. But if you zoom out and look at total returns over the past 10 years, Pepsi does beat out Coke, but it falls pretty far below the S&P 500. What’s the case for investing in Pepsi specifically rather than putting your money in the S&P or an index fund?
Anthony Schiavone: What’s interesting is over the last 10 years, Pepsi was roughly tracking the market’s return all the way up until early 2023. That’s when we had the mini-banking crisis, if you want to call it that. Then we had the explosion in AI. That’s when the market really started to outperform Pepsi. Pepsi is not necessarily doing anything wrong. The market is just assigning a lower earnings multiple to Pepsi and a higher earnings multiple to the S&P 500. I think as an investor, the investing case for Pepsi it’s 3.4% dividend yield. Is roughly almost three times larger than the S&P’s yield of 1.2%, like Matt mentioned earlier.
Then it trades at a discount valuation compared to the market. Then third, Pepsi’s provides a diversification away from a tech-heavy S&P 500. There’s something wrong with investing in a low-cost S&P 500 index fund. But if there’s an argument for investing in Pepsi, I think that’s the one to make.
Mary Long: The fourth stock that we’re looking at today is Home Depot. Just in preparation for this episode, guys, I checked, and Home Depot is at an all-time high. Maybe this goes back to our earlier conversation about growth and yield, but this stock has been on a tear recently. It’s pretty fair to say. Again, I thought this was supposed to be a dividend play. Is Home Depot one of those ones that is a growth stock, too?
Matt Argersinger: I think so, Mary. It’s definitely got both attributes. It’s a company that has prioritized the dividend, pays has steadily grown that dividend, and the dividend has always taken up a pretty good chunk of Home Depot’s earnings, so there’s been a decent payout ratio. But no doubt, Home Depot’s stock has been on absolute tear recently, and it’s actually surprising to me because if you look at the business and how the business has performed, it’s been a rough couple of years for Home Depot. Really, almost since the day the Fed started raising rates back in early 2022, Home Depot’s business has struggled, and that’s because the housing market, which of course is in the short term, so correlated with mortgage rates has been really stagnant. With less housing turnover, Home Depot’s business has struggled. Like you mentioned, Home Depot is almost at an all-time high. I’m wondering if it’s because the market is anticipating with the Fed lowering rates. Is there going to be a stronger housing market in 2025 and beyond? They’re going to see a big pickup in home renovations. Maybe that’s the reason, so the market is already looking ahead here, but it certainly seems a little bit stretched, in my view.
Mary Long: Home Depot has grown its dividend over 280% in the past 10 years. I think that’s the highest out of all of these companies that we’re looking at today.
Matt Argersinger: I think you’re right.
Mary Long: Has management’s philosophy about returning cash to shareholders, has that changed at all in that time or perhaps prior to this 10-year horizon? Or has it remained pretty consistent and they were just really good at what they do?
Matt Argersinger: That approach to the dividend has remained consistent. Certainly, with CEO Ted Decker, it’s probably even gone more into the philosophy of what the company does. The dividend has always been a priority, and I think the steadiness of Home Depot’s business, the fact that the company generates so much cash flow has such a stable revenue picture. It’s so well diversified in terms of products. With a lot of retailers don’t have, which is that protection against e-commerce. By the way, it is one of the biggest e-commerce companies in the country, but it has that anti, but protection from Amazon and other mass online market places because of just the nature of the products it sells, and I think that’s insulated it from a lot of competition as well. It always has good visibility to its cash flow and therefore has always made the dividend a priority.
Mary Long: Quick sidebar here. With the exception of Prologis, almost all of the companies that we’ve talked about today and more that we’ll continue to talk about in just a moment. Are really big brands? Like with Home Depot, everybody knows Home Depot. You see the orange apron, you associate that with Home Depot. Pepsico. I would bet that most people have Pepsi products in their kitchen. JPMorgan. That’s a name that a lot of people know. Do you make anything of that? Is there some relationship between really strong brand building and dividend payers, or is it just a product of, hey, these companies have been around for a really long time, and they represent quality?
Matt Argersinger: All of the above. It’s like that, Mary. Answer on this as well, but I think this you see it throughout history. How do the most dominant companies become so dominant? It’s because they have such a brand presence and imprint on the minds of consumers, investors, other businesses. Home Depot as one example, nplogis in particular, serves mostly businesses, not necessarily consumers. I think that goes hand in hand with having a major company. That was part of the reason, at least maybe indirectly as to why these companies are showing up in the Div 7 because they’re so recognizable, at least most of them, and made them natural fits.
Anthony Schiavone: I would just echo what I said earlier about financial strength is a lot of these businesses are so big because they’ve been able to survive for so long. Most of these companies we’re talking about today have increased their dividend for more than 25 consecutive years, 40 consecutive years, even 50 consecutive years. You have to have a strong balance sheet to be able to survive that long to get that known brand that many of these companies have. Financial strength, very important.
Mary Long: Next on the list, I’ll admit I was a little surprised to see just because I don’t typically think of drug developers as falling into this category. The stock that I’m talking about is Abbvie. Again, it’s a drug developer. Fifty-two consecutive years of dividend raises. Like Pepsi, actually, this is a dividend king. What’s that distinction mean, guys?
Matt Argersinger: Well, a Dividend King is a real rare distinction that a company can get if it raises its dividend for 50 or more consecutive years. If you think about that, how many recessions, business cycles, wars, calamities happen over a 50-year period and yet here’s a company that’s raised its dividend every year. Even through the global financial crisis or even through the COVID that we recently had. Every year, this company has raised its dividend and AV, which is, by the way, a spinout from Abbott Labs, which maybe some investors might be more familiar with, but it was able to maintain its dividend history when it was part of Abbott Labs going back, 52 years.
Mary Long: When you two talked about this company on the dividend show, one of the things that you pointed out is that it has a capex ratio of less than 5%. I can hear a lot of people, and I caught myself initially doing it, too, thinking, wait hold on. This is a drug development company. They’ve got to spend a ton of money on research and development. But important to note, there’s a distinction between capex and research and development. What is that difference, and why does that distinction between the two matter?
Matt Argersinger: Well, R&D is an operating expense and it’s being expensed as you’re paying to conduct tests or you’re paying lab technicians to do certain things. That money is spent, it’s an operating expense, it goes out the door. With capex, think about things that are long term investments in the business. Building facilities, labs, acquiring other businesses, intellectual property, those things. Those are long-term investments that get expensed over time. The nice thing is, even though there’s still cash going out the window, it doesn’t affect your expenses in terms of your operational income. The fact that AV has such a low capex ratio means that it doesn’t have to spend a lot on big capital expenses, and therefore, its free cash flow is generally a lot higher, which I think is important for a company like AV, which is in the drug development business. We know how volatile that can be. You can have successes with certain drugs or failures with certain drugs. It can be a little bit up and down. But as long as AV is generating cash flow, the business can be somewhat more stable.
Mary Long: Moving on to the next stock in this group, we’ve got McDonald’s. Like Home Depot, this is another company with a healthy focus on dividend that also seems to just keep growing. McDonald’s, again, has grown its dividend for 48 years in a row, so almost at that Dividend King status, but not quite yet. Has a payout ratio of about 60%, a yield of over 2%. Again, on the growth point, they’re speeding up new store openings, are growing their digital channels. They’ve also got a franchise model. How does that set up this franchise model come into play for a company like McDonald’s?
Anthony Schiavone: McDonald’s has more than 41,000 stores across 100 countries. They’ve served hundreds of billions of burgers over the years, hundreds of billions of burgers. But somehow, like you said, they still find a way to continue to open up new stores and continue to grow. To your point, it’s that franchise model? McDonald’s essentially purchases the land. They purchase the building for a new store, and then they collect rent and royalties from the franchise. By franchising most of their stores, McDonald’s can expand more quickly because the capital investment isn’t as large compared to opening a company-owned store where they’re paying for everything, and their capex will be larger. I think that franchise model is one reason why after all these years, McDonald’s is still growing and opening more stores than they ever have before.
Mary Long: As we continue to think about this growth piece of the equation, GLP-1 drugs have been a big story throughout the year. Surely, they’ll continue to be in 25 and beyond. How do you think that might affect McDonald’s growth story? Also Pepsi, I would say falls into this category of a company that could potentially be affected by if they haven’t already been affected by the rise of weight loss drugs. Does that play at all into how you think about McDonald’s moving forward?
Anthony Schiavone: It definitely does. That is $1 million question. How do these drugs affect a lot of these food-related companies? To be honest, I don’t know. I don’t think anybody really knows the full impact that these drugs will have on eating habits over the long term. I have a suspicion that the drugs might not impact the food companies too much, maybe on the margin, but they won’t have a devastating impact. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say they do have a massive impact on eating habits. What did the second order effects on that? What happens to Pepsi’s pricing power? What happens to its weaker competition? Those are all questions that need to be answered, too. There’s a lot of unanswered questions right now, but one thing is true. If you look at McDonald’s stock price right now, it’s near an all-time high, so the market doesn’t seem to be too worried about GLP-1 drugs. We’ll see. I really don’t know, but it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Matt Argersinger: If I could just add also, we took a look at Hershey and considered putting Hershey on our Top 7 list as well, because Hershey is a company that has such a great history, dividend track record, etc. But we thought, well, McDonald’s, Pepsi and Hershey. We’re being a little bit contrarian when it comes to the whole GLP-1 story if we actually Hershey, as well, but for now, McDonald’s.
Mary Long: Again, you’re trying to diversify a lot, and you’ve got a bunch of different companies within this group that play in a lot of different sectors in industry. Last but not least rounding us out, we’ve got the world’s largest asset manager that is BlackRock. In the Dividend Show guys, you called out the iShares franchise in particular as being what makes BlackRock tick the seventh qualifier to putting it in the Dividend Seven. It’s special sauce what makes it unique. What is it about the iShares brand that stands out so much?
Matt Argersinger: BlackRock has always been a massive asset manager in the world. But the iShares brand is really what set the rocket fuel for this business more than a decade ago. Again, this is one of those companies where it’s going to be more familiar to investors and businesses and pension funds than it is to maybe your average consumer. But BlackRock has $10.7 trillion in assets under management, which just a massive number. The GDP of the United States, I think is around 20 trillion, maybe a little more than that now. Just to put that in context, it’s a massive number. ETF brand is probably by far the most recognizable ETF, I’d say, brand in the marketplace. It’s where so many assets go. Many money managers around the world funds, pension funds, as I mentioned, know the iShares brand are comfortable with the iShares brand and tend to use the iShares for various strategies or for their fund management. It’s just got these tentacles everywhere.
If you look at, for example, BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF that they just launched recently, it’s already become, the largest or the second largest Bitcoin ETF. That owes itself to the BlackRock brand, the iShares brand. It’s all of a sudden investors saying, well, if I want to invest in Bitcoin, how do I want to do it? I’m going to use iShares because I know they’re cheap, I know they’re big, I know they’re backed by BlackRock, which is one of the largest and most stable asset managers in the world. That just feeds on itself. BlackRock seems to me like this monster dominant of a company that is just going to get more and more dominant as time goes on.
Mary Long: To close us out today, guys, we used the Mag 7 as a jumping-off point for this conversation. That’s what inspired you to pull together this Dividend Seven group in the first place. All of those are growthy tech companies. When we think about valuation, some investors might use a PEG ratio to value some of those companies. That’s maybe not the case with some of these that we’ve talked about today. How do you two value the companies that we’ve talked about today? Any stick-out is a little too pricey for your taste or on the flip side as being priced pretty attractively right now.
Anthony Schiavone: I tend to just use a simple price-earnings multiple as a starting point for a lot of these companies. They’re very well-established companies. They tend to have very predictable earnings, predictable revenue growth, predictable dividend growth, as well. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily a valuation metric, but yield is definitely important, and it’s something that Matt and I look at. Like we said, we want to look at companies that at least have a dividend yield 50% higher than the market. Preferably even higher than that is even better because as we know over the long run, I think the dividends account for. What is it Matt? Roughly 50% of the market’s return over the last 100 or so years. Dividend yield is also very important.
Matt Argersinger: We mentioned Prologis and had that great look back at what the CEO said a bunch of years ago. That to me seems to stand out as one particularly compelling opportunity. We did talk about Home Depot. That one feels a little stretched to me, just given where we are, where its valuation is, and the uncertainties around interest rates in the housing market. But I would say, in general, if you look at these seven companies, I would not call any of them cheap. In other words, because they’re so dominant, because they are so recognizable and so they’re included in so many, of course, investor portfolios and institutional portfolios. Just like the Mag 7 and however that group changes over time, I expect this Div Seven is generally going to include companies that are pretty pricey but deserve so because they deserve a premium because they aren’t premium businesses.
Mary Long: Matt, and always a pleasure talking to both of you. Thanks so much for the time today for walking us through the first iteration. Hopefully, the first of many different iterations of the Dividend Seven. Thanks so much, guys.
Matt Argersinger: Thank you, Mary.
Anthony Schiavone: Thanks.
Ricky Mulvey: As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about, and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don’t buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and are not approved by advertisers. The Motley Fool only picks products that it would personally recommend to friends like you. I’m Ricky Mulvey. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back tomorrow.
