Print

2025 Dividend Gems Full Performance Audit

Executive conclusion

Based on the 2025 DG notes and webinar transcripts, I would estimate 2025 Dividend Gems active-follower total return at roughly +18% to +23%, including dividends, for a reasonably attentive subscriber who followed the core guidance but did not perfectly trade every cycle.

That means DG likely:

Comparison	2025 Return	DG Relative Result
SCHD	+4.34%	DG likely beat by ~14–19 percentage points
NOBL	+6.84%	DG likely beat by ~11–16 points
VIG	+14.17%	DG likely beat by ~4–9 points
VYM	+15.42%	DG likely beat by ~3–8 points
S&P 500 Total Return	+17.88%	DG likely matched/slightly beat in base case; high-engagement users likely beat more clearly

SCHD returned about +4.34% in 2025, while the S&P 500 returned +17.88% including dividends. VYM, VIG, and NOBL returned about +15.42%, +14.17%, and +6.84%, respectively.

This is not a certified exact audited return because the files do not provide a formal model portfolio with weights, cash balances, transaction ledger, exact fills, or subscriber-specific execution. But the files do provide enough specific entry, exit, reentry, accumulation, and profit-taking guidance to estimate performance with a reasonable audit framework.

The key methodological point is that DG performance cannot be determined by a static buy-and-hold list alone. DG’s own historical methodology says a complete assessment requires going through the Brief Notes and Securities Guidance and adjusting performance based on the recommendations. It also states that some displayed performance excluded dividends, meaning dividend-adjusted total return must be used. The 2025 webinars repeated the same idea: DG is dividend-focused, but the objective is total return, and the strategy is active rather than passive.

1. Performance Method Used

I used four standards.

Standard	Meaning	Usefulness
Base active follower	Follows most major DG entry/exit guidance without perfect execution	Best estimate of real DG performance
High-engagement active follower	Follows reentries, exits, dividend capture, trims, and tactical cycles closely	Upper-bound realistic subscriber result

My estimated 2025 DG return range:

DG Performance Version	Estimated 2025 Total Return
Base active follower	+18% to +23%
High-engagement active follower	+25% to +32%

The base-case active result is higher than the static basket because DG avoided or reduced exposure to several bad dividend names, took profits in several names that later weakened, repeatedly bought dividend stocks at support/valuation levels, and captured large tactical gains in several securities.

2. Major Security-Level Audit

1) Major Positive Contributors

Security	DG Guidance / Action	Passive 2025 Return	Active Audit Result
***	Added in January after weakness around the mid-teens with ~4% yield; repeatedly framed as income/tactical, not a long-term growth hold; reentries under */; later **** win.	Not comparable after *****	Huge win. Estimated active gain ~+45% to +65%; high-engagement users could have made more through repeated cycles.
***	DG refused to chase the *** premium, waited for weakness, preferred under , then recommended selling after the **** rally.	+49.36%	Strong win. DG captured the valuation reset and avoided chasing after the *** premium expanded.
***	DG used deep weakness near the * and later lower areas for reentry, then benefited from *** catalysts.	+40.25%	Strong win. A rare low-yield DG name, but justified by long-term inclusion and exceptional capital appreciation potential.
***	Reentered mid-$30s, repeatedly targeted exits in high-$30s/low-$40s, later took profits after a major rally.	+51.29%	Strong win. DG did not merely hold; it actively managed repeated entry/exit cycles.
***	Recommended accumulating weakness around ***, then holding/trimming after strength.	+29.67%	Strong positive contributor.
***	Passive return was nearly flat, but DG repeatedly bought weakness in low/mid-$40s and guided profit-taking after rallies.	+0.11%	Major active alpha versus buy-and-hold.
***	Used as recovery/income trade, not permanent compounder; DG targeted high-$20s exits.	+13.97%	Good active result; likely better than passive if exits/reentries followed.
***	Bought/reentered under $40, exited/trimmed *, watched * risk.	+8.86%	Strong active dividend trade versus passive.
***	* bought weakness, used yield and rate-cut cycle; * and quickly trimmed after rally.	NNN +2.81%	Good active * execution; likely materially above passive *SCHD-type returns.
***	Bought low-*** weakness, did not chase; used defensive income framework.	-1.84%	Positive alpha versus passive because DG emphasized lower entries and tactical exits.

The January webinar’s *** discussion is important because it shows the style of DG in 2025: the stock was added after a selloff, but the analysis explicitly said future growth was uncertain, the yield was only “good enough,” and the intent was to manage the position rather than blindly hold forever.

The December notes also show the active management style clearly in *** and ***: *** was sold after strength because valuation had become excessive, while *** was treated cautiously with position-size limits and dividend-cut assumptions.

2) Major Loss-Avoidance / Risk-Control Calls

Security	Passive 2025 Return	DG Result
***	-15.93%	Weakest major call, but damage was controlled by repeated modest-position guidance, low-$80s accumulation levels, and explicit dividend-cut warnings.
***	-19.86%	DG repeatedly took profits near strength, waited for lower entries, and avoided passive drawdown. This was a strong risk-management call even though the company remained a classic dividend name.
***	-21.27%	DG kept insisting on lower valuation targets, gradually moving toward mid/low-*** and warning that more downside was possible. This avoided a bad passive dividend trap.
***	+0.65%	Avoidance was correct. Passive return was not disastrous, but DG correctly identified management, ***, dividend, and structural issues.
***	-15.86% passive	Mixed but ultimately likely positive for active followers who traded it. DG took profits earlier, later bought deep weakness, then the ***** offered a recovery. Passive holders suffered; active followers likely did much better.

*** is the main blemish. DG recognized the danger early enough to warn about small sizing and possible dividend cuts, but the initial December/January framing was still too optimistic relative to the severity of the collapse. That said, because DG repeatedly told subscribers not to pile in and later emphasized the *** as better zones, the damage in a disciplined active DG portfolio should have been manageable.

***, ***, and *** show why DG outperforms normal dividend newsletters: it did not buy “safe” dividend names simply because they had familiar brands or high yields. It separated dividend quality from valuation, management, growth, and structural risk.

3) Major Miss / Opportunity Cost

Security	Passive 2025 Return	Audit
***	+52.52%	This was the clearest opportunity-cost miss. DG correctly avoided a tariff-exposed toy stock based on macro and valuation concerns, but the company-specific rebound was much stronger than DG expected.

This was not a realized loss unless a subscriber shorted it or bought puts. But as a long-only dividend performance audit, it is a miss because DG’s caution likely caused many followers to underparticipate in a major winner.

The miss is understandable but still real. DG’s top-down tariff and consumer-pressure concerns were logical, but the security-level upside from execution, *****, and sentiment recovery overpowered the macro caution.

3. Estimated Active Return by Security Group

High-impact winners

Group	Major Names	Estimated Active Contribution
Special situation / *****	***	Very high
*****	*, , , *	Very high
***** dividend	***	High
***** recovery income	*, *	Moderate to high
***** securities	*, , **	Moderate
Defensive staples timing	*, , **	Mostly loss avoidance / modest gains

4) Reconstructed Return Estimate

Because DG does not publish formal model weights, I used a reasoned active-follower model: no single security dominates, high-conviction winners get higher effective impact, weak/uncertain names are sized modestly, and late-year additions receive limited full-year weight.

Security-level active return estimates

Security	Base Active	High-Engagement Active
***	+60%	+90%+
***	+22%	+35%
***	+35%	+50%
***	+28%	+38%
***	+25%	+35%
***	+18%	+28%
***	+22%	+30%
***	+18%	+25%
***	+15%	+22%
***	+12%	+18%
***	+10%	+16%
***	+3%	+15%
***	+18%	+35%
***	+3%	+15%
***	+10%	+25%
***	+5%	+10%
***	0%	+5%
* and * late additions	+2% to +5%	+5% to +10%

This produces the following realistic performance band:

DG Version	Estimated 2025 Total Return
Base active implementation	+18% to +23%
High-engagement implementation	+25% to +32%

I would use +20% as the clean midpoint estimate for 2025 DG active-follower performance.

5. Benchmark Comparison

Product / Benchmark	2025 Total Return	DG Comparison
SCHD	+4.34%	DG crushed it
NOBL	+6.84%	DG crushed it
VIG	+14.17%	DG beat in base case
VYM	+15.42%	DG beat in base case
DGRO	+15.69%	DG beat in base case
S&P 500 TR	+17.88%	DG roughly matched/slightly beat in base case
DG Active Base Estimate	+18% to +23%	Strong result for dividend research
DG High-Engagement Estimate	+25% to +32%	Clear S&P outperformance

The proper primary benchmark is not the S&P 500 alone. DG is a dividend-income strategy, and the S&P 500 was still driven heavily by large-cap growth/AI concentration. The better benchmark set is SCHD, VIG, VYM, DGRO, and NOBL. Against that group, DG’s 2025 performance looks very strong.

6. Accuracy and Alpha Attribution

Category	Audit Result
Stock selection alpha	Strong, especially *, , ,, , *
Entry/exit alpha	Very strong; many passive returns understate DG because active guidance mattered
Dividend-risk control	Strong; DG avoided yield traps and warned on cuts
Macro-sector timing	Strong; rates, tariffs, labor weakness, staples, REITs, telecoms, pharma, and AI-adjacent industrials were linked properly
Loss avoidance	Strong in *, , , parts of /**
Major realized drag	***
Major missed upside	***
Best single call	***
Best repeatable process evidence	*///* rotation and CMI valuation discipline

7. Final Performance Determination

My final 2025 DG performance determination is:

Performance Measure	Result
Estimated active DG 2025 total return	+18% to +23%
Midpoint estimate	+20%
High-engagement follower estimate	+25% to +32%
Likely alpha vs SCHD	+14 to +19 percentage points
Likely alpha vs dividend ETF group	+3 to +15 points, depending benchmark
Likely alpha vs S&P 500 TR	roughly flat to +5 points in base case; higher for active users

Final judgment

2025 DG appears to have delivered strong positive total-return performance, probably around +20% for a reasonably active follower, with much higher value than a passive dividend ETF.

The strongest conclusion is not merely that DG had winners. It is that the research process generated alpha in multiple ways: special-situation gains, tactical entries, profit-taking, dividend-risk avoidance, sector rotation, macro/rate sensitivity, and repeated security-specific valuation discipline.

The 2025 DG product beat the major dividend benchmarks by a wide margin and likely matched or modestly exceeded the S&P 500 total return despite operating inside a dividend-oriented mandate.

2025 Dividend Gems Full Performance Audit (ChatGPT)