Comments on: Stock Analysis: Clorox Co. (CLX) *

By: Dividends4Life

Dividends4Life — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:50:00 +0000

DGI: I didn't take your comment as saying anything about my analysis. No problem here.

As for USB 1998 & 1999 EPS numbers:

S&P: '98 0.65; '99 0.87
Yahoo: '98 0.553 '99 0.617
USB: '98 ?0.40? '99 0.463

I can't find two sources that agree either, and the range of variability is high.

Best Wishes,
D4L

By: Dividend Growth Investor

Dividend Growth Investor — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:17:00 +0000

I was not trying to say that your analysis is incorrect.
I was asking bc I was working on an analysis of USB. Morningstar ( which supposedly uses S&P) had certain EPS numbers for 1998 and 1999, while other sources claimed completely different results.

By: Dividends4Life

Dividends4Life — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:12:00 +0000

I primarily use S&P (see my 3rd comment on this post for a link to a sample report). Up to this point S&P had been solid, when there were discrepancies, S&P was correct. When I want to look at quarterly data, I use Yahoo. I have included a link to Yahoo on the "Tools" page. Like you, I also use Morningstar.

In the future, I will cross check my dividend data against a different source.

Best Wishes,
D4L

By: Dividend Growth Investor

Dividend Growth Investor — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:24:00 +0000

Seems like MG pointed out the issue. I just got credit for his work
D4L,

I was wondering where you get your historical EPS data from? I use morningstar. Unfortunately though my EPS numbers vary dramatically for 1998 and 1999 for USB.

By: Dividend Growth Investor

Dividend Growth Investor — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:25:00 +0000

The S&P data has missed one of the payments ( Yahoo does it too)

http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/investors/stockinfo/dividend_split.html

By: Dividends4Life

Dividends4Life — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:23:00 +0000

I updated this analysis due to the erroneous dividend data. Thanks to MG and Dividend Growth investor for pointing it out.

Here is a link to the S&P page I used with the erroneous data. I would be interested if anyone knows if there is a valid reason why there are so many years of differing dividend data.

Link to S&P page.

My apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

Best Wishes,
D4L

By: Dividends4Life

Dividends4Life — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:35:00 +0000

DGI: There is something odd in the S&P data. Here is a comparison of S&P vs Yahoo on a calendar year:

-----S&P--Yahoo---
1998 0.64 0.68
1999 0.76 0.76
2000 0.61 0.82
2001 0.84 0.84
2002 0.84 0.85
2003 0.88 0.98
2004 1.08 1.08
2005 1.10 1.12
2006 1.14 1.16
2007 1.20 1.42

The real oddity is 2000. It is as if S&P dropped a dividend (0.20 + 0.20 + 0.21 = 0.61)? As you can see the differences persist all the way through 2007. Based on this I will update my analysis using the Yahoo dividends and repost.

Best Wishes,
D4L

By: Dividend Growth Investor

Dividend Growth Investor — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:58:00 +0000

Year Dividend
1997 0.61
1998 0.68
1999 0.76
2000 0.82
2001 0.84
2002 0.85
2003 0.98
2004 1.08
2005 1.12
2006 1.16
2007 1.42

Seems like we had an increase every calendar year. In addition, the S&P seem to delete from the aristocrats list some stocks which have had more than 25 straight years of dividend increases, but had a spinoff and as a result the nominal dividends were cut ( but in reality shareholders did not suffer a decrease in their quartelry dividend income). One stock like that is MO- it spun off KFT in 07. this year it spun off PM.

By: Dividends4Life

Dividends4Life — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:30:00 +0000

MG: My data source (S&P) uses a calendar year to evaluate share price and dividends. I had suspected the reason CLX was listed as an Aristocrat and Achiever was based on a fiscal year, though I thought the requirement was raising dividends, not the absence of a reduction.

Best Wishes,
D4L

By: MG

MG — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:15:00 +0000

D4L,

With respect to dividends:

Fiscal 1999 = $0.71
Fiscal 2000 = $0.80
Fiscal 2001 = $0.84
Fiscal 2002 = $0.84
Fiscal 2003 = $0.88

CLX has never cut their dividend.