DRIPS – A Scary Tool For Investing
Many investment advisors advocate for the use of dividend reinvestment programs (DRIPS) in their client’s portfolios. Some brokerage accounts actually have the setting defaulted to automatically reinvest dividends into the underlying companies when a customer opens a new account. I believe this is a big mistake.
Take a look at the share prices of Best Buy (BBY) and Hewlett Packard (HPQ) today. They are making new 10 year lows. The business model of both of these companies is broken. However, both companies have had a history of paying a nice dividend. If an investor had been banking those dividends for the past decade, they may still be down in both positions, but they would have had a substantial amount of their initial investment recouped, just from the dividend checks.
The story is quite different if they participated in a dividend reinvestment program, as the majority of those dividend payments over the past decade would have been reinvested in the companies at much higher prices, eroding the value of all of those dividend payments.
The underlying problem with DRIPS is that very few businesses stand the test of time. Industries change, technology changes, consumer tastes change, and companies have to keep reinventing themselves if they are going to survive. In many cases this simply does not happen.
Just ask the shareholders of Eastman Kodak. It paid a healthy dividend for the past 50 years. If you had invested in the company 50 years ago, and had been banking those dividend checks, your initial investment in the company would have been worth a small fortune just from all the quarterly dividend payments you had received.
But if you had been participating in a DRIP, all of those dividend payments, and all of that cash would have been gone when Eastman Kodak filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. You would have lost it all.
DRIPS work great in companies that continue to grow and stand the test of time. But most companies do not. Placing all your bets that the companies in your investment portfolio will be there when you retire is simply a very scary bet to place. The best way to continue to build your portfolio is to bank those dividend checks and invest them in other stocks and other sectors. Those dividend checks are the natural way to diversify out of core holdings, because very few companies last forever.





I have my account DRIP-ing, and I believe, it is, on average a good thing. You still have to pay attention to your holdings and ask “Would I buy this stock today ?” – because every quarter you do ! When you answer “NO”, SELL the stock. Not that tricky !
DRIPS are also commission free. No $10 to buy and $10 to sell. Your selling cost is baked into your original position.
Hi TMoney,
Agreed. If you manage your portfolio and pay attention to your holdings, you’ll be fine with a DRIP. Unfortunately many investors do not manage their portfolio holdings. It is these passive investors that could wake up one day with an HPQ or BBY in their portfolio having been seriously disadvantaged by their participation in a DRIP.
It’s easy to pull companies out in isolation, especially tech companies but I could just as easily pull out Grace Groner’s 1935 $180 investment in ABBOTT Labs DRIP in her retirement account. She died about 2 years ago leaving the ABT account to Wake Forest College. Value: $7,000,000 paying over $250,000/year in dividends. The article also fails to mention using the fee free stock purchase plans (SPP) attached to many DRIPs. The again, brokers don’t get commissions from them.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the comment. Abbott Labs is one of those companies that have stood the test of time. I mention that in the last paragraph. If you can pick those types of companies to invest in, then DRIPs can work well for you. The problem is, finding those companies that will survive for 75 years is not that easy, and without a DRIP, even investments like Eastman Kodak could have still been quite profitable.
http://www.dripinvesting.org/Articles/Canadian-DRiPper/2011/The-Upside-of-DRIPs.htm
The way I look at it:
Who’s better off? A DRIPper or a mutual fund investor investing in equal weights of 10 companies for 0ne year and one company goes belly up?
Well, the DRIPper has a definite $0.00 showing in their portfolio while the fund artfully hides this fact in an adjusted NAV.
Yet the DRIPper’s portfolio value is higher.
Why?
No MERs.
PS: I own 30 DRIPs