{
  "id": 15757140,
  "title": "Nike Now Yields More Than Procter & Gamble and Twice as Much as Coca-Cola. Is It the Most Overlooked Dividend Stock? Here's the Clear Answer.",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/20/nike-now-yields-more-than-procter-gamble-and-twice-as-much-as-coca",
  "topic": "finance",
  "section": "Finance & Markets",
  "published": "2026-10-20T14:52:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Motley Fool",
    "slug": "motley-fool",
    "url": "https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/10/20/nike-now-yields-more-than-procter-gamble-and-twice/?source=iedfolrf0000001"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "When discussing dividend stocks, names like Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble frequently come up. Both are part of the Dividend Kings club, boasting over 50 years of consecutive dividend increases. Coca-Cola has raised payouts for 64 years, while Procter & Gamble has done so for 70 years. Despite Coca-Cola's lower yield at 2.2%, and Procter & Gamble's at 2.7%, Nike (NKE) outperforms both with a 4.4% yield. Nike's high yield stems from its declining stock price, signaling deeper issues. The company is trying to innovate, adapt to changing consumer preferences, and avoid past mistakes like shifting to direct-to-consumer sales. Nike's recent quarterly revenue declined by 4%, and net income dropped 2%. The stock has fallen 41.6% this year, with Nike's five-year performance down 76.7%. While Nike has increased dividends for 24 consecutive years, recent hikes have been smaller. Despite Nike's high yield, I'd advise against investing in it now due to its struggles and lack of near-term recovery prospects. Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble are safer bets, offering stable dividends and reliable business models.",
  "summary": "Nike's dividend yield is flashy, but Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble offer more stability.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}