Dividend stocks are everywhere, but many just downright stink. In some cases, the business model is in serious jeopardy, or the dividend itself isn’t sustainable. In others, the dividend is so low, it’s not even worth the paper your dividend check is printed on. A solid dividend strikes the right balance of growth, value, and sustainability.

Today, and one day each week for the rest of the year, we’re going to look at one dividend-paying company that you can put in your portfolio for the long term without too much concern. This isn’t to say that these stocks don’t share the same macro risks that other companies have, but they are a step above your common grade of dividend stock. Check out last week’s selection.

This week, I’ll point out a “purrrrfectly” positioned company in the pet sector, Zoetis , and highlight why it could be paying hefty dividends for decades.

Can competition slow down Zoetis?
There isn’t much standing in the way of Zoetis’ success, other than a rash of growing competitors and the fact that its parent company, Pfizer , still exerts quite a bit of control over the company’s growth prospects with 80% ownership in the recently spun off company.

The pet medication space is quite the crowded field. Zoetis certainly leads the pack with $4.3 billion in annual sales, but with a $22 billion pie from animal health revenue alone, Merck‘s animal health division, Sanofi‘s Merial, and Eli Lilly‘s Elanco, all take a greater than $2 billion annual bite as well. Sanofi’s Merial was the only animal products maker of the four to see sales decrease in its latest quarter, as unfavorable weather conditions and increased competition to Frontline hurt its results. 

The Zoetis advantage
There’s a reason I dubbed Zoetis as the most exciting IPO of the year back in January — it has a slew of competitive advantages that will keep its growth and cash flow strong for years to come.

The most interesting aspect that differentiates animal pharmaceuticals from human pharmaceuticals is that while competition exists, personalized competition for common ailments like obesity and diabetes really doesn’t exist on the animal side of the business. Sure, there may be branded drug competition for things like flea medication (see Merial’s Frontline issues again), but the general trend in the sector is that Big Pharma has better things to do than spend millions researching biosilimars of existing drugs — at least for pets. This means that Zoetis’ anti-obesity pill for dogs, Slentrol, should be well protected when it comes off patent, and the same could be said for much of its pipeline, as well as that of Merck, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly’s animal health divisions.

Another factor that’s undeniable is that we as pet owners will do whatever’s necessary to ensure the health of their pets. Don’t get me wrong: The Association for Pet Obesity Prevention says that more than half of all pets are currently considered overweight or obese, so not all owners are doing what’s in the best interest of their pets. But the general trend is that our pets have become ever-more engrained into the American household as a family member.

Source: U.S. Marine Corps, commons.wikimedia.org. 

This is an important point, as few owners choose to provide health insurance for their pet. Most drugs are thus paid for right out of consumers’ pockets, providing unparalleled margins that you just won’t find in many, if any, human pharmaceutical drugmakers.

It’d be foolish of me not to mention the simple fact that as a spun off entity, Zoetis is the most transparent pharmaceutical company of its peers. Merck, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly’s animal health units are all incorporated into their results, making it tougher to see where the strengths and weaknesses of their animal health businesses lie. This spinoff certainly unlocked value for shareholders and made researching Zoetis’ pipeline considerably easier than it had previously been.

Bring on the payouts
Most of you are going to look at Zoetis’ 0.8% yield, scoff or snicker, and probably move right along … but hear me out. Consider for a moment that Zoetis just made its debut a few months ago, so it needs to get its bearings about it as a public company. It’s fairly uncommon to see a big dividend right out of the gate unless the company is a REIT, so I say cut it some slack.

Also consider that Pfizer still owns 80% of all outstanding shares of Zoetis. This means that as Zoetis’ share price rises and as it pays dividends, Pfizer is a direct beneficiary just like shareholders. Current Pfizer CEO Ian Read has made no qualms about beefing up Pfizer’s share repurchase program or paying out a significant portion of earnings in the form of a dividend in order to appease shareholders, so I wouldn’t expect anything different from Zoetis’ management. At the moment, with an annual payout of $0.26, Zoetis is paying just 19% of projected 2013 EPS. Pfizer, comparatively speaking, is paying more than double that at 43%. I think it’s just a matter of time before Zoetis dramatically boosts its payout to reflect something similar to Pfizer’s payout ratio.

Foolish roundup
Zoetis’ yield may not be much to look at now, but a growing trend that has pets becoming a part of the American family has certainly given rise to a massive animal health market. Zoetis is by far the best positioned to capitalize on that trend and looks poised to deliver growing profits and payouts to shareholders in the coming years. I guess what I’m saying is that it gets four paws of approval in my book!

The article 1 Great Dividend You Can Buy Right Now originally appeared on Fool.com.

Fool contributor Sean Williams has no material interest in any companies mentioned in this article. You can follow him on CAPS under the screen name TMFUltraLong, track every pick he makes under the screen name TrackUltraLong, and check him out on Twitter, where he goes by the handle @TMFUltraLong.

The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools don’t all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Copyright © 1995 – 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Whether or not you’ve been keeping tabs, the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual meeting is less than two weeks away. ASCO, as it’s more commonly known, is arguably the single-most important event in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sector each year.

You might be straining for a reason why a mention of ASCO would find its way into a discussion about high-cholesterol medications, but the release this week of the hundreds of study abstracts from this upcoming conference have potentially shed positive light on a class of LDL-lowering drugs known as statins.

Statins: the gold standard in high-cholesterol treatment
Those with high cholesterol who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease really have five options when it comes to cholesterol medications: statins, bile acid resins, fibrates, niacin, and cholesterol absorption inhibitors. Despite this handful of choices, statins are the most commonly prescribed medication in the world because of their superior results in trials compared with the remaining cholesterol-lowering choices with relatively few serious adverse events.

Bile acid resins, such as WelChol, which is manufactured by Daiichi Sankyo, have been shown to lower LDL-cholesterol by an average of 15%-20% in studies, but they haven’t shown any measurable effect in preventing heart disease or heart attacks in women. Fibrates, such as AbbVie‘s Tricor or Teva Pharmaceutical‘s Lofibra, work by activating a gene that encourages HDL-cholesterol production (the good type of cholesterol) while also breaking down triglycerides, which can cause cardiovascular problems if their levels are too high. Their effectiveness ranges from LDL-reductions of 20% to 50%, but fibrates also come with added complication risks and can actually raise LDL-cholesterol in some patients.

Then there are statins — of which Pfizer‘s now-generic Lipitor and AstraZeneca‘s Crestor are the best known and most successful – which work by inhibiting the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme, which is essential to producing cholesterol in the liver. By reducing LDL-production, these statins lower bad cholesterol and thus the chance that complications such as heart attack or stroke will arise in a patient.

However, some researchers and physicians think statins are overprescribed, which they suspect can lead to exacerbated occurrences of those aforementioned adverse events such as myalgias, muscle cramps, or gastrointestinal complications. This is why I think it’s noteworthy that an abstract study on the effect of statins on breast cancer mortality was released this week and painted statins in positive light.

A surprising result
The study, which involved all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in Finland between 1995 and 2003 (31,236 cases), showed that only statin use (in the patients who used them) was associated with a decreased breast cancer mortality compared with bile acid resins and fibrates, which actually delivered an increase in overall mortality. Age, tumor, and treatment characteristics throughout these studies were consistent, meaning there was little chance that the data would be skewed by chance. The ultimate conclusion here is that long-term statin use could actually be beneficial to helping prevent the progression of breast cancer, and that further studies into the matter were warranted.

This is potentially great news for statin makers who are counting on the long-term use of these drugs to grow profits and fund additional research. Even though Pfizer’s Lipitor has gobe off patent, we’ve seen quite a bit of innovation within this field over the past couple of years.

In March, the Food and Drug Administration approved Liptruzet, which is a combination of generic Lipitor and Merck‘s cholesterol absorption inhibitor, Zetia. In trials, this drug combo lowered LDL-cholesterol by 53% to 61% depending on the dose, as my Foolish colleague Brian Orelli noted. By comparison, Lipitor by itself delivered LDL reductions of 37% to 54%, with Zetia alone reducing LDL-cholesterol by just 20%. These results are actually pretty similar to that of Vytorin (Merck’s combination drug of Zocor and Zetia), which reduced LDL-cholesterol by 45% to 60%, depending on the dosage, when it was approved by the FDA. But as Brian also pointed out, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Innovation in this sector should also be spurred on by the need for AstraZeneca to find a revenue replacement for its blockbuster statin Crestor, which netted the company $6.25 billion in sales last year. With the bulk of its patents on Crestor set to expire in 2016, AstraZeneca may try its hand at combining its drug with a competitor’s LDL-lowering drug in an effort to better compete against Liptruzet or Vytorin, which it’s losing ground to at the moment.

Are statins in the clear?
This might seem like just one of a number of studies conducted on statins over the years, but it should certainly give statin users a reason to feel more comfortable about these potentially positive side effects associated with long-term use. Further, I think it reinforces the notion that statins play an important role in long-term LDL-cholesterol maintenance. I’m certain other studies will be conducted with regard to their safety, but in the interim it looks like smooth sailing for statin makers.

The article Statin Users May Have a Reason to Rejoice After This Data originally appeared on Fool.com.

Fool contributor 

Sean Williams

 has no material interest in any companies mentioned in this article. You can follow him on CAPS under the screen name TMFUltraLong, track every pick he makes under the screen name TrackUltraLong, and check him out on Twitter, where he goes by the handle 

@TMFUltraLong

.
Try any of our Foolish newsletter services 

free for 30 days

. We Fools don’t all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that 

considering a diverse range of insights

 makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a 

disclosure policy

.

Copyright © 1995 – 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

There’s little denying that Roche‘s cancer wonder drug Avastin has been a godsend to cancer patients and investors alike.

Avastin — which the Food and Drug Administration has approved to treat metastatic colorectal cancer (as a first-line and second-line treatment), metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer, and metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and as a second-line treatment of glioblastoma — brought in $5.8 billion in sales worldwide in 2012, up 6% from the previous year. Avastin is part of a class of drugs known as angiogenic inhibitors. Simply put, these drugs bind to receptors often linked to blood vessel growth. By inhibiting blood vessel growth, drugs like Avastin help starve solid tumors of the nutrients they need to grow. Avastin, for instance, works by binding to VEGF-receptors to inhibit blood vessel growth to solid tumors.

The marvel of angiogenic inhibitors
The interesting aspect of angiogenic inhibitors — other than that they’ve been shown to increase progression-free survival in many cancer trials — is that they usually have wide-ranging appeal across a number of cancer types instead of working for just one type of cancer. Take Onyx Pharmaceuticals and Bayer‘s Nexavar, which also works as a VEGR inhibitor and is approved to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Nexavar has also shown progress in late-stage trials for metastatic thyroid cancer.

Also, because angiogenic inhibitors don’t directly kill tumors or surrounding tissue, and instead simply inhibit blood vessel formation, they can be used for long periods of time compared with standard chemotherapy, which often leads to intolerable toxicity.

This is why, with the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual meeting just two weeks away, it’s time to put angiogenic inhibitors on your radar. ASCO’s annual meeting is the holy grail of scientific conferences for oncology-based biotech and pharmaceutical companies, and it should give us a good indication of what’s working and what isn’t within certain drug classes. As for me, I’ll certainly have my eye on some early stage anti-angiogenesis drugs.

What to watch at ASCO
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals , perhaps best known for its highly successful wet age-related macular degeneration drug Eylea, released two promising abstracts for ASCO on monoclonal antibodies with potential anti-angiogenic effects.

A phase 1 study of REGN421, a monoclonal antibody to delta-like-ligand 4 (DLL4), in combination with SAR153193 from Sanofi , which Regeneron has partnered with, concluded the combination to be safe despite a relative high level of grade 3/4 adverse events, and noted that responses and prolonged stable disease were witnessed in ovarian cancer patients.

The other abstract involves Regeneron’s REGN910 and Sanofi’s SAR307746. This is a fully human and selective angiopoietin-2 monoclonal antibody that blocks signaling in the Tie2 receptors and has the potential to help patients with advanced solid tumors. Of particular interest, no grade 3 or above adverse events were noted among 37 patients, and one thyroid cancer patient was observed as having stable disease for 46 weeks. It certainly appears to be a good candidate to move to phase 2 trials, and one that could benefit as a combination therapy with existing chemotherapy agents.

Pfizer is also getting in the action with its phase 1b trial of CVX-060 in combination Inlyta, with its FDA-approved drug. Inlyta is a VEGF-inhibitor approved as a second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, while CVX-060 is a humanized monoclonal antibody fused to angiopoietin-2 binding peptides. The thinking is that the resistance to VEGF therapies that tumors develop can be overcome by these angiopoietin-2 binding peptides. Of the 18 patients in trial, two had a partial response and one an unconfirmed partial response. However, higher-than-expected treatment-related thromboembolic events were a cause for concern that may require further dosing studies before even considering a move on to phase 2 studies.

There’s a lot more where that came from
This is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the wealth of knowledge this annual conference brings. If you’re someone who’s been touched directly or indirectly by cancer, or are an investor looking for the latest and greatest innovations in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sector, then stay tuned, because there’s a lot more data on the way!

The article Will ASCO Unlock Big Value in This Cancer Drug Class? originally appeared on Fool.com.

Fool contributor 

Sean Williams

 has no material interest in any companies mentioned in this article. You can follow him on CAPS under the screen name TMFUltraLong, track every pick he makes under the screen name TrackUltraLong, and check him out on Twitter, where he goes by the handle 

@TMFUltraLong

.
Try any of our Foolish newsletter services 

free for 30 days

. We Fools don’t all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that 

considering a diverse range of insights

 makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a 

disclosure policy

.

Copyright © 1995 – 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

With the SPDR S&P Biotech Index up 38% over the trailing-12-month period, it’s evident that investment dollars are willingly flowing into the biotech sector. Keeping that in mind, let’s have a look at some of the rulings, studies, and companies that made waves in the sector last week.

With the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual meeting right around the corner, we were privy to plenty of clinical data (both good and bad), a three-month early drug approval from the Food and Drug Administration, and a head-scratcher of a deal in the biotech sector.

Starting in reverse, Elan surprised investors on Monday by coming out of the bleachers and entering into a $1 billion royalty deal with Theravance . If you recall, Theravance and development partner GlaxoSmithKline received FDA approval for their long-acting COPD maintenance inhaled treatment Breo Ellipta last week. The companies are also working on Breo Anoro which is also under FDA review and two additional compounds. The deal by Elan entitles it to receive 21% of Theravance’s royalties and assumes that the remainder of respiratory treatments will be quite successful. While a fantastic deal for Theravance shareholders, it’s a hefty price to pay for Elan, which appears to be wildly reaching for growth ideas.

On the clinical data front, Sanofi delivered positive news to investors on Friday with its JAK2 inhibitor SAR302503. The drug, which is meant to treat myelofibrosis, met its primary endpoint in late-stage trials of reducing spleen volume by greater than 35% after 24 weeks in both dosage groups. The side effects of SAR302503 were consistent with phase 1 trials, and Sanofi could file for regulatory approval relatively soon.

Roche also reported positive initial data for its chronic lymphocytic leukemia drug, GA-101 (also known as obinutuzumab), on Thursday. When combined with chlorambucil, GA-101 demonstrated a statistically significant 86% reduction in disease progression, relapse, or death. Median progression-free survival also more than doubled to 23 months from just the 10.9 months associated with taking chlorambucil by itself. Roche noted that it will present its full data set on GA-101 at ASCO.

Things didn’t go nearly as well for Oncothyreon , which announced the full, and disappointing, results from its unresectable, locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer drug, L-BLP25. While delivering a median overall survival of 25.6 months, it wasn’t statistically significant next to the median OS of 22.3 months for the placebo group. Oncothyreon also revealed initial results from two mid-stage studies of PX-866 in patients with glioblastoma and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Both results proved decent, but not enough to excite investors would were disappointed by L-BLP25′s failure.

Finally, Bayer and Algeta received a once-in-a-blue-moon FDA approval for Xofigo (previously Radium-223 dichloride) to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that’s spread to bones but no other organs because of surgical therapies aimed at lowering testosterone. The FDA approved Xofigo three months early and, in trials, extended PFS to 14 months, as compared with 11.2 months for the placebo.

The article This Week in Biotech originally appeared on Fool.com.

Fool contributor Sean Williams has no material interest in any companies mentioned in this article. You can follow him on CAPS under the screen name TMFUltraLong, track every pick he makes under the screen name TrackUltraLong, and check him out on Twitter, where he goes by the handle @TMFUltraLong.
Try any of our Foolish newsletter services 

free for 30 days

. We Fools don’t all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that 

considering a diverse range of insights

 makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a 

disclosure policy
.

Copyright © 1995 – 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

There are a lot of factors that go into determining whether a company does a good job at satisfying customers’ expectations. It isn’t enough nowadays to simply encourage consumers to buy or use a product; businesses have to keep customers coming back and do their best for consumers to see them favorably.

Thankfully, Brand Keys, a research firm that quantifies brand engagement and loyalty into its Brand Loyalty Engagement Index, has done the hard work for us. Over the past couple of weeks we’ve looked at some of the market’s top performers in terms of brand loyalty and we’ve seen a lot of similarities, even across sectors. Many of the nation’s top loyalty-generating business are using social media to get personal with their customers, are putting innovation at the forefront, and are keeping prices on many products reasonable.

Today I propose we look at the other end of the spectrum. But rather than approach this on a sector-by-sector basis as we did in the past, I’ve decided to lump together the five most notorious brand loyalty offenders under one roof. Let’s have a look at what mistakes these five companies have made and see whether trends exist that could help us identify and preferably avoid troubled stocks in the future.

Bank of America
It really should surprise no one that Bank of America tied with Citigroup for dead last in the banking category and placed last among credit card providers with consumers. Bank of America’s gaffes included trying to initiate a monthly $5 debit card usage fee, which merely infuriated existing customers and sent them to other banks, as well as numerous instances of legal settlements where it may not have admitted wrongdoing, but the public is certainly viewing it in a bad light.

Dell
Another instance where there’s little surprise is in seeing Dell at the bottom of the list among printers and laptop computers. Dell has struggled — as have many PC makers — with the evolution of smartphones and tablets, which have practically eliminated the need for desktop computers and certainly taken a bite out of laptop sales. Jumping aboard the innovation bus later than its peers, Dell’s PC and accessories have struggled with the younger generations who are hung up on Apple and Samsung’s more eye-appeasing styles and colors.

J.C. Penney
Not to say that retailer J.C. Penney was ever a hero among cost-conscious shoppers, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a company go from hero to zero in such a short timeframe. Former CEO Ron Johnson tried to do the unthinkable in the retail world and dictate consumer habits rather than let the customer determine Penney’s approach. Penney’s attempts to wean its customers off sales and institute the store-within-a-store concept failed miserably, with same-store sales falling a whopping 31.7% during the all-important Christmas quarter.

American Eagle Outfitters
I admit that American Eagle was a surprise bottom-dweller among retail apparel stores. Less than a decade ago, its styles were considered cool, and even though I don’t shop in American Eagle, its stores usually appear busy, and it offers a niche competitor to Aeropostale on the low end and Abercrombie & Fitch on the high end. However, American Eagle also has lagged its peers in terms of its direct-to-consumer presence and has had inventory hiccups that sometimes necessitate big discounts to move undesirable merchandise.

BlackBerry
No list of worst brand loyalty would be complete without BlackBerry, which fumbled its way out of the top spot in smartphone market share with its lackadaisical innovation. The ongoing delays in bringing its new Q10 and Z10 smartphones to market have been almost comical. With Apple introducing a new iPhone once a year and Android devices dominating globally, BlackBerry missed the boat with consumers when it took two years to roll out its new phones. Not surprisingly, adoption of its new smartphones has been so-so at best.

What’s the takeaway?
Now that we’ve had a better look at five of the worst culprits for brand loyalty according to Brand Keys, let’s examine some of the takeaways that’ll help us identify potentially dangerous investments.

I believe the first point worth mentioning is that innovation is everything. BlackBerry failed to move quickly enough with a new smartphone, taking two years to develop its new operating system, and competitors left it in the dust. Dell, as well, didn’t anticipate just how important weight and style were to consumers with regard to its laptops and has seen sales dip as Apple and Samsung products run circles around its own.

Secondly, having the right innovative idea is paramount to success. Some of these companies certainly tried to innovate, but they either chose a sensitive subject or ran with a bad idea for way too long. Bank of America, for instance, should have known that it was barking up the wrong tree when it tried to implement a debit card usage fee. J.C. Penney, on the other hand, should have figured out long before a year passed that its new sale-less strategy wasn’t working. Trying new things is great, but understanding whether they’re a touchy subject with consumers or if they’re just not working quickly is even better!

Public image is also important. American Eagle Outfitters rarely finds itself as a regular at the bottom of this list, so it has a good shot at repairing its product offerings and improving its online experience and pricing for consumers. On the other hand, Bank of America is what you might call a regular among America’s most-hated companies, so it could be difficult to change that public perception — especially since few people really “like” their bank anyway. Investors like to buy what they know and put their money behind products they trust, which makes companies like Bank of America a tough sell.

The article 5 Companies With Terrible Brand Loyalty originally appeared on Fool.com.

Fool contributor Sean Williams owns shares of Bank of America and Dell, but has no material interest in any other companies mentioned in this article. You can follow him on CAPS under the screen name TMFUltraLong, track every pick he makes under the screen name TrackUltraLong, and check him out on Twitter, where he goes by the handle @TMFUltraLong.

The Motley Fool owns shares of Apple, Bank of America, and Citigroup, and recommends Apple. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools don’t all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Copyright © 1995 – 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.