One of the most read entries on this blog is my 2016 take on the Canadian TULF Dividend Growth Portfolio. When re-reading the post and a couple of critical comments that it generated, I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the entry and take a different perspective. Since it's been almost five years since the entry, my personal viewpoints have changed, and I'm going to attempt to argue in favor of the TULF portfolio by presenting counter examples to invalidate my three criticisms of Tom Connolly's four stock portfolio.
For any readers who aren't familiar with Tom Connolly, he published The Connolly Report investment newsletter for over 30 years, and is one of the best known Canadian dividend growth advocates. Mr. Connolly set out the idea of the four stock TULF portfolio, with "T" standing for telecommunication companies, "U" for utilities, "L" for low-yielding dividend growth stocks with growth potential, and "F" for financials. To ensure high quality companies, Mr. Connolly suggested investors limit themselves to the S&P/TSX Dividend Aristocrats Index, which consists of 87 members and can be traded under the CDZ ishares ETF. It is worth noting that Mr. Connolly had certain rules regarding eliminating any "high yield" stock with a payout over 6%, and then removing cyclical stocks (i.e. energy and mining) as they were perceived as too risky to include in a four stock portfolio.
My three criticisms regarding the TULF portfolio are include below in italics, with my counterarguments in normal font.