Looking at some of the companies on the list -- gaming software or delivery services -- one suspects they had a lucky streak, and further growth isn't too likely. As an investor, I'd preferably look for dividend aristocrats, i.e. companies that have continuously raised divvies for decades. (Until of course JK, in his considerable capacity to debunk myths, tells us the aristocrat phenomenon is just some hooey).
As Silicon Valley companies rose in prominence, they brought along with them a firm belief that paying dividends was an admission of failure ("going ex-growth"), because it signaled that total available market opportunities had been saturated, maximum market share had been achieved, and/or management wasn't clever enough to come up with something new into which to deploy excess capital.
"Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of a cancer cell", and if organic customer/user growth plateaus, there's only one way to keep things chugging along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification .
Perhaps, to borrow a bit of tech jargon, dividends will once again become "not a bug, but a feature".
Looking at some of the companies on the list -- gaming software or delivery services -- one suspects they had a lucky streak, and further growth isn't too likely. As an investor, I'd preferably look for dividend aristocrats, i.e. companies that have continuously raised divvies for decades. (Until of course JK, in his considerable capacity to debunk myths, tells us the aristocrat phenomenon is just some hooey).
No, divi aristocrats are a real thing, though during the pandemic their ranks were thinned quite substantially.
Divi aristocrats are real, and yet the Dividend Aristocrats ETF has not been performing all that well. I sold out of it, long ago.
Well, no factor works all the time. Just ask any value investor...
A winning factor ceases to overperform when it is recognised that it is doing so.
As Silicon Valley companies rose in prominence, they brought along with them a firm belief that paying dividends was an admission of failure ("going ex-growth"), because it signaled that total available market opportunities had been saturated, maximum market share had been achieved, and/or management wasn't clever enough to come up with something new into which to deploy excess capital.
"Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of a cancer cell", and if organic customer/user growth plateaus, there's only one way to keep things chugging along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification .
Perhaps, to borrow a bit of tech jargon, dividends will once again become "not a bug, but a feature".
Very interesting. Do these growth rates reflect organic growth ? Otherwise the analysis might get distorted because of M&A (if material impact).
Nope, that’s headline growth
Too bad, but difficult to estimate the impact I guess…