What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on both PepsiCo (PEP) and Lowe's (LOW), citing structural headwinds and questionable dividend sustainability.
Risk: Structural demand destruction in housing (Lowe's) and reliance on pricing power to offset volume loss (PepsiCo)
Opportunity: None identified
Key Points
Dividend Kings are stocks that annually increased their dividends for 50 years and can be indicators of strong stock market performers.
Pepsi is a food and drink giant that is getting cheaper because of fears over weight-loss drugs.
Lowe's stock looks cheap at the trough of the housing cycle.
- 10 stocks we like better than PepsiCo ›
In times of bull-market excess, the best move a contrarian investor can make is to buy well-paying dividend stocks that are out of the investing limelight. Wall Street has its eyes glued to artificial intelligence (AI) and space stocks, while everything else is thrown by the wayside. This creates opportunities for those willing to go against the grain.
Enter PepsiCo (NASDAQ: PEP) and Lowe's (NYSE: LOW). Both stocks are Dividend Kings -- meaning they have increased their dividends for 50 years -- and trade at discounts to the market today. Here's why both will make solid passive income plays for your portfolio in 2026.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
A rebound in food and drink spending
Fears have hit the food and drink sector because of the rapid growth of weight-loss drugs, which suppress food cravings. PepsiCo -- owner of Pepsi, Frito-Lay, and other food/beverage brands -- has borne the brunt of this headwind after years of consistent global growth driven by volume and price increases.
Revenue growth stalled immediately after weight-loss drugs became popular a few years ago, leaving Pepsi flat-footed. However, the company has begun to pivot its business strategy with some success by improving nutritional quality, lowering portion sizes to align with weight-loss drugs, and focusing on premiumization as snacking or soda consumption becomes more of a deliberate decision instead of a daily habit.
Last quarter, which ended in March, PepsiCo reported 8.5% net revenue growth and 2.6% organic revenue growth, along with an operating margin expanding to 16.5% compared to 14.4% a year prior.
The years of huge volume gains for soda and snack brands worldwide are over. However, Pepsi can sustain its revenue growth through steady price increases, which can be a major profit driver for the sector over the long haul. If a bag of chips goes from $1 to $2 to $4 over 30 years, consumers won't blink, given the low price point.
This is why Pepsi has been able to raise its dividend for 54 straight years. Buying at a 3.6% yield today, this stock can be a passive income stalwart for your portfolio over the next 50 years as well.
Waiting for a housing recovery
A sector perhaps facing even more headwinds than food and drink is housing. Existing-home sales plummeted in the United States due to rising mortgage rates and are now at levels last seen at the bottom of the housing crisis in 2009 and 2010.
One company greatly affected by housing activity is Lowe's, one of the two large home improvement supply companies in the United States, along with Home Depot.
Overall, Lowe's revenue is down by more than 10% from its highs, indicating how stagnant the current housing market is. Comparable-store sales growth bottomed in 2023 and has since begun to recover, recently turning positive in the last three quarters. This shows that Lowe's is growing revenue from existing locations despite the significant headwinds from housing construction.
When someone buys a home, they are more likely to renovate parts of it, which ties Lowe's to the overall housing market as these DIY projects dry up. Still, eventually, the housing market will normalize, either through lower mortgage interest rates or higher annual wages that make home purchases more affordable for the average American. In turn, this should create a strong tailwind for Lowe's demand in the years ahead.
Lowe's has been a mighty Dividend King and currently pays a dividend yielding 1.95%. It has a lower starting yield than Pepsi, but management is more focused on stock repurchases than on dividends, with shares outstanding down 37% over the last 10 years. This is a nice capital returns combination that should help Lowe's stock produce growing passive income for your portfolio as you wait for a housing turnaround to lift the share price higher.
Should you buy stock in PepsiCo right now?
Before you buy stock in PepsiCo, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and PepsiCo wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $524,786! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,236,406!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 199% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of April 19, 2026. *
Brett Schafer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Home Depot. The Motley Fool recommends Lowe's Companies. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Dividend history is a lagging indicator that fails to account for the structural headwinds facing consumer staples and interest-rate-sensitive retail in a high-cost-of-capital environment."
The article's 'Dividend King' thesis ignores the fundamental shift in capital allocation for both firms. PepsiCo (PEP) is trading at a forward P/E of roughly 20x, which is rich for a company facing structural volume pressure from GLP-1 agonists; pricing power has limits when consumer elasticity hits a breaking point. Lowe's (LOW) is a classic cyclical trap; betting on a housing recovery by 2026 assumes mortgage rates revert to sub-5% levels, which is highly speculative given current sticky inflation. While the dividend track records are impressive, these stocks are essentially 'bond proxies' that offer inferior risk-adjusted returns compared to short-term treasuries in a high-rate environment.
If GLP-1 adoption plateaus or housing inventory shortages force a massive wave of renovation spending, both stocks could see significant multiple expansion from current depressed levels.
"Both deliver reliable dividends but lack catalysts for 2026 total returns without favorable macro shifts the article downplays."
This Motley Fool piece hypes PEP and LOW as passive income buys amid AI distractions, but glosses over shaky fundamentals. PEP's Q1 organic growth (2.6%) was pricing-led amid volume hits from GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic; sustained adaptation to smaller portions/premium snacks is unproven if adoption surges to 20%+ of adults. LOW's comp sales inflection is positive, yet revenue -10%+ from peaks ties to housing sales at 2009 lows—recovery demands Fed rate cuts below 4%, uncertain amid sticky inflation. Yields (PEP 3.6%, LOW 1.95%) are solid for Kings (54/50+ yrs hikes), but buybacks won't offset EPS pressure without demand snapback by 2026.
If mortgage rates drop to 5.5% sparking a housing boom and GLP-1 side effects curb long-term adoption, LOW could surge 30%+ on reno tailwinds while PEP's 16.5% margins drive dividend growth acceleration.
"Both stocks are cheap because their growth engines face structural headwinds, not cyclical ones—and the article assumes mean reversion without proving the cycle will actually turn."
The article conflates two separate theses—value rotation and dividend safety—without stress-testing either. PEP's 3.6% yield looks attractive until you ask: if weight-loss drug adoption accelerates (not slows), can pricing power offset volume loss indefinitely? The article assumes it will. For LOW, the thesis hinges entirely on housing normalization via rate cuts or wage growth. But existing-home sales at 2009 lows while mortgage rates remain elevated suggests structural demand destruction, not cyclical trough. Both stocks may be cheap for a reason. The article also buries that Motley Fool doesn't recommend PEP—a signal worth examining rather than dismissing.
If the Fed cuts rates materially in 2026, housing could inflect sharply, and LOW's 37% share buyback over a decade becomes a powerful compounding engine. Similarly, PEP's pricing power in emerging markets and premiumization could prove durable even if GLP-1 adoption plateaus.
"The core risk is that these dividend kings won't deliver meaningful earnings growth or multiple expansion in 2026, so their dividend yield won't compensate for total return under a stretched macro regime."
The article brands PepsiCo (PEP) and Lowe's (LOW) as contrarian, dividend-kings set to power passive income in 2026, but there are material headwinds. PepsiCo faces slowing volume, reliance on pricing power, and potential input/currency pressures; its 3.6% yield may not compensate for flattening organic growth if weight-loss drug-driven demand shifts persist. Lowe's is tied to a weak housing cycle, and even with buybacks, a protracted downturn or higher rates could erode earnings and support multiple compression. The piece glosses over normalization risk, regulatory/commodity shocks, and the possibility that current valuations already bake in safety premium. In short, the ‘passive income’ thesis rests on fragile assumptions.
In a mild recession, these names’ defensive cash flows and long dividend streaks can still deliver dependable returns, making the bearish view possibly overstated. Safety demand can outperform cyclicals, keeping these stocks from significant drawdowns.
"The housing 'lock-in' effect creates structural demand destruction for Lowe's that rate cuts alone cannot resolve."
Claude, your focus on 'structural demand destruction' in housing is the missing link. While others debate Fed rate cuts, they ignore that the 'lock-in effect' from sub-4% mortgages creates a supply-side floor that prevents home turnover regardless of rates. Lowe's isn't just waiting for a cycle; they are waiting for a generational shift in inventory. If turnover remains suppressed, LOW’s buybacks are merely masking a shrinking top-line, making them a value trap, not a dividend play.
"Lock-in effect channels equity into renovations, bolstering LOW's Pro-driven revenue resilience."
Gemini, your lock-in emphasis misses the flip side: trapped homeowners sitting on $300k+ average equity (per NAR data) are diverting move-up budgets to renovations, fueling LOW's Pro segment (35%+ of sales, +5% comps in Q1). This structural shift from transactions to upgrades supports steady top-line even without sales rebound, challenging the 'value trap' label others echo.
"LOW's Pro segment growth must prove it's offsetting transaction decline, not just masking it—current +5% comps don't yet show that inflection."
Grok's Pro segment thesis is testable but incomplete. Yes, equity-rich homeowners fund renovations—but LOW's Pro comps (+5%) mask that total comp sales remain negative. If the renovation tailwind is real and durable, we should see accelerating Pro growth, not deceleration. The lock-in effect Gemini flags doesn't negate upgrades, but it does cap their magnitude. Without evidence Pro growth is *accelerating* into 2026, we're betting on a structural shift that may already be priced into current multiples.
"Pro-segment strength isn’t durable enough to offset potential margin and top-line weakness for Lowe’s into 2026."
Grok, your Pro-segment revival argument is plausible but incomplete. +5% comps in Q1 don't prove durable revenue growth if gross margins compress or project demand wanes once homeowners reach renovation saturation. The lock-in effect may sustain upgrades, but in a high-rate environment it risks becoming a floor rather than a bridge to 2026 earnings. If turnover stays weak, LOW’s buybacks may not offset a shrinking top-line or multiple compression.
Panel Verdict
Consensus ReachedThe panel consensus is bearish on both PepsiCo (PEP) and Lowe's (LOW), citing structural headwinds and questionable dividend sustainability.
None identified
Structural demand destruction in housing (Lowe's) and reliance on pricing power to offset volume loss (PepsiCo)