“Someone’s sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.”
— Warren Buffett
The Warren Buffett investment philosophy calls for a long-term investment horizon, where a two-decade holding period, or even longer, would fit right into the strategy. How would such a strategy have worked out for an investment into Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS)? Today, we examine the outcome of a two-decade investment into the stock back in 2001.
|Average annual return:||4.97%|
As shown above, the two-decade investment result worked out as follows, with an annualized rate of return of 4.97%. This would have turned a $10K investment made 20 years ago into $26,395.80 today (as of 04/05/2021). On a total return basis, that’s a result of 163.95% (something to think about: how might MS shares perform over the next 20 years?). [These numbers were computed with the Dividend Channel DRIP Returns Calculator.]
Dividends are always an important investment factor to consider, and Morgan Stanley has paid $29.76/share in dividends to shareholders over the past 20 years we looked at above. Many an investor will only invest in stocks that pay dividends, so this component of total return is always an important consideration. Automated reinvestment of dividends into additional shares of stock can be a great way for an investor to compound their returns. The above calculations are done with the assuption that dividends received over time are reinvested (the calcuations use the closing price on ex-date).
Based upon the most recent annualized dividend rate of 1.4/share, we calculate that MS has a current yield of approximately 1.79%. Another interesting datapoint we can examine is ‘yield on cost’ — in other words, we can express the current annualized dividend of 1.4 against the original $50.90/share purchase price. This works out to a yield on cost of 3.52%.
One more investment quote to leave you with:
“Twenty years in this business convinces me that any normal person using the customary three percent of the brain can pick stocks just as well, if not better, than the average Wall Street expert.” — Peter Lynch