Research Articles

Trying To Beat The Market Is A Fool’s Errand

Chuck Carnevale - Thursday, October 17, 2013

Introduction

Proponents of indexing as the best investment strategy seemed to take great delight in reporting how the vast majority of professionally managed portfolios (mutual funds, separately managed accounts, hedge funds, ETFs, etc.) fail to outperform the S&P 500.  Therefore, they argue, it is best not to even try.  Investors should simply invest in index funds and forget about it.

At first glance, this would appear logical because in truth their statistics are true and valid.  On a total return basis, the vast majority of investor funds that are professionally managed do in fact underperform the S&P 500 on a total return basis.  However, with this article I intend to illustrate that there is a significant flaw with this line of reasoning.

Prominent Reasons Why Active Management Often Fails to Outperform

However, before I delve too deeply into discussing the great flaw, I would like to comment briefly on a few extenuating reasons why many actively managed accounts might underperform.  For brevity’s sake, I am not going to try to list all the extenuating circumstances, for that would be the thesis for a separate article.  In other words, a comprehensive discussion would be too extensive, and not the true focus of what I intend to offer with this article.

Some of the most prominent reasons for failure to outperform are management fees and costs, over-diversification, restrictions imposed by investment policy statements, and perhaps the biggest factor -being victims of their own success.  The first couple of reasons are self-explanatory, therefore, I will limit my focus to the last reason I presented.

For example, a small and newly created mutual fund might put together an extraordinary track record over its first few years of existence.  This extraordinary record could be a function of both its small size, and perhaps the fact that it was created during an attractive market environment.  In other words, it was created at a time when stock valuations (prices) were low. 

However, assuming they do in fact create a great record, that will often attract significant amounts of new money.  But it is quite possible, and perhaps even quite common, that their greatest inflows will come during a time when the market environment has become unfavorable.  In other words, they get a bucket load of money at precisely a time when it’s difficult for them to invest it at attractive valuations.  However, invest it they must.  Consequently, future performance will suffer as a result.

In contrast, if a mutual fund produces a poor track record over a certain period of time, it will often suffer extensive liquidations.  These liquidations are then theoretically occurring at precisely a time when their better judgment would suggest buying stocks over selling them.  In other words, they are forced to sell undervalued selections instead of the more prudent strategy of buying or at least holding on.  I could go on, but I hope the reader gets the point.  Active managers face numerous extenuating circumstances that the “market” is spared.

I want to be clear that I am not attempting to justify underperformance.  Instead, I am simply attempting to illustrate a few prominent reasons why it happens.  Moreover, what follows will deal with what I consider to be a more important concept which I will frame in the form of a question.  Should investors even concern themselves with trying to outperform the general market on a total return basis?  My answer is emphatically no, and my reasons represent the main thesis behind this article.

Basing Portfolio Design on Need

I did not title this article as I did to be provocative.  Instead, I believe the title puts a spotlight on the importance of how I believe portfolios should be properly designed and constructed.  Rather than worrying about beating the market, I believe that portfolios should be designed based on the individual investor’s specific goals, objectives and risk tolerances.

With that said, I am also suggesting that an S&P 500 index fund may be a completely inappropriate investment choice for certain investors.  There are numerous reasons why I believe this to be true.  However, my primary reason is because the S&P 500 index may fail to meet a specific investor’s goals, objectives and risk tolerances on many fronts.  I will elaborate more on this important point later in the article.  But first, allow me to present a 20-year earnings and price correlated F.A.S.T. Graphs of the S&P 500 index with performance to establish a benchmark that I will later utilize to support my thesis.

I chose the following 20 calendar year Earnings and Price Correlated graph of the S&P 500 for several reasons.  First of all, the 20-year graph represents the full extent of the data available.  Second, it also represents a starting period when the S&P 500 was reasonably within a range of its earnings justified fair valuation.  Therefore, as I will show in a moment, long-term performance will closely correlate with earnings growth as price follows earnings over the long run.  Moreover, the graph also vividly reveals periods in time when the S&P 500 became overvalued with price deviating from the orange line.  But regardless of the timeframe I used, the most important metric I want to establish is the S&P 500’s current dividend yield of 1.8% (red circle).  This will be a focal point of this article as I proceed.

For those sticklers for detail, I also include the following graph plotting the historical year-end P/E ratio of the S&P 500 over this 20 calendar year timeframe.  Note that the beginning P/E ratio of the S&P 500 was 17.6.  This would indicate that it was in fact modestly overvalued based on my fair value calculation of a P/E of 15.  In other words, the S&P 500 was, based on my standards, moderately overvalued at the beginning of 1994, but only modestly so.  In other words, the S&P 500 was not overvalued enough to invalidate my thesis.

The following 20 calendar year performance over this timeframe is presented below (Note: The precise dates of this performance measurement are from December 31, 1993 to the S&P 500’s close on October 16, 2013).  Furthermore, the following performance report separates total return into its two components.  The capital appreciation component of 6.7% per annum correlates closely to the 7.1% earnings growth rate, adjusted for the modest premium valuation mentioned above.

But the most important metric, and the second component of total return, that I would like the reader to focus on is the dividend income stream that the S&P 500 produced.  Not only will this represent an income benchmark, it also simultaneously illustrates why I contend that the S&P 500 may not be an appropriate choice for certain types of investors.  (Clue, the S&P 500 with a current yield of only 1.8% would not cover the income needs of retired clients in need of a minimum income provided from a yield of 3% or better).

However, not providing enough current yield may not be the only reason that an S&P 500 index fund may be inappropriate for retirees in need of income.  There are also the issues of inappropriate levels of risk, as well as several specific constituents in the S&P 500 that retirees should never own.  In other words, it doesn’t matter that they are hidden within the construct of an index of 500 companies; they are simply inappropriate stocks that retirees should avoid.

The only way to see this clearly is by dissecting the S&P 500 index through a careful review of each of its 500 constituents.  Some may feel that this is a task that is beyond their ability or even desire to attempt.  Fortunately, Premium subscribers to F.A.S.T. Graphs™ can complete this task rather quickly, efficiently and easily.  By going to the 16 Provided Indexes and Portfolios I was able to review each of the 500 S&P 500 constituents in approximately 30 minutes.  Frankly, it was an eye-opening exercise.

Once I went into the Portfolio Review section I created the following report that organized the 500 constituents of the S&P 500 in order of highest performance to lowest over the last 20 calendar year timeframe.  The annualized performance number on the portfolio review is a total return calculation that includes both capital appreciation and dividend income.  My purpose of organizing the S&P 500 in this construct was so that I could garner a detailed and precise understanding of where performance (total return) came from, how it was generated and which constituents outperformed versus which that didn’t.

Since the total analysis is beyond the scope of this venue, I offer the following excerpts in order to make my points.  First, I present the portion of the report comprised of the top 15 S&P 500 constituents that generated the highest annualized performance.  Here I would like to acknowledge that there are some imperfections with this analysis.  For starters, not all of the best performers provided the full complement of 20 years of performance.  In fact, most the top 10 constituents provide records for only as little as 3 years out to 17 years.

However, the primary purpose of this analysis was for me to identify not only what companies, but what types of companies were producing the S&P 500’s outperformance.  Frankly, I can state with great confidence, that the vast majority of these top 15 candidates presented in my partial report below are emphatically inappropriate investments for retirees desirous of an adequate current dividend yield, and the opportunity to see that dividend income stream grow over time.

Additionally, these were not the only S&P 500 constituents that I felt were inappropriate for the dividend growth investor to own.  There are over 100 S&P 500 constituents that pay little or no dividends.  Clearly these are not appropriate investments for those seeking income.  As I went through each of the 500 constituents, I found numerous other examples of inappropriate companies.  But for now, I offer the following 15 best-performing S&P 500 constituents as measured by the highest annualized performance (Note: not all of the following names provided performance over the entire 20 year timeframe).

For brevity’s sake, I offer the following two example S&P 500 constituents that did include a full 20-year record that I feel clearly illustrate that, and why, they are not appropriate for income seeking investors.  My first example is Monster Beverage Corp (MNST).  Clearly, as the graph reveals, this is an incredible growth stock.  However, it should also be clear that it also represents a much riskier type of investment than a blue-chip stalwart dividend growth stock like Coca-Cola (KO) or Clorox (CLX) (I will provide graphs on both of these later).  Not only does it not pay a dividend, price volatility is also rather extreme at times.

Monster Beverage Corp.

 

Celgene Corp (CELG)

My second example, Celgene Corp, also represents a similarly inappropriate holding for the retired dividend growth investor.  Although both of these examples represent solid growth stocks with powerful long-term performance histories, they may or may not provide the income that a retired dividend growth investor would need to live off of. 

Therefore, it would only be through the harvesting of shares that any income could be had.  Frankly, that is a job easier said than done, at least in my opinion.  On the other hand, both of these would have been great choices for investors with a goal of achieving aggressive above-average long-term growth of capital.  But that fact alone does not make them appropriate low risk, conservative income-producing investments that those in retirement need.

My next Portfolio Review excerpt of all the S&P 500 constituents skips all the way to the bottom in order to review the 15 worst performing companies in the S&P 500.  Once again, based on a thorough review of each, I would emphatically contend that none of these names belong in the portfolios of income seeking retirees.  Of course, that statement is notwithstanding the horrible performance that each produced over the past 20 years.

As an interesting aside, the S&P 500 index itself would have been the 335th worst performer out of 500.  In other words, there were only 166 constituents that underperformed the index itself.

Here I will present 3 examples of the 15 worst performing S&P 500 constituents that I believe are inappropriate holdings for retirement portfolios.  I will let the graphs speak for themselves, and only state that their poor long-term earnings histories (the orange line) and poor long-term dividend records (the pink line) clearly validate why they would be inappropriate investments for retirees.

JC Penny Co (JCP)

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (GT)

Motorola Solultions Inc (MSI)

The Need For Income And Why The S&P 500 Is An Inappropriate Choice

Up to this point, I have been suggesting that the S&P 500 may not be the appropriate choice for retired investors seeking income.  Moreover, I contend this to be true regardless of the fact that the vast majority of actively managed portfolios don’t outperform the index.  This is true primarily because for the retiree in need of income to sustain an acceptable standard of living, total return is not the answer.  Instead, total income is of paramount importance.  Consequently, and most importantly, the S&P 500 simply does not generate enough income to get the job done.  However, the only way that it could generate enough income for the retiree to live off of would be through the harvesting of shares to generate the needed cash flow.  This creates several problems and challenges for the investor.

For starters, the very act of harvesting shares each year to meet income needs reduces the amount of investor capital available for distributions.  Consequently, even if the S&P 500 does outperform, the effect of reducing shares diminishes its ability to produce an adequate income stream to an even greater extent.  The following comparison of the S&P 500 versus a rationally constructed dividend growth portfolio illustrates my point.  What you will discover is that the S&P 500 does not outperform over the 20 calendar year due to the continuous erosion of shares from harvesting.

With this analysis I am contrasting the S&P 500 offering a current yield of 1.81% with a dividend growth portfolio designed to provide a minimum need of 3%.  Thereby illustrating the negative effects created by the necessity to harvest enough shares to make up the difference between 1.8% current income and the need for a minimum of 3%.

Assumptions for the S&P 500 analysis

  • Invest $1,000,000 at a current price of $1,703.20 with a $30.89 annual dividend – or a current yield of 1.81%.
  • Minimum initial income requirement of $30,000 with future annual income requirement needed to grow at 3% to compensate for inflation.
  • Price of the S&P 500 grows at 6% a year, dividend also grows in line – 6% a year.
  • Any income need that is not met by S&P 500 dividends are supplemented by harvesting shares.
  • All transactions are assumed to be frictionless (no taxes or trading costs) and are done on an annual basis.

How Forced Harvesting Diminishes The Record Of The S&P 500

A Blue-Chip Dividend Growth Portfolio With A Starting Current Yield Of 3%

Assumptions for the DGI Portfolio….

  • Same $1,000,000 to invest at a hypothetical share price of $1,703.20 – therefore both scenarios begin with 587.13 shares.
  • Current yield is assumed to be 3%, which equates to a $51.10 per share dividend.
  • Require same amount of income to start - $30,000 with future annual income requirement needed to grow at 3% to compensate for inflation.
  • Price of DGI basket grows at 6% a year, with dividend growing at 6% a year – same as S&P 500.
  • Thus start with same balance, same number of shares, and end with same ending share price.
  • If income need is exceeded by DGI dividends, additional shares are added.
  • All transactions are assumed to be frictionless (no taxes or trading costs) and are done on an annual basis.

How Meeting The Income Need Enhances Total Return

Beating The S&P 500 On All Fronts The Conservative Way

My previously presented analysis was hypothetical in nature and based on the assumptions made.  What follows next is also hypothetical, but the difference being that it offers real-life examples of actual blue-chip dividend stalwarts, most of which (15 out of 20) have beaten the S&P 500 on a total return basis over the past 20 calendar years.  However, and most importantly supporting the primary thesis of this article, 19 of 20 of which would have generated more total dividend income than the S&P 500 has over the past 20 calendar years.

Now, before I present the following analysis, I have a few words for the diehard advocates of indexing who might cry foul by arguing that I have cherry picked the portfolio.  If it is appropriate to argue that indexing is the best way to invest based on historical evidence indicating outperformance, then I will counter that argument by saying it is also appropriate to build a portfolio of individual stocks based on their historical outperformance over the S&P 500.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The following Portfolio Review is comprised of 20 blue-chip dividend growth stocks that together provide an average current dividend yield of 3% per annum.  The S&P 500 is included as a 21st ticker for comparison purposes.  The reader should note that only five of these selections have underperformed the S&P 500 on a total return basis (annualized performance).

As an interesting aside, a comment made on one of my recent articles suggested the idea of throwing out the worst performing stocks in the S&P 500 thereby creating a portfolio that could outperform.  The following portfolio is presented in the spirit of that idea.  However, I have taken it one step farther.  Since the focus of this article is on providing the appropriate equity investment choice for dividend seeking retirees, I created a portfolio of 20 dividend paying blue chips, each with a current dividend yield that was greater than the current yield on the S&P 500.

The following performance history is the typical total return performance calculations that are reviewed in all the studies citing indexing outperforming active managers.  I have highlighted each year that the portfolio underperformed the S&P 500 on a total return basis.  Note that the annualized performance of the portfolio significantly outperformed the S&P 500 even though the portfolio underperformed the S&P 500 no less than nine times out of twenty, with one year a virtual tie. 

However, and most importantly as it relates to this article, annual dividends (the income component) is not separately revealed.  Later I will show a year-by-year comparison of the portfolio’s total dividends to the S&P 500’s total dividends.

 

The following portfolio appraisal shows the date-to-date performance of each of the 20 Fools Errand portfolio constituents.  Note dividends have been accumulated in a money market account and not reinvested. 

In order to provide greater insight into the power of a well-constructed dividend growth portfolio, I provide the following 20 calendar year Historical Earnings and Price Correlated graphs plus their performance on six prominent dividend paying blue chips.  For fairness, I have included some that have outperformed the S&P 500 on all fronts, as well as two that underperformed based on total return.  However, all six of these examples provided more cumulative total dividend income than the S&P 500.  This last point is ignored by the standard total return calculation.  However, for the dividend growth investor it is the most important performance measurement. 

Clorox Co

PepsiCo Inc (PEP)

 

Coca-Cola Co

 

 

Consolidated Edison (ED)

 

Consolidated Edison versus  S&P 500 – Dividends Reinvested

As an interesting aside, even Consolidated Edison would outperform the S&P 500 if the dividends of both were reinvested.

 

Summary and Conclusions

The primary purpose of this article was to pressent the argument that trying to build a portfolio based on the idea of outperforming the market is not necessarily the appropriate course of action.  Although total return is certainly a consideration worthy of investor attention, it should not necessarily be the driving force behind constructing an appropriate portfolio.  Considerations for the amount of risk investors are willing to take should also be part of the thought process.

Moreover, total return does not necessarily represent the final answer.  The amount of income a portfolio is capable of generating may take precedence over capital appreciation.  This would be especially true for the prudent retiree desirous of creating a portfolio capable of meeting their long-term needs for income.  For these investors, it would be nice to get some capital appreciation along the way, and certainly desirable.  However, you cannot spend capital appreciation unless you are willing to harvest some of your principal in order to get it.  Moreover, if you harvest principle, then you are simultaneously left with fewer assets (shares) with which to generate income in the future.

The moral of the story is that a portfolio should be designed with the intention of meeting the needs of the investor designing it.  If in the accumulation phase, then going for maximum capital appreciation may be a good course of action.  However, once the need to harvest income from your portfolio kicks in, then focus should shift to dividend income over capital gain.  In short, there is more to building a portfolio than focusing on total return only.  Therefore, trying to beat the market may, in fact, be a fool’s errand.

Disclosure:  Long KO, CLX, PEP and ED at the time of writing.

Disclaimer: The opinions in this document are for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell the stocks mentioned or to solicit transactions or clients. Past performance of the companies discussed may not continue and the companies may not achieve the earnings growth as predicted. The information in this document is believed to be accurate, but under no circumstances should a person act upon the information contained within. We do not recommend that anyone act upon any investment information without first consulting an investment advisor as to the suitability of such investments for his specific situation.


Testimonials


“I appreciate your work, Chuck. As a subscriber to FAST Graphs™, I use the tool to decide on whether to purchase additional shares of what I currently hold or to add a new holding. Your articles help me make full use of the tool and give other readers valuable information, if they take the time to learn. One of the biggest enhancements that I use is the FFO data added for MLPs and REITs.”


“When FAST Graphs™ were unavailable because of Hurricane Sandy, I realized how much I need them in order to make investment decisions.

(Wish I could be) Long FAST Graphs!!!”


“One more vote for the value of FAST Graphs™; just started a subscription to Chuck's great service (premium), and am having a ball analyzing so many stocks quickly.”


“I feel very ill-equipped to make investment decisions without Fast Graphs. :-)”


“Yesterday, I signed up for your F.A.S.T. Graphs™. It's a really amazing, valuable tool for checking over/undervaluation of stocks. Wish I had it years and years ago!!”


“Love the F.A.S.T. Graphs™: One glance and you know a whole lot.”


“About Chuck's F.A.S.T. Graphs™: They are invaluable to me in making decisions about the stocks I own (in addition to what you are saying about doing other research) and the ones I hope to own in the future.”


"Chuck -- Your proprietary F.A.S.T. Graphs™ are a VERY impressive tool!"


“If there were an Investor Hall of Fame for people who have helped others with their investing, and sharing valuable information, you and your F.A.S.T. Graphs™ would get one of my selections.”


“I love Chuck's F.A.S.T. Graphs™! Well worth the price of admission for what he gives you.”


"Chuck - Thank you for your well thought out articles. I tend to be a visual type of person so I really appreciate the F.A.S.T. Graphs™ approach."


"Great article, as always! I always look forward to your articles, and am especially eagerly awaiting your next in this series. I find the F.A.S.T. Graphs™ extremely helpful."


“Your F.A.S.T. Graphs™ put all of this in a single artful picture and the accompanying spreadsheets hammer home the point.”


“I use the F.A.S.T. Graphs™ method to evaluate all of my ideas. I recommend it for individual investors, since it helps them focus on data and get past the many emotional arguments.”


“I recently subscribed to the F.A.S.T. Graphs™, and these articles are helping me learn how to better use them. They really do give you a good quick look at the valuations picture. A much needed tool!”


“I also always appreciate the clear-cut information provided through your F.A.S.T. Graphs™ and articles.”


“Thanks, Chuck, for your F.A.S.T. Graphs™. Each of these graphs is worth 1,000 words in describing a company's growth, consistency and valuation. Thanks for sharing your graphs.”


“Thanks, Chuck. Love the F.A.S.T. Graphs™! It makes investing so much more clear.”


“Chuck's F.A.S.T. Graphs™: They are invaluable to me in making decisions about the stocks I own (in addition to what you are saying about doing other research) and the ones I hope to own in the future.”


”I am amazed at the usefulness of your F.A.S.T. Graphs™ and I plan on using them for a long time to come.”


“Chuck's F.A.S.T. Graphs™ will give you a tool to find those well chosen stocks...”


“Thanks for the F.A.S.T. Graphs™, Chuck. They are the best tool I've used.”


Recent Posts


Tags

WGL intrinsic value THO long-term growth K stock research suvivorship BRS long ideas MAN best-of-breed WY CAM NROM MPW AFL JAZZ KMT SLGN BLK AVD URI investing for total return EXC IR GT TNC CL CTG MDT AZO ATHM stocks AMT ATW AMZN NFLX Challengers NLY value-oriented TROW FLO CPB Industrial WRLD BG EAT BMS MRK Share Buybacks GOOGL WFC DKS dividends,earnings growth EMC CRLI SNCR CM SWK interest rates PCL TGH MCHP PRAA TEF CTAS highqualityR FBHS CSCO RRD retirement COH DOV SHW CTBI LQDT NTES BF.B CFR CASY FAST Graphs CXRX UNP MUR BPL WVR KO SNI UTHR above-average Utilities FUL HIBB CGY M SU ONE TMP DRC Ratio biotechnology biotech stock PFG HCN MSFT IDA FLIC LMT LTM BBY BBBY ESRX MTZ EBAY market currents AGLP DLPH dividend income ANTM value trap intrinsicvalue WHR TIS DOM sell OHI,EPR,WPG,JLL growth stocks technology hyper growth stocks CTRX TUP true worth long-term investing OSIS dividendGrowth SHOO earnings ABC total return AIRM CBU banks EE DD investing ADT BigFive,Canadian ARLP IBM ACR AAN OGE WU DDS ETR TAC AIG ECHO VAL GPS MHP MMM D Market Outlook ACI HCA MAIN DMRC F ARRS ALTE SIG VRX OXY PEP ICLR POWR SPY GWW T AMAG DRI SYY JPM GAS SBR GOLD HighQuality Materials PG EV Champions CHE ECL O APEI Valuation LLY HRS CCK DIS KMB AAP high-yield TIF UEPS cashflow SAVE utility stocks RKT COP BEN investing for income,growth and income ED HBI CSX MO LKQ UTX HOG SoundValuation NPM STE SWKS EK CLX EXLS OKE investment ANDE RSG,RTN AEP InterestRates THFF SO CRI RDS.A HD REXX SJM CAPE TU RTN TSCO LXU long CR BHB WIN AET THC DividendAristocrats HSY RCII RS FB FairValuation OKS BMTC WBA EMR GPI APD DNB SCG PKG LO SWFT InformationTech ABT AMGN XOM dividend paying ROSE AXP CIO CLX,EMR NVS AGN KO,CLX,CELG,JCP,GT,MSI,PEP,ED ZUMZ NKE FDO PFE VVC dividend-growth capital appreciation CLF UNM PBI growth HPQ Aristocrat SCL FF ETP CLR BNS KALU MNK GOOG stockResearchTool AB INFY FCFS EMR, MMM HON ROST dividend growth value JWN COL GNTX MIDD QCOM cash flows long-term returns PEG BAC KSS FTI,HTZ MKC KR CTSH BLL BCR OZRK POT SYT fundamental stock research tool EPHC MCD dividendpaying PPL JWML.Y MNR ETN ULTA STMP XRX TEG: WEC: SUBX DORM HRL WEC MGA FRED GIS FinancialSector ORI BHP ITC CNC CHS Yield blue chip MAT dividend BEAV market WSM economy Contenders free cash flow DTE DollarCostAverging WST BKH JCOM ODFL PRXL V PAG DPS ADM AEG stock research tool RY KCAP BOFI LLL PNM FAST CINF treasury act MELI DividendIncome DTEGY DividendChampions LZB ADP CTCM US Economy HSC HNZ DR VCO P RMD FDX GES CB AZZ RAI PNRA Stock Research Analysis SON 3NSRGY SEIC CATY TRV CACC THRM BMRC BNS. FAF PowerOfCompounding MA FISV COO mid-cap GLT AA HGT KMP TGT PB NSRGY short ideas PDFS TOT MTW FOSL XEL VZ WASH ITW diversified machinery SBRA HAS rate of return WWW PPG Consumer discretionary utility AFAM DELL TICC RSO CBI IR, TWX fair valuation Utilities Sector CE POM WAG CELG BWLD LL ENSG food service TSM JKHY GrowthOriented CAH GEOS CSL CACI MGRC UNH SILVER AKRX AMG ACOM SXL DRIP TWGP GPCM REITs suvivorship basis AM BH AOS machinery BCOR MHS market timing Macro view DFS HP investing for income CNSL NA MYL RIMM TEVA Buffett TNGO FC BOBE Bond,TGT,UTX NOG GMCR WMT,ROST,GIS,GE,JNJ,KO SAM WLP PII PE Ratio JOY intrinsic value,stocks,earnings,fundamentals,stock research tool,due diligence GD TE JRN SPLS BANF DECK MATW OII INTC BIDU LOW NSC AAPL PRGO dividend paying stocks EWBC healthcare SBUX CVS OUTR MNTX DGX PortfolioDesign SFG INT earnings growth FairlyValued dividend-paying AFSI ACE NC HE SLW CTL DE RRC due diligence TGI HCI ENDP LINE MSA LH OHI BA SNH BR ABM C BCE CKSW GILD CHD MCY AMP AVP NOC ConsumerDiscretionary AFG ABBV ED:SCG Dividend Ideas FL HCP beta SYNA SCHW VRTU PNR PM CAT Aristocrats VTR AMCX IBN dividend growth investing ASNA POR MDP BRLI ACQ DTV GPC ZBRA PCP PNW VMI EnergySector FOMC COST Fundamentals ACM CVX,SWK,MCD,TGT,PG,WMT,JNJ,MDT,AFT,T,ED JNJ FTR HII mid-sized marketvaluation ORCL NEE BDX IPAR stock analysis JSFT NSR macro cash flow BAP Overvalued CPN DLR ACN regional banks X RBC VFC UN CanadianBanks cyclical UHS RJF CMI MSCC QCOR LEN dividends RatofReturn Telecommunications WMT DAN value investing HSNI fair value SYK CVX MGEE fast-growing SRCE Dividend Champions BIIB HCBK ALB INWK SHR UL consumer BMO BAX DOW DVA ESI DGAS FRAN GE RSG MCK WFM long-term MNST BOKF ITW, blue-chip TXT PSX SHPG CERN DHR portfolio SIVB AMBN KFT GME JCI fastgraphs BWP INGR APH PCLN CBRL R AFL,CVX,ED,JNJ,MCD,PG,SWK,T,WMT,TGT,ABM,AFL,BEN,BMS,CB,CBSH,CTBI PE

Archive

Testimonials


“I appreciate your work, Chuck. As a subscriber to FAST Graphs™, I use the tool to decide on whether to purchase additional shares of what I currently hold or to add a new holding. Your articles help me make full use of the tool and give other readers valuable information, if they take the time to learn. One of the biggest enhancements that I use is the FFO data added for MLPs and REITs.”


“When FAST Graphs™ were unavailable because of Hurricane Sandy, I realized how much I need them in order to make investment decisions.

(Wish I could be) Long FAST Graphs!!!”


“One more vote for the value of FAST Graphs™; just started a subscription to Chuck's great service (premium), and am having a ball analyzing so many stocks quickly.”


“I feel very ill-equipped to make investment decisions without Fast Graphs. :-)”


“Yesterday, I signed up for your F.A.S.T. Graphs™. It's a really amazing, valuable tool for checking over/undervaluation of stocks. Wish I had it years and years ago!!”


“Love the F.A.S.T. Graphs™: One glance and you know a whole lot.”


“About Chuck's F.A.S.T. Graphs™: They are invaluable to me in making decisions about the stocks I own (in addition to what you are saying about doing other research) and the ones I hope to own in the future.”


"Chuck -- Your proprietary F.A.S.T. Graphs™ are a VERY impressive tool!"


“If there were an Investor Hall of Fame for people who have helped others with their investing, and sharing valuable information, you and your F.A.S.T. Graphs™ would get one of my selections.”


“I love Chuck's F.A.S.T. Graphs™! Well worth the price of admission for what he gives you.”


"Chuck - Thank you for your well thought out articles. I tend to be a visual type of person so I really appreciate the F.A.S.T. Graphs™ approach."


"Great article, as always! I always look forward to your articles, and am especially eagerly awaiting your next in this series. I find the F.A.S.T. Graphs™ extremely helpful."


“Your F.A.S.T. Graphs™ put all of this in a single artful picture and the accompanying spreadsheets hammer home the point.”


“I use the F.A.S.T. Graphs™ method to evaluate all of my ideas. I recommend it for individual investors, since it helps them focus on data and get past the many emotional arguments.”


“I recently subscribed to the F.A.S.T. Graphs™, and these articles are helping me learn how to better use them. They really do give you a good quick look at the valuations picture. A much needed tool!”


“I also always appreciate the clear-cut information provided through your F.A.S.T. Graphs™ and articles.”


“Thanks, Chuck, for your F.A.S.T. Graphs™. Each of these graphs is worth 1,000 words in describing a company's growth, consistency and valuation. Thanks for sharing your graphs.”


“Thanks, Chuck. Love the F.A.S.T. Graphs™! It makes investing so much more clear.”


“Chuck's F.A.S.T. Graphs™: They are invaluable to me in making decisions about the stocks I own (in addition to what you are saying about doing other research) and the ones I hope to own in the future.”


”I am amazed at the usefulness of your F.A.S.T. Graphs™ and I plan on using them for a long time to come.”


“Chuck's F.A.S.T. Graphs™ will give you a tool to find those well chosen stocks...”


“Thanks for the F.A.S.T. Graphs™, Chuck. They are the best tool I've used.”