YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Perché i dividendi NON servono a niente? 🤯 Analisi shock e aziende per la prossima stagflazione 💰

Perché i dividendi NON servono a niente? 🤯 Analisi shock e aziende per la prossima stagflazione 💰 — Transcript

by Mr Dividendi · 3,865 words · 593 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Good morning friends and welcome to
0:02Mister Dividend. Welcome back to this
0:05new episode, during this weekend in
0:07which we shall address a topic that is
0:09particularly close to my heart and
0:10which, I am well aware, divides many
0:12investors: the strategy of investing in
0:14dividends. Over the years, I have heard
0:17and voted for practically everything.
0:19The most common and most popular
0:21argument is that dividends do not
0:23matter. Some say that they are
0:26superfluous, that they do not add value
0:28and that they are an inefficient way to
0:30use company capital, especially from a
0:31tax perspective, because they receive
0:33them. And there is even a theory, the
0:37theory of the irrelevance of dividends,
0:39that openly supports this. It is a
0:42really old theory that I will explain
0:44to you a little bit about. However, in
0:47this video, not only will I proceed to
0:49dismantle these specific arguments, but
0:51I will also show you why, within a
0:53potential detachment scenario like the
0:55one we might be facing, dividends
0:57become an even more powerful tool to
0:59protect and grow your portfolio. And
1:03anyway, we'll also explain what
1:05stagflation is later, so that you can
1:07understand how it could, well, what
1:09consequences it could have, and how we
1:11could prepare for it. Anyway, stay with
1:15me until the end because then we are
1:17going to discover two companies, which
1:19I will reveal to you later, that not
1:21only offer juicy dividends but are also
1:23extraordinarily resilient in this
1:24difficult market context and within a
1:26potential scenario of stagflation that
1:28we are currently facing. As always,
1:32though, if you like the content on this
1:34channel, leave a like here on the video
1:36, subscribe to the channel here on the
1:38bottom right, and activate the bell so
1:40you don't miss any videos I post. It
1:43would really help me grow a lot, and
1:44then if you want to see my complete
1:46portfolio, you can also find my link to
1:47the Get Queen profile here in the
1:49description. My name is Mister
1:51Dividends. Anyway, let's start by
1:54understanding why dividends are useful,
1:56why they are useless. Well, in my
1:58opinion, they are very useful. Let us
2:01examine why this theory regarding the
2:03irrelevance of dividends is, in my
2:04professional opinion, somewhat outdated
2:06and incorrect at a practical level.
2:09Let's start from the beginning. The
2:12argument that dividends do not matter
2:14is based on this economic theory from
2:161961, which is quite old, and it is
2:17known specifically as the Dividend
2:19Relevance Theory. Its creators, who are
2:22the two economists, maintained the
2:23position that the value of a company is
2:25not influenced by its specific dividend
2:27policy. For them, the money paid as
2:30dividends to shareholders should be
2:32reinvested in the company to generate
2:34growth in the share price. What all of
2:38the investors who do not invest in
2:40dividends say is why should one have
2:42this money when the company could
2:44instead choose to reinvest it? First of
2:47all, you don't know how it invests it
2:49and in what ways, and in most cases, it
2:50invests it in the wrong ways, in my
2:52opinion. However, at first listen, yes,
2:55it might seem like a logical argument,
2:57but there are some huge "buts" and in
2:59any case it was also our Franco
3:00Modegliani who was one of the two who
3:02had created this company. Yes, the
3:06first thing I want to tell you is that
3:08this is a detail that many people
3:10forget. In short, the economists who
3:13developed this theory, as we said, were
3:15not experts in Merton Miller's era,
3:17they were experts in private companies,
3:19not listed companies, and the
3:21difference is truly enormous. Private
3:24companies do not have a volatile market
3:25price that is subject to the emotions
3:27of investors, and therefore this is a
3:29point of significant importance in my
3:30humble opinion. Second, and here we
3:33come to the crucial point, the theory
3:35assumes that the market is perfectly
3:36rational, but those of us who have been
3:38investing for a while know very well
3:39that the market is anything but
3:41rational. How many times have we seen
3:44stocks undervalued for months or years
3:46without their price reflecting
3:48fundamentals? Think of the many
3:50companies that, despite having solid
3:52balance sheets, have been trading at a
3:54discount for years now, since 2022, we
3:56are at the end of 2025. In short, the
3:58price of a share is not a simple
3:59mathematical equation. It is influenced
4:02by a mix of economic data, news, but
4:04above all by the emotions of investors,
4:06and for me, this remains one of the
4:07clearest proofs that that specific
4:09theory simply does not hold up when
4:11applied within the real world. Another
4:15weakness of the theory is that it
4:16assumes that companies will always use
4:18only that extra capital in the most
4:20efficient way possible, that is, they
4:22will use the money they do not give you
4:24as dividends to invest in projects that
4:26will generate exponential growth, but
4:28here too the reality is very different.
4:31How many times do companies make
4:33disastrous acquisitions? Imagine AT&T
4:36with that acquisition which essentially
4:38forced a dividend cut a few years back,
4:40or how they waste cash on failing
4:41projects, or even worse, how the stock
4:43market awards them bonuses and
4:45significantly increased salaries for
4:47their performance. That is my view; I
4:50trust myself more when it comes to
4:51managing my own money than I would ever
4:53trust a board of directors. And then
4:55let's also think about companies, well,
4:57I really like Apple, an example of
5:01Apple, well, I don't know about you,
5:03but as far as I'm concerned Apple's
5:05innovation stopped many years ago. What
5:08do they do every year? Buybacks are
5:11increasing at a valuation with a PI
5:13ratio greater than 30. Why invest the
5:15vast majority of the free cash flow
5:17when the price and the valuation are
5:18currently skyrocketing? If in reality
5:22the company does not innovate much and
5:24does not grow and does not increase its
5:26fundamentals significantly? This is the
5:28most obvious example for me, especially
5:30when it comes to buybacks. And then try
5:33, I'll also give you an analogy.
5:36Imagine that an employer offers you two
5:38options. The first is a bonus of €
5:405,000 that you will keep € 5,000 to
5:45invest in a new office that could
5:48perhaps lead to a promotion in the
5:50future. Which would you choose? Well,
5:53obviously everyone would choose the
5:55bonus, right? For me, the dividend is
5:57exactly the same thing. It is a cash
5:59flow that you receive in your hands
6:01without having to give up part of your
6:03ownership, that is, sell your shares to
6:05live. And here we come to the point
6:07that for me personally is the most
6:09important. Investing in dividend-paying
6:12stocks offers a level of stability and
6:13peace of mind that pure growth
6:14investing simply cannot provide to you.
6:17If you rely solely on stock price
6:18growth to finance your life, perhaps
6:20even during your retirement, then you
6:21are ultimately forced to sell your
6:23stocks. If the market goes down, you
6:25are forced to sell at a loss to cover
6:27your expenses and this will make you
6:28burn through your capital much faster.
6:31Let's think about this example. Bob,
6:34let's call him, let's give him an
6:36Italian name, let's call him Luigi.
6:40Luigi retired on the first of January
6:422000 with exactly 1 million dollars
6:44invested in an SP500 fund. He needs $
6:48500,000,000 to live on every year, and
6:50if he had been a growth investor, he
6:52would have been forced to spend a
6:54portion of his portfolio each year in
6:56any case. I'll use the example in
6:59dollars because we can see that the S&P
7:01500 has had an annual return of about
7:0510 percent over the course of the last
7:07100 years. So what would have happened
7:11in 2016? That after the two major
7:13economic crises and the great financial
7:15crisis, the bubble.com, he would have
7:17already run out of money because he
7:18would have had to sell all his shares;
7:20in short, from his shares during the
7:22bubble.com, the financial crisis. And
7:25if instead he had received $ 50,000 a
7:27year in dividends, his capital would
7:29have remained intact. And this is not
7:32pure theory, it is history. And
7:34speaking of history, the man who has
7:36had the most successful investment
7:38history, Warren Buffett, is a huge
7:40lover of dividends. And so I wonder, if
7:43dividends do not matter, why does the
7:44Oracle of Omaha continue to buy
7:46companies that pay them? The answer is
7:49simple, why do they matter and how?
7:53Anyway, what I wanted to say today,
7:55looking also at the economic data that
8:00we have been observing in these recent
8:03days, is that what clearly emerges is
8:05that inflation is currently returning
8:07to slightly higher levels, and at the
8:09same time, our economic growth is
8:10unfortunately beginning to slow down.
8:13So what does this mean? It means that
8:16perhaps we could be heading directly
8:18toward a scenario of stagflation. What
8:21is stagflation? It is a scenario in
8:23which we have high and persistent
8:25inflation, but at the same time
8:26economic growth is stagnant or
8:28declining. A situation, in short, that
8:30is very, very insidious for an investor
8:32because we could find ourselves in this
8:34scenario. Well, in short, there are
8:36several signs that point to this
8:37possibility. The Federal Reserve in the
8:40United States appears inclined to lower
8:41interest rates, also being driven by
8:43political pressures from the current
8:44American administration, and this is
8:46despite the fact that inflation is
8:47still currently remaining above their
8:48established target of two percent. Then
8:52there are factors such as tariffs on
8:54imports, a possible shortage of skilled
8:56labor and huge debt at government,
8:58corporate and household levels that
9:00weighs on the economy. So, how do you
9:03prepare for such an environment?
9:05Diversification is always the first
9:06answer, but it is not enough. I believe
9:10that in a context of stagflation, those
9:12infrastructures which generate a stable
9:13cash flow that is indexed to inflation
9:15represent the very best choice. And
9:18that's why the two companies I want to
9:20introduce today come into play, which
9:21are in my portfolio and which I could
9:22increase in the coming days. We are
9:26referring to Brookfield Infrastructure
9:28Partners and Brookfield Renewable
9:31Partners, which are both subsidiaries
9:33of the Brookfield corporation, the
9:36well-known alternative asset investor.
9:40In any case, you can purchase them in
9:42the corporate version, which allows you
9:43to avoid dealing with any of those
9:45rather strange or complicated
9:46situations that might otherwise arise
9:48at a taxation level. However, before we
9:50go into why these two companies are so
9:52important, I tried to perform here, as
9:55I usually do, our calculation for
9:56future dividend growth, finding that
9:58the average starting dividend for these
10:01two companies stands at 4.38%. These
10:05companies have both been growing for
10:08several decades now; their funds from
10:10operations, which represent the actual
10:13profits for these types of firms, known
10:15as FFO, are increasing by 10%each year.
10:19This means that dividends could
10:21potentially grow by up to 10%each year.
10:24In any case, they have grown a little
10:27less recently, and I have set a 5%
10:29annual dividend growth, as well as a 5%
10:31appreciation for the company, acting in
10:33a quite conservative manner from this
10:35point of view. Well, I have set the
10:38distribution frequency to quarterly, as
10:40usual, since most of you are not
10:41starting from scratch. I have set a
10:44portfolio, a starting capital of €
10:4720,000 and then I have set the annual
10:50contribution of € 6,000. Well, here
10:54they are dollars, it is as if it were
10:56the same thing. And let us see, by
10:58investing € 500 each month and
11:00setting an average dividend rate
11:02between 20 and 30 percent, this general
11:06calculation results in a total of 438%.
11:10Well, I usually do this with various
11:12companies, perhaps Italian or English,
11:14but also American ones or others, which
11:17also have a withholding tax on their
11:19dividends, resulting in an average of
11:2130%. Anyway, let us take a look; here I
11:24used the word drip, but due to an
11:26incorrect translation on the Marketbit
11:28website, it actually means reinvesting
11:30the dividends in the meantime.
11:31Therefore, starting with this initial
11:33sum of € 20,000, we proceed by
11:35reinvesting the returns over a period
11:37of 30 years. Let's do a concrete
11:39example. You are 35 years old just like
11:42me, I am 35, yet you still want to
11:43retire at 65. Even though I always
11:45claim I want to retire early, in
11:47reality, I do not believe I will ever
11:49retire, not even at 90. I will always
11:51work on tasks that I enjoy and am
11:52passionate about, perhaps working fewer
11:54hours, which is why I do not have this
11:56pressing need to retire in 5 years just
11:58to spend all day on the beach, because
12:00I know that I would inevitably find
12:02myself getting bored. Anyway, let's
12:06imagine my, I don't know, a person my
12:08age who starts investing with a capital
12:11of € 20,000 and, with this dividend
12:14yield, reinvesting it and investing €
12:16500 per month plus reinvesting the
12:19dividends, after 30 years you will have
12:22a final balance of € 902,000,000 and
12:24receiving a whopping 40,174 dividends
12:27per year. How much are they? Well,
12:32considering at least 30%, we are
12:34talking about 28,000 in net dividends,
12:37which equals € 2,343. By calculating
12:41an inflation rate of 2%per year, this
12:44amount could potentially cover current
12:47monthly expenses of around € 1,500 to
12:50€ 1,400. This is certainly a welcome
12:53result, and it might represent an
12:55excellent method for you to supplement
12:57your retirement pension or, in any case
12:58, to provide full coverage for all of
13:00your living expenses. But anyway, let's
13:03go and find out now about the first
13:04company I told you about. We are
13:06talking about Brook Infrastructure
13:08Corporation. So what does this company
13:11do? In a nutshell, the company owns and
13:13manages a highly diversified portfolio
13:15consisting of infrastructure assets on
13:16a global scale. We're talking about
13:18telecom towers, data centers, gas
13:20pipelines, ports, and railways. That's
13:23why it's a perfect fit for a bracket.
13:26Its cash flows are derived from
13:28long-term, fixed-rate contracts, which
13:29are very often indexed to the rate of
13:31inflation. This means that even if
13:34inflation continues to rise, their
13:35total revenues will adjust accordingly.
13:38Despite recent macroeconomic turmoil,
13:41their Q2 2025 results show solid growth
13:44. Funds from Operations, or FFO, which
13:48have remained our primary metric for
13:50this type of company, have successfully
13:53grown by a total of 5 percent. If we
13:56examine the figures in greater depth,
13:58net of currency effects from certain
14:00asset divestitures, the growth has been
14:02even more impressive, reaching double
14:04digits in key sectors such as utilities
14:06, which represent a segment that is
14:08characterized by being very stable
14:13under normal market conditions.
14:14Dividends: The company has a fantastic
14:17track record, having increased its
14:19dividend for 16 consecutive years,
14:21overcoming financial crises and
14:22pandemics. Today it offers a dividend
14:26yield of 433%, which is not bad at all.
14:29The current valuation: the company is
14:32trading at about 10 times FFO. Don't be
14:36alarmed if the IPS and operating
14:37earnings are negative and there is no
14:39PE, because we are talking about fans
14:41of Operations here, but if King Alpha
14:43doesn't, it doesn't take it into
14:45consideration. And so, we are trading
14:49at 10 times FFO; It seems to me like a
14:51rather low valuation for a company of
14:53this kind, which is so solid, with
14:55strong organic growth and a dividend
14:57yield starting at over 4%. Then I think
15:01that, in any case, a multiple of 15
15:03would perhaps not be exaggerated at all
15:04. In any case, I already have a fairly
15:07small position in my portfolio, which
15:09represents about 0.3%of my total
15:11holdings, but I may choose to increase
15:13it during the coming weeks. I still
15:15think it is an excellent opportunity
15:16and if we want to see it that way.
15:18However, the performance yielded a bit
15:20positively, not counting dividends, by
15:2217%over the last 5 years. It is true,
15:26the performance is not stellar, but it
15:28remains a company that provides a
15:30growing dividend, and now, with the
15:31interest rates being cut by the Federal
15:33Reserve, the stock could see a
15:35significant increase in its overall
15:37value and market growth. You can see
15:41that revenues have really skyrocketed.
15:43Operating in compute. Maybe we can
15:47translate this page into Italian, so
15:49you are able to view all the data in
15:51Italian; furthermore, as we can see,
15:53another element which is highly
15:55important is the EBA. The EBA that I
15:58follow a lot, we're talking about 2.94
16:04billion. Then I always look at the debt
16:08, or rather the net debt ratio, which
16:11is a...wait, where can we find that
16:14exactly? Here, I have to go and find it
16:17. Uh, well, I can't find it, but let's
16:24go and see. Anyway, regarding the net
16:26debt to EBITDA ratio, here it is: 12
16:28billion against 4. It is quite high,
16:30somewhat above the standard level, but
16:32we are talking about investments in
16:33utility companies, which typically
16:35maintain a higher ratio of net debt to
16:37EBITDA than other sectors. Cash flow;
16:41we are referring to a free cash flow of
16:44$ 4.23 and a dividend, meaning a price
16:47to free cash flow ratio of just under
16:5010, which is therefore a very positive
16:52result indeed. Let's then discover the
16:56second company. We are talking about
16:58Brookfield Renewable Partners M, which
17:00is a sister company. This, too, is part
17:04—excuse me—of the Brookfield group,
17:06and it focuses on another essential
17:08infrastructure, which is to say, the
17:10sector of renewable energy. Its
17:12portfolio is truly gigantic and highly
17:14diversified, including hydroelectric,
17:16wind, and solar plants, as well as
17:17energy storage facilities that are
17:19located all around the globe. Here too,
17:22it is the same thing that I forgot to
17:23mention to you regarding Brookfield, oh
17:25Brookfield Renewable, excuse me, I
17:26meant the Brookfield Infrastructure
17:28Corporation. We are talking about a
17:31company that truly has revenues all
17:33over the world, so it is not just a
17:34company in the United States, but it is
17:36also based in Canada, so you have the
17:38Canadian dividend tax of 15%which is
17:39the same as that in the United States.
17:43However, the results of the second
17:44quarter were equally impressive, with
17:46the home operations per unit showing a
17:48growth of 10 percent when compared
17:49directly to the previous year's
17:51performance. This is a clear signal of
17:53a rapidly expanding business, with new
17:55projects coming online that are
17:56nonetheless making a contribution to
17:58the company's total cash flow. In this
18:01case too, the majority of the revenues
18:03are bound by long-term contracts that
18:04have an average duration of 13 years
18:06and often include specific clauses for
18:07indexation to the inflation rate. This
18:10ensures excellent visibility on future
18:12revenues and protects them from
18:13inflation. The dividend yield here is
18:16also 4.44%and here too the sales volume
18:21is growing strongly with an increase of
18:23about 15%in the last 5 years. In any
18:27case, the increase is actually much
18:29higher, but let's see why. Here it
18:33tells us that it is much higher. Ah,
18:35okay. Because with the publication date
18:37it only counted half of the 2020
18:39dividends. Regardless, as you can see
18:42here, there is a dividend growth of
18:47five percent per year, five point
18:49something, but if transformations
18:51increase by ten percent each year,
18:54there could be a much more sudden rise
18:57in our dividends in the future.
19:00Valuation, the stock is trading at 11.4
19:02times the annualized FFO of the second
19:04quarter. Here too, for a company with
19:06such a defensive business and growth of
19:08this kind, the valuation seems more
19:09than reasonable to me. Well, in short,
19:12an excellent choice for those who want
19:14exposure to the renewable energy sector
19:16, but with the stability and income
19:18that only a growing dividend can
19:19provide. And here we can also observe
19:22the outlook for future growth; the
19:24detailed analyses, in my professional
19:26opinion, appear to be somewhat
19:27conservative regarding the growth of
19:29the dividend. As we can see here, in
19:31recent years it has lost a lot. Given
19:34that, when the new presidency took
19:36office, the interest rates were
19:37initially increased, it follows that
19:39the market values have subsequently
19:41declined; then the new presidency, as
19:43you are well aware, is not particularly
19:45favorable toward renewables; therefore,
19:47it could be considered significantly
19:49undervalued at these prices. And let us
19:53take a look at the situation here; we
19:55can also see that these revenues are
19:57experiencing rapid growth, which is
19:59truly very rapid in my own personal
20:01opinion. And here too, don't look at
20:04the profits because, as we said, as
20:06already explained, what counts are the
20:08fans from operations. We see an EBITDA
20:13here of 2.18 billion, and a net debt
20:16that stands at 13 billion. So in
20:21reality, this company's debt is quite
20:23high. We are around a value of 610,
20:28which is actually very high, higher
20:30than Brookfield Infrastructure, so it
20:32is definitely worth keeping an eye on,
20:35a debt, in short, a balance sheet that
20:37is a little more, a little less secure
20:40compared to its sister company Brufil
20:42Infrastructure. And as we can see, we
20:47have a company that is very, very
20:49stable, growing at 10%per year and that
20:52I really like, especially because of
20:54the secular trend in renewables. So we
20:59have reached the end of this video, and
21:00we have seen why the concept of
21:01dividends—specifically the notion
21:02that dividends are irrelevant for an
21:04investor—is, in my humble opinion,
21:05entirely incorrect and misguided. We
21:08have explored these two companies,
21:10Brookfield Infrastructure and
21:12Brookfield Renewable, which
21:13nevertheless demonstrate how dividends
21:15can be a very powerful tool, especially
21:17in an uncertain and potentially static
21:19market context. Dividends offer
21:23stability, peace of mind and a passive
21:25income that can support your life
21:27without having to touch your capital.
21:31Now the question I ask you is this: are
21:32you a dividend investor, a growth
21:33investor, or a mix of the two, perhaps
21:35like me, since I also invest in growth?
21:38In a potential scenario of collapse, in
21:39which sector would you choose to invest
21:41in order to protect your entire
21:42portfolio? Let me know down here in the
21:46comments and if you enjoyed the video,
21:47as usual, leave a nice like, subscribe
21:49to the channel at the bottom right, and
21:50perhaps share it with a friend of yours
21:52who is also passionate about the world
21:54of investments. If you want to support
21:58my work, you can find all the useful
22:00affiliate links in the description here
22:03, including useful links in general,
22:05including Get Queen and Scalevo Capital
22:07, which is one of the brokers I use for
22:10investing. A small disclaimer: I am not
22:13a financial advisor and this video is
22:15not intended to be a piece of
22:16professional advice; rather, I am
22:17simply here to share my personal
22:18journey regarding my own investments. I
22:21wish you a good weekend and see you
22:22next time. Bye. Bye.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Perché i dividendi NON servono a niente? 🤯 Analisi shock e aziende per la prossima stagflazione 💰 by Mr Dividendi , generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 3,865 words across 593 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.