What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agreed that while the selected stocks (ABBV, PG, KO) offer higher yields than the S&P 500, they may not be as safe or attractive as initially presented. Key concerns include AbbVie's patent cliff, pricing pressures on PG and KO, and broader macroeconomic risks such as interest rates, trade wars, and GLP-1 drugs impacting KO's growth.
Risk: Tariff exposure and potential margin compression for all three stocks, as well as AbbVie's patent cliff and leverage sensitivity.
Opportunity: None explicitly stated, as the panel focused more on risks and concerns.
Key Points
All three of these titles are well known in their respective sectors.
They also happen to be Dividend Kings.
- 10 stocks we like better than AbbVie ›
Don't look now, but the S&P 500 index is becoming something of a desert for income investors. As reported recently by Yahoo! Finance, the average dividend yield of all 500 titles has shriveled to barely over 1.2%, one of its lowest levels in more than 50 years.
Now that, of course, hardly means that all dividend-paying companies in that grouping dispense at discouragingly skinny rates. Here are three S&P 500 index mainstays that boast yields well higher than the average: Take a bow, AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV), Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG), and Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO).
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 »
1. AbbVie -- current yield: 3.3%
I should also mention that all three are Dividend Kings, the name given to the very exclusive club of stocks that have enacted dividend raises once annually for a minimum of 50 years running. AbbVie qualifies by virtue of its 2013 spinoff from Abbott Laboratories; together, their hikes stretch back 54 years.
A relatively high dividend yield can indicate share price weakness, and to a degree, that's the dynamic with AbbVie -- the stock is down by more than 7% this year.
In March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rival Johnson & Johnson's immunology drug Icotyde, seemingly a threat to AbbVie's blockbuster Skyrizi. Although Icotyde has been greenlit for only one condition, plaque psoriasis, in contrast to Skyrizi's four, it's a pill rather than a jab.
This convenience, plus Johnson & Johnson's push to develop the drug for more indications, has raised investor fears of a potential Skyrizi killer.
But I think Skyrizi will remain strong for a while. After all, it usually takes some time to collect approvals for multiple indications. Also, in terms of convenience, Skyrizi's once-every-12-weeks regimen might be preferable to Icotyde's regimen, as the latter must be taken daily.
Meanwhile, AbbVie has a formidable commercial portfolio even without its top drug. It's got a clutch of other blockbusters across several therapeutic areas, such as antipsychotic treatment Vraylar. As for the company's pipeline, it's wide, deep, and has admirable potential.
For my money, this is one of the best pharmaceutical stocks on the scene, and management will surely cope with the challenges it faces. I'd buy this one.
3. Procter & Gamble -- current yield: 2.9%
A vast number of the household products we regularly use are sold by Procter & Gamble. Among the company's many brands are Gillette razors, Cascade dishwasher detergent, Old Spice cologne, and a platoon of other instantly recognizable goods.
With that, Procter & Gamble is an inescapable presence in supermarkets, grocery outlets, and convenience stores throughout the world, and especially in the United States. That shakes out to a constant, gushing torrent of net sales that totaled a dizzying $84.3 billion in 2025.
More importantly for income investors, the company is a cash-generating machine. Annual free cash flow ranged from almost $13.6 billion to over $16.5 billion across the past half-decade, more than enough to pay for a year's worth of dividends.
With its scope and ubiquity, Procter & Gamble has great power with retailers, not to mention consumers. It's famous for its occasional, once-per-year price rises, a lever it can pull when economic conditions or higher expenses warrant such a move.
The company is many things, but what it's not is a fast-growing dynamo. It's big, slow, and steady in terms of growth, but then again, few own the stock in hopes of monster pops in the fundamentals. Instead, they're buying into a company that pays a seemingly ever-rising, relatively generous dividend that is a backbone of the American consumer economy.
I don't think anyone's going to go broke owning Procter & Gamble stock. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's one of the most dependable income stocks available today. To me, it's a model of the set-it-and-forget-it, keep-pocketing-the-dividends approach to investing.
3. Coca-Cola -- current yield: 2.7%
Finally, we have S&P 500 index dividend outlier Coca-Cola, a company anchored by a product that needs no introduction. What the company might require for some, however, is a brief glance at its beverage portfolio, as many are unaware of how truly extensive and deep it is.
Coca-Cola not only slings its namesake drink and Coke's lemon-lime cousin Sprite, but it also has a commanding presence in segments such as juice (it owns Minute Maid), iced tea (Gold Peak), water (Dasani), and even java (Costa Coffee). And that's just the tip of a very large iceberg. Whatever nonalcoholic beverage you like to quaff, Coca-Cola probably makes it.
The company has many leading products in its various categories. Therefore, like Procter & Gamble, it's a constant presence in the convenience store and everyone's local supermarket. The result? A similar revenue gush and mountains of free cash flow, thanks to products that are famous, well-liked, relatively cheap to make, and require little or no innovation.
This also means reliably high profits compared to revenue. Since 2021, its net margins have landed reliably above 20% every year.
So it's little wonder Coca-Cola is such an eager and reliable dividend raiser. In February, it maintained its Dividend King crown with its 64th consecutive annual dividend raise. Mirroring the usual growth the company posts in both revenue and net income not under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), it raised its quarterly payout by 4% to $0.51 per share.
I've done plenty of traveling across this globe in my years, and I can't remember any populated locale that didn't have at least a few Coca-Cola signs displayed in its stores or company products for sale. I doubt the situation will change much, if at all, so I think the company will continue to be a highly profitable beast that generates plenty of cash and remunerates its shareholders very generously.
Should you buy stock in AbbVie right now?
Before you buy stock in AbbVie, 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 AbbVie 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 $555,526! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,156,403!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 968% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 191% 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 13, 2026. *
Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends AbbVie and Abbott Laboratories. The Motley Fool recommends Johnson & Johnson. 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
"These are legitimate yield outliers but are priced for perfection in a rate environment where Treasuries offer comparable or superior risk-adjusted income — the Dividend King label obscures valuation risk."
This article is essentially a Motley Fool advertorial dressed as analysis — note the embedded Stock Advisor upsell. That said, the core observation is real: S&P 500 yield at ~1.2% is historically compressed, partly because index composition has shifted toward low/no-yield tech megacaps, not purely because dividends are shrinking. The three picks — ABBV (3.3%), PG (2.9%), KO (2.7%) — are legitimate yield outliers, but none is cheap on valuation. KO trades near 25x forward earnings for ~4% EPS growth. PG's $84.3B revenue figure cited appears to be fiscal 2025 — worth flagging that organic growth has been decelerating. ABBV's Skyrizi risk from J&J's Icotyde is real and undersold here; the article's dismissal of a daily pill vs. 12-week injection preference is speculative.
All three stocks are priced for stability, not value — at current multiples, their yields barely compensate for duration risk if rates stay elevated, meaning a 10-year Treasury at 4.5%+ makes a 2.7-3.3% dividend yield from slow-growth consumer staples a genuinely poor risk-adjusted trade. Additionally, the 'Dividend King' label is a marketing construct that says nothing about forward dividend safety or total return.
"These 'Dividend Kings' currently offer yields that fail to provide a sufficient risk premium over risk-free Treasury bills, making them vulnerable to further price stagnation."
The article highlights Dividend Kings like ABBV, PG, and KO as safe havens, but it ignores the 'yield trap' risk inherent in a high-interest-rate environment. With the S&P 500 yield at 1.2%, these stocks look attractive, but their 2.7%-3.3% yields barely compete with 'risk-free' 10-year Treasuries or money market funds yielding over 5%. For ABBV specifically, the author downplays the 'patent cliff'—the loss of exclusivity for Humira is a massive revenue hole that Skyrizi and Rinvoq must fill perfectly just to maintain status quo. Investors are paying a premium for 'safety' that may actually underperform a simple high-yield savings account on a total return basis.
If the Federal Reserve pivots to aggressive rate cuts, these high-yielding defensive stocks will see immediate price appreciation as investors rush back to 'bond proxies' for income. Furthermore, their pricing power allows them to outpace inflation better than fixed-income assets.
"Dividend Kings ABBV, PG, and KO offer superior income versus the S&P's ~1.2% yield, but investors must validate payout coverage, idiosyncratic product/pipeline risks (AbbVie), and margin resilience (PG, KO) before treating them as risk-free 'set-and-forget' holdings."
The headline is useful: the S&P 500's average dividend yield (~1.2%) is historically low because mega-cap growth names and rampant buybacks pushed prices up, compressing yields. Dividend Kings like AbbVie (ABBV, 3.3%), Procter & Gamble (PG, 2.9%), and Coca‑Cola (KO, 2.7%) offer meaningfully higher income and generally stronger cash-generation than the index average, making them reasonable defensive income picks. But this article glosses over key checks investors must run: payout-ratio and free-cash-flow coverage, AbbVie's product- and approval-specific clinical risk, and secular/commodity/ pricing pressures that could squeeze PG and KO margins in a downturn.
You're underestimating the bullish case: reliable dividend growth, strong cash flows, and share buybacks mean these names can both protect capital in a downturn and outpace low-yield index income—so an investor focused on income should arguably overweight them rather than remain neutral.
"Superior yields beat the S&P 500 average, but ABBV's competitive threats and PG/KO's vulnerability to consumer shifts cap total return potential."
The article pitches ABBV (3.3% yield), PG (2.9%), and KO (2.7%) as S&P 500 dividend outliers amid the index's 1.2% average—historically low—highlighting their Dividend King status and cash flows (PG's $13.6B-$16.5B FCF, KO's 20%+ margins). But it downplays ABBV's 7% YTD drop from J&J's Icotyde pill threatening Skyrizi's multi-indication dominance, ignoring Humira's ongoing patent cliff erosion. PG and KO rely on pricing power and ubiquity, yet face volume pressures from health-conscious consumers, private labels, and inflation-weary shoppers. Reliable income, yes, but total returns may lag growth peers in a bull market.
These Dividend Kings have hiked payouts annually for 50+ years through cycles, with fortress balance sheets ensuring dividend safety even if growth slows further.
"KO and PG are already priced for a benign rate environment, so a Fed pivot driven by recession would hurt volumes before valuations re-rate higher — the bull case requires a soft landing that's already in the price."
Gemini's Fed-pivot bull case deserves a harder look. Yes, rate cuts lift bond proxies — but the mechanism assumes these stocks are *currently* depressed by rates. They're not. KO at 25x forward, PG near 23x — these are already pricing in a soft-landing, low-rate world. A Fed pivot triggered by recession would crater volume at both companies simultaneously. The 'rate cut tailwind' and 'pricing power' arguments can't both be true in a demand-shock scenario.
"Macroeconomic rate-cut benefits for defensive stocks are negated if those cuts are driven by a recession-induced demand shock."
Claude is right to challenge Gemini's 'rate cut tailwind.' If the Fed cuts because of a hard landing, PG and KO face a double whammy: volume contraction and a shift to private labels. Everyone is ignoring the 'GLP-1 overhang' on KO. If weight-loss drugs continue their trajectory, KO's terminal growth rate is fundamentally impaired. You can't rely on 50 years of history when the biological incentive for the core product is being chemically suppressed.
"AbbVie's elevated leverage meaningfully raises dividend risk if product or rate assumptions falter."
Clinical and GLP‑1 worries are valid, but investors are underestimating balance‑sheet risk: AbbVie still carries elevated net leverage from prior M&A. That increases interest‑expense sensitivity and shrinks free‑cash‑flow flexibility, so a Skyrizi/Rinvoq miss or prolonged high rates could force cuts to buybacks — and in a stress scenario, dividends. Treating a 3.3% yield as ‘safe’ without factoring refinancing/covenant risk is dangerous.
"Renewed US-China tariffs threaten margins and dividend safety for PG, KO, and ABBV more acutely than the discussed idiosyncratic risks."
ChatGPT rightly flags ABBV's leverage sensitivity, but everyone's missing tariff exposure: PG (~50% intl revenue, 10%+ China), KO (similar EM tilt), and ABBV's global pharma ops face 10-25% duties in a 2025 trade war revival (speculative, Trump odds ~50%). This hits COGS harder than rates or GLP-1, risking 100-200bps margin compression and dividend pressure nobody priced in.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panel generally agreed that while the selected stocks (ABBV, PG, KO) offer higher yields than the S&P 500, they may not be as safe or attractive as initially presented. Key concerns include AbbVie's patent cliff, pricing pressures on PG and KO, and broader macroeconomic risks such as interest rates, trade wars, and GLP-1 drugs impacting KO's growth.
None explicitly stated, as the panel focused more on risks and concerns.
Tariff exposure and potential margin compression for all three stocks, as well as AbbVie's patent cliff and leverage sensitivity.