Dividend Growth Is a Mindset, Not a Yield

How strong is your dividend growth portfolio? Send it to us for a free evaluation at dcm.team@growmydollar.com. Plus, join our market newsletter for more on dividend growth investing. 

If you’ve ever struggled to stay disciplined in a world chasing growth or yield at all costs, this episode is for you. Whether you’re a seasoned dividend investor or new to the strategy, clarity, intention, and long-term thinking are essential to compounding your wealth over time. 

In this month’s episode, Greg reflects on a personal story about trying to sell his daughter’s old Honda CR-V. What begins with a frustrating lowball offer turns into an unexpected reminder of the core principles behind successful dividend investing. It’s a story that sets the stage for a broader discussion on the power of focus and the cost of distraction. 

Greg then connects this lesson to recent decisions within the portfolio:

• Why we sold Emerson Electric ($EMR), even after years of ownership and recent price gains.
• A quick update on Rémy Cointreau ($REMYY) and why the story has improved.
• Whether Stanley Black & Decker ($SWK) is a value play or a value trap.

📩  Want your dividend portfolio reviewed?

Email a list of your holdings (no dollar amounts necessary) to dcm.team@growmydollar.com.

We’ll rate it from 1 to 5 and include a few helpful bullet points to show how well you're aligned with long-term dividend growth principles.


Topics Covered:

00:41 - Core theme of the episode: Clarity in investing, in mindset, and in strategy

02:01 - New offer: Get your dividend portfolio rated 1–5 by our team

03:17 - The $400 CR-V story and what it reveals about opportunity cost

11:32 - Applying the lesson: Compounding capital vs. chasing small gains

12:46 - Why clarity matters when dividend-based strategies lag

15:08 - Three paths: Pure growth, high yield, and dividend growth

16:08 - Why we sold Emerson: Weak dividend growth, poor capital efficiency

21:49 - Rémy update: Positive developments in the China tariff situation

23:23 - Stanley Black & Decker review: Great yield, but fading margins
 
30:21 - Dividend growth math: What would it take for Stanley to meet our hurdle?
 
34:32 - The truck analogy: Growth vs. yield vs. the dividend growth “sweet spot”
 
36:03 - Final thoughts: Clarity and discipline are non-negotiable

If you enjoy the show, we'd greatly appreciate it if you subscribe and leave a review

RESOURCES:

Schedule a meeting with us -> Financial Planning & Portfolio Management

Getting into the weeds -> DCM Investment Reports & Models

Visit our website to learn more about our investment strategy and wealth management services.

Follow us on:
Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn | X

Transcript

[00:00:11] Greg Denewiler: This is Greg Denewiler and you are listening to another episode of the Dividend Mailbox, a monthly podcast about dividend growth. Our goal is to stuff your mailbox full of dividend checks. When they grow over time, a funny thing happens, you create wealth. 

Welcome to episode 49 of the Dividend Mailbox. And today the core takeaway is going to be clarity. We're going to start out with a mindset piece. It's got a little bit of a personal story to it, and just the importance of being intentional. We all need to be reminded of what we're doing and why. It's kind of like if you want to run a marathon, you have to train and you have to have a clear goal of what you're trying to accomplish. Running a 10 K and running a marathon are two different things. And then we'll go into just a review on some of our ideas. We have clarity on why we sold Emerson, even though it's continued to perform well, why Remy is working to a degree, and we also have some clarity on a name that has been brought to our attention a few times. Stanley Black and Decker—seems like maybe it's a possibility of a dividend growth story, but you're going to find out there's a few issues that come up to what we're trying to accomplish. 

But before we get into this month's episode, we have decided to offer a free evaluation of your dividend portfolio. All you have to do is send us the names that you own. You don't have to give us a dollar amount if you don't want to, we'll just equal weighted if you don't. We will rate your portfolio from a scale of one to five, from our standpoint, how we see dividend growth. If it's a five, then it's a model portfolio for dividend growth. Wherever it falls in between, we'll give you a few bullet points as to why we think it either is not, or you're doing a great job. Hopefully that'll help give you a little bit more perspective, this is a quick overview just to help maybe give you a little context. What we may do is use one of these in a future podcast as a great example. It would be anonymous, and of course we would ask first before we use it. So if you're interested in taking advantage of this, just email it to dcm.team@growmydollar.com. With that, let's get into this month's episode. 

So what I would like to do is start with a story of what happened to me personally in the last few weeks. I have to tell you, this was a little bit of a major aha moment. Things that I already knew, but sometimes for whatever reason, something leaves an impression on you that makes you connect some things that didn't have the meaning in the past that maybe they should have. And you're going to have to hang with me for a little bit here. I'm pretty sure that it's going to circle around, apply directly to the whole dividend growth story, but it's going to start out and you're going to think, “What is this guy talking about? Why am I listening to this?” 

Well, we begin with my daughter who is in college. She has a Honda CR-V. The car is about 15 years old. It's in pretty good shape—great car for her. It’s four wheel drive, great for going back and forth from Kansas and Colorado, which, if you don’t know, our corporate headquarters are in Denver, Colorado. Anyway, she's back for the summer. She had the unfortunate incident of rear ending a Jeep Wagoneer. Part of the problem with this is the Jeep Wagoneer sits higher, so, she didn't even really hit it with much, but beings that the trailer hitch sits up higher, it did a little bit of damage to the front end. It did cause the radiator to leak and it's really not drivable. To make a long story short, we're looking for a new car for her and in the process we need to try to get something out of this one. 

I take the pictures to a body shop and it takes them about 10 seconds to tell me, “Look, sell it on Facebook marketplace and you can probably get a thousand dollars for it.” The car's in pretty good shape except for that one small problem in the front end. 

So, the car is sitting in front of the house where it got towed to. There are these people that drive around, if they get an idea that maybe that car is not being used, that is an immediate, in their minds, an opportunity to maybe get a car for cheap. They put a note on your windshield, they'll give you cash if you're interested in selling it, and the whole idea is you don't have to deal with it and it's gone. 

Well, what does luck have? The note shows up on the CRV and somebody's offering to buy it from me. I call them up. Through a couple of text exchanges: “Well, I'll give you a $500 for it.” I respond, “I'll take $900 if you make it easy for me. It has a clear title.” 

They've seen the car. They put a note on the windshield so they know what's going on with it, or at least mostly. So, I'm thinking maybe this is easy and I can move on; don't even have to deal with it. So the guy says, “All right, I'll come over and look at it.” A day later, he says he is supposed to be coming at 1:30. He shows up at about 4:00. I don't know if that's part of his negotiation strategy, just get me all frustrated just to get rid of this thing. 

Two guys get out of what appears to be virtually a brand new Ford pickup. They are roughly 30 years old, give or take. I'm not sure. The first guy who appears to be the person in charge starts saying, “Oh, you know, this has this and this, and oh, the condensers trashed, and the struts look pretty good, but this is going to be a summer job. I'll give you $400 for it.” I'm like, “Well. I'm asking $900. I'm not going to sell it for $400.” “—Oh, well look, this car, it's not running.” And I go, “It'll run. It'll start. It's just that there's no fluid in the radiator. I can't run it for very long. I'm not going to ruin the engine, just trying to prove to you that it'll run.” 

I told him, “You know, it will start, you know, I can start it,” and you like, “Well, you know, blah, blah, blah, and it needs this and that, and I'll, you know, I'll only give you $400.” So I get in the car and started up. Lo and behold, it runs; no check engine lights. The car is running and I can move it. All of a sudden I'm like, $900 is not even negotiable anymore. 

And his comment was, “Oh, I was afraid of that.” But this guy comes back at me and says, “Well, all right, I'll time you. If it runs for seven and a half minutes, then—" I don't even remember. I think he said, “I might give you $900.” I can't even remember. But the bottom line is I am not going to run this car for seven minutes with no radiator fluid in it. 

And I'm starting to get ticked and I look at the guy and I say, “I think we're pretty much done here. I appreciate you being kind of aggressive and everything, but this isn't going to work.” He looks at me, he goes, “You're a fairly well-to-do man. What's $500? We're just a couple of guys trying to make some money.” I'm like, “I am not selling it for less than $900.” 

So he gets in his fancy new Ford truck, those two guys, and they drive off. Well, what clicks in my mind after a few hours later and I was kind of ticked off because, you know, it kind of caught me off guard, but should I have been surprised? No. I start thinking. 

So you drive up here in this new Ford pickup, you probably paid at least $60,000 for it. Let's just think about this for a minute. We're sitting here arguing over $500. You're going to fix it for a lot less and you're going to make some money on it, but you're driving around, you're taking time trying to find cars to buy. Then you have to talk to people. Then you have to convince them to sell their car, they'll take it off your hands and make it easy. All that takes time and effort—all of this over $500. 

Let's just step back and think about this. If you took that truck and instead of paying $60,000 for that truck, if you're trying to be Mr. Business person, which you obviously were trying to do, negotiating and flipping cars. It seems to me like it would make a little more sense to sell that fancy truck of yours, spend about $20,000 for one that's 10 years old, give or take. Take that $40,000 and if you just put it in the market and earn 7.2% on it a year, every 10 years that money doubles. If you're roughly 30 years old—I don't know how old he was, but I'm guessing that's about where they were—at 40 years, you now have $80,000. At 50. you have $160,000. At 60, $320,000, 70, $640,000, and when you're at 80 years old, you have $1,280,000. And life expectancy for a male is somewhere around 84 right now. If you live to be 90 with new technology and all the stuff they're coming up with in the field of medicine, you live to be 90, you get $2.5 million and you're spending all your time arguing over $500. Maybe you should be thinking about this whole concept in a whole different manner. If you really want to try to make money, it's sitting right there in front of your face, but you're focusing on the $500. 

This is the part that hurts a little bit because thinking about the situation I just described, you have a guy here that does a podcast on dividend growth and long-term compounding of your wealth. This hit me later in the evening, and on one hand it's like, “Man, buddy… you need to step back and think about some stuff on your own. Because you just spent half of an afternoon waiting for these boneheads to show up. They did show up, and on one hand the guy was right. You should have just let him have the car and stopped messing with it because that car is still sitting in our driveway. I have to deal with it. And you just took all this time to try to eke out a few extra a hundred dollars. What is your time worth?” Think maybe you should spend it trying to find another dividend growth story. Or maybe you should look at some of the stuff you've got now. I could go on and on. You should get the idea. It's the wrong mindset. So you get what you are intentional about. 

And you may be thinking, “Where in the world—how's this going to get back to dividend strategy?” Well, you should be kind of starting to make the connection. Frequently, it's easy to forget just how powerful compounding can be. It's not about never enjoying what you have, but you really should be thinking long-term as far as what should you do with your assets. How's the best way to deploy them? And then the second piece is, are you going to put your time, energy, and focus into where real long-term value and wealth is created? 

One of the problems now is this environment is getting extremely difficult, to live in that space because what is happening, and you really saw it in the last quarter, you have growth that's just been on fire. Again, the  S&P was up 10%. You look at some of these broader indexes—there's several dividend indexes: the high yield dividend aristocrats, there's the SP 500 dividend aristocrats, the Dow Jones US Select Dividend. These all can be found on S&P Dow Jones indices on the S&P global website. These are all different degrees of the same concept, and these indexes were anywhere from flat to, this is ironic, the S&P 500 low volatility high dividend fund, (which was supposed to be Mr. Conservative, not the volatility, but still give you a good returns), was down 4.4% last quarter. If you're in that thing, and the S&P 500 with dividends is up 10.9% for the quarter, you're wondering: “What in the world am I doing?” 

This is where really having clarity of what you're trying to achieve, what you want your portfolio to look like 10 years from now is a big driver into what you do today. In the short term, it's hard to watch these investment returns ebb and flow. Things were really good a few years ago in the dividend world, last quarter, it was a real struggle. But the big thing is our income is on track. Our income growth is expected to be, right now, 10% on our model (which is a live account). So don't lose focus on the fact that the dividend indexes didn't make any money last quarter. The more you can get to, “Okay, so what? It's a marathon, not a sprint.” It's all about discipline, compounding cash flow, and looking at companies that have the ability to do that. 

Kind of along that theme, you do have to be clear on what you want. Do you want pure growth? Do you want high yield where you're really focusing on just maximizing income and whatever else you get besides that is just a bonus? Or do you want dividend growth, which is really in our mind, a blend of both. You virtually never get all of them on the same shot. If you want a growth story, you can get growth stories that pay dividends, but the odds are they're not going to pay six or 7%. There are some turnaround situations. Most of those stories are really hard to find, and for everyone that you get, you usually have one or more that don't turn around and you're lucky if they're just dead money. 

Well, this leads into the next couple of companies that we're going to look at. My hope is that my car story kind of goes full circle on this. 

We mentioned it in several podcasts in the past. We've mentioned Emerson Electric and how we were really getting disappointed in what they're doing with the dividend and kind of where management is going. Well, we finally sold the position out. The stock had reached $120, which was a new high for it, I believe. And we decided, you know what? Sort of like my car story, it's time to move on. 

When we sold it at $120 with the current dividend, it had a yield of 1.75%. It was way below the hurdle yield that we like. We're looking for the target of about 2.5%, 3%, 3.5%. That's kind of our sweet spot. We own some of these lower yielding things, but they're growing their dividend much faster. In Emerson's case, the dividend in 2020 was 50.5 cents. From 2023 to 2024, it went from 52.5 cents to 52.75 cents. They're raising the dividend just by enough to stay on the dividend aristocrat list. 

If you look at earnings, earnings were $3.67 in 2020. I'm not going to go through all the numbers, but you get out to 2024 and earnings are $3.41. They've had a little bit of volatility. They were lower. They were higher. But here we are five years later and earnings haven't grown at all. One of the things that's happened is the company had sold off some more traditional businesses, and they've gone into some more software type stories where they're basically managing data. 

The estimates for 2025 are $5.99. So analysts think that what they've transitioned the business to is going to start showing some more growth. We'll see. Here's one of the problems. Through this transition, they now have $27 billion of goodwill and intangibles on the balance sheet. Shareholder equity is only $19.25 billion, so Goodwill makes up a large portion of that asset side of their balance sheet. 

Here's the part that gets a little tricky. Their margins have actually improved dramatically because the software type businesses just have much higher margins than the older, traditional manufacturing side of some of the stuff they did. So margins have actually gotten much better, however, because of the capital they spent for these acquisitions and what they sold off in 2020, return on invested capital was 13%. Now, last year it was down to 5.4% and it's just been trending lower every year. One of our key points is return on invested capital, where we're looking for 10% plus. We're looking for that to be sustainable over a long period of time, which creates the compounding effect. 

Is this company going to transition? Maybe. But I can tell you statistically, acquisitions are virtually never friendly to shareholders. Not always, but usually it comes at a cost. Companies pay too much for growth. Is that going to be the factor in Emerson Electric? I don't know. But the part that we finally decided, “Hey, you know….” They've had earning stability. Analysts think there's a little bit more clarity now towards growth, and they raised the dividend by a half of 1%. I'm like, clearly management is changing their direction and they're really going to try to drive this company more towards growth. 

You know, normally we would maybe hang onto it. Not all companies have to fall in this dividend range, and we've stated we are willing to own some things outside the box, but in this case where there's a lot of goodwill, return on capital is just not there, debt stayed about flat since 2020 to 2025, revenue is up less than a billion dollars from 16.8 billion. There has been a lot of moving parts in this company and we're just not willing to wait around and hope that we start to get more dividend growth here in the future. There's a very big possibility that at some point in the next few years, you may start to get some write-offs that they just overpaid for some of these businesses. 

I said all that to say the stock is now up to $140. It's gone up about 15% just in the last month. We held this thing for years and one thing you might say is, “Ah, geez, you know, we sold it. We should have held onto it.” Well, this is where clarity and really understanding what you're trying to do and what your goal is—are you trying to make an extra $500 or are you trying to build wealth? 

For us, clarity is dividend growth. That's our path. That's where we're going to get the growth. It's not the only way to do it. It's not the only way to invest money, but that's the core of our strategy. Emerson wasn't clicking the boxes anymore, so we sold it and we moved on, and I don't feel bad about missing the last $20 because you never know. If you don't have discipline, you're going to get jerked around. That's all I'm going to say on that one. 

On a more pleasant note, we have more clarity on the Remy story now. If you didn't listen to last month's podcast, we talked about Remy Martin and cognac. Last time there was uncertainty surrounding the Chinese tariffs, and now there's been some resolution there. China's backed off the tariffs a little bit. It's kind of an awkward situation. They're going to demand they sell cognac at a “full price.” They're trying to make their brandies more competitive than the cognac being imported from France. The good side is maybe the higher price affects the cognac market. However, they're not paying out that higher price part as a tariff. They're keeping it all. So the story has improved and the stock has actually reacted positively. It's gone from the low fives. Now we're up to roughly the mid sixes. So it's kind of fun to watch one work. And there you had great value. Go back and listen to last month's podcast if you want to hear that story, and the fact is, longer term, there's probably still some good value there. That's why we're not even thinking about selling it yet. 

Well, continuing with the themes that we've been looking at today, we're going to look at a company that has come up in the past that has been brought to our attention, and somebody recently actually asked just what our thoughts were on Stanley Black and Decker. 

The reason why we're going to talk about this one now is this is to kind of review, okay, some of them are good dividend growth stories, and some of them just don't fit the strategy. I find it kind of fascinating, but it's almost the exact opposite problem that Emerson had where they were doing acquisitions—at the moment, it appears that they have shifted to the growth story. Stanley has the sort of the opposite problem. They've done some acquisitions, but it's a little bit of a higher yielding story. 

So just on the surface, looking at Stanley Black and Decker, the stock's at $69. It's had a high of $210. You say, okay, well I'm definitely not buying it at the high. The 52 week low is $54, so it's not too far off of that. With a market near an all time high, you've got a dividend yield of 4.7%. You've got a company that's supposed to earn $5.90 this year. You have a forward one year projected PE ratio of around 11 or 12. With a dividend of $3.28, they earn plenty of money to pay that dividend out, and they don't have a big CapEx expense. In this case, just back of the envelope, you would say, “Okay, you know, maybe I should take a serious look at Stanley Black and Decker.” 

Now you always have to remember: if you don't know a story well—which we do not know the Stanley story very well, we just look at the numbers—that in itself can be, I'm not going to say dangerous, but on some level it could be. If you don't really know what's behind the numbers, what management is doing, what a potential catalyst is, or kind of what risk is embedded into something, you can't just make a broad statement. Having said that, I'm going to give you a spoiler alert: This one struggles to make the cut from our perspective, and that's what I want to go over. 

The appealing thing about Stanley Black and Decker is most of their business comes from tools. They have several brands. They make Stanley, they make DeWalt, which is more of a little bit more upscale, more of a professional tool line. They make craftsmen, Black and Decker, Lennox and Erwin. I have to say Craftsman, personally growing up that was a big name, and they originally were sold through Sears. They were at one time considered to be a really high quality tool, and I think they still are to some degree. One of the appealing things is if one of their tools breaks, you can pretty much take it in and it will get replaced. You don't have to have a receipt or anything. 

One of the first challenges, I think, as you look at all these different brands, craftsman, Stanley, these are different brands, but they're really a very similar product. The first thing that comes up, is you got some potential cannibalization. I'm not sure how efficient it is owning all these different brands. I'm sure part of their strategy apparently was to control some percentage of the tool market. It just appears that maybe they have overdone it. 

Why do I say that? If you go all the way back to 2010, they have spent $2.5 half billion dollars on acquisitions. Obviously, they bought some of these brands—craftsmen was one of the ones they bought from Sears. With that, you take net income back in 2011, they had $674 million of net income. You go all the way up to 2024, and I don't know what's embedded in these numbers, but they only had $300 million in net income. They did have in 2022, about a billion dollars of net income, but they really struggled to have any permanent growth. They've had some volatility, and again, I don't know the story well enough to tell you why that is, but they've laid out this capital and they really haven't gotten that good of a return on it. 

Which now leads to the next part of the story. A lot of the dividend growth story comes from more mature companies, because it takes a mature company to generate the excess cash flow to have the brand that they've created, that has the margins to pay out to shareholders where they can finance any of their growth, either internally or they have enough cashflow that they can borrow or issue shares and they still have cashflow left over to make the payments for debt and still pay out something. 

Here's a little bit of a red flag that maybe this brand is getting tired. Usually, higher margins are associated with strong brand—there's a little bit of a moat here. In the case of Stanley, gross profit margin 20 years ago was 36.8%. 10 years ago it was 36%. Five years ago it was 32%. Now it's down to 29%. So margins are slipping. 

If you look at return on invested capital, the five year median has been 5.7%. They really haven't done that well. As far as profitability on their total balance sheet, it's had a few times when it's been up into the teens, but for the most part, they struggle to get to 10%. That's an indication that they're really not earning their cost of capital. 

If you look at debt, I mean this is a little bit of a positive. Debt really hasn't expanded that much. It's 70% of equity. Shares outstanding since 10 years ago are roughly flat. So their real problem appears to be they buy these brands for what? 

They pay for them. They just have a hard time getting a good return based on the same return that their core business is paying. Most companies have this problem they acquire and they dilute their core business. So that sort of appears to be where Stanley Black and Decker is. 

We've talked about in the past, our 10-year simple little growth model of what's the dividend have to do to give us the return we want. Our hurdle rate is a hundred percent. Just looking at the historical data, 20 years ago, this stock was a dividend growth story. The dividend has grown by 201% in the last 20 years. If you take it back 10 years, the dividend growth rate drops down to 60%. It's below our 7% hurdle, which would mean it should be up a hundred percent. The last five years. We're down to only 20% for the dividend growth rate. 

But here's the interesting thing, and probably partly why maybe this pops up as a potential candidate because the stock is fairly cheap, partly for reasons we've just talked about. It has almost a 5% yield. If in 10 years the yield declines to 4.2%, and the dividend grows by 3% a year, which is not asking that much, the dividend will get to $4.28. 

Right now, they're earning the estimates for this year around $5.90. They've been averaging around four or $5. They are covering that dividend, but it would be a payout that would be close to a hundred percent. They don't have a whole lot of CapEx, so you could say, “Well, okay, that's possible.” When you look at our 10 year model and the dividend gets to $4.28 and the stock yields 4.2%, it's 103%, 10 year total return. 

Is that possible? The stock's cheaper than it was 10 years ago, how it's priced now. It's possible, but the challenge I would have when you've got these margins declining, you don't really have a clear path forward. They keep acquiring and the numbers just haven't come through. Part of our big story is we want sustainability and predictability. When somebody hires us as a manager, we're really selling predictability and our goal is 7% dividend growth per year. We've talked a little bit about these higher dividends don't necessarily have to grow as much 'cause you're starting with the higher yield and that helps the compounding side. But we really don't want dead money or even a potential— these are often called value traps. 

So if you would've bought this stock 10 years ago, even with the attractive dividend, the total return is a minus 16%. This is one of those cases where you really have to be careful. This is a great dividend yield story, but is it a dividend growth story? 

Back to Emerson. You've had management come in, they've done a lot, they've improved margins. There's potential growth there, but they've moved away and the risk is going in the next few years, are those acquisitions really going to work out for what they paid for them? Are they going to get the returns that they want? History would suggest in acquisitions that it's going to be extremely difficult. Stanley is kind of the opposite side. They're struggling to find growth. There just seems to be some real risk to where that growth is going to come from, and they're going to be able to maintain it. 

Without that clarity and not knowing…One of the appeals to buying a stock like this is maybe management comes up with a new strategy. They get a new CEO that comes in. There's a lot of different variables that can come into play but you only have what you have to work with. The only thing you can do is make decisions off of that and decide, is this going to meet my threshold? Or do I want to take the risk that they're going to turn it around? Am I willing to make that bet? 

If you want dividend growth, you really have to be disciplined and you have to understand you're going to give up some current yield. It's just likely you're not going to get six or 7% yields. They are out there, but not on a broad basis. If you want total return, you have to stay down where you're still buying companies that have some growth in them. Be very careful about being seduced by yield and also the seduction of growth because NVIDIA is a dividend growth story. The only problem is it pays like 0.05%. We're not willing to go there. 

So I'm going to make a weak attempt here really trying to tie this car story back. If you buy a really cheap car, yeah, you're going to have tons of cash left over to invest. But the problem is you're probably going to be fixing it frequently and it could end up costing you a lot more and it's going to take a lot of time. Yeah, you get a big yield. But you don't get much out of it in the long run, and it's not really going anywhere. That's kind of my 7% high yield story. The sweet spot is you spend 20 grand for a nice Ford truck. It's probably only going to have a hundred thousand miles based on technology today, it's going to be pretty competitive. You know, it's going to be fairly reliable. You might have to do little things, but having an extra 40 grand is going to let you do that. That's kind of where I'm going to call it dividend growth. If you want pure growth, you can buy a big fancy car and impress everybody and drive around and feel good, but it too comes at a cost. You don't have the capital to go out there and reinvest. That's probably my Nvidia, that brand new fancy truck. There's risk in that too. 

So as we conclude, the real challenge is, is that there's no silver bullet. The thing that is most important is you have to have clarity on what you're doing, why you're doing it, and you have to believe that what you do ultimately is going to work. That's always the hard part. 

Emerson, Stanley, we have clarity onto how this fits in for us. For somebody else, it could be a great investment. Both of them going forward could be great investments, but we have clarity on what our strategy is and what our goals are. And it's like you cannot waste time trying to sell a thousand dollar car for a thousand dollars, because that just takes you places where you don't want end up. It's the same thing in the market. You have to try extra hard to not let all the noise around you change what you're doing. 

It took me 40 years, but I've learned for me personally and our client base has drank the Kool-Aid: this is what we do. This is how it works. This is what you can expect. And for the last decade plus, we have delivered the dividend growth. If you feel like you could use some help with it, we have built a business around it. It's become our niche, so feel free to reach out to us. Hopefully this podcast helped you and look forward to episode number 50. 

If you enjoyed today's podcast, please leave us a review and subscribe. If you would like more information regarding dividend growth or our investment strategy, please visit growmydollar.com. There you'll find previous episodes and also our monthly newsletter. If you have any questions or anything to add to today's episode, please email ethan@growmydollar.com. 

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Every investor should consider whether an investment strategy is right for them and all the risk involved. Stocks including dividend stocks are volatile and can lose money. Denewiler Capital Management may or may not have positions in the publicly traded companies mentioned herein.