False Allegations on DuPont Dividend Misleading To Investors
Good Morning, Bonjour, Guten Tag, Konichiwa,
Readers, last night (May 23, 2013) we were astounded by the following false statement put forth by a writer for Motley Fool, Mathew Luke, conspicuously and mistakenly glorifying DuPont as a "dividend superstar":
"Not only has DuPont paid a dividend since 1904, but it has increased that dividend payout every single year since initiating it. That is 108 years and counting of annual dividend increases."
That glaring hype is blatantly FALSE, fellow investors. But we will give Mr. Luke the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the writer has inadvertently confused DuPont with another corporation. Or he may have been fed misinformation or misleading PR propaganda from DuPont Management or their PR flim-flam artists?
In any event, DuPont's "superstar" status as a dividend payor has become stretched and ragged. Over the past 15 years the quarterly dividend has been raised by only a dime from 35 cents to 45 cents in four tiny steps. That hardly keeps pace with the relatively tame rate of CPI inflation in the United States!
To add insult to injury, DD was trading north of 80 a decade and a half ago in May 1998. It now trades in the forties to mid-fifties.
Investors looking for robust and consistent dividend growth might consider two of DuPont's major competitors.
Both superior-managed 3M Corp and Monsanto have shown dividend increases in each year of the past decade.
Merely the morning commentary of one individual investor and long-time student of the dissimulating and deceptive DuPont...funfun..
Don't look now but a new DuPont management alias has now heckled you on the 3M board. Amazing how effective you've been in distracting these goofs in Wilmington. No wonder why DuPont has fallen and fallen since 1998!
C 'est bizarre. The Motley Fool writer with the biblical sounding name of Mathew Luke has not seen fit yet to edit his published remarks to correct the gross misrepresentations of DuPont's historical dividend record. What gives? Investors are left with outright deception of DuPont's unimpressive dividend track, particularly for the most recent 15 years. It raises the question as to exactly where did Not-So-Cool-Hand Luke get this blatant misinformation. Who fed him these fibs and fabrication on DuPont dividends?
For Motley Fool to preserve their reputation and that of their writers and analysts, there must be an overriding fidelity to accuracy and to the truth.
On a side note, did you notice DuPont's goofy "support" for TSCA reform? As if this company, which has released nasty Benlate and Imprelis with minimal testing, really wants to see its ill-tested chemical line-up tested to new, rigorous government standards. Of course, with these new rules in place, a super-nasty chemical like Imprelis would have been shot down before it killed 10s of thousands of trees and cost DuPont at least $2 Billion. Most employees these days at DuPont are AGAINST anything DuPont bosses are for.
2nd side note: you notice how not-that-bright loves to bring in irrelevant subject matter like "Agent Orange" or all things to malign the NEW Monsanto, which didn't even exist until about 12 years ago? She's really complaining about SOLUTIA but tries to confuse the feeble-minded. Supposedly (and this time we might believe her) a sibling was exposed to Agent Orange and had health effects after Vietnam service. While we certainly sympathize with those who were injured or had family die in this terrible war, our recollection, which I'm sure you'll agree with, is that those who found themselves over there with a mere HR diploma (like not-that-bright's entire family), were unfortunately TOO DUMB to know that getting a college degree in sciences or engineering would have probably avoided battlefield service and been used for other means. I guess it's fitting she works in Ag and "NUT" division, being the crazed kook she is!