ETFReplay Portfolio for May

Among the more popular portfolios on Scott’s Investments has been the Portfolio. The strategy has been revised and improved for 2013 in order to make it simpler to follow.

I previously detailed here and here how an investor can use to screen for best performing ETFs based on momentum and volatility.   I select only the top 4 ETFs out of a static basket of  ETFs and re-balance the portfolio monthly. Previously, the static basket of ETFs was 25. This number of ETFs creates a high degree of turnover and also creates cross-over among ETFs that have a high correlations. For example, if you are only purchasing 4 ETFs each month and 2 or 3 of the ETFs are highly correlated, there is little benefit in holding more than 1 of the ETFs.

For 2013 the static basket of ETFs was reduced to 15. From this basket of 15, the top 4 will be selected each month. The portfolio will be re-balanced at the beginning of each month. When a holding drops out of the top 5 ETFs it will be sold and replaced with the next highest ranked ETF. I added the top 5 requirement in order to further limit turnover. ETFs will be ranked on a combination of their 6 month returns, 3 month returns, and 3 month volatility (lower volatility receives a higher ranking).

In addition, ETFs must be ranked above the cash ETF SHY in order to be included in the portfolio, similar to the absolute momentum strategy I profiled here. This modification could help reduce drawdowns during periods of high volatility and/or negative market conditions (see 2008-2009).

The top 5 ranked ETFs as of 4/30/13 are below:

VNQ –  Vanguard MSCI U.S. REIT
RWX – SPDR DJ International Real Estate
HYG – iShares iBoxx High-Yield Corp Bond
VTI – Vanguard MSCI Total U.S. Stock Market
LQD – iShares iBoxx Invest Grade Bond

For May there are no transactions, which is typically a good sign month to month. Current positions maintaining strength tend to equate to higher returns and lower transaction fees.

The four current positions are below:

Position Purchase Price Purchase Date Percentage Gain/Loss Excluding Dividends
RWX 40.74 10/31/2012 13.18%
HYG 94.35 3/28/2013 1.59%
VTI 78.24 2/28/2013 5.14%
VNQ 69.09 2/28/2013 8.96%

The portfolio is up over 22% since inception, which currently lags the S&P 500 (via the SPY ETF) on a nominal return basis. However, you can see the potential benefit during periods of equity pullbacks (of which we have had very few the past couple of years!) when the portfolio outperformed in 2011. It has also slightly outpaced a 60/40 balanced ETF and the Permanent Portfolio:

may etfreplay

More on this topic (What's this?)
Core ETF Report
Stocks and ETFs Still Snoozing
Read more on Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) at Wikinvest

Monday Investment Articles

Below are some investment-related articles for this week:

The Endgame is Forced Liquidation – John Hussman

Satyajit Das: The End of Growth, Part 1 and Part 2

The Alternative Road to Investing (advertisement)

Are Earnings Expectations Realistic? (pdf) & Austerity is a Consequence, not a Punishment (pdf) John Mauldin

Gold – David Kotok, Cumberland Advisors

The Lure of Hedge Funds – Research Affiliates

An Interview with Jeremy Grantham, Part 1 and Part 2 – The Guardian

Valuation Based Equity Market Forecasts – GestaltU



More on this topic (What's this?)
Stop Iran Rally In NYC, September 1, 2015
Market Outlook
Read more on CLP HLDGS, Cheung Kong (HLDGS) at Wikinvest

All Star Battle: Graham vs. Piotroski

Once per quarter I update a Graham Value Stock Portfolio (the most recent portfolio update can be viewed here). It draws inspiration from the work of a well-known investor, Benjamin Graham. The portfolio cannot precisely mimic how Graham would invest today, but it strives to remain philosophically consistent with his emphasis on value and company fundamental strength and an emphasis on stability.

Graham may be one of the best known investors of all-time, but there are myriad examples of historical and modern-day “all-star” investors. Recently, a reader asked me to investigate a Piotroski model. Joseph Piotroski is a modern academic, perhaps best known for his research paper, Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information to Separate Winners from Losers. His paper documented a systematic, accounting-based fundamental analysis strategy that historically outperformed equity indexes. He emphasized price-to-book valuation, supplemented with fundamental analysis.

Fortunately, we can easily run a “Piotroski-eque” screen using Portfolio123. The Portfolio123 Piotroski model is built on the concepts identified in his 2002 paper, although the details of implementation are Portfolio123’s. In other words, as with the Graham model, this screen/portfolio may not exactly mimic how Piotroski would invest, but it does stay true to the philosophy.

The screen uses the following rules:

Liquidity filter


Eliminate companies classified in the Miscellaneous Financial Services Industry


Trailing 12 month “Business Income,” defined as Sales minus Cost of Goods Sold minus Selling, General & Administrative expenses (unusuals that are often included in “operating Profits” are eliminated) must be in the black


Trailing 12 month Cash from Operations per share must be in the black


Trailing 12 month Cash from Operations per share must exceed trailing 12 month EPS


Trailing 12 month Gross Margin must exceed Gross Margin for the prior 12 months


Debt-to-assets in the latest quarter must be less than Debt-to-assets in the prior-year quarter


Current Ratio in the latest quarter must be less than Current Ratio in the prior-year quarter


Trailing 12 month Asset Turnover must exceed Asset Turnover for the prior 12 months


Trailing 12 month Return on assets must exceed Return on assets for the prior 12 months


Average shares outstanding in the trailing 12-month period must be less than average shares in the prior 12-month period

Among the companies that pass the above screen, the top 15 stocks are selected based on the Piotroski ranking system, which uses the following factors:

Price-to-Book, latest quarter – 50% of total


Fundamentals – 50% of total

Trailing 12 month Gross Margin minus Gross Margin for the prior 12 months (14.29% of category)


Trailing 12 month Cash from Operations per share minus trailing 12 month EPS (14.29% of category)


Debt-to-assets in the latest quarter minus Debt-to-assets in the prior-year quarter, lower is better (14.29% of category)


Current Ratio in the latest quarter minus Current Ratio in the prior-year quarter (14.29% of category)


Trailing 12 month Asset Turnover minus Asset Turnover for the prior 12 months (14.29% of category)


Trailing 12 month Return on assets minus Return on assets for the prior 12 months (14.29% of category)


Average shares outstanding in the trailing 12-month period minus average shares in the prior 12-month period, lower is better (14.29% of category)

Using the above screen and rank filters, one can backtest this strategy using Portfolio123.

The tests below were run from 1/2/1999 – 3/31/2013. The portfolio was rebalanced every four weeks. Slippage was assumed at .25% and the portfolio was 100% long at all times (no hedging or moving to cash). Return include dividends and the benchmark used was SPY. No assumption was made for taxes or commissions.

The 15-stock Piotroski Portfolio performed as follows:


We can compare these results to the Graham Portfolio. Using the same assumptions and timeframe as the Piotroski backtest, the Graham Portfolio performed as follows:



Both models have performed well since 1999, with annual returns in excess of 20%. However, the Piotroski  25.04% annual return and .78 Sharpe Ratio well outpaced the 20.07% annual return and .59 Sharpe Ratio for Graham.

Both models suffered large drawdowns in 2008, with the Piotroski model suffering a drawdown of 61.81% (ouch!). A 61.81% drawdown is more than a footnote, especially for the investor suffering through it. The Graham model did not fare much better, with a 56.31% drawdown, and index investors (via SPY) experienced a 55.42% drawdown!

To help reduce these drawdowns, I added a “Hedge” rule to the Piotroski model. When the benchmark (SPY) was below its 200 day simple moving average on the model’s rebalance date, the model still went long the top 15 stocks (same rules as above) but simultaneously shorted SPY until the next rebalance date.

No assumption for carrying costs (margin interest) was assumed in this test. These costs would reduce returns in the real world. However, the present-day accessibility of inverse ETFs could help mitigate these costs, since an investor could go long a 1x inverse ETF and avoid margin interest.

The hedge rule increased the Piotroski Sharpe Ratio to .98 and decreased the max drawdown to -37.01% (still not a pleasant experience, but significantly improved from -61.81%). Annualized return increased in this test to 26.55%:

(Test results courtesy of Portfolio123)

Piotroski Hedged

The future could bring very different results for these models. However, the application of fundamental and value-oriented criteria, combined with simple momentum based hedging rules, has generated strong returns since 1999.

4/22/13 clarification: The amount of the SPY short was equal to the amount of the 15 holdings, or, a 100% hedge.

More on this topic (What's this?) Read more on Henders Land Dev at Wikinvest

The Gold Meltdown – What Happened?

I truly enjoy technical analysis but due to time limitations I am not posting much T.A. on the site any longer. For those of you wanting to learn more on the recent plunge in Gold prices here is a video/commentary from Adam Hewison of MarketClub:

In today’s Trade School video, we’re going to be looking into what caused the recent meltdown in gold prices. How could gold drop so precipitously in such a short time, given what’s going on in the world? Did it have anything to do with the ETF GLD or was a country forced to sell its precious metals to satisfy creditors?


In this short 4 minute video on gold,  I will illustrate the importance of having a solid game plan and a market-proven approach. We will go through each trade in gold and share with you the results of using our Trade Triangle approach from the beginning of the year.

MarketClub is a sponsor of Scott’s Investments.

More on this topic (What's this?) Read more on Gold at Wikinvest

Graham Value Stock Portfolio Update

In January 2012 I announced a new portfolio, a Benjamin Graham “inspired” value stock portfolio.  The purpose of the hypothetical portfolio is to track returns for a portfolio of 15 stocks selected based on a variety of valuation metrics.

I originally intended to update the portfolio monthly; however, in the spirit of creating a lower turnover, value-driven portfolio it is now updated approximately once per quarter. I have also added an additional criteria to limit turnover in the portfolio (see below). The Graham portfolio is an attempt to add a value strategy to Scott’s Investments, which is otherwise focused on momentum, trend, income and market timing strategies.

The criteria used to select the stocks are listed below.  The tool used to perform the screen and backtests are courtesy of  Portfolio123 (“P123″).

The actual screen factors are below:

  • Liquidity filter: No OTC Stocks
  • Market capitalization > $100 million
  • Eliminate companies classified in the Miscellaneous Financial Services Industry, most of which are investment companies and funds and not the kind of stocks this all-star tended to seek
  • Current ratio must be at least 1.5
  • Long-term debt must be no higher than 10% above working capital
  • EPS must be above breakeven in each of the last four quarters and in each of the last five annual periods
  • Trailing 12 month EPS most be above EPS in the latest annual period
  • EPS in the latest annual period must be above EPS in the prior year and five years ago
  • The company must have paid common dividends in the last 12 months

The ranking system used as a basis for selecting the top 15 based among those stocks that pass the Graham screen are below:

  • Valuation – 60% of total
  • Trailing 12 month P/E (15% of this category)
  • Price-to-Book (15% of this category)
  • Price-to-Tangible Book Value (35% of this category)
  • Operating P/E, defined as Market Capitalization divided by Business Income, which is Sales minus Cost of Goods sold minus Selling, General & Administrative Expense and omits unusual items (35% of this category)
  • Earnings – 40% of total
  • 5-year EPS Growth Rate (50% of this category)
  • EPS Stability, defined as the standard deviation of EPS over the past 16 quarters, lower being better (50% of this category)

I began tracking this portfolio real-time on January 13th, 2012.  As of this writing the portfolio is up 6.53% (including dividends) since inception.

The portfolio has been hampered by big drawdowns in a handful of names, which the quantitative rules continue to define as undervalued. These are excellent examples of the challenges in value investing – a stock could be defined as under-valued for a good reason, and may remain so for a significant period of time, perhaps years or forever if the company has experienced a permanent and material change in operations (a “value trap”). On the other hand, under-valued stocks may lag longer than investors wish, but patient, longer-term investors who aptly select value stocks can be rewarded in the long-run.

A real-world application of this portfolio could also utilize stop losses in order to prevent large drawdowns in single positions. However, for the purposes of tracking the portfolio results, all positions are bought and held until rebalancing.

In July 2012 I added a rule to limit portfolio turnover – stocks will only be sold when they drop out of the top 20 in Graham Value screen.  Thus, a stock could theoretically drop to the 20th ranking but remain in the 15 stock portfolio if it is a current holding.

Small cap and less liquid equities appearing frequently on the list. This makes for a potentially more volatile, higher beta list of equities and also led to some early drawdowns in the portfolio. The screen excludes stocks with a market cap less than $100 million.

The top 20 stocks based on the screen criteria are listed below:

Ticker Name Rank MktCap
TESS TESSCO Technologies Inc 91.34 169.29
WDC Western Digital Corp 89.31 12609.12
CF CF Industries Holdings Inc 87.86 11472.19
AGI Alamos Gold Inc 86.33 1396.06
WMK Weis Markets Inc. 85.91 1082.64
HFC HollyFrontier Corp 85.69 9532.34
MRTN Marten Transport Ltd 84.41 430.7
NATR Nature’s Sunshine Products Inc 83.89 236.52
JOY Joy Global Inc 83.22 5785.04
SWM Schweitzer-Mauduit Intl Inc 81.58 1229.01
CUB Cubic Corp 80.17 1138.69
HP Helmerich & Payne Inc. 79.25 6517.89
AGU Agrium Inc. 78.81 13928.38
AAPL Apple Inc 78.56 403570.59
IDCC InterDigital Inc 76.83 1798.81
NOV National Oilwell Varco Inc 75.16 29398.26
SXT Sensient Technologies Corp 69.08 1911.57
UNF UniFirst Corp 69 1845.12
SCL Stepan Co 68.09 1345.64
IPAR Inter Parfums Inc 67.91 827.16

Below are 3, 5, and 10 year backtest results for this screen (with the $100 million market cap requirement) using a quarterly rebalance and .50% slippage to help account for bid/ask spreads and commission costs. The backtest also includes the rule to sell a stock only when it dropped out of the top 20 in the list:






Significant drawdowns have plagued the strategy, especially during 2008.  What if we hedged the portfolio during technical weakness in the overall market?

Below are the 10 year results if we are 100% long the 15 stocks in the portfolio when SPY is above its 200 day simple moving average. When SPY is below its 200 day moving average the portfolio is long the 15 stocks and holds an equal short position in SPY (“100% Hedged”).

In the results below the hedge is re-balanced every 3 months. A more active and practical hedge would re-rebalance the SPY hedge on a monthly basis while still re-balancing the individual stocks every 3 months to limit turnover.

Shorting the market may not be practical for all investors and involves carrying costs (not accounted for in the results below), however, inverse ETFs like the ProShares Short S&P 500 (SH) can make hedging more practical for individual investors.



Eight stocks were sold today in the portfolio:

Symbol Name Purchase Date Percentage Gain/Loss
CSH Cash America International Inc. 1/15/2013 10.13%
PAAS Pan American Silver Corp 7/17/2012 -9.09%
TRLG True Religion 1/15/2013 3.59%
MANT Mantech International Corp 2/15/2012 -30.63%
ALG Alamo Group, Inc. 3/14/2012 36.48%
CVX Chevron Corporation 1/13/2012 9.88%
PLPC Preformed Line Products Company 3/14/2012 11.33%
HUM Humana Inc. 3/14/2012 -13.01%

The current portfolio as of today’s close:


Symbol Name Purchase Date Percentage Gain/Loss
WDC Western Digital 1/15/2013 14.09%
AGI Alamos Gold Inc 4/15/2013 0.00%
HFC HollyFrontier Corp 4/15/2013 0.00%
MRTN Marten Transport Ltd 4/15/2013 0.00%
NATR Nature’s Sunshine Products Inc 4/15/2013 0.00%
HP Helmerich & Payne Inc. 7/17/2012 29.97%
KNM Konami Corp 1/15/2013 -8.62%
JOY Joy Global Inc 4/15/2013 0.00%
CUB Cubic Corp 4/15/2013 0.00%
SWM Schweitzer-Mauduit Intl Inc 10/15/2012 15.20%
WMK Weis Markets Inc. 1/15/2013 1.81%
AGU Agrium Inc. 4/15/2013 0.00%
AAPL Apple Inc 4/15/2013 0.00%
TESS TESSCO Technologies Inc 7/17/2012 -0.19%
CF CF Industries Holdings Inc 1/15/2013 -19.13%

As of this update, a minimum liquidity filter has also been added, requiring 20,000 shares or greater in average daily volume over the preceding 20 days. KNM did not qualify under this new condition but was retained in the portfolio in order to limit turnover.

Sunday Readings

Below are investment articles I am reading this weekend.

I will be updating the Graham Value Stock portfolio Monday evening using the power Portfolio123 platform.

Momentum-Based AllocationDo Valuations Matter for Practical Market Timing? – Empiritrage

15,000 Point Round Trip & How to Help Your Portfolio in the Next Market Crash – Barry Ritholtz

A Man in the Mirror – Bill Gross

Assume a Perfect World (pdf) – John Mauldin

Increasingly Immediate Impulses to By the Dip (or, How to Blow a Bubble) – John Hussman

More on this topic (What's this?)
Assume a Perfect World
Leader Charts
Review: Value Stock Guide Premium
Read more on Value Investing, Perfect World at Wikinvest

Absolute Momentum Portfolio Strategies

Gary Antonacci has just posted a new research paper on absolute momentum. I encourage everyone to check it out. Some of his previous research served as a catalyst for the Dual ETF Momentum tracker on Scott’s Investments.

The current signals as of today’s close for the Dual ETF Momentum portfolio is below. As a reminder, the portfolio is not intended as an optimal portfolio or the ideal mix of asset classes, but does show how to put relative and absolute momentum into action:

Return data courtesy of Finviz

Equity Symbol 1 Year % Total Returns Average of Quarterly/Half/Full Year % Returns Signal based on 1 year returns Signal based on average returns
US Equities VTI 16.38 12.17 Invested Invested
International Equities VEU 12.23 7.96
Cash SHY 0.52 0.26
Credit Risk Symbol 1 Year % Total Returns Average of Quarterly/Half/Full Year % Returns Signal based on 1 year returns Signal based on average returns
High Yield Bond HYG 12.17 6.57 Invested Invested
Interm Credit Bond CIU 5.59 2.46
Cash SHY 0.52 0.26
Real-Estate Risk Symbol 1 Year % Total Returns Average of Quarterly/Half/Full Year % Returns Signal based on 1 year returns Signal based on average returns
Equity REIT VNQ 20.76 15.31
Mortgage REIT REM 29.84 16.93 Invested Invested
Cash SHY 0.52 0.26
Economic Stress Symbol 1 Year % Total Returns Average of Quarterly/Half/Full Year % Returns Signal based on 1 year returns Signal based on average returns
Gold GLD -4.78 -8.02
Long-term Treasuries TLT 8.74 2.91 Invested Invested
Cash SHY 0.52 0.26

I decided to backtest variants of the absolute momentum strategy Antonacci discusses in his newest paper.  I used for the tests and created mutual fund portfolios (as opposed to ETFs) due to their longer trading histories. For commodities I used the GSCI Index.

The basic premise of absolute momentum is that a security must outperform a risk-free asset (such as short-term treasuries or “cash”) over the look-back period (i.e. the past 6, 10, 12 month, etc., returns).

The test below was rebalanced monthly, a 12-month look-back period was used and the Vanguard Short-Term Treasury Fund (VFISX) was used as the cash filter. In other words, if a security in the portfolio had not outperformed VFISX over the past 12 months then the security was sold and replaced with cash for one month.

The Parity Portfolio was comprised of the following securities and was created to closely (but not precisely) mimic the “Parity Portfolio” used in Antonacci’s absolute momentum paper:

Parity Portfolio
GTY S&P GSCI Commodity (Index)
VFICX Vanguard Intermediate-Term Investment-Grade Fund
VGSIX Vanguard REIT Index Fund
VTSMX Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund
VUSTX Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Fund

I tested a variety of portfolios from 2003 to April 8th, 2013. The Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund (VFINX) was tested both as a buy-and-hold and with a 12-month absolute momentum strategy. The Parity Portfolio was tested as a buy-and-hold (with an annual rebalance) and with a 12-month absolute momentum strategy. For comparison purposes I also tested the historical returns of the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (VBINX).

The test results:

2003-Present VFINX (S&P 500) VFINX w/ abs Momentum VBINX (60/40), Buy & Hold Parity Portfolio (rebalanced annually) Parity Portfolio w/ abs Momentum
Total Return 116.50% 147.70% 110.60% 126.80% 120.40%
CAGR 7.80% 9.30% 7.50% 8.30% 8%
Volatility 20.60% 12.70% 12.10% 11.40% 7.10%
Max Drawdown -55.30% -22.30% -36% -40.15% -11.90%
Sharpe 0.31 0.52 0.4 0.52 0.73

Using 12-month absolute momentum improved risk adjusted returns for both the Parity Portfolio and VFINX. Maximum drawdown and volatility was also significantly reduced. Total return for the annual rebalance Parity Portfolio was slightly higher, but at higher volatility and with a -40.15% drawdown versus the -11.90% drawdown using absolute momentum on the same portfolio.

Food for thought!

April Dividend Champion Portfolio

In December 2010, I created a screen/hypothetical portfolio called the “High Yield Dividend Champion Portfolio.” The screen is tracked publicly as a continuous hypothetical portfolio with a starting balance of $100,000 on Scott’s Investments.

Like many of the screens, strategies, and portfolios I track and prefer, the High Yield Dividend Champion Portfolio uses a small number of historically relevant ideas to create a simple, yet powerful investment plan. As I previously detailed, “Some studies have shown that the, highest yielding, low payout stocks perform better over time than stocks with higher payouts and lower yields.”

The High Yield Dividend Champion Portfolio attempts to capture the best high yield, low payout stocks with a history of raising dividends. There are numerous ways to rank high yield/low payout stocks. The screening process for this portfolio starts with the “Dividend Champions” as compiled by DRIP Investing. The list is comprised of stocks that have increased their dividend payout for at least 25 consecutive years.

In January I announced some changes to the ranking system. The changes were not due to poor performance – the strategy has returned over 55% since late 2010:

We still begin with the Dividend Champion list. The list is first sorted by yield and the lowest 50% yielding stocks are eliminated. Eliminating the lowest yielding stocks ensures only stocks with a “high” yield make the portfolio.

The remaining stocks are then assigned a rank based on their yield (the higher the yield the higher the rank), payout ratio (the lower the payout ratio the higher the rank), 3 year dividend growth rate, and 5/10 year Dividend Acceleration/Deceleration (5-year average increase divided by 10-year average increase).  Extra weight is given to yield and payout ratio rankings.

The top 10 stocks based on the new ranking system make the portfolio. Stocks will be sold at the re-balance date (generally around the 5th of the month) when they drop out of the top 15 (to limit turnover) and are replaced with the next highest rated stock.

This month there are three new positions. Walgreens (WAG) was sold for a gain of 26.44% (excluding dividends) and an original purchase date of 1/7/13. WAG’s yield no longer meets the threshold for inclusion in the highest yielding Dividend Champions. Its recent price appreciation has dropped its yield to 2.34%:

(chart courtesy of Finviz)

American States Water (AWR) was sold for a gain of 10.69% (excluding dividends) and a purchase date of 2/5/13.  Like WAG, it no longer meets the yield threshold for inclusion in the highest yielding Dividend Champions due to its recent price appreciation. The sale of AWR highlights one of the limitations of a ranking system that uses a “hard” cut-off based on yield. AWR’s yield was ranked 56th out of 105 Dividend Champions at the end of March, just out of the top 50% yielding stocks. Discretion could be used in situations like this when turnover is a concern, but my objective is to create a purely mechanical ranking system.

(Chart courtesy of Portfolio123)

Universal Health Realty Trust (UHT) is the third sale this month. It was sold for a gain of 35.57% (excluding dividends) and an original purchase date of 7/3/12.  UHT still maintains a high yield, but its high payout ratio and low relative dividend growth caused its overall ranking to drop.

Proceeds from the sales were used to purchase California Water Services (CWT), ExxonMobil (XOM), and Northwest Natural Gas (NWN).  XOM’s yield rank was 53rd out of 105; thus, we could see a similar situation next month with XOM as we did this month with AWR.  Any significant price appreciation could cause its yield to drop out of the top half. If turnover was a concern, AWR could be held and XOM not purchased this month.

The top 17 stocks based on my ranking methodology are below and displayed in order of their overall ranking (figures are March month-end):

Name Symbol Yield Payout 5/10 A/D 3-yr DGR
Chevron Corp. CVX 3.03 27.03 0.956 9.7
WGL Holdings Inc. WGL 3.81 61.09 1.347 2.9
Altria Group Inc. MO 5.12 85.44 1.251 8.7
Air Products & Chem. APD 3.26 57.96 0.937 11.8
California Water Service CWT 3.22 54.70 1.407 2.2
UGI Corp. UGI 2.81 57.14 1.147 10.5
ExxonMobil Corp. XOM 2.53 23.53 1.081 9.5
Northwest Natural Gas NWN 4.15 81.98 1.245 3.8
Universal Corp. UVV 3.57 43.01 0.585 2.1
Genuine Parts Co. GPC 2.76 51.93 1.170 6.8
Procter & Gamble Co. PG 2.92 57.64 0.942 8.7
Questar Corp. STR 2.79 57.14 1.035 9.6
Tompkins Financial Corp. TMP 3.60 62.04 0.843 5.7
Pitney Bowes Inc. PBI 10.09 69.44 1.066 1.4
Emerson Electric EMR 2.94 58.57 1.083 6.7
Eagle Financial Services EFSI 3.44 38.78 0.310 2.4
Leggett & Platt Inc. LEG 3.43 69.05 1.153 3.8

The current portfolio is below:

Position Purchase Date Percentage Gain/Loss Excluding Dividends Current Yield
CVX 12/6/2012 10.40% 3.06%
WGL 12/6/2012 13.57% 3.83%
GPC 1/7/2013 17.42% 2.79%
UVV 4/5/2012 20.53% 3.64%
CWT 4/5/2013 0.00% 3.24%
APD 2/5/2013 -2.70% 3.01%
XOM 4/5/2013 0.00% 2.56%
MO 3/5/2013 1.75% 5.05%
UGI 3/5/2013 5.52% 2.81%
NWN 4/5/2013 0.00% 4.11%

All returns exclude commissions and taxes and are hypothetical. Real results will differ.

If you enjoy these free tools, please consider making a donation on the home page of Scott’s Investments using the Paypal link in the upper-right corner!

More on this topic (What's this?) Read more on Dividend Investing at Wikinvest

Market Readings

Below are some investment articles I am reading this week:

AlphaClone is doing a “clone madness” (a la “March Madness”), pitting top Hedge Funds against each other in a  bracket format. Worth checking out

Random Tactical Asset Allocation – Turnkey Analyst

Man vs Machine &  Applied Academic Research – Empiritrage

You Can’t Be Serious & Cyprus Has Finally Killed Myth That EM Is Benign (pdf) – John Mauldin

Is the Stock Market Cheap? Doug Short

Satyajit Das: 6 Ways the Cyprus Solution Will Exacerbate the European Debt Crisis