"I'm having difficulty understanding how I can compare the performance of two mutual funds, for example lets consider XSB (ishares bond index) and XIC (ishares S&P/TSX index).Traditionally the way I'd evaluate the historical performance of these funds is to look at the change in share price over a period of time (say five years). Lets say the share price in one went up 22% in that period and the other went up 44%.But now I realize that, both of these funds pay dividends. Lets say the first one averages 4%/year while the other pays 2%. This complicates the equation immensely, in terms of determining the actual return on investment.Ideally the sort of analysis I'd like would be something like: - what if I put one million dollars in both funds 5 years ago - and then re-invested any dividends - and then sold the funds at market value today, and payed any taxes out of the proceedsThis to me seems like a good way of modeling the real return of those funds over the investment period.So my question is...are there any tools or common methods for performing this kind of analysis? Mutual fund price charts are a dime a dozen, but I can't find any kind of online tool that will even roughly model this kind of analysis. Am I missing something or misunderstanding the concept of return on investments in funds?"
This is a very good question, as it delves directly into theidea that looking at charts alone might not be enough in order tocompare total returns. The last statement of course depends on thedata provider.
What I would consider doing is :
1. Going to ca.finance.yahoo.com, which is one of my favorite sitesfor stock market and dividend data.
2. Type in the symbol which you are interested in ( XSB).
3. Look over to your left, under the text " More on XSB.TO", you willfind a link to Historical Prices. We would be using the alreadycalculated historical prices from Yahoo.
4. After that you should be able to see an online table with daterange and open/high/low/close and volume daily information. You wantto focus on the "Adj Close" column at the end of the spreadsheet. It'suseful for me to look at the data in a monthly view since we will beresearching 5 years worth of returns.
5. You could see how dividends are being placed every 3 or so monthsfor XSB, and they are automatically adjusted at the "Adj Close"column. You could then download the data for the specific period youare interested for into excel.
In order to get the same information for XIC, just follow steps 1-5. Ijust went ahead and charted the total returns of XSB versus XIC from04/2003 to 04/2008.
I am sure that there are other ways to accomplish this, so I would be interested in my readers input on this one. Any comments are welcome!
At the same time the company has managed to deliver an impressive 21.30 % average annual increase in its net income from 1998 to 2007.
The ROE increased from a low of 7% in 1998 to a high of 24 % in 2006, before decreasing to 13 % in 2007.
Annual dividend payments have increased over the past 10 years by an average of 15.30% annually, which is lower than the growth in net income. A 15% growth in dividends translates into the dividend payment doubling almost every five years. If we look at historical data, going as far back as 1993, KMP has indeed managed to double its dividend payments almost every five years.
If we invested $100,000 in KMP on December 31, 1997 we would have bought 5903 shares (adjusted for a 2:1 split in August 2001). Your first quarterly check would have been $1658.75 in January 1998. If you kept reinvesting the dividends though instead of spending them, your quarterly payment would have risen to $9920.24 by October 2007. For a period of 10 years, your quarterly dividend has increased by 213 %. If you reinvested it though, your quarterly dividend would have increased by 498%.
The dividend payout has remained above 100% for the majority of our study period. When put into the perspective of the past 10 year’s average though, it looks pretty normal for the company. A lower payout is always a plus, since it leaves room for consistent dividend growth minimizing the impact of short-term fluctuations in earnings. 
I think that KMP is attractively valued at its current price/earnings multiple and solid dividend growth. The company also boasts an above average dividend yield.
According to Mergent Inc, a $10,000 investment at the end of 1997, would be worth about $16,148 by the end of 2007.
There's an ETF, which tracks the index. The Ticker is 
At the same time the company has managed to deliver a notable 11.60 % average annual increase in its EPS since 1998. If we look at the earnings chart though, it looks as if the EPS has been range bound, never been able to exceed $7. 
Annual dividend payments have increased over the past 10 years by an average of 9.80% annually, which is slightly below the growth in EPS. A 10% growth in dividends translates into the dividend payment doubling every 7 years. If we look at historical data, going as far back as 1998, ACAS has indeed managed to double its quarterly dividend payments every four and a half years on average. 
If we invested $100,000 in ACAS on December 31, 1997 we would have bought 6906 shares. Your first quarterly check would have been $1,726.50 in March 1998. If you kept reinvesting the dividends though instead of spending them, your quarterly dividend payment would have risen to $17,095 by December 2007. For a period of 10 years, the quarterly dividend has increased by 300 %. If you reinvested it though, your quarterly dividend income would have increased by 890%.
The dividend payout has fluctuated greatly, along with the EPS and ROE. The current ratio of 94% does look a little high. When put into the perspective of the past 5 year’s average of 88% though, it looks pretty normal for the company. A lower payout is always a plus, since it leaves room for consistent dividend growth minimizing the impact of short-term fluctuations in earnings. 
I think that ACAS is 
I used the same screening criteria for identifying stocks worthy of my watchlist as described in 
In addition to that PEP recently announced an increase in its annual dividend from $1.50 to $1.70, which is a healthy 13.33% raise. The quarterly dividend of $0.425 is payable June 30, 2008, to shareholders of record on June 6, 2008.The ex-dividend date is June 4.
At the same time the company has managed to deliver a meager 2.00 % average annual increase in its EPS.
The ROE has been in a steep downtrend from its 1998 highs at 25% to less than 11% in 2007. The decline in the newspaper business is the main driver behind the deterioration in fundamentals.
Annual dividend payments have increased over the past 10 years by an average of 6.70% annually, which is above the growth in EPS. A 6.70% growth in dividends translates into the dividend payment doubling every eleven years. If we look at historical data, going as far back as 1985, GCI has indeed managed to double its dividend payments every eleven years. If the company does not increase its EPS over time, any future dividend increases would be unsustainable.
If we invested $100,000 in GCI on December 31, 1997 we would have bought 1662 shares. Your first quarterly check would have been $315.78 in March 1998. If you kept reinvesting the dividends though instead of spending them, your quarterly payment would have risen to $770 by December 2007. For a period of 10 years, your quarterly dividend has increased by 110.50 %. If you reinvested it though, your quarterly dividend would have increased by 143.90%.
The dividend payout has remained below 35% during our study period. A lower payout is always a plus, since it leaves room for consistent dividend growth minimizing the impact of short-term fluctuations in earnings. Even with the small growth in earnings, it could take several years of positive dividend growth and flat earnings for this ratio to cross 50%. 
I think that GCI is 
