Secular Bull and Bear Markets for US Stocks

The US Stock Market has delivered great returns for patient long-term investors.

You just need to have a 20 - 30 year timeframe, and avoid panicking. 

If you look at this long-term chart, the three long bearish market periods that stick out are:

1929-1944

1966-1982

2000-2012

The goal is to be able to survive these long bear stretches, stay invested and keep investing. I refer to those stretches as secular bear markets. They are much longer and more memorable than your typical, plain vanilla 20% bear market. The 20% bear market is a bear market for ants, though they are still scary for the novice and those who fail to learn from history. 

We tend to move between long secular bull markets and long secular bear markets. A typical secular bear market could last for a decade or more. A typical secular bull market could last for about two decades or so.

Since 2009 or so, we have been in a secular bull market. I believe we are getting closer to the end of it, and we may be getting overdue for a secular bear market in a few years or so. I would still be invested in equities through the ups and downs however, as I do not time any markets. But I do like to mentally prepare for anything, financially too I guess.

The previous secular bull market was from 1982 to 2000. It was characterized by a boom in earnings, dividends and share prices and a decline in interest rates. Sadly, it ended with excess and overvaluations, which took about a decade to resolve.

The secular bull market before that ended in the 1960s. It started in the 1940s.

We had a long secular bull market in the 1920s as well, which lasted for about a decade or so. That being said, the world in the 1920s was different, as the economy was more secular than today and there were not as many fail-safe mechanisms like FDIC insurance, unemployment insurance, pensions/social security etc. Plus, the sector composition of the economy today is not as secular as the sector composition of the economy from the 1920s or earlier.

The important thing is to participate in the bull markets and benefit fully, without getting cared away and losing a lot during the secular bear markets. 

Each secular bear market is characterized by different reasons for it.

I use to following model to estimate forward returns. They are a function of:

1. Dividend Yields

2. Earnings Per Share Growth

3. Change in valuation

The first two items are the so called fundamental sources of returns. The last item is the speculative source of return.

This simple model helps me put everything else in context.

In the long-run, most of returns are a function of dividends and growth in earnings per share. The change in valuation matters the least in the long run.

To paraphrase the Oracle of Omaha, in the short-run the market is a voting machine, but in the long-run it is a weighting machine.

Changes in dividends and earnings are not as noticeably imporant in the short-run, which is a period of 5 - 10 years. But they are really important in the long run. Without growth in earnings per share, those shares would just keep oscilating at a given range forever. Without a dividend, investors would basically expect to generate no returns in the long-run. 

In the short-run, changes in valuation matter a lot. That's because share prices tend to move above and below any reasonable indication of intrinsic value all the time. The share prices for large corporation scan move very quickly, above and below any estimate for fair value. This is all driven by sentiment. This is all noise if you are already invested, but a potential opportunity to scoop up value when it is on sale. *

That being said, if you can acquire shares at 15 times earnings, you'd do slightly better in the long run than acquiring shares at 30 times earnings. Provided of course it still grew earnings and dividends at a decent clip. The longer you do that for however, the lower the impact of a good entry valuation, and the higher the impact of earnings per share growth and dividends. In other words, it's far better to buy a quality company at a fair price, than a mediocre company at a steal price, to paraphrase the Oracle of Omaha.

If we go back to the model I introduced, it makes it helpful to put things into context.

For example, during the 1929-1944 secular bear market, earnings per share stayed low for almost 17 years. In addition, we had a valuation compression of the earnings stream that wasn't growing in the first place. All the returns for a 1929 - 1954 stretch came from dividends as share prices went nowhere for 25 years. The only reason I use a 15 year time frame for this bear market is due to reinvested dividends. Lower prices pushed dividend yield up. Dividends were cut, but the decline in dividends was much lower than the drop in share prices. Dividends fell by 55% while stock prices fell by 85%. We had deflation, which was bad for earnings, but increased the purchasing power of cash dividends. Dividend yields were high, which cushioned investors against declines in share prices.

The 1966 - 1982 secular bear market was during a high tide of inflation for the US and the world. While earnings and dividends increased in nominal terms, they did not increase in real terms by much. In addition, share prices went nowhere in nominal terms, even though earnings were increasing. That's because we saw a contraction in the valuation multiple. Share prices actually declined in real terms, while dividends and earnings held their ground. Ultimately using inflation adjusted numbers helps, because we care about purchasing power, that is especially important in retirement. Dividend yields were high, and dividends maintained purchasing power during that bleak period, which cushioned investors against declines in share prices in real terms. 

The 2000 - 2012 secular bear market was primarily caused by a decline in valuations and an earnings per share stream that didn't really grow until 2011- 2012. Furthermore, dividend yields were very low at the beginning of this period. Therefore, they could not adequately cushion investors against declines in share prices. This is a good model warning those who expect to just sell stocks in retirement when share prices go nowhere for extended periods of time. (Hint you increase risk of running out of money in retirement).

As I mentioned above, and I will mention below as well, a secular bear market is not your typical bear market.

The typical bear market is characterized by a 20% decline peak to through. 

While we have had a few such declines since 2009, those were basically very short lived. They have inspired a whole generation of new investors who believe in buying the dip that everything will work out soon.

We basically had some short blips on the radar, such as the 2020 Covid Bear Market, the 2022 Bear Market and 2025 Bear Market. In hindsight, those were good opportunities to acquire stock at a good price.

So many here talk about 2022 like it was some type of great depression. Perhaps that was their first major stock market decline. But 2022 and even 2020 were just a blip on the radar. Especially the most recent one in 2025.

The real bad bears like the lost decade of the early 2000s or the stagflationary lost decade of the 1970s are the ones to look out for. The worst is the Great Depression, which really affected the economy, and people's livelihoods for tens of millions in the US (and even more worldwide). These are the secular bears we are concerned about. These are the ones that affect the investor's psyche. Fewer investors are interested in stocks after a long secular bear market. 

Imagine the sentiment with investors, if we get another lost decade like the early 2000s.. Most do not remember the early 2000s, which had a long 12 year stretch of no returns, high unemployment, and two 50%+ stock market crashes. Plus a housing crash and a bunch of other unpleasant stuff.

This is why I invest in Dividend Growth Stocks. I focus on good companies that make money throughout the economic cycle. These quality companies generate more cashflows than they know what to do with. Thus they are able to keep paying and even growing the dividends over time, for many years to come, if not decades.

The stock price can go up or down in the short run, above and below any reasonable valuation basis for intrinsic value. Stock prices are very volatile in the short-run. Dividends are much more stable and dependable however. This is why I focus on the dividend, and ignore the stock price, unless I have money to deploy and take advantage of any opporunitiies.

Focusing on the dividend helps me keep invested, as I am getting paid to hold and ignore the stock prices. Plus, I do not need to sell stock in retirement to pay for my expensive tastes. I can simply cash those dividend checks. Along with any Social Security checks. 

I can build my own portfolio, slowly and over time. I can customize it to include businesses that fit my characteristics. I can then diversify, and manage risk properly, following my entry and exit criteria. Then sit tight, and enjoy the ride.

*For example, in 2025 folks were very scared that Alphabet (GOOG) would lose the AI race and thus pushed the stock below $160/share, which was equivalent to less than 16 times forward earnings. Today the stock sells at $300, which is roughly 30 times forward earnings. 

Three Dividend Growth Stocks Raising Dividends Last Week

I review the list of dividend increases every single week, as part of my monitoring process. It's a boring activity, which teaches me lessons that compound over time however. Dividend increases provide a very good signal on how the business is doing. This is helpful information to go along the other criteria I use in reviewing companies of course (did you think there is a one sized fits all magic bullet?)

This activity helps identify companies that are slipping. It also helps identify companies that are doing well, and executing per their plan.

Over the past week, there were several companies that raised dividends. Only three of them have a ten year track record of annual dividend increases under their belt. I am including the key data points I use in my review of companies I look at as well.

HP Inc. (HPQ) provides personal computing, printing, 3D printing, hybrid work, gaming, and other related technologies in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments.

The company raised dividends by 3.70% to $0.30/share. This is the 15th consecutive annual dividend increase for this dividend achiever. Over the past decade, the company has managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 14.26%.

The company's earnings grew from $1.44/share in 2016 to $2.67/share in 2025. This looks promising at first glance, until I see the trend in EPS and notice that HP has not been able to grow EPS for a few years.

The company is expected to earn $3.14/share in 2025.

The stock sells for 7.80 times forward earnings and a dividend yield of 4.80%.

Hormel Foods Corporation (HRL) develops, processes, and distributes various meat, nuts, and other food products to foodservice, convenience store, and commercial customers in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Retail, Foodservice, and International segments.

The company raised quarterly dividends by 0.90% to $0.2925/share. This is the 60th consecutive annual dividend increase for this dividend king. It is also the smallest dividend increase for the past 60 years. Over the past decade, the company has managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 8.78%.

The company's earnings grew from $1.30/share in 2015 to $1.47/share in 2024. This lack of EPS growth is the real reason behind the slowdown in dividend growth. Actually, if we go back a few years, you'd notice that EPS has not grown since 2018 and is actually down today from that high point in 2018.

The company is expected to earn $1.37/share in 2025.

The stock sells for 17 times forward earnings and a dividend yield of 5%.

RGC Resources, Inc., (RGCO) sells and distributes natural gas to residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Roanoke, Virginia, and the surrounding localities.

The company raised quarterly dividends by 4.80% to $0.2175/share. This is the 22nd consecutive annual dividend increase for this dividend achiever. The company has managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 4.92%.

The company's earnings grew from $0.81/share in 2016 to $1.29/share in 2025.

The company is expected to earn $1.31/share in 2026.

The stock sells for 17.20 times forward earnings and a dividend yield of 3.72%.

Relevant Articles:

- Eight Companies Raising Dividends Last Week

- Thirteen Dividend Growth Stocks Growing Dividends Last Week

- 19 Dividend Growth Stocks Raising Dividends Last Week

- Thirteen Cash Machines Hiking Dividends Last Week

Thirteen Dividend Growth Stocks Growing Dividends Last Week

 Welcome to my latest weekly review of dividend increases. 

As part of my monitoring process, I review dividend increases that occured over the past week. 

I then narrow my attention down to the companies which both raised dividends last week AND have at least a ten year track record of annual dividend increases under their belt.

A company that can grow dividends for many years in a row is usually one with strong competitive advantages, and ability to reinvest and high rates of return. Those types of quality companies can manage to grow the business, while also generating a rising stream of cashflows to share with shareholderds. 

Hence, I tend to keep a close look at companies that have increased dividends for many years in a row. Reviewing recent dividend increases is an extension of that process.

This of course is just one step of the review and monitoring process that I follow. However, it is also good snapshot of the the process I use to quickly decide if a company is worth putting on the list for further research, or discarded.

I tend to look for dividend increases, which are supported by growth in earnings per share. Without that, future dividend growth will be limited.

I also like to review changes in dividend growth, relative to the historical average, to get clues as to where the winds are blowing. Dividend increases are a good signal from managements, which are keenly aware of the competitive dynamics in their industries. As a result, those dividend increases represent a good signaling mechanism as to howt those management teams are expecting the business to perform in the near term.

Last but not least, it is important to determine whether the valuation is attractive or not. This should usually be done at the end. Valuation only matters of course if the business is determined to be of sound quality fundamentally speaking, in the previous steps.

Over the past week, there were thirteen companies that both raised dividends to shareholders AND also have a minimum of ten year track record of annual dividend increases. You can see the companies, and my review of them below:

Note that I look at forward returns as a function of:

1. Dividend Yields

2. Growth in Earnings per Share

3. Change in valuation

The first two items are what drives most of long-term total returns in equities over the long run. The change in valuation matters the least in the long run.

However, in the short run, changes in valuation matter much more than growth in earnings per share and dividends. By "short-run" I mean periods of less than say 5 - 10 years or so. This is where in the short-run, earnings multiples can go really high if the market is euphoric OR really low if the market is depressed. One can potentially take advantage of these opportunities in the short-run.

However, the real wealth is built by investing in a good business, at a good price, that keeps growing earnings, dividends and intrinsic value over time.

This mirrors Warren Buffett's quote that in the short-run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long-run, it is a weighting machine. 

Thank you for reading!

Stocks that leave the Dow tend to outperform after their exit from the average

Note: Article was originally posted in August 2020

The Dow Jones Industrials average is the oldest continuously updated stock index in the US. It was launched in 1896 by Charles Dow, who included 12 companies. The number of companies was later increased to 20 and finally in 1928 the number was increased to 30 companies.

It tracks the performance of 30 blue chip companies, which are representative of the US economy. Its holdings are selected by a five-member index committee at Standard & Poor’s/Dow Jones. This committee is basically comprised of the best stock pickers in the world, since they have managed to do better than most mutual fund managers and individual investors. They have done better than Buffett over the past 10 – 15 years as well.

The index made news in August 2020, when it was announced that it would drop three members of the index, following the stock split in Apple’s shares. Since the index is weighted by the share prices of its components, Apple’s stock split reduced it technology exposure.

As a result, the index committee is replacing Exxon Mobil (XOM), Pfizer (PFE) and Raytheon (RTX) with Salesforce.com (CRM), Honeywell International (HON) and Amgen (AMGN).

A lot of investors believe that indices such as Dow Jones do better over time, because of new members. In reality, the opposite has been the case.

I recently read a study that shows how the companies that have been deleted from the Dow Jones Industrials Index between 1929 and 2006 have actually done much better than the companies that were added to the index. The study is titled " The Real Dogs of the Dow"

This study reminded me of the study of the original 500 members of the S&P 500 from 1957. This study had found that if someone had only invested in the original 500 members of the S&P 500 from 1957, they would have done better than the index themselves. That's because the companies that were added did worse than the companies that were removed from the index. You may read more about this study and my analysis here.

This study also reminded me of the Corporate Leaders Trust, a mutual fund that was started in 1935 with a portfolio of blue chip stocks that stayed constant in time. This mutual fund did better than S&P 500 since the 1970s. You can read my review of the Corporate Leaders Trust here.

This is due to the principle of reversion to the mean. The reversion to the mean hypothesis states that companies taken out of the Dow may not be in as bad of a situation as expected. It also suggests that the companies that replace them may not be as great as their current record suggests.

As a result the stock of the deleted company may be too cheap, while the stock of the added companies may turn out to be too expensive. As a result, companies that were deleted from the Dow may deliver better results than companies that were added to the Dow.

This is somewhat counter-intuitive. But it makes sense. The companies that are likely to be deleted are the ones that have suffered for a while, and they are down on their fortunes. As a result, investor expectations are low, which means that these shares are low too, as they are priced for the end of the world. The nice thing about such companies is that if the world doesn’t end, and they do just a little bit better, they can reward their shareholders handsomely. That’s because you will likely experience an expansion in the P/E, at the same time earnings and dividends are rising too.

On the other hand, the companies that are recently added to the index tend to have done very well. They are promising companies of the future. As a result, they sell at premium valuations. However, if these companies fail to live up to their lofty expectations, their returns may suffer, because investors may be willing to pay a lower P/E multiple. If profits do not grow as expected as well, it is likely that investors would also suffer from that as well.

As I mentioned above, I found a study that analyzed the substitutions in the Dow Industrials Index between 1928 and 2005.  The results were in line with what my expectations would be based on my research on the Corporate Leaders Trust and the Performance of the Original Members of S&P 500.

Over this period, there were 50 additions and deletions. In 32 of 50 cases, the deleted stock did better than the added stock.

Figure 1 shows that, with the exception of the 1990s, the Deletion portfolio consistently outperformed the Addition portfolio over the 76-year period.

Figure 2 shows the ratio of the average deletion wealth to the average addition wealth each day over a ten-year horizon. The deleted stocks outpace the added stocks for approximately five years after the substitution date. Then their relative performance stabilizes

Table 4 summarizes the average levels of wealth for the Deletion and Addition stocks at 250- day intervals (approximately 1 year) over the five-year period following the substitution dates.

For example, the deleted stocks showed, on average, a 19.30% increase in value 250 trading days after the publication date, while the added stocks showed an average increase of only 3.37%. The differences in average wealth grow increasingly pronounced as the horizon lengthens.

The study had a fascinating conclusion.

A portfolio consisting of stocks removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average has outperformed a portfolio containing the stocks that replaced them. This finding contradicts the efficient market hypothesis since changes in the composition of the Dow are widely reported and well known. Our explanation for this anomaly is the market’s insufficient appreciation of the statistical principle of regression to the mean, an error that has been previously identified in a variety of contexts and is no doubt present in a great many other contexts.

This is fascinating research, which spans a period of close to 80 years. The main point behind this research is reversion to the mean. Basically, a trend can only go so far, until it is reversed. It goes in both directions of course.

I went ahead and obtained a listing of all the additions and deletions for Dow Jones since 2004. I then compared the five-year performance for an investor who bought the deletions of the Dow and for an investor who bought the additions to the Dow. For companies that were bought out, I basically stopped the clock at the acquisition date.

I did not calculate anything past 2019, since the information is still new.

I present to you the data below. Again, please understand that I am one person who did this data analysis using free resources, such as dividendchannel.com. My data may be incomplete, or missing fields. I am not pulling it from an academic database, like all the other researchers.

Out of 14 substitutions, the deletions did better on only 4 occasions. The additions did better on 10 occasions. The total wealth for putting $10,000 in each deletion was $180,609 versus $227,540 for putting $10,000 in each of the additions.

The most interesting factor for me however was that since the research was published in 2005, I have found that the opposite has been the case.

In other words, the companies that were deleted did not do as well as the companies that were added to the list. Perhaps this is due to the way that things move faster these days in the globalized economy. The pace of change is faster, and the level of obsolescence is increasing as well. This just goes to show that success in investing is not going to be based on some simple formula that we can copy and paste and generate instant riches.

Another interesting piece of information relates to International Business Machines (IBM). The company was replaced by AT&T on March 14, 1939. I do not believe researchers were even able to find a reason behind the decision.

IBM did not get back into the index until June 29, 1979. At that point, the stock had increased in value by 562 times, which is incredible. AT&T stock had barely tripled over that 40-year period. You may read this excellent article on Dow Jones 22,000 point mistake.

Source: Global Financial Data

I am mentioning this part in order to show that a large portion of the 1939 – 1979 outperformance of deleted companies over the added companies could be attributed to this decision.

By the time IBM was added to the index, it stopped growing. Chrysler was removed because it was very close to going under in 1979. It would have gone bankrupt, had it not been for Lee Iacocca, and a $1.2 billion bailout by the US Government. The stock went as low as $2/share in 1979, before rebounding all the way up to $50/share before the 1987 stock market crash.

This information comes from the book " Beating the Dow".

In conclusion, based on this study, someone who bought the companies that were deleted from Dow Jones Industrials Average between 1928 and 2005 would have done better than Dow Jones Industrials Index. That's because the companies that were deleted ended up delivering a better performance than the companies that were added over this 77 year period. 

However, strategies and edges on Wall Street are not carved in stone. Things do change, either permanently or stay irrational for far longer than a follower of the strategy may remain solvent. 

For example, if you look at performance of US Stocks versus International, US Small versus Large Cap, and Value versus Growth, you can see that they are generally cyclical. Those cycles can last many decades however. These long cycles may fool market participants that they are seeing a trend. Check the charts on this article " Dividends Are The Investors' Friend"

It is also possible that the excellent results of this reversion to the mean strategy may have been due to a fluke in the 1939 removal of IBM, which turned out to be a very successful corporation. It was further compounded by the removal of Chrysler, which turned out to rebound. What happened in 1979 with Chrysler may have caused an investor to buy General Motors in 2009, believing that they would experience the same type of turnaround. However, if you bought General Motors in 2009, you lost your entire nest egg. Again, history does not repeat, it just rhymes. This is why you have to learn from history, but you also have to realize that the same thing happening twice over a span of 30 years may have a totally different outcome. 

Update: November 17, 2025

It looks like the three additions have not done as well as Dow Jones Industrials Average since August 28, 2020 (the date changes took place). 

It also looks like the three deletions did much better than Dow Jones Industrials Average since August 28, 2020:

Relevant Articles:

• The ultimate passive investment strategy
• The Perfect Dividend Portfolio
• Time in the market is your greatest ally in investing
• Dividends Are The Investors' Friend

Eight Companies Raising Dividends Last Week

I review the list of dividend increases weekly, in an effort to monitor the existing dividend growth investing universe from a different angle. This piece fits perfectly with my existing system of screening for and monitoring existing holdings. Dividend increases have signaling power, which can help observe managements assessment of the business environment. It takes a trained eye to study and decipher the tea leaves however. And just like any other type of indicator, it is never going to be 100% foolproof.

As part of my monitoring process, I do focus only on the more established dividend growth companies. This means that I focus on the companies that have at least a ten year track record of annual dividend increases under their belts. 

Over the past week, there were eight companies in the US that raised dividends and also have a ten year track record of annual dividend increases. The companies include:

Aflac Incorporated (AFL) provides supplemental health and life insurance products. The company operates in two segments, Aflac Japan and Aflac U.S. 

The company raised its quarterly dividends by 5.20% to $0.61/share. This is the 43rd year of consecutive annual dividend increases for this dividend aristocrat. Aflac has managed to grow dividends by 10.45%/year over the past decade.

Between 2015 and 2024, Aflac has managed to grow earnings from $2.94/share to $9.68/share.

The company is expected to earn $7.49/share in 2025.

The stock sells for 15.30 times forward earnings and a dividend yield of 2.13%.

Assurant, Inc. (AIZ) provides protection services to connected devices, homes, and automobiles in North America, Latin America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. It operates in two segments, Global Lifestyle and Global Housing. 

The company hiked quarterly dividends by 10% to $0.88/share. This is the 21st consecutive annual dividend increase for this dividend achiever. Over the past decade, the company managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 10.82%.

Between 2015 and 2024, the company raised quarterly dividends by $2.08/share to $14.55/share.

The company is expected to earn $19.59/share in 2025.

The stock sells at 11.70 times forward earnings and yields 1.54%.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) provides cloud-based human capital management (HCM) solutions worldwide. It operates in two segments, Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO). 

The company raised quarterly dividends by 10.40% to $1.70/share. This marks the 51st consecutive year in which this dividend king raised dividends. ADP has managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 12.76% over the past decade.

Between 2016 and 2025, the company has managed to grow earnings from $3.27/share to $10.02/share.

The company is expected to earn $10.91/share in 2025.

The stock sells for 23.20 times forward earnings and yields 2.70%.

Farmers & Merchants Bancorp (FMCB) operates as the bank holding company for Farmers & Merchants Bank of Central California that provides various banking services to businesses and individuals in the United States.

The company raised quarterly dividends by 1% to $5.05/share. This is the 60th consecutive year of annual dividend increases for this dividend king. Over the past decade, the company has managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 3.40%.

Between 2015 and 2024, the company managed to grow earnings from $34.82/share to $121.02/share.

The stock sells at 7.83 times earnings and a dividend yield of 1.96%.

First National Corporation (FXNC) operates as the bank holding company for First Bank that provides various commercial banking services to small and medium-sized businesses, individuals, estates, local governmental entities, and non-profit organizations in Virginia. 

The company hiked quarterly dividends by 9.70% to $0.17/share. This is the 11th consecutive annual dividend increase for this dividend achiever. Over the past decade, the company has managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 23.20%. However, that was possible due to re-starting paying dividends again from a very low base in 2014.

Between 2015 and 2024, the company managed to grow earnings from $0.31/share to $1/share.

The company is expected to earn $1.96/share in 2025.

The stock sells for 12.35 times forward earnings and yields 2.82%.

Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc. (HVT) operates as a specialty retailer of residential furniture and accessories in the United States. The company offers furniture merchandise under the Havertys brand name.

The company raised quarterly dividends by 3.10% to $0.33/share. This is the 13th consecutive year of annual dividend increases for this dividend achiever. The company has managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 14.69% over the past decade.

Between 2015 and 2024, the company's earnings moved from $1.24/share to $1.22 (they have remained stagnant). The high growth in dividends was only possible due to expanding the payout ratio. Future dividend growth will be limited to what earnings growth will be, if any.

The company is expected to earn $1.17/share in 2025.

The stock sells at 19.36 times forward earnings and a dividend yield of 5.85%.

Spire Inc. (SR) engages in the purchase, retail distribution, and sale of natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and other end-users of natural gas in the United States. The company operates through three segments: Gas Utility, Gas Marketing, and Midstream. 

The company increased quarterly dividends by 5.10% to $0.825/share. This is the 23rd consecutive year of annual dividend increases for this dividend achiever. Over the past decade, the company has managed to grow dividends at an annualized rate of 5.55%.

Between 2016 and 2025, the company managed to grow earnings from $3.26/share to $4.39/share.

The company is expected to earn $5.20/share in 2026.

The stock sells for 16.70 times forward earnings and a dividend yield of 3.79%.

Tyson Foods, Inc. (TSN) operates as a food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods.

The company raised quarterly dividends by 2% to $0.51/share. This is the 14th consecutive annual dividend increase for this dividend achiever. Over the past decade, the company has managed to raise dividends at an annualized dividend growth of 19.75%.

Between 2016 and 2025, earnings dropped from $4.59/share to $1.33/share.

The company expects to earn $3.90/share in 2026.

The stock sells for 13.80 times forward earnings and a dividend yield of 3.78%. 

Relevant Articles:

- Thirteen Cash Machines Hiking Dividends Last Week

- 19 Dividend Growth Stocks Raising Dividends Last Week

- Twenty Dividend Growth Stocks Raising Distributions Last Week