Il confronto dividendi obbligazioni in una prospettiva storica

Non sono completamente convinto dalla tesi di questo analista del Motley Fool ma ho ugualmente trovato la lettura dell'articolo interessante. In molti hanno osservato come il dividend yield dei principali indici azionari (nel caso in questione il Dow Jones) sia superiore al rendimento delle obbligazioni governative decennali.
Benchè questa situazione fosse frequente in passato negli U.S.A. non si verificava da oltre mezzo secolo. Secondo alcuni però non si può giungere alla conclusione che le azioni siano a buon mercato, ma semplicemente che una bolla di straordinaria durata si sta lentamente sgonfiando, riportando le valutazioni più vicine a quelle in vigore nel XIX secolo e nella prima metà del XX secolo.

Le cose sono però un po' differenti se si tiene conto che in passato i dividendi erano il principale mezzo impiegato per condividere i profitti con gli azionisti. Ma le cose sono molto cambiate e negli ultimi decenni dividend payouts as a percentage of net income were falling. (...) From 1920-1950, the average S&P 500 company paid out 72% of net income in the form of dividends. From 1950-2010, that number dropped to 51%. From 1990-2007, the average was 45%. Over the past year, it's down to 33%. Today, some of the most profitable and fastest-growing companies (...) pay no dividends at all. The slow-growers (...) are where you find yield. That was unheard of 60 years ago.
More than anything, this explains why stocks consistently out-yielded bonds before 1950. Back then, stocks were essentially just high-yield bonds with variable-rate coupons. Today, companies tend to hoard net income to finance growth, acquisitions, and buybacks. It's inane to compare the two periods without adjusting for that paradigm shift.

L'idea dell'analista del Fool è di normalizzare il divendend yield fissando il payout: la cosa è naturalmente criticabile per varie ragioni, ma ugualmente vi presento le conclusioni dell'articolo:

What happens when you do? Well, if you model the past to assume that S&P companies have always paid out 33% of net income as dividends, like they do today, then prolonged periods of stocks out-yielding bonds become incredibly rare. There would have been only two such periods in modern history: from 1940-1944, and 1947-1955.
And what's neat about these two periods? They were both phenomenal times to buy stocks. In the 10 years after 1944, stocks surged 161%. In the 10 years following 1955, investors were rewarded with a 145% return -- and both figures don't include dividends.
History is pretty clear on this stuff: When stocks out-yield bonds, it's a great time to buy them. Some patience may be required, but the rewards for those patient few are invariably awesome. Today, with the average large-cap stock out-yielding Treasuries, there's little reason to think patient investors won't be rewarded like champions 10 years from now.
Ben Graham gets the last word: "The market price is frequently out of line with the true value. There is, however, an inherent tendency for these disparities to correct themselves."

Se l'analista del Fool vi convince, qui potete dare un'occhiata ad alcune caratteristiche delle 10 azioni dell'indice Dow Jones con il più alto dividend yield.