WallStreetBeerMoney.com

"Do Your Own Due Diligence, But By God, Don't Drink Away Your Equity!"

dave@wallstreetbeermoney.com

HOME ABOUT WSBM

HOW TO READ A BALANCE SHEET

Who Has The Better Dividends: Procter & Gamble Or Kimberly-Clark?

February 11, 2014

There are a lot of things that one must consider prior to buying stock in a publicly-traded company. Some of these things include the strength of a company's business model, geographic diversification, financial condition, valuation, and earnings growth.

Another important concern is the dividend that the company in question pays out. Strength and sustainability of the dividend are very important for dividend growth investors. In fact, did you know that 42% of the total return of the S&P 500 over the last 80+ years came from dividends? This is why dividends are so important for any investment portfolio.

Today, let's dig into the consumer staples sector and check out the dividends from Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark. As most everyone knows, these two companies produce everything from toothpaste to toilet paper to household cleaning products. We will look into the dividend history of each company, its historical dividend growth rates, whether or not each company's dividend is supported by cash flows, and whether the companies can sustain their dividend growth rates in the future.

Dividend Yield

When talking about a company's dividend, the first thing that normally comes to mind is the dividend yield, which is the percentage of your capital that you receive in return over the next 12 months, as long as the dividend amount is not changed. Here are the dividend yields from both P&G and Kimberly-Clark.

Procter & Gamble 3.1%
Kimberly-Clark 3.0%

 

Table 1: Dividend Yields Of Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark

There's no clear winner in this category, unless you want to quibble over 0.1% :).

Dividend Growth

The dividend yield is just one of many factors that need to be considered when it comes to the strength of a company's dividend. A company's stock can have a high dividend yield due to an unsustainable dividend payout ratio, or poor fundamentals that have brought down the stock price. These items could then lead to a dividend cut, which will reduce your yield on cost.

Dividend growth should also be considered. This is because a company that increases its dividend payout every year maintains the purchasing power of the income streams that are received by its investors. If dividend growth rates can't keep up with inflation, then investors are really losing money when they consider the loss in purchasing power. Dividend increases also signal a strong outlook by management and underscores their commitment to shareholders. Many companies regard their dividends as a sacred cow. Over time, dividend growth can supercharge an investor's yield on cost. Consider Warren Buffett, who started buying Coca-Cola back in the '80s. Now, he receives a yield on cost of 40%, and growing every year as long as Coca-Cola keeps increasing their payout. Sounds like a pretty good deal, no?

Let's see how the dividends of Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark have grown over the last 5 years. The numbers in the table represent the average dividend growth rate over the last five years.

Procter & Gamble 8.5%
Kimberly-Clark 6.9%

 

Table 2: Five-Year Dividend Growth Rates of Procter & Gamble and Clorox

The dividend growth rates that we see here are excellent, blowing away inflation, increasing the real purchasing power for every investor. We should note that Kimberly-Clark's numbers are skewed to the downside a bit, as the company only raised its dividend by 3.4% during 2009. Last year, the company raised the dividend by 9.5%, while P&G only raised theirs 7.1%. Procter & Gamble has increased its dividend every year for the last 57 years. Kimberly-Clark has increased its payout in 41 straight years.

This strong dividend history could not have happened without each company's exceptionally strong business models and brand strength. For right now, Procter & Gamble is the winner, when looking at dividend growth over the last five years.

Dividend Payout Ratio

High dividend yields and strong growth rates are all well and good, but we need to make sure that the company in question is making enough money to keep the dividends going. This is where the dividend payout ratio comes in. The payout ratio is the percentage of the company's profits that get returned to shareholders in the form of dividends. You usually like to see this ratio at 60% or below, as that will insure that the dividends will continue to get paid, even if the company experiences a downturn over a short period. Dividend payout ratios that approach or exceed 100% may signal future dividend freezes or cuts, which are not good at all for investors.

The table below shows the dividend payout ratios for Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark, both on a trailing twelve month and a four-year average basis. The earnings that I used in these calculations are referred to as core earnings, which remove one-time items that don't have an impact on the company's operations.

Company TTM 4-Year Average
Procter & Gamble 57% 54%
Kimberly-Clark 53% 55%

 

Table 3: Dividend Payout Ratios of Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark

From the looks of Table 3, the dividend payments of both Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark are in pretty decent shape. None of them appear to be in any danger of getting cut. The current payout ratios are inline with the four-year averages.

While both companies are looking very good in this category, there is no clear winner here, due to being so evenly matched.

How About That Free Cash Flow?

A lot of folks would end their analysis after calculating the dividend payout ratio. However, we need to keep in mind that that figure is based on dividend payout as a percentage of earnings, not actual cash that comes into the business over a certain period of time. Earnings often contain items like depreciation, asset impairments, actuarial gains on pension plans, and other non-cash items that can distort the picture as to how healthy a company's dividend really is. For this reason, I like to calculate the free cash flow payout ratio, which shows us what percentage of cash that comes in over a 12-month period gets distributed to shareholders. This paints a more accurate picture when it comes to the dividend safety of the company in question.

Table 4 shows how much of both Procter & Gamble's and Kimberly-Clark's free cash flow was paid out in dividends. Note that free cash flow is calculated as operating cash flow, subtracted by capital expenditures. Trailing 12-month and four-year average figures are shown.

Company TTM 4-Year Average
Procter & Gamble 71% 64%
Kimberly-Clark 58% 63%

 

Table 4: Free Cash Flow Payout Ratios of Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark

Here, we see that the dividends that are currently coming from each company are more than well-supported. With that said, the current free cash flow payout ratio of Procter & Gamble is a bit elevated when compared to what has been seen over the last several years. With the free cash flow payout ratio in the 70% area, I would expect to see the dividend growth of Procter & Gamble slow down a bit in the years to come unless the company can show some growth in free cash flow.

Kimberly-Clark on the other hand, looks really good here, with a lower free cash flow payout ratio that shows more potential for dividend growth going forward.

When it comes to the free cash flow payout ratio, Kimberly-Clark is the winner here.

Any Ways To Predict Dividends Going Forward?

A lot of folks would end their analysis here, especially after looking at the free cash flow payout ratios. However, these figures are all based on what happened in the past. We need to find some clues as to whether the company can continue paying steadily increasing dividends in the future.

Interest Coverage Ratio

The interest coverage ratio illustrates the size of the company's pre-tax profits relative to the company's interest payments. Generally speaking, the more debt a company has, the more interest it has to pay, and the less that the company has left over to pay out dividends. The interest coverage ratio is calculated by dividing the company's earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) by the company's interest payments made over the same period of time. Low interest coverage ratios (usually below 2) generally show that the company is having a hard time just trying to make its interest payments. That may signal dividend cuts or eliminations in the future. For this reason, we like to see high interest coverage ratios.

Table 5 shows the interest coverage ratios of Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark over the last 12 months.

Procter & Gamble 21.7
Kimberly-Clark 11.8

 

Table 5: Interest Coverage Ratios of Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark

Table 5 shows us that both Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark have very healthy interest coverage ratios. Neither company's dividends are in any danger on account of having to make interest payments. However, Procter & Gamble takes the cake here by covering its interest obligations with pre-tax profits nearly 22 times!

Net Debt To Equity Ratio

The amount of debt that a company has can ultimately influence the future direction of the company's dividend. Companies that have more debt typically pay more in interest. It should also be noted that at some point, the company's debt will need to be repaid. While many companies are working around this by refinancing the debt at low interest rates, this option might not be as attractive when interest rates head back up. When the company finally does extinguish its debt, it may have an adverse effect on whether it can continue paying dividends.

The net debt to equity ratio can offer us some clues as to how much of a problem debt will be when it comes to paying out dividends. It is calculated by subtracting the company's cash position from the company's short and long-term debts, and then dividing that by the company's equity position. The lower this ratio, the better it is for not only the company in question, but for us as investors. Ratios under one are typically considered to be good.

Procter & Gamble 0.39
Kimberly-Clark 0.92

 

Table 6: Net Debt To Equity Ratios of Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark

 

Table 6 shows that while both companies look decent when it comes to the net debt to equity ratio, Procter & Gamble's ratio is significantly lower, giving it the edge in this area.

 

Forecasted Earnings Per Share Growth

Dividend growth can be driven by a couple of different factors. One of these factors is the expansion of the company's payout ratio, where the company decides to pay out a higher percentage of its earnings or free cash flow to shareholders as dividends. However, you can only expand the payout ratio so much. Eventually, you must have free cash flow growth in order to pay steadily increasing dividends. And, we all know that free cash flow growth comes from earnings growth. To get a good idea as to the prospects of a company's future dividend payments, it may behoove us to look at analyst projections for future earnings per share growth over the next couple of years. Table 7 shows the forecasted earnings per share growth rates for Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark over the next couple of years. These numbers come from the analysts at S&P Capital IQ.

Company 2014 2015
Procter & Gamble 11% 9%
Kimberly-Clark 11% 8%

 

Table 7: Forecasted Earnings Per Share Growth for Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark

Both Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark are expected to post solid earnings per share growth over the next couple of years. Both companies are evenly matched in this regard, so no clear winner here.

Conclusion

Today, we have looked at a number of different factors in order to determine the strength and sustainability of the dividends of Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark. These factors include the dividend yield, historical dividend growth rates, payout ratios, interest coverage ratios, net debt to equity ratios, and analyst projections for future earnings per share growth. After giving careful consideration to all of these factors, we can conclude that none of the dividends being paid by either of these companies appear to be in any danger as of this writing.

While Procter & Gamble has shown a slightly higher 5-year dividend growth rate, Kimberly-Clark has a significantly lower free cash flow payout ratio. This shows that we might see a little bit more dividend growth out of Kimberly-Clark going forward.

When it comes to financial leverage, Procter & Gamble looks much better than Kimberly-Clark, with a much higher interest coverage ratio and a significantly lower net debt to equity ratio.

Both companies are expected to post about the same level of earnings per share growth in the next couple of years. Even with an elevated free cash flow payout ratio of 71%, P&G should still be able to maintain its current level of dividend growth if the expected earnings per share growth materializes. With a lower free cash flow payout ratio, Kimberly-Clark should be able to maintain or even accelerate its level of dividend growth if the company meets its earnings growth estimates.

In my book, there is no clear winner at this point in time, regarding whose dividend is stronger and more sustainable. Both of these companies are excellent and evenly matched in this area. If you had to choose one or the other, I would suggest that you look at other factors, such as product diversification, geographic diversification, and business models.

HOME ABOUT WSBM

HOW TO READ A BALANCE SHEET

 

WallStreetBeerMoney.com

"Do Your Own Due Diligence, But By God, Don't Drink Away Your Equity!"

dave@wallstreetbeermoney.com