utility stocks including T:US need to pay high CDY as they are seen as low growth, which dampens investor demand

VZ is seen as higher growth

—-

For two stocks each generating $5/share in annual dividends, BB is trading at $100, AA at $500. (BB could be O:US or T:US..)

In all cases, dividend per share is decided by management, in each dividend season, even if PnL is negative. In contrast stock price is decided by the market i.e. buyers and sellers, supply^demand.

I feel the market views BB (a blue chip utility such as T:US or IBM) as low-growth, past-the-peak, boring/uninspiring. Therefore, investors demand a 5% dividend yield as compensation to forgo the growth opportunities elsewhere. Consequently, relative to growth stocks, BB is under-priced — good for dividend investors like me.

The fact that 4% div yield is widely considered high-yield implies that bulk of the market prefer high-growth stocks, to the extent that 1% or zero dividend yield is widely accepted. I think most of the market don’t care much about current income (rent or div..) and much prefer windfall profit.

Not sure about other stock exchanges, but I guess U.S. stock market is mostly about growth. A small fraction of the investors care about current income. When I show my 5% current income to friends, they probably walk away laughing that it’s nothing compared to the 100% return they made or heard about, possibly in BTC.

Very loosely, Most of the popular (hot) stocks in U.S. are high-growth, low-dividend. A lot of growth stocks have high P/E, unable to support a dividend.

— value investing? I get the impression that many value investors (following Buffett’s principle or not) would find the high-growth stocks poor value.
Many high-growth stocks have zero or negligible free cash flow.