To me, fair value, as it relates to common stock investments, is manifest when the current earnings yield provided by the company’s profits compensates me for the risk I am taking by providing both a realistic and acceptable return on my invested capital.

When it comes to writing about investing in common stocks, my favorite theme typically revolves around valuation. In fact, I once had a reader dub me “Mr. Valuation.” Which, I might add was very flattering to me.

An article on when to sell a stock would not be complete without some discussion about what I consider to be the worst reason to sell a stock. Ironically, this reason may be the one that is most commonly implemented by investors.

Before I get too deep into this article, I want to start out by stating that Microsoft (MSFT) has long been one of my favorite companies. Many years ago, I invested in Microsoft as a pure growth stock and sold it in 2000 when it became dangerous overvalued after making a very healthy long-term profit.

The most common complaint that I have heard from investors over my 49+ years in the financial services industry is as follows: “Everyone wants to tell me what to buy and when, but no one ever tells me when to sell.”

The key to success is to find and implement the strategy that best fits your own unique goals, objectives, needs, and most importantly – risk tolerances.

This article is a refresh and an update of an article I originally posted in 2015. However, the principles I am presenting are timeless and worthy of being revisited.

One of the great benefits for subscribing to The Dividend Kings service are the carefully-selected portfolios presented in our portfolio tracker. However, I want to caution the subscriber that these portfolios should not be looked at as simply cut-and-paste investment options.

This article is a refresh and an update of an article I originally posted in 2015. However, the principles I am presenting are timeless and worthy of being revisited. Moreover, I have updated the supporting examples to more precisely reflect our current market environment.

One of my greatest pet peeves as a long-time investment professional is the industries’ notion that stocks can be generally categorized into only two styles commonly referred to as growth investing or value investing.

I have held AbbVie (ABBV) since it was originally spun off from Abbott Labs. Moreover, I have been aggressively adding to my position for clients needing current income and dividend growth.

I am a firm believer and ardent supporter of conducting comprehensive research and due diligence on any company (stock) you might consider investing in. However, I have also experienced the reality that far too many investors make their decisions based on opinions, emotions or vague ideas about a company...

In his Berkshire Hathaway 1994 annual report Warren Buffett said ignore political and economic forecasts. I considered this one of the more profound pieces of investment advice and wisdom that I ever came across.

My personal anecdotal experience suggests that many investors operate under the fallacy: “my mind’s made up – don’t confuse me with the facts.” This behavior often results from only reading the headlines while skimming over the in-depth analysis that is truly needed to make a sound or prudent investing decision.

Avon’s Historical Operating Results and Price Action Since 2008 Avon’s earnings have continuously eroded and its stock price has followed. Moreover, after its dividend grew for many years, the company cut it by 18 ½% for 2012, slashed it an additional 68% in 2013 and then eliminated their dividend altogether in 2016.

This is a follow-up to my first article in a continuing series where I will be identifying and presenting dividend growth stocks for an above-average long-term total return objective.

This is the first in a continuing series where I identify and present dividend growth stocks for an above-average long-term total return objective. Throughout this series I will be illustrating that there are several prudent sources of long-term return and there is also luck or chance.

I find it serendipitous that after just completing a 19-part series on how highly valued the general market is, I get the pause that refreshes. Now please don’t read more into my words than are being offered. I still believe that the market at large is fully valued.

This is part 19 and the final part of my series covering all the various sectors reported by FactSet. However, the popular idea of saving the best for last does not apply in this instance.

As a rule, I have never been very fascinated by the Transportation Sector. This is especially true regarding airlines and air transport companies. Nevertheless, there are two airlines and two air freight carriers in the Transportation Sector that I felt comfortable featuring in this article.

Technology Services Sector covered in this article is a sector where overvaluation is rampant. In other words, this is currently a hot sector where sound valuation has been thrown out the window in favor of what I can only describe as hype and speculation.

Simply Google the phrase “what effect is Amazon having on retail” and you’ll discover a significant amount of information, articles and theories. Personally, I found the following article written by Susan Ward that articulated the sales of brick-and-mortar versus online to be quite illuminating.

Although I consider the overall stock market as represented by the S&P 500 to be overvalued, not all stocks are overvalued.

One of the main goals of this series of articles is to illustrate the significant differences between individual stocks, and the significant differences between different sectors. Therefore, from this perspective, I have been attempting to illustrate the “nature of the beast” for each of the sectors I have covered.

The Non-Energy Minerals Sector is mostly comprised of very cyclical and typically commodity-based companies. Consequently, very few companies in this sector offer the consistency and predictability that prudent and/or conservative investors might require.

A major goal of this series on sectors is to illustrate the reality that it is a market of stocks rather than a stock market. With this article I am technically covering the Industrial Services Sector.

Although many Health Technology Sector companies have significantly outperformed the market on a long-term basis, they have significantly underperformed the market since the beginning of 2015.

The Health Services Sector is one of the smallest sectors as presented by FactSet as it only contains 137 companies out of more than 19,000 in the US and Canadian universe.

I found more value in the Finance Sector than I did in any other sector that I screened. All in all, I identified 131 attractively valued companies out of the 1,888 companies in the Finance Sector.

The Energy Minerals Sector is comprised of 619 companies. And, as it is with every sector, they come in all shapes, sizes and colors. However, a common attribute that is shared by most companies in this sector is a significant amount of cyclicality in their operating results, i.e., earnings and cash flows.

My primary objective is to illustrate how different individual companies are from each other, and even how different companies operating in the same sector can be. It is a market of stocks not a stock market.

As I stated in previous articles in this series, my primary objective is to provide the reader with a clear perspective of just how different individual stocks are and how different companies operating in different sectors are.

As I stated in the introduction in Part 4 of this series, my primary objective is to provide the reader with a clear perspective of just how different individual stocks are and how different companies operating in different sectors are.

My primary objective with this series of articles (identifying attractively valued stocks in different sectors) is to provide the reader with a clear perspective of just how different individual stocks are and how different companies operating in different sectors are.

This is part 3 of a series where I have conducted a simple screening looking for value over the overall market based on industry classifications and subindustry classifications reported by FactSet Research Systems, Inc.

This is part 2 of a series where I have conducted a simple screening looking for value over the overall market based on industry classifications and subindustry classifications reported by FactSet Research Systems, Inc.

Although most investors hate bearish stock market activity, value investors – like yours truly -relish them. Moreover, bearish market activity becomes especially welcome after extended periods of high valuation like we have been experiencing since calendar year 2014. High valuations make it very difficult for value investors to find attractive common stock investments.

Nothing clears the pallet of a diehard value investor better than a good old-fashioned bear market. In calendar year 2018 – and especially December 2018 – we were given what I would call a bear market. However, not all bear markets are the same.

The primary objective of this article is to help the reader put this recent bad market in perspective and simultaneously provide lessons in valuation and how to think about stock prices. There have been many sage pieces of wisdom that have been provided to investors by investing greats.

In part 2B of my current series on building and diversifying a dividend growth portfolio I presented 20 dividend growth stocks. However, in the FAST Graph analyze out loud video I only covered 11 of the 20 companies, one for each of the major sectors. As a result, I have had requests to provide a FAST Graph analyze out loud video on the remaining 9 companies.

Introduction This current series of articles could be summarized as a review of ways to construct and diversify a common stock portfolio. In part 1 found here I discussed various viewpoints on how many stocks a portfolio should hold. In Part 2A found here I presented and discussed Peter Lynch’s 6 general categories of stocks.

On October 23, 2015 I wrote an article titled “Retirees: I Did Not Buy IBM to Sell; It’s about the Dividend Income Stupid.” At the time I published the article, I was long International Business Machine (IBM) and remain long today. With the article I attempted to illustrate why I was including IBM in retirement portfolios.

In part 1 of this series titled “How Many Stocks Should I Own?” found here, I focused primarily on how many stocks an investor might need to hold in a stock portfolio for adequate diversification. In this part 2, my focus will shift to category selections.

One of the most commonly asked questions I receive from investors is: how many stocks should I put in my portfolio? This is a widely debated subject that is most commonly referred to as concentrated versus widely diversified portfolio construction.

All investing is not done with the same objectives or goals in mind. This applies to investing in common stocks just as it does to investing in real estate, commodities, fixed income vehicles, fine art or collectibles – and any other investment that comes to mind. There are times when investors are looking for maximum total return, which is often automatically associated with buying a stock.

We remain in one of the longest bull markets in history. Generally, with bull markets stocks tend to become highly valued. Additionally, we also continue to find ourselves in a low interest rate environment based on historical standards.

One of my favorite Warren Buffett quotes is “investing is most intelligent when it is most businesslike.” The reason this quote resonates so much with me is because I believe it represents the essence of value investing.

I believe that two of the most important investing principles that prudent investors should embrace are valuation and time in the market. Consequently, the title of this article is mildly misleading, because both concepts are extremely important towards achieving long-term investing success. In other words, I believe attempting to argue the importance of one over the other is a waste of time and energy.

In my most recent article a reader made a comment where a question was asked that I believe deserved a good answer. The following excerpt of the comment really reached out to me because this person claims to have been asking this question for 5 years without receiving a good answer.