Connect with us

3 “Strong Buy” Dividend Stocks Yielding at Least 5%

3 “Strong Buy” Dividend Stocks Yielding at Least 5%

Published

on

The 1H20, after the coronavirus crisis and the economic downturn, was a true black swan. Yet, markets are on the upswing, with the NASDAQ near record highs and the S&P 500 holding above 3,200. It’s a positive sign, and a welcome one as we enter the Q2 earnings season. Investors are both cautious and guardedly optimistic going in.

The second quarter saw some serious turbulence as headwinds and tailwinds collided. Among the headwinds: the lockdowns of March and the dreaded ‘second wave’ of the virus in June. The tailwinds included the lifting of restrictions in May, and the restarting of economic activity. Initial results are showing that Q2 earnings were not as grim as Q1. The question now is, is it sustainable?

We just don’t know. And that makes dividend stocks, the classic defensive play, look better every day. Using TipRanks database, we identified three stocks that have maintained their dividend payments even during the height of pandemic. They are yielding at least 5%, and are backed by enough analysts to earn a “Strong Buy” consensus rating. 

NexPoint Real Estate Finance (NREF)

The first stock on our list is a newcomer to the markets. NexPoint, a real estate investment trust focused on mortgage loans for single- and multi-family residential rental units, went public this past February. While the IPO, of $19 per share, was at the low end of the initial range, the offering was successful with 5 million shares sold bringing in $95 million.

Since then, NexPoint has had the bad luck to run headlong into the coronavirus-inspired economic downturn. With million laid off or unemployed, rental owners have had a hard time collecting from tenants, leading to difficulties for the mortgage holders. Even in this difficult climate, however, NREF was able to beat the earnings forecast, and report 23 cents EPS against the forecast of 22 cents.

Meeting earnings expectations allowed the company to meet its dividend obligations, as well. NREF declared its Q1 dividend payment on the same day it released earnings figures, and paid the dividend out at 40 cents per share on June 30. This payment annualizes to $1.60 and gives an excellent yield of 10.6%. Compare that to the ~2% average yield found among S&P listed companies, and the attraction here is clear.

Covering this stock for Raymond James, analyst Stephen Laws writes, “…NREF [has a] high quality portfolio of stabilized, long-duration investments, which we believe results in better earnings visibility than peers. NREF's portfolio does not have any land or construction loans or any loans collateralized by hotel, retail, or office properties. We believe shares should trade roughly in line with book value as we believe the company is well positioned to capitalize on the stressed market environment given the recent capital raise.”

To this end, Laws rates NREF a Strong Buy along with an $18 price target, suggesting it has room for 19% growth in the coming year. (To watch Laws’ track record, click here)

Overall, NREF shares have a unanimous Strong Buy analyst consensus rating, a show of confidence by Wall Street’s analyst corps. The stock is selling for $15.11, and the average price target of $18.50 implies 22% growth in the year ahead. (See NREF stock analysis on TipRanks)

TPG RE Finance Trust (TRTX)

For our next stock, we’ll stick with the REIT sector. TPG RE Finance was sponsored by global asset firm TPG, to handle commercial real estate financing. TRTX has a portfolio worth over $5.8 billion, and its properties are mainly multi-family dwellings or office space, along with significant exposure to hotels and mixed-used properties.

Business closures and mass unemployment put enormous pressure on most apartment- and office exposed REITs in the first half of the year, and TRTX was no exception. The company saw Q1 earnings plummet to negative territory, and reported a $2.20 loss per share. Nevertheless, TRTX has chosen to keep up its dividend payments.

It was not a light decision, nor was it easy to carry out. The company’s Q1 dividend, which had been suspended, was restored at the previously declared 43 cents per share, while the Q2 payment was cut back to 20 cents. The cut to the dividend was made to keep the payment better in line with share value. After the cut, TRTX’s dividend offers a yield of 10.2%. It’s important to remember here that TRTX’s shares have really recovered their value from the market crash earlier this year.

JMP’s 5-star analyst Steven DeLaney notes the dividend – and TRTX’s commitment to it – in his recent note on the stock. He writes, “[The] new lower cash dividend suggests a cautiously prudent approach in the near term. On June 17, the company announced that the 2Q dividend will be $0.20 per share and a decline of 53% from the prior $0.43. Additionally, the temporarily suspended 1Q dividend of $0.43 will be paid in cash on July 14. We believe the new quarterly dividend level is appropriate to preserve liquidity ahead of some level of expected credit workouts in the loan portfolio.”

On the strength of the dividend and the company’s forward prospect, DeLaney rates TRTX a Buy. His $10 price target show confidence in a 24% one-year upside growth potential. (To watch DeLaney’s track record, click here)

Wall Street agrees with DeLaney; that much is clear from the aggregate data. TRTX has a Strong Buy rating from the analyst consensus, based on 3 Buys and 1 Hold. Shares are priced at $8.08 and have an average price target of $10.17, suggesting nearly 26% upside. (See TRTX stock analysis on TipRanks)

CatchMark Timber (CTT)

The last stock on our list is another REIT, but with a twist. CatchMark invests in timber lands, mainly in or near the major mill markets in the US. The company owns 1.5 million prime acres, in Oregon as well as across the Southeast and South, from the Carolinas through to Texas. CatchMark owns the lands and the timber on them, but does not deal with the derivative forest products or the manufacturing processes.

The company showed a net loss in Q1 – of 9 cents per share – but set in the context of recent quarters, that was not a bad performance. The company has been reporting EPS losses since 2018, but typically sees those losses mitigate sequentially. This past Q1 was no exception; the 9-cent EPS loss was an improvement from the previous quarter’s 24 cent loss. CatchMark will report Q2 earnings in August.

At the same time that CatchMark reported Q1 earnings, it also declared the Q2 dividend. The payment remains steady at 13.5 cents per share, yielding a strong 5.5%. The company has a 6-year history of keeping up its dividend payments, in all economic conditions.

5-star analyst Paul Quinn, from RBC, sees CatchMark as a strong defensive play for more than just dividend. He writes, “With so much uncertainty in the world today, we see Timberlands as an attractive asset class due to their steady income characteristics and long lifespan. Given CatchMark's pure-play Timberland status and exposure to attractive markets in the US South, we expect that the company will screen increasingly well to investors….”

Quinn backs this with a $10 price target, suggesting room for a modest 2% growth. (To watch Quinn’s track record, click here)

Once again, the analyst is in sync with Wall Street’s collective view. The analyst consensus here is a Strong Buy, and it is unanimous: all three of the recent reviews on this stock come down to Buy. The shares are selling for $9.75, and the average price target is $10. This suggests that the stock’s recent appreciation may force analysts to reassess their targets in the near future. (See CatchMark stock analysis on TipRanks)

To find good ideas for dividend stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights.

The post 3 “Strong Buy” Dividend Stocks Yielding at Least 5% appeared first on TipRanks Financial Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Simple blood test could predict risk of long-term COVID-19 lung problems

UVA Health researchers have discovered a potential way to predict which patients with severe COVID-19 are likely to recover well and which are likely to…

Published

on

UVA Health researchers have discovered a potential way to predict which patients with severe COVID-19 are likely to recover well and which are likely to suffer “long-haul” lung problems. That finding could help doctors better personalize treatments for individual patients.

Credit: UVA Health

UVA Health researchers have discovered a potential way to predict which patients with severe COVID-19 are likely to recover well and which are likely to suffer “long-haul” lung problems. That finding could help doctors better personalize treatments for individual patients.

UVA’s new research also alleviates concerns that severe COVID-19 could trigger relentless, ongoing lung scarring akin to the chronic lung disease known as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the researchers report. That type of continuing lung damage would mean that patients’ ability to breathe would continue to worsen over time.

“We are excited to find that people with long-haul COVID have an immune system that is totally different from people who have lung scarring that doesn’t stop,” said researcher Catherine A. Bonham, MD, a pulmonary and critical care expert who serves as scientific director of UVA Health’s Interstitial Lung Disease Program. “This offers hope that even patients with the worst COVID do not have progressive scarring of the lung that leads to death.”

Long-Haul COVID-19

Up to 30% of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 continue to suffer persistent symptoms months after recovering from the virus. Many of these patients develop lung scarring – some early on in their hospitalization, and others within six months of their initial illness, prior research has found. Bonham and her collaborators wanted to better understand why this scarring occurs, to determine if it is similar to progressive pulmonary fibrosis and to see if there is a way to identify patients at risk.

To do this, the researchers followed 16 UVA Health patients who had survived severe COVID-19. Fourteen had been hospitalized and placed on a ventilator. All continued to have trouble breathing and suffered fatigue and abnormal lung function at their first outpatient checkup.

After six months, the researchers found that the patients could be divided into two groups: One group’s lung health improved, prompting the researchers to label them “early resolvers,” while the other group, dubbed “late resolvers,” continued to suffer lung problems and pulmonary fibrosis. 

Looking at blood samples taken before the patients’ recovery began to diverge, the UVA team found that the late resolvers had significantly fewer immune cells known as monocytes circulating in their blood. These white blood cells play a critical role in our ability to fend off disease, and the cells were abnormally depleted in patients who continued to suffer lung problems compared both to those who recovered and healthy control subjects. 

Further, the decrease in monocytes correlated with the severity of the patients’ ongoing symptoms. That suggests that doctors may be able to use a simple blood test to identify patients likely to become long-haulers — and to improve their care.

“About half of the patients we examined still had lingering, bothersome symptoms and abnormal tests after six months,” Bonham said. “We were able to detect differences in their blood from the first visit, with fewer blood monocytes mapping to lower lung function.”

The researchers also wanted to determine if severe COVID-19 could cause progressive lung scarring as in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. They found that the two conditions had very different effects on immune cells, suggesting that even when the symptoms were similar, the underlying causes were very different. This held true even in patients with the most persistent long-haul COVID-19 symptoms. “Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is progressive and kills patients within three to five years,” Bonham said. “It was a relief to see that all our COVID patients, even those with long-haul symptoms, were not similar.”

Because of the small numbers of participants in UVA’s study, and because they were mostly male (for easier comparison with IPF, a disease that strikes mostly men), the researchers say larger, multi-center studies are needed to bear out the findings. But they are hopeful that their new discovery will provide doctors a useful tool to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for long-haul lung problems and help guide them to recovery.

“We are only beginning to understand the biology of how the immune system impacts pulmonary fibrosis,” Bonham said. “My team and I were humbled and grateful to work with the outstanding patients who made this study possible.” 

Findings Published

The researchers have published their findings in the scientific journal Frontiers in Immunology. The research team consisted of Grace C. Bingham, Lyndsey M. Muehling, Chaofan Li, Yong Huang, Shwu-Fan Ma, Daniel Abebayehu, Imre Noth, Jie Sun, Judith A. Woodfolk, Thomas H. Barker and Bonham. Noth disclosed that he has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech and Confo unrelated to the research project. In addition, he has a patent pending related to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Bonham and all other members of the research team had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The UVA research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, grants R21 AI160334 and U01 AI125056; NIH’s National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, grants 5K23HL143135-04 and UG3HL145266; UVA’s Engineering in Medicine Seed Fund; the UVA Global Infectious Diseases Institute’s COVID-19 Rapid Response; a UVA Robert R. Wagner Fellowship; and a Sture G. Olsson Fellowship in Engineering.

  

To keep up with the latest medical research news from UVA, subscribe to the Making of Medicine blog at http://makingofmedicine.virginia.edu.


Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Looking Back At COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked,…

Published

on

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked, in March 2020, when President Trump and most US governors imposed heavy restrictions on people’s freedom. The purpose, said Trump and his COVID-19 advisers, was to “flatten the curve”: shut down people’s mobility for two weeks so that hospitals could catch up with the expected demand from COVID patients. In her book Silent Invasion, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, admitted that she was scrambling during those two weeks to come up with a reason to extend the lockdowns for much longer. As she put it, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” In short, she chose the goal and then tried to find the data to justify the goal. This, by the way, was from someone who, along with her task force colleague Dr. Anthony Fauci, kept talking about the importance of the scientific method. By the end of April 2020, the term “flatten the curve” had all but disappeared from public discussion.

Now that we are four years past that awful time, it makes sense to look back and see whether those heavy restrictions on the lives of people of all ages made sense. I’ll save you the suspense. They didn’t. The damage to the economy was huge. Remember that “the economy” is not a term used to describe a big machine; it’s a shorthand for the trillions of interactions among hundreds of millions of people. The lockdowns and the subsequent federal spending ballooned the budget deficit and consequent federal debt. The effect on children’s learning, not just in school but outside of school, was huge. These effects will be with us for a long time. It’s not as if there wasn’t another way to go. The people who came up with the idea of lockdowns did so on the basis of abstract models that had not been tested. They ignored a model of human behavior, which I’ll call Hayekian, that is tested every day.

These are the opening two paragraphs of my latest Defining Ideas article, “Looking Back at COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes,” Defining Ideas, March 14, 2024.

Another excerpt:

That wasn’t the only uncertainty. My daughter Karen lived in San Francisco and made her living teaching Pilates. San Francisco mayor London Breed shut down all the gyms, and so there went my daughter’s business. (The good news was that she quickly got online and shifted many of her clients to virtual Pilates. But that’s another story.) We tried to see her every six weeks or so, whether that meant our driving up to San Fran or her driving down to Monterey. But were we allowed to drive to see her? In that first month and a half, we simply didn’t know.

Read the whole thing, which is longer than usual.

(0 COMMENTS)

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

The hostility Black women face in higher education carries dire consequences

9 Black women who were working on or recently earned their PhDs told a researcher they felt isolated and shut out.

Published

on

By

Isolation can make opportunities elusive. fotostorm via Getty Images

Isolated. Abused. Overworked.

These are the themes that emerged when I invited nine Black women to chronicle their professional experiences and relationships with colleagues as they earned their Ph.D.s at a public university in the Midwest. I featured their writings in the dissertation I wrote to get my Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction.

The women spoke of being silenced.

“It’s not just the beating me down that is hard,” one participant told me about constantly having her intelligence questioned. “It is the fact that it feels like I’m villainized and made out to be the problem for trying to advocate for myself.”

The women told me they did not feel like they belonged. They spoke of routinely being isolated by peers and potential mentors.

One participant told me she felt that peer community, faculty mentorship and cultural affinity spaces were lacking.

Because of the isolation, participants often felt that they were missing out on various opportunities, such as funding and opportunities to get their work published.

Participants also discussed the ways they felt they were duped into taking on more than their fair share of work.

“I realized I had been tricked into handling a two- to four-person job entirely by myself,” one participant said of her paid graduate position. “This happened just about a month before the pandemic occurred so it very quickly got swept under the rug.”

Why it matters

The hostility that Black women face in higher education can be hazardous to their health. The women in my study told me they were struggling with depression, had thought about suicide and felt physically ill when they had to go to campus.

Other studies have found similar outcomes. For instance, a 2020 study of 220 U.S. Black college women ages 18-48 found that even though being seen as a strong Black woman came with its benefits – such as being thought of as resilient, hardworking, independent and nurturing – it also came at a cost to their mental and physical health.

These kinds of experiences can take a toll on women’s bodies and can result in poor maternal health, cancer, shorter life expectancy and other symptoms that impair their ability to be well.

I believe my research takes on greater urgency in light of the recent death of Antoinette “Bonnie” Candia-Bailey, who was vice president of student affairs at Lincoln University. Before she died by suicide, she reportedly wrote that she felt she was suffering abuse and that the university wasn’t taking her mental health concerns seriously.

What other research is being done

Several anthologies examine the negative experiences that Black women experience in academia. They include education scholars Venus Evans-Winters and Bettina Love’s edited volume, “Black Feminism in Education,” which examines how Black women navigate what it means to be a scholar in a “white supremacist patriarchal society.” Gender and sexuality studies scholar Stephanie Evans analyzes the barriers that Black women faced in accessing higher education from 1850 to 1954. In “Black Women, Ivory Tower,” African American studies professor Jasmine Harris recounts her own traumatic experiences in the world of higher education.

What’s next

In addition to publishing the findings of my research study, I plan to continue exploring the depths of Black women’s experiences in academia, expanding my research to include undergraduate students, as well as faculty and staff.

I believe this research will strengthen this field of study and enable people who work in higher education to develop and implement more comprehensive solutions.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Ebony Aya received funding from the Black Collective Foundation in 2022 to support the work of the Aya Collective.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending