How I'm Grabbing 20% Dividend Yields

Recs

82

Editor's note: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified GE's dividend yield. The Fool regrets the error.

There are a lot of very exciting dividend yields out there right now. In fact, of the companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges that pay out dividends, over 1,200 -- or over 40% -- currently have yields above 5%.

But when yields are unusually high, you often can't trust them. In a market like this, it can sometimes be hard to predict whether a company's future earnings will support future dividend payments. And if they won't, well, those high dividends are likely to end up on the cutting room floor.

Even the long-term dividend payers aren't immune. Wells Fargo, Dow Chemical, Motorola, and International Paper have all cut their dividends lately -- all of them stable, long-term blue chips.

Don't despair, though, because there are still ways to achieve high dividend yields relatively safely.

Dividends rising
See, over time, stock prices increase, and ideally, dividend payouts increase as well. But your cost basis doesn't change, no matter what else happens with the stock. And that means that even if a company is paying out 3% compared to today's stock price, it's paying out far more, relatively speaking, to those who bought the stock for much less, many years ago.

McDonald's (NYSE: MCD), for example, is currently paying out $2 a year per share in dividends. That's a 3.6% yield if you buy now -- but I bought it nearly three years ago, when the price was lower, and that gives me a 5.5% yield on my cost.

If McDonald's hikes its dividends by 12% per year on average, in 12 years it would be paying out nearly $8 per share, giving me a 21% yield. In just 15 years, my effective yield would be a whopping 30%! And this is all separate from whether or not the stock itself appreciates.

So, while the current yield on a stock might be only 2 or 3%, that's for people buying the stock right now at the current price. For those who bought it long ago at a lower price, and who are getting that same current dividend, their effective yield is higher. And over time, it can grow very high indeed.

Why it matters
Healthy, growing companies have more going for them than dividend increases. Over the long term, their share prices also tend to rise.

McDonald's, for example, has averaged 18% growth over the past five years, and its dividend has grown by an average of more than 30% over the past five years -- even factoring in the last terrible market year.

That combination of strong stock growth and reinvested, growing dividends is what has made companies like Altria the best-performing stocks of the last half-century, according to Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel. That's the power of dividend growth.

While growing dividends and healthy, effective yields are portfolio boosters in any market, they're especially helpful in markets like this one -- because solid dividend payers keep paying you no matter what the economy is doing.

Remember, though, that hard times can also make it challenging for some companies to keep paying their dividends. That's why it's always critical to choose firms that are particularly healthy and stand little chance of reducing or eliminating their dividend.

How to find healthy
To zero in on healthy companies with growing dividends, look for relatively little debt and relatively robust cash piles (via the balance sheet). Also look for growing revenue and income, and ideally, rising profit margins, too. Be wary when accounts receivable or inventories are growing faster than sales.

I used those general guidelines to create a screen for large-cap companies with dividend yields of 2.5% or more, five-year average annual dividend growth rates of 8% or more, five-year average annual revenue growth rates of 8% or more, and P/E ratios of 20 or less:

Company

Market cap

Recent dividend yield

5-year dividend growth

5-year revenue growth

P/E ratio

PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP)

$77 billion

3.6%

21%

10%

15

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ)

$151 billion

3.6%

14%

9%

12

Chevron (NYSE: CVX)

$141 billion

3.7%

12%

18%

7

Abbott Labs (NYSE: ABT)

$69 billion

3.6%

8%

11%

13

Novartis (NYSE: NVS)

$87 billion

4.5%

19%

11%

11

EnCana (NYSE: ECA)

$42 billion

2.8%

51%

29%

6

Data: MSNMoney.com.

These aren't recommendations, but they are ideas you might want to research further.

Just like you should be wary of high yields, be wary of super-high growth rates -- sometimes they're there because a company had a one-time payout or because the company has been quickly ramping up from being a non-dividend-payer to a significant payer. EnCana, for example, went from paying $0.05 per quarter in 2002 to $0.40 per quarter in 2008, an eight-fold increase.

And finally, don't expect growth rates like EnCana's 51% from most companies, either -- especially not over the long term. You'll see them sometimes, when a company has a period of aggressive dividend growth, but over the long run, growth rates of 10% to 15% are far more sustainable -- and thus more likely, even as they turn your current 3% yield into double digits in just a few years.

High yields you can count on
In markets as volatile and unpredictable as this one, it's good to remember that long-term dividend growth can be a better contributor to long-term portfolio growth than a high yield alone.

So, if you want 20% yields, look for companies that have a history of hiking dividends as well as the probability of long-term capital appreciation. It will take a few years, but you'll be better able to count on that yield. -- just like I'm expecting to enjoy 20% and 30% effective yields on my investment in McDonald's.

Long-term dividend-growers are the kind of companies we look for at Motley Fool Income Investor. If you'd like to see what we're recommending now, just click here for a free, 30-day trial.

Already subscribe to Income Investor? Log in here.

Longtime Fool contributor Selena Maranjian owns shares of McDonald's, PepsiCo, and Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson and PepsiCo are Motley Fool Income Investor selections. Novartis is a Global Gains recommendation. The Motley Fool is Fools writing for Fools.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 3:15 PM, dargus wrote:

    GE's yield isn't over 8%. They announced a dividend cut to .10 per share in Feb., which makes it about 3%.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 3:20 PM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    Yeah the brightside to the GE cut is it was a smart move to free up cash. Hopefully once the economy recovers we'll see the Old Dividend or even more again.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 3:20 PM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    Yeah the brightside to the GE cut is it was a smart move to free up cash. Hopefully once the economy recovers we'll see the Old Dividend or even more again.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 3:20 PM, henryking54 wrote:

    <<their effective yield is higher.>>

    Who cares? Effective yield (a.k.a. yield on cost) is completely irrelevant. Yield on cost is a psychological trap that encourages one to remain invested in a stock even though there are better CURRENT yielding opportunities elsewhere. Anyone who focuses more on past performance than future potential should not be writing financial advice.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 3:38 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    "General Electric, for example, is sporting a dividend yield above 8%"

    Are the rest of your statements in this, and other articles, as up to date?

    But, then again, the purpose of the article is not to pass on factual useful information but to:

    "at Motley Fool Income Investor. If you'd like to see what we're recommending now, just click here for a free, 30-day trial."

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 4:16 PM, kamuirei wrote:

    "Who cares? Effective yield (a.k.a. yield on cost) is completely irrelevant."

    Thank you, I get tired of seeing this article in its endless incarnations.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 5:04 PM, KevinWC1969 wrote:

    <<Who cares? Effective yield (a.k.a. yield on cost) is completely irrelevant. Yield on cost is a psychological trap that encourages one to remain invested in a stock even though there are better CURRENT yielding opportunities elsewhere.>>

    But isn't the point that you're comparing the yield you get on what you spent (yield on cost) vs. what you could be getting with the same money if you bought something else today?

    If a company's current yield is 3%, but my yield on cost is 12%, don't I have to find another stock that's yielding better than 12% before it's worth my while to sell the stock I have?

    The 3% current yield isn't relevant for comparison, because it's not what I'm getting. If I sell a stock that's yielding me 12% on the amount it cost me, and I buy a stock that yields me 9% today, haven't I taken a step backwards?

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 5:57 PM, DaytonFlyers wrote:

    <<Who cares? Effective yield (a.k.a. yield on cost) is completely irrelevant. Yield on cost is a psychological trap that encourages one to remain invested in a stock even though there are better CURRENT yielding opportunities elsewhere.>>

    if i buy a $10 stock with a $.5 annual dividend today and 10 years later the stock is $20 and the dividend is now $1.00 annually hasn't my actual yield gone from 5% to 10%?

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 6:01 PM, njbrit wrote:

    the yield on cost is misleading.

    1. The theoretical price of a stock is the sum of all future divs, so if the div increases, generally so does the share price.

    2. Look at the opportunity cost - whatever money I had invested is less relevant than what is it costing me to keep this stock. If I paid $1000 for 100 shares, which are now worth $2000, I have to decide if that stock is a good place to park $2000, which I could invest in other stocks.

    3. Look at it this way: say $1000 invested is now giving me a 6% return $60 div (or 3% on the $2000); but I could take the $2000 and buy a stock that is yielding 5%, and get $100 div.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 6:08 PM, RobertC314 wrote:

    Kevin,

    The reason you don't care about "yield on cost" is because it is not related to the current earning potential of the money you have tied up on an investment. An example best illustrates this:

    If you paid $100/share on something years ago, and now it has a "yield on cost" of 12% you are getting $12/year in dividends. However, if it is currently yielding 3% then that means the current share price is $400.

    Now, if we know of some other stock that is currently yielding 9% as you suggest, then, all other things being equal, it is to our advantage to sell our stock at $400 (why would you sell it at cost when the market price is so much more?) and buy that other stock, thereby increasing our dividends to $36/year.

    As we can see, the fact that we paid $100 for the original stock does not matter, only the current value. This is the same logic for why you should not consider your purchase price when deciding whether or not to sell a stock (assuming there aren't other motives such as tax write-offs).

    As Henry said, "Yield on cost is a psychological trap that encourages one to remain invested in a stock even though there are better CURRENT yielding opportunities elsewhere". Happy investing.

    -Robert

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 6:11 PM, RobertC314 wrote:

    Ah, beaten to the punch, but at least we agree :)

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 7:53 PM, HonestQuestor wrote:

    Very good, and thank you Robert. I really appreciate it when someone takes the time and effort to post a well written, through comment rather than a snippit that although accurate, is too short to really grasp, resulting in confusion rather than clearity.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 8:14 PM, jazzkeys wrote:

    Both njbrit and RobertC314 have made excellent posts. I was going to post the same argument, but without the great examples. Well done, both of you!

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 8:23 PM, KevinWC1969 wrote:

    Seconding HonestQuestor--thanks to Henry, njbrit, and particularly to Robert for taking the time to make this clear. Nothing like a good example, concisely expressed. I appreciate the insight.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 9:21 PM, TuckerLehmann wrote:

    I'm pretty sure this is my first post here so "Hi"

    I finally felt the need b/c I'm also tired of people ignoring opportunity cost when giving investment advice. Thank you to NJBrit for mentioning it.

    I'm not much of an investor (b/c of time & money constraints) but I think understanding opportunity costs & the principle of sunk costs is important in almost all decision making.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

    I was hoping to read a discussion of OTM covered calls as a way to boost dividends...

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 10:09 PM, herky7575 wrote:

    I don't think you all are understanding the fundamental point behind this article... and that is, if you buy "blue chip" stocks that currently pay a decent, not outrageous, (soon to be cut) dividend, you will be rewarded for your patience in the future. The idea is that by your cost basis being low, as the stock price is currently low (relatively speaking), as the company raises the dividend, your yield continues to rise.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I like my odds with companies like MCD, JNJ, PG, etc that continually raise their dividends in any economic environment. The fact of the matter is that, as a general rule, companies that pay out dividends consistently outperform companies that do not.(Of course you can find examples of this being incorrect- HANS, GMCR, BWLD). Dividends are paid through earnings growth. There would not be dividends if not for consistent earnings growth of these companies. Call it boring, call it lame, it really doesn't matter.

    For investors with LONG TERM investment horizons, purchasing solid, dividend paying companies that continually raise their dividend is a nice bet right now. As I am sure we all know, there is no such thing as a guarantee ( I bought BAC at $40) but I do feel a lot more comfortable now putting money into solid, wide moat, dividend paying companies now, than any time in my investment lifetime.

    Somq quick math, continuing the JNJ example:

    Current Price: $54.10

    Current Yield and % Yield: $1.96 (3.60%)

    Yield in 5 years and % Yield in 5 years: $3.16 (5.84%)

    Yield in 10 years and % Yield in 10 years: $5.09 (9.41%)

    *Assumptions with 10% Dividend Growth per year (Actually less than the 12% dividend growth avg)

    Long story short, JNJ (for example) is a great company, with a wide moat, and a nice dividend yield that is very likely to continue to rise at a nice clip, and you have a winner. Period. Not sexy, not exciting, just consistent. Oh, and, when the market tanks later this year when people realize things aren't as rosy as is thought to be or it tanks in ten years as part of a normal economic cycle, JNJ and other stocks like it won't lose 50%-60% of their value. I believe the whole point of this article is that dividend paying stocks offer investors a nice way to "guarantee" a future percentage yield and payout for those investors that are looking for it.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 10:22 PM, bigjohnson2 wrote:

    i know, i know, dividends

    concerning walmart, they really need competition.

    the company's poor inventory control results in fustrated customers: "I BOUGHT SOME PRODUCT A FEW WEEKS AGO AND NOW I CAN'T FIND ANY PRODUCT AT ALL. you probably never will because the local stores can not order products according to their needs, desires, etc. good prices but poor inventory comtrol and idiots from the front office ordering for thousand of stores

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 10:29 PM, paultaut wrote:

    There is no such thing as a Free Lunch.

    GE was in danger of going Bankrupt. They reduced their dividend by 2/3rds. Dow Chemical which HAD NOT cut its dividend in 96 years, eliminated it.

    Using the criteria set above, Dow Chemical would have been one of the selections.

    If you want to buy a common stock for its yield or potential yield, think twice.

    Inflation is around the corner, probably next year. What is the yield above likely to be above Inflation and after Taxes?

    I thought I was going to read about Actual yields in the 20% range. What a waste.

  • Report this Comment On May 11, 2009, at 10:40 PM, valari25 wrote:

    paultaut, DOW did not eliminate their dividend. They cut it to .15/share.

    If you are going to bash an article, try not to be so astoundingly stupid when you do it.

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2009, at 8:28 AM, TMFSelena wrote:

    Thanks, folks, for some excellent comments and many very valid points. I may offer the contrary point of view in a future article, though I still believe that there's great potential in investing in healthy, growing dividend-payers over the long haul.

    Selena

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2009, at 11:01 AM, henryking54 wrote:

    Selena,

    The title of your article is intentionally misleading. It insinuates that you can invest TODAY and immediately receive a safe 20% dividend yield -- which is a total lie. The purpose of the article is obviously to sell newsletter subscriptions by means of this deception, not dispense accurate financial advice.

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2009, at 12:21 PM, henryking54 wrote:

    <<If McDonald's hikes its dividends by 12% per year on average, in 12 years it would be paying out nearly $8 per share, giving me a 21% yield.>>

    Never mind misleading, this 21% yield calculation is flat-out wrong.

    1.12^12 * $2 = $7.79

    $7.79/$54 = 14.4%

    Hmm...a company that can't calculate dividend yield correctly and that doesn't even know that GE cut its dividend wants you to buy their dividend newsletter? No thanks.

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2009, at 1:00 PM, TMFSelena wrote:

    Hi, folks --

    A few explanations. I don't think the title is a lie -- I know I'm not grabbing a yield that is 20% now, but I *am* acting now in order to grab 20% yields.

    And readers who are inspired to invest in some dividend-payers and end up with hefty effective yields would need to act now in order to get those yields later. Yes, I understand that they can always do other things with their money, but that doesn't discount the value of dividend payers.

    Next, the 21% yield I got for McDonald's was based on my cost basis, which I don't have in front of me right now. I think it might have been around $36 or $37. The 21% yield was an effective yield.

    Selena

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2009, at 2:11 PM, pricetime wrote:

    The cost basis is in the article with a little math.

    <<McDonald's (NYSE: MCD), for example, is currently paying out $2 a year per share in dividends. That's a 3.6% yield if you buy now -- but I bought it nearly three years ago, when the price was lower, and that gives me a 5.5% yield on my cost.>>

    $2 dividend / 5.5% yield = $36.36 share price

    $7.79 / $36 = 22%

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2009, at 3:13 PM, henryking54 wrote:

    Selena,

    I am a senior citizen who needs current income NOW. I can't afford to wait 15 to 20 years to earn a decent dividend yield. The title of your article makes it sound like senior citizens like me can earn a huge yield now. Shame on you.

  • Report this Comment On May 12, 2009, at 5:04 PM, tmartin601 wrote:

    I find the Fool theory a bit bogus too. My opinion of the brilliance of the Fool has modified a bit over the months and I will be cutting back on my subscriptions.

  • Report this Comment On May 13, 2009, at 3:49 PM, NotCrazy wrote:

    Going back for a moment to the earlier discussion of current versus cost-basis yields, while it's true that you've got to compare what you're receiving from your investment with other opportunities available today, it's important to take tax consequences into account.

    Let's say that you've owned ABC Corp. for the past ten years. During that time, both ABC's dividends and stock price have tripled. Now you look around and realize that while ABC is still a fine company, there are other, better opportunities available for investment at current prices. Does that automatically mean that you should pull out of ABC and re-invest elsewhere? No.

    Let's leave aside commissions (I'm assuming you have a discount broker, so this isn't a big deal, maybe $10), you've got to pay taxes on capital gains, right? The more taxes you've got to pay, the less you've got left to reinvest, so the better the new investment has to be to overcome that hurdle, so you should be more careful about selling and reinvesting. Conversely, if taxes are low, there's a lower hurdle, and it's easier to justify the decision to reinvest. At least, that's how it seems to me.

  • Report this Comment On May 13, 2009, at 5:36 PM, henryking54 wrote:

    <<you've got to pay taxes on capital gains, right?>>

    Not if you can offset the gains with capital losses. And who doesn't have capital losses in the past 12 months?

  • Report this Comment On May 15, 2009, at 9:19 PM, msftgev wrote:

    I can't believe no ones mentioned DRIPS in a dividend discussion. Compound interest is a beuatiful thing.

    Lets say I bought 100 shs of KO at 40.00 and there paying a .40 div. In a dividend reinvesting program.

    Even if the numbers remained exactly the same after one year I would have 104 shs. Take the math to 10 or 20 or 30 yrs and you'll see my point.

    The only way this does'nt work is if the company fails.

    And if coke fails then God help us all.

  • Report this Comment On May 15, 2009, at 11:45 PM, baseballbill730 wrote:

    Blah, blah, blah using invested cost is a crutch, a "psychological trap" blah, blah, blah. Let's see an investment I made several years ago has had three dividend increases and is currently yielding me more than 8%. And it has been no means an outstanding performer in the time that I have held it; simply solid. So I want to forego the benefits of compound interest, i.e., dividend reinvesting, so I can take a flyer on something that is yielding 3%. Makes sense to me.

    Or I should sell so I can take advantage of a better investing opportunity. Tell me that lead-pipe cinch investment opportunity and I'm right there. But these seem to be my choices: keep an investment that is returning 8% and is very likely to increase or sell it so I can get 3%. That's a real difficult choice.

    Of course I will look around now for other good opportunities. But turn my back on one that I have locked in. No thank you. Call me "psychologically weak".

  • Report this Comment On May 16, 2009, at 2:17 AM, mcvd01 wrote:

    Top 100 dividend yields (DAX, Dow, FTSE, NASDAQ, TSX):

    http://www.topyields.nl/Top_100_dividend_yields.php

    Daily updated (and free).

  • Report this Comment On May 16, 2009, at 11:15 AM, JeanDavid wrote:

    If you want high dividend yield, why not buy Fairpoint (FRP), for example? Or Idearc until a little while ago, when it hat very high dividend yield as well? Not my idea of good investments.

  • Report this Comment On May 17, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Stanley5000 wrote:

    The title to this article is , in my humble opinion, very mis-leading. I guess it is easy to say you are grabbing 20% yields on stocks you purchased years ago, which had consistantly paid a dividend & you set it up on a DRIP program. How can Selena figure her yield on Her MCD stock whenshe admits, she "does not have her cost basis infront of her"?

    The old theory of buying stocks with long time consistant diidends use to work, but as many above examples sited already, there is no guarantee that those comapnies will not slash or eliminate their dividends entirely.

    This article, like many other's are a tease to get you to a paying subscription. Like they say "a Fool & his money are soon parted".

    I think I'll stick to my crystal ball & Tarot cards

  • Report this Comment On May 24, 2009, at 1:40 PM, sircarl wrote:

    Why aren't we talking about true yields above 20 per cent? Oil and gas royalty trusts are paying out over 23 per cent (see WHX, Whiting petroleum trust U.S.A.). Oil is not getting cheaper, and the prices for the trrusts are low right now. The only downside is that trusts expire at some point, when production drops too low, but the market will price the stock accordingly.

  • Report this Comment On June 04, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Thankingyou1 wrote:

    I can see from these articles why people have lost so much money in the stock market. I have never read such a boat load of garbage in one spot in my entire life. These companies are using the present economy as an EXCUSE to lower their dividends.

    They aren't going broke, not by a long shot.

    They would like you to BELIEVE they are broke so they can cut their dividends and make even MORE money!

  • Report this Comment On June 04, 2009, at 8:16 PM, Thankingyou1 wrote:

    These articles are so full of misleading statements as to be beyond belief. I can see why people have lost so much money in the stock market.

    These companies are using the current financial crisis as an EXCUSE to lower their dividends.

    They would have you believe they are broke so they can make even MORE money!

  • Report this Comment On June 04, 2009, at 8:21 PM, Thankingyou1 wrote:

    The truely good companies like AT&T which has paid dividends for over 80 years or more is still paying a good buck! Altria, AT&T, Kraft, Proctor and Gamble, Exxon and Johnson and Johnson are not going to betray their stock holders, even in tough times.

    For the record, I just never liked GE and would never buy their stock.

    Any company which has lowered their dividends during this current economic downturn is not worth their salt and should be gotten rid of immeadiately.

    I can honestly say, that with the exception of one or two stocks, no company betrayed me in this way.

    And, that's what all investors should look at in this way, a betrayl. Times are tough, but the good companies like Kraft and AT&T which maintained their dividends even when their share price went down, deserve our loyalty.

    Any company like GE, which would stoop so low as to take it out on their mom and pop investors, deserves to be desserted in droves like rats off a sinking ship!

    This is all an excuse and smoke and mirrors.

    I should be as broke as GE and some of these other companies that profess "brokeness!"

  • Report this Comment On June 04, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Thankingyou1 wrote:

    Any company that cuts their dividends is suspect.

    That's all an excuse anyway.

    And, the really good companies, like JNJ, which is sitting on billions in cash, won't do that to their stock holders. They know how their investors depend on their dividends for their income and won't pull a cheap stunt on that, no way, no how.

    Exxon didn't lower it's dividend and neither did AT& T.

    I think it's time that all investors started voting with their feet. Once the shares get high enough, dump them on the open market and buy something that's going to pay a dividend through thick and thin.

    And, don't be bashful about it either. I think each investor should write or call the company and let them know why you are selling your shares.

    But, wait until the stock goes back up to what you paid for it or close to it!

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 896471, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/3/2009 10:15:26 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
Fool Search: Be GM's Next CEO!

By The Motley Fool

Fool Search: Be GM's Next CEO!

Related Tickers

12/3/2009 9:57 AM
JNJ $64.12 Up +0.24 +0.38%
Johnson & Johnson CAPS Rating: *****
ABT $54.53 Up +0.09 +0.17%
Abbott Laboratorie… CAPS Rating: *****
NVS $56.30 Up +0.53 +0.95%
Novartis AG (ADR) CAPS Rating: ****
CVX $78.53 Down -0.20 -0.25%
Chevron Corp CAPS Rating: ****
MCD $62.50 Down +0.00 +0.00%
McDonald's Corp CAPS Rating: ****
PEP $63.44 Down -0.21 -0.33%
PepsiCo, Inc. CAPS Rating: *****
ECA $52.71 Down -0.98 -1.83%
EnCana Corp (USA) CAPS Rating: ****

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Due diligence: Due diligence is the research usually after a purchase to insure that the assets are as expected and properly valued.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!