Dividend investing general /dig/

[Anonymous No.56519569]

I’m buying realty income edition
>dividend aristocrats
https://www.nasdaq.com/stocks/investing-lists/dividend-aristocrats
>dividend achievers (10 year dividend increase history)
https://www.marketbeat.com/dividends/achievers/
>check dividend history, dividend growth history, payout ratio etc.
https://www.financecharts.com/
>dividend calendar
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/dividends
>dividend growth calculator
https://dividendathlete.com/dividend-investing-
calculator/
>what are qualified dividends and how are they taxed
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/qualifieddividend.asp
>REITs
https://www.reit.com/what-reit
>power of dividend growth
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/072304.asp

[Anonymous No.56519632]

Dividends are irrelevant:
>https://www.jstor.org/stable/2351143
Above is the original paper, and below is a summary that is likely more your speed:
>https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dividendirrelevance.asp
Here's a good video explaining the concept as well:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5j9v9dfinQ [Embed]

Rather than relying on something irrelevant like dividends, if you really must use some generic factor criteria to drive longterm investment decisions. I'd recommend you consider the Fama-French 5 factor model:
>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2287202

Once adjusting for other factors, dividends become entirely irrelevant as a predictor of future stock returns:
>https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal/APR13-dividend-investing-value-tilt-disguise
>In this study, the dividend yield factor has been shown to actually detract from portfolio performance.
And one final video, pointing out the drawbacks of restricting investment options based on some arbitrary irrelevant criteria:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iNOtVtNKuU [Embed]

Hope this helps you see the light.

[Anonymous No.56519654]

>>56519632
You posted this before and got BTFO. Nothing replaces dividend income in the investing world.

[Anonymous No.56519665]

Reminder OP is easily baited

[Anonymous No.56519792]

What do we think of railroad stocks? Owning literal railroads n shit. Growth dividends or yield dividends?

[Anonymous No.56519867]

>>56519654
>You posted this before and got BTFO.
Wrong. No valid counterpoints were ever presented, unsurprisingly, because the facts I've presented are all true.
I'll continue to provide this informative warning whenever you choose to crosslink your pointless general.

[Anonymous No.56519900]

>>56519792
For me it’s a 70% yield/stability common to dividend achievers and 30% high growth dividends
>>56519867
Yes you started sperging out and then switched devices to agree with your other posts. When people noticed that your one poster is stopped posting and a new one came into the thread praising your posts you got called and then kind of just abandoned the thread

[Anonymous No.56519969]

>>56519900
>Yes you started sperging out and then switched devices to agree with your other posts. When people noticed that your one poster is stopped posting and a new one came into the thread praising your posts you got called and then kind of just abandoned the thread
Sounds like your coping over the idea that other rational, intelligent anons agreed with my posts. You have no counterargument so instead you shout samefag, mirroring the behavior of other delusional cultists in generals such as /GME/ or /BBBYQ/.

[Anonymous No.56519989]

>>56519969
You had like 30 posts by this IP and someone called you out for spending hours shilling against dividends and then magically a new person showed up and you disappeared. Not likely. And your confirmation bias articles were simply refuted with dividend confirmation bias articles.

[Anonymous No.56520063]

>>56519989
>And your confirmation bias articles were simply refuted with dividend confirmation bias articles.
Didn't happen. If it had happened, there would be sources to those articles that you could provide right now.

[Anonymous No.56520085]

>>56520063
Posting corporate confirmation bias articles is cancer but ok sure

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/091015/5-reasons-why-dividends-matter-investors.asp#:~:text=Dividends%20are%20a%20major%20factor,goes%20beyond%20that%20basic%20fact.

https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/investment-products/stocks/why-dividends-matter

https://www.hartfordfunds.com/insights/market-perspectives/equity/three-reasons-why-dividend-paying-stocks-are-worth-a-closer-look.html

https://www.hartfordfunds.com/insights/market-perspectives/equity/the-power-of-dividends.html

https://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2023/personal/financial-matters/dividends-are-not-irrelevant-when-a-stock-becomes-an-nft.html/

[Anonymous No.56520207]

dividends are comfy

[Anonymous No.56520228]

>>56520207
investments are not supposed to be comfy, they're supposed to make money. If you want to underperform and get regular dopamine boosts, go to a casino once a month.

[Anonymous No.56520251]

>>56520228
I do that too

[Anonymous No.56520252]

>>56520228
Oh no he didn’t respond to the confirmation bias post >>56520085
and it seems he also doesn’t know that dividends outperform in a down market

[Anonymous No.56520313]

>>56520085
Well, you've successfully confirmed my bias that you lack the intellectual rigor to actually read up on the topic at hand.
Congratulations on compiling all those links from the top of a quick google search.

All of these sources present the typical basic information targeted at uninformed retail investors.
Sadly all of this is refuted both logically and through empirical evidence in the academic papers I've previously presented. Even those vague allusions to a subset of dividend payers that outperforms over certain timeframes can be more directly attributed to other factors.

>>56520252
Unlike you, I read up on things. While it takes you 5 seconds to compile this list of trash off the top of your google search, I do like to check the sources in case there is something relevant or interesting.
In particular, I enjoyed laughing at that last link. I'm not surprised that you're the same retard that's been going around calling google an NFT stock.

[Anonymous No.56520460]

>>56520313
>your links are too easy to find for the average person
LMAO what will be the next coping mechanism

[Anonymous No.56520494]

Dividend investing is a Safe and Effective™ strategy to achieve financial independence. The downside is that it take some time to get the compound effect going, but once it take off the cash keeps flowing in.
Dividends are contrary to retarded beliefs not irrelevant if you seek passive income and want to take advantage of compounding.

The brilliant critiques here brought up Berkshire Hathaway of all companies as a good example of a company that don't pay dividends and how well they do because of it, omitting the fact that Warren Buffett LOVES the dividends received from the companies they hold. A whooping 6 irrelevant billions in dividends 2023.

Also a reminder that the critiques have not provided any, in their opinion, superior investing strategy or alternative.

[Anonymous No.56520597]

>>56520460
Pathetic. With every post you beclown yourself further. It's not the ease of access but the lack of effort and obvious evidence that you did not even read your own "sources".
I don't have any expectations that you'll change, but my true hope is that others will witness this embarrassment and recognize the obvious fact: That dividends are irrelevant.

>investopedia
This site writes articles on every topic, regardless of validity. I linked one of their articles myself, but as a more readable explanation, not a factual source in itself. You can actually check at the bottom where they claim their writers sourced their info. These sources all link back to typical sell side drivel, including Hartford Funds. I especially enjoyed this gem:
>Additionally, in this low-interest-rate environment, the dividend yield offered by dividend-paying companies is substantially higher than rates available to investors in most fixed-income investments such as government bonds

>fidelity
Generic broker advice. Like investopedia, they write these generic pro-divvy articles in addition to the more factual dividend irrelevance case, because they don't want to piss anyone off. They'll promote any strategy if they think it can lead to a future ETF that retail investors might buy on their brokerage.

>Hardford Funds
Talking their own book. This is a major mutual fund provider that specializes in dividend funds. Unsurprisingly, they've consistently underperformed. Perhaps if they've focused on meaningful sources of alpha and/or minimizing customer fees, they'd do better.
The common cope for these underperforming funds is that it's a "less risky" strategy.

>NFT Conspiracy Theorist
I don't think this one is even worth commenting on, but if you want a laugh I can share some highlights I guess.

[Anonymous No.56521667]

>>56519632
dividend irrelevance is irrelevant in the way that you're trying to use it. dividend irrelevance is just saying that a company's decision to pay dividends or not doesn't significantly affect its value or total return to investors. at least dividends provide cash flow and grow overtime so you don't have to sell it to see a return.

>Hope this helps you see the light.
splitting hairs isn't revelatory or particularly insightful.

[Anonymous No.56521942]

>>56521667
>grow over time
Lol

[Anonymous No.56522060]

>>56521942
>>grow over time
>Lol
better not ever frickin lol at me again

[Anonymous No.56522129]

Based. I like Costco

[Anonymous No.56523108]

Of all the dumbass shit people waste money on here, this guy takes issue with coca cola and costco? Nigger what even is your counter proposal? Crypto scams? 0DTE TSLA calls?
Horse Mining Companies? fuck off

[Anonymous No.56523130]

>>56519569
realty finally on sale again. 2014, 2020, 2023. you buy, you hold, you win

[Anonymous No.56523495]

>>56519632
Based, was looking for this. Talking a young friend out of buying Tbilis, CDs, and dividend stocks without having serious capital of atleast a few million or more.

[Anonymous No.56523735]

>>56523495
>without having serious capital of atleast a few million or more.
kek retard

[Anonymous No.56523741]

>>56523495
what did you suggest instead?

[Anonymous No.56523752]

>>56519569
I bought 150k of schd today

[Anonymous No.56523777]

>>56523741
Buy good, profitable companies, or buy a low cost index. Most likely you'll end up with around 50% dividend payers anyway.
There's no reason to avoid divvy stocks, but also no reason to target them. The one exception is yield traps. Stay the fuck away from those.

[Anonymous No.56523889]

>>56519654
>Nothing replaces dividend income in the investing world.
Nothing at all? What about... selling shares?
>You posted this before and got BTFO.
I doubt that. The links are, or summarize, well-accepted research in the field of finance.
What exactly is incorrect about it? For instance, is there an error in the Miller-Modigliani paper? Or is the problem elsewhere – like taxes, human psychology, etc.?

[Anonymous No.56523891]

profit company and dividend company are technicisms of the same goal, for what the anons here care

[Anonymous No.56523940]

>>56523752
You’ll make it

[Anonymous No.56524594]

>>56523889
>What about... selling shares?
It's not passive.

[Anonymous No.56525204]

>>56523889
Well you run out of shares eventually. Dividends pay out without having to sell

[Anonymous No.56526559]

Realty income cheapies

[Anonymous No.56526696]

Friendly reminder most of biz users are under the age of 25, suicidal, depressed, anxious, and misanthropic. They are literally too immature to see more than 6-18 months down the roadm. Dividends make no sense to them because they're incapable of seeing the long term future.

[Anonymous No.56527132]

>>56525204
>you run out of shares eventually
That's like saying a dividend-paying company runs out of cash eventually. Sometimes it's true. If a company can sustainably grow at 4% per year and pays no dividend, then sell 4% of your shares per year or less for sustainable income.

[Anonymous No.56527144]

>>56527132
>what are down years
Yeah no thanks retard

[Anonymous No.56527153]

>>56524594
It's pushing a couple buttons on your phone. And buying dividend-paying assets isn't passive either.

[Anonymous No.56527165]

>>56527144
Down years impact dividend-paying investments too.

[Anonymous No.56527194]

>>56527165
Not really. Nowhere near as much as growth stocks. Share price falling on good dividend paying companies is a good thing because it allows me to secure more income producing assets at a cheaper valuation

[Anonymous No.56527202]

>>56527194
>Share price falling on good dividend paying companies is a good thing because it allows me to secure more income producing assets at a cheaper valuation
Indeed. This is also true of stocks that don't pay dividends, of course.

[Anonymous No.56527233]

>>56527202
Not when you just told me your plan is to sell it off every year to mimic dividend lmao.

[Anonymous No.56527380]

>>56519632
really makes you think that you care this much about people not receiving dividend im 100% sure you go trough all the effort out of the goodness of your hart

also dividends have accounted for 40% of stock market returns since 1930 and 54% during decades when inflation has been high

anyway knowing you really dont like me receiving any dividend i will look at dividend stocks even more in the future
now kys faggot

[Anonymous No.56527513]

>>56527233
That's not my plan. It's just equivalent to receiving a dividend for a liquid stock. (This is setting aside the fact that a government could treat dividends and capital gains differently in tax law, for example, overwhelming ordinary financial factors.)
Dividends don't let an investor escape the vicissitudes of timing. When a company's stock is severely undervalued, its cost of equity is high. It should therefore keep more cash on hand, or, if it has excess cash nonetheless, it should buy back its stock at a bargain price. It's poor timing for a dividend. But if you need cash, you need cash.

[Anonymous No.56527608]

>>56527513
>It's just equivalent to receiving a dividend for a liquid stock.
No it isn’t. The fact that on down years the growth stocks would not be able to match the dividend without selling excess shares confirms that.

[Anonymous No.56527680]

If one has 5 million to invest, is a dividend etf a good idea?

[Anonymous No.56527753]

>>56527680
Yes. You could invest in SCHD or even something super safe like Coca Cola and live off of that for the rest of your life

[Anonymous No.56527804]

>>56527608
No. Again, down years affect a company even if it has a regular dividend policy. The stock market also prices in volatility: when there's greater risk of being forced to sell in a down market, the stock is cheaper to buy in the first place. There's no free lunch.
You seem to be trying to argue that Miller and Modigliani were wrong on their own terms. It's unlikely that you'll find an error that experts missed for decades. You're more likely to find justifications for dividend investing in aspects of the real world that weren't modeled by Miller and Modigliani.

[Anonymous No.56527823]

>>56527153
Do you day trade or hold for days, weeks or months? Do you have a successful strategy and system that generate reliable income?

[Anonymous No.56527862]

>>56527380
It wasn't much effort. It's all standard material and concepts I read up on myself when I was less knowledgeable. Now it's a simple post I can repaste with small edits whenever I want.
Chasing dividends won't hurt you much, but it won't help you either.

[Anonymous No.56527877]

I put like 900 dollarinos on O and only got 5 dollars what the fuck

[Anonymous No.56527970]

>>56527862
its incorrect and you are a shill that refuses to engage in any counter argument while accusing people of doing exactly that
post nose

[Anonymous No.56528647]

>>56527877
Put 900 dollars in every pay day

[Anonymous No.56528673]

>>56527877
that's like +7%/year

if you want +250% in a month buy options

[Anonymous No.56528725]

The fact that someone is willing to put this much time and energy into countersignalling dividends means that this is definitely a good strategy.
If he were trying to help us not lose money he should be spending just as much time trying to help the poor retards in some of this board's other generals, but he's specifically here to ruin our day. I'm buying more australian commodities this week.

[Anonymous No.56528741]

>>56527823
My approach is:
>try to hold for the long term, i.e. avoid and delay selling as much as possible
>sell (and keep dividends) when I need cash, hold (and reinvest dividends) when I don't need cash
>the more likely it is I'll need to sell early, the more conservative my portfolio should be
>the more liquid the stock, the less I care about its dividend policy

[Anonymous No.56528759]

>>56527970
>its incorrect
Why, specifically?

[Anonymous No.56528932]

>>56528759
Unfortunately, you're not going to get a serious answer. There are several legitimate criticisms that could be presented and debated, but none of these divvy cultists are knowledgeable enough to present them.

[Anonymous No.56529046]

>>56528759
>>56528932
They’ve already been posted. >>56520085
I’m sorry you didn’t like what they said but these are from much more reputable sources than >>56519632

[Anonymous No.56529162]

I was thinking a dividend ETF is a good way to avoid 0% interest rate fluff companies. That's always rubbed me the wrong way about the $spy.
The dividend proves there's actual cashflow, as opposed to something like $tsla growth which is baggie pyramid scheme not unlike crypto.

[Anonymous No.56529193]

I just did a home vs SCHD investment.
home
>$500k home
>10% down + 3% closing costs ($63,500)
>5%+/yr
>$3,800 monthly payment (includes property tax, home owners insurance, and pmi - no maintenance or HOA)
>equity after 10 years $385k, 20 years 998k, 30 years 2.06M
now SCHD
>$63.5k initial investment
>$2k monthly investment (the additional $1800 to landlord since rentoid)
>8% increase/yr (it was historically 11.13% average since SCHD released in 2012)
>3.5% dividend with 10% dividend growth rate (13% growth rate historically)
>equity after 10 years $561k, 20 years $2.35m, 30 years $8.4m
>dividends/yr: $299k
dang sucks to be a homecel when SCHD exists. just gotta live in a pod though

[Anonymous No.56529194]

>>56529046
>these are from much more reputable sources than >>56519632
Some random finance companies and retail-investor bloggers are "much more reputable" than the peer-reviewed work of Nobel-winning finance researchers, huh? Good trolling, you got me.

[Anonymous No.56529256]

>>56529194
Peer review is a scam and it’s not surprising NFT baggies shill for them. Enjoying that $300k arts degree?

[Anonymous No.56529402]

The amount of anti-dividend posts in these threads is kind of funny.

>"I like dividends because I like passive income"
and then the post gets bombarded with effort-posts linking several articles etc. explaining how dividend investing is bad, almost as if someone was paid to desperately convince people here that they're wrong. I mean nobody is going to effort-post this hard when you post about liking chocolate because it tastes good and then they're telling you something along the lines of "actually chocolate is irrelevant and here are some articles stating that chocolate tastes bad". It just happens when you post about finances or your way of investing in order not be a wageslave forever, someone (or something) is always there to doubt and ridicule your ideas, to discourage you so you stick your head in the sand and don't bother with finances again. Most people who invest in dividend stocks have one goal, generate passive cashflow. yet this point immediately gets ignored and dismissed by these other anons, trying to make the conversation about EOY profits.

the amount of hate that the dividend strategy is creating makes me think that it's the best one.

[Anonymous No.56529919]

>>56529402
>something along the lines of "actually chocolate is irrelevant and here are some articles stating that chocolate tastes bad"
Technically there are only 5 tastes: Bitter, sour, sweet, salty, and savory/umami. There are also a few related triggers like the heat from capsicum or ammonium chloride. But in all seriousness the reason there's no need to debate whether goyslop like McDonalds is healthy for you is that no one legitimate tries to defend that case. It's such an obvious, immediate troll attempt.

Yet for whatever reason, when it comes to topics of finance, there's this attraction that compels morons of all sorts to think they're above any confirmed theory and hard math. That they can just waltz in and effortlessly beat the markets with this one simple trick. They'll present some crockpot belief and form their own cult of like-minded fools.
I don't hate you, but I do think you're probably an idiot. I have no expectations of convincing you, though perhaps my messages will serve as an effective warning that helps keep other more sane individuals on a sensible path in their financial life journey.

[Anonymous No.56529989]

is it a bad idea to use my companies ESPP? Its a reit that has taken a beating lately, but is probably going to be fine long term. a bit more debt than would be id like but theres worse in the industry.

[Anonymous No.56530199]

>>56519569
Yes divi general is back. Sadly the dividends are irrilevent loser is back and already at 10 posts trying to save us...
Anyway.. Any of you earned any dividends in october? Only made a weak €21 and will be the same for november. Decemer wil be good almost getting €300 in payed dividends. Share your earnings divi bros

[Anonymous No.56530790]

>>56530199
$369 in Oct. Expecting about $140 this month but my two biggest holdings schedule dividends by throwing darts at a calendar so who knows really.

[Anonymous No.56530839]

>>56519569
Chip prices gon' go up again in January

[Anonymous No.56531183]

Going to be doing portfolio updates on here from now on. Almost maxed out my IRA this year and I started this IRA 15 months ago. I know I’m extremely heavy into O I sold some stock and went balls to the wall in the low $50s. I have my recurring investments going to make up for this

[Anonymous No.56531207]

>>56531183
Here’s my recurring investments going forward. It adds up to $290 biweekly which will total $7,000 per year, which is next years contribution limit. As you can see I scaled back my realty income contributions to just $10 a month plus the $30+ in dividends which will net me almost a full share a month.

[Anonymous No.56531772]

>>56529402
And they don't provide any alternatives...

[Anonymous No.56531822]

>>56519632
>creating real value and payments is dumb
>buy Bitcoin and tech bubbles
Kys negro. I’m accumulating silver and O stock. O stock is wayyyyy undervalued and will explode while tech ai bubble implodes

[Anonymous No.56531848]

>>56519569
Dividends have been debunked.

[Anonymous No.56531991]

Why not just buy VOO? It also pays a dividend.

[Anonymous No.56532085]

>>56531991
I do buy voo in my taxable. It’s my largest holding.

[Anonymous No.56532173]

>>56531991
>>56532085
Thoughts? >>56529162

[Anonymous No.56532205]

>>56529162
As long as the expense ratio is tiny dividend ETFs are great

[Anonymous No.56532377]

why not just sell covered calls?
you poors can get 30% a year (on non dividend stocks!) rather than 2% and lost valuation
>b-but i dont want to actively manage my portholio! its scary!

[Anonymous No.56533039]

>>56532377
Covered calls are also irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.56533268]

>>56531822
O pill me. It doesn't look that great to me, but i must be missing something.

[Anonymous No.56533639]

>>56532377
Why not both?

[Anonymous No.56534403]

>>56519569
When will it be time to buy tlt? I mean how long will the fed keep hiking

[Anonymous No.56534442]

>>56519569
Anons I'd suggest looking into PNC. 80% institutional ownership, and I personally believe that their stock is undervalued. They were one of the very few responsible regional banks that didn't get cucked by short term bonds

[Anonymous No.56534591]

>>56529989
ESPP is meant to lock in those returns since you get it 15% below market.

[Anonymous No.56535734]

>>56520313
>All of these sources present the typical basic information targeted at uninformed retail investors.
As opposed to your sources that consist of YouTube links and Investopedia articles? But it's okay when you do it right? You trolling boy.

[Anonymous No.56536819]

Next era Energy. Nice comfy utility

[Anonymous No.56537025]

Is there a better deal than TFLO right now? I'm earning almost $250 a month, an effective 5.35% "interest" 30 day yield with no risk. I haven't seen anything better.

[Anonymous No.56537058]

I like the thread idea but I might be 10 years too early. How much caapital would everyone say is a good anount to finally play the long game with dividends?

[Anonymous No.56537122]

>>56537058
It’s a common misconception that you can start too early. Research yield on cost. DCA into sleep well at night companies with a history of raising their dividend.

[Anonymous No.56537362]

bought more BNS.TO

[Anonymous No.56537824]

>>56530790
Thats a good yield. Did you reinvest that in New divi stock?

[Anonymous No.56537937]

>>56520085
>literally cites a bunch of articles written by brokerages who want you to park money in their accounts and let them collect fees forever
>actually thinks he's proved anything other than his own ignorance
dividends are uncapitalized returns, simple as

[Anonymous No.56538193]

>>56537824
Mostly, yeah. DCA-ing into EC, PBR.A, ABR, LMT, EQNR. LMT I might stop soon, it's gained so much due to the Israel-Hamas war that I have to re-evaluate to see if it's still a good deal.

[Anonymous No.56538297]

>>56519632
Divided companies give you exposure to value, low vol and profitability. At any rate it's way better than buying shit like S&P500 that 99.99% of normies do.

Explaining factors to normies is too hard but they are receptive to dividends. Anything that takes normies away from market cap weighting is good.

[Anonymous No.56538351]

>>56537058
That would be 10 years of lost compounding. The earlier the better. You don't have to go all in on dividend focused portfolio, but if you start small now you'll thank yourself in the future and probably curse yourself for not investing more. Have a clear goal in mind, invest frequently, stick to the plan and don't panic sell.

https://youtu.be/mg30bKeHrgk?si=aC9vv7annzfDvvXn

[Anonymous No.56538364]

>>56519569
>no paprika
AY CARAMBA WHAT PLEBIAN MADE THIS?

[Anonymous No.56538627]

>>56538297
>Explaining factors to normies is too hard but they are receptive to dividends.
A fair criticism, but I'd argue that if these normalfags are incapable of caring then there's no need for a general thread because they're not going to be interested in any real discussion. Plenty of evidence of that in this thread.
>Anything that takes normies away from market cap weighting is good.
I disagree with this particular line of thinking. You could certainly argue that there's some alpha in focusing on smaller profitable companies and newer founder-lead ones as they tend to outperform over extended periods.
However, dividend growers tend to lean towards the biggest large caps in the first place due to the requirements of a certain timeframe of sustained growth, a criteria that is entirely superficial.
Meanwhile, high yield divvy stocks that are not growing statistically tend to underperform - so called yield traps.
So in conclusion, if your goal is to avoid the same market-weighting megacap bias trap that SPY/VOO fall into, you're not really gaining anything by singularly focusing on divvy stocks.

Despite that, there may be some temporary timing advantage to your view. We live in a time where TSLA, NVDA, AMZN are some of the largest stocks trading at massive multiples of FCF, and none of them pay dividends. MSFT and AAPL are also large and richly valued, but to a lesser extreme.

[Anonymous No.56538793]

>>56538627
>Meanwhile, high yield divvy stocks that are not growing statistically tend to underperform - so called yield traps.
So stick to companies with a sound business with a decently high yield, like REIT's and BDC's, instead of chasing yield from from shipping companies and whatelse.

>MSFT and AAPL are also large and richly valued, but to a lesser extreme.
So they have room to grow and there's less speculation of future performance and less risk of a steep price correction. Both companies are a good fit in a dividend portfolio for long term growth.

Why not own or trade Amazon, Tesla or Nvidia as well.

[Anonymous No.56538859]

The problem is that most new investors fundamentally don’t understand dividends and the different types. I’ll list these to the best of my ability

>high yield
These are companies that pay upwards of 5% starting yield. They tend to be less safe than lower yielding dividends but some of them are high due to the nature of their sector. For example, oil and tobacco. Personally I have a few high yielding positions I use the dividends to fund my other stocks with. High yielding dividend stocks could be very usefull for someone seeking immediate income such as a recently retired person.

>mid yield, reliable growth
These are your stalwart forever companies. These are the companies you buy with the intent to pass on to your children after you die. You never sell, I mean how could you sell a company with a better credit rating than the us government (JNJ). These are your pepsi, your cokes, your Home Depot’s. Companies that are well established with reliable free cash flow. They usually yield between 2% and 5% depending on market conditions. Dividend growth is slow but ever present

>low yield, high dividend growth
These are your Visa, Microsoft, Costco, united health. They offer paltry less than 1% yields but high dividend growth. Between 10% and 20% is common with these types of stocks. Don’t forget the rule of 72 when researching these stocks. Divide 72 by the average dividend growth rate to see how long it would take for the yield to double. For example:
Stock X has a 1.1% starting yield with a dividend growth rate that averages 16%
72/16=4.5
It will take 4.5 years for that 1.1% yield to double to 2.2%.

[Anonymous No.56539449]

Realty income on a tear. It’s almost back at $50 after reaching $46 when the acquisition news came out. I only bought $300 worth in the 46 range but it was a nice buying opportunity

[Anonymous No.56539481]

>>56538793
>Why not own or trade Amazon, Tesla or Nvidia as well.
You can own them, and might do well. However for reasons of valuation and existing scale, it's fairly unlikely that you'll outperform over the longer term.
A company that continuously outperforms and has neither meaningful buybacks nor dividend yield will continue growing until eventually it takes up the entire market. The FAGMAN are already sitting at record portions of the total US market.
As a skilled young worker, there is some incentive to join a newer startup or found your own company as you gain more leverage to the upside based on your own personal contributions than you'd get at a megacap with 100k+ employees. So there's a natural sort of bias towards smaller founder-lead companies, at least historically.

[Anonymous No.56539806]

>>56539481
What the fuck are you even on about?

[Anonymous No.56539833]

>>56519569
>>>/pol/447271261

Elon musk is a pedo that killed steve jobs

[Anonymous No.56539931]

>>56519654
Dividends aren't real income they are just taxable income. If you put $100 into a company, you can pay a 10% dividend forever. $10 the first year, so you have $10 + a $90 company. Then 10% ($9) the next year, and the $8.1, then $7.29, and on and on. In the end you have nearly $0 in the company and have realized $100 of taxable income without ever having any actual income.

This why dividend investing is retarded. Investing in dividend paying companies isn't always retarded, but investing specifically for dividends is. A dividend isn't income, its a return of equity. Sometimes the equity returned is a stable profit stream. That is what most people are actually looking for. Its like if I want a fast car, and red cars are often fast, should I buy any red car? No, I don't actually give a care about the color. Just like you shouldn't care about dividends, only the underlying company, and any personal tax implicates of their method of returning equity by either dividends or buybacks.

[Anonymous No.56539954]

>>56539931
> Dividends aren't real income they are just taxable income
Yep they’re real income. Didn’t read past this line. That’s what happens when you put yourself as a retard so early on in the post

[Anonymous No.56539965]

>>56539931
>a dividend isn’t income

[Anonymous No.56539984]

>>56538859
Dividend is not yield. Its not income, its return of equity. A company paying 5% dividend or 20% dividend means absolutely nothing. The former could have had 25% profits and bought back 20% in shares, and the later could have sold off assets to pay the dividend and have actually negative profit.

>>56539954
>>56539965
>the tax code defines reality
They're "taxable income," read the post retard. Tax code is not the laws of physics. If the tax code says gravity doesn't exit, we won't just start to float away.

[Anonymous No.56540004]

>>56539954
>>56539965
You're just showing why dividends are bad. They aren't REAL income but they are taxable income. You are getting taxed on you're own money just being divested regardless of the cost basis.

[Anonymous No.56540017]

>>56527877
now just wait another 20 years and you'll have your original investment back lol
i tend to sell O above $65, made way more from just buying and selling this one than from the dividend payment, and i have a constant base position in it
>>56528673
why not buy at least 100 shares, receipt the dividend, sell (covered) puts at a strike price 5% above market prices

[Anonymous No.56540027]

>>56539806
I don't have time to babysit you, sorry. You can plug my post into chatGPT and ask for the 5 year old translation if you're really having trouble.

[Anonymous No.56540084]

>>56539984
>taxable income is not income
Man you’re really bad at this

[Anonymous No.56540124]

3 years later and I finally look like a genius buying Shell. Your welcome.

[Anonymous No.56540157]

>>56540084
>taxable income is not income
Yes, retard. Is that some gotcha? Its true. If a company worth $100mil sells a $5m property to pay a their 5% dividend. Was there any income?

[Anonymous No.56540170]

>>56539931
>>56539984
You really don't understand how dividends work, man. I'm not going to sit here and call you names about it, but I am going to say that you should think a little more about your posts.

Why are you even in here if the idea of people you'll never meet getting passive income rustles your Jimmies so much? Are you the kind of guy who enjoys it when strangers on the internet give him a good rustling?

[Anonymous No.56540189]

>>56540170
>you don't know how it works
>i do but I can't explain because...
>why are you even here
why are you replying if you have no rebuttal, retard?

[Anonymous No.56540208]

>>56540157
That would be classified as a return of capital distribution, which is different than typical dividends.
Although there are some companies out there which lose money, pay dividends from their shrinking corpse, and continually classify these payments as income until eventually there's nothing left, the stock trades worthless and they declare bankruptcy. AGNC is kind of like this.

[Anonymous No.56540232]

>>56539931
>If you put $100 into a company, you can pay a 10% dividend forever. $10 the first year, so you have $10 + a $90 company. Then 10% ($9) the next year, and the $8.1, then $7.29, and on and on. In the end you have nearly $0 in the company and have realized $100 of taxable income without ever having any actual income.

this is a retarded example, and it doesn't reflect dividend investing, or any dividend paying company in the slightest. you're giving an example of a company that has 0 profit that cannibalizes itself to pay a dividend with negative growth. this company would not exist, and no one would invest in this company.

Companies pay dividends from a portion of the profits earned. A company can choose to retain all earnings to perhaps increase its capacity to earn and simultaneously increase its equity and thus increase the price per share, but its just a number on your screen and nearly meaningless unless you sell, which means you'll be taxed to see any utility out of your investment.

interestingly, your example could be used for growth stocks. when you retire, you'll have to cannibalize your assets to pay yourself a dividend, whereas those who had been investing in dividend paying companies retain their asset and profit nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.56540242]

>>56529193
Can't speak for home investment but if you honestly expect an 8% rate of return for SCDHD over the next 10 years you're more delusional then link owners. It's gonna be a rough decade ahead. You're better just tying all available cash into t bills until you have enough to buy a house straight cash

[Anonymous No.56540263]

>>56540208
Aka a dividend. Tons of companies maintain a dividend though varying periods of grow or slowing. The dividend existing doesn't mean the company is profitable. You want to invest in profitable companies, just all it what it is. Don't use the term dividend.

>>56540232
There are tons of companies that do this to smooth over periods of decline, like Macy's. Some have growth a gain and some go bankrupt but not all. The fundamentals mattered, and the fact they paid a dividend meant nothing other than it made their financial options less flexible.

[Anonymous No.56540291]

>>56540242
swap SCHD with VOO then. i agree there will be a downturn, but it won't be limited to stonks.

[Anonymous No.56540318]

>>56540263
>There are tons of companies that do this to smooth over periods of decline, like Macy's. Some have growth a gain and some go bankrupt but not all. The fundamentals mattered, and the fact they paid a dividend meant nothing other than it made their financial options less flexible.
perhaps, but its the exception, not the rule. also, periods of decline aren't limited to dividend paying companies.

[Anonymous No.56540395]

>>56540263
>Aka a dividend.
No. It's literally not. Look up the term: Return of Capital.
Here, I'll even help you:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnofcapital.asp

Dividends will always be based on past income, using current cash on their balance sheet. Some companies keep paying dividends beyond the point that they're still technically profitable. Perhaps they still have positive cashflow, or perhaps they simply expect profitability to return in the future.

For an individual investor, determining whether they're truly profiting is another story. I don't disagree with that. Not all investors are around at the creation of the enterprise, so their own personal P/L will depend on the purchase price of their shares and cumulative receipt of dividends.
In the end, dividends are irrelevant as they simply shift an unrealized gain into a realized gain, while the stock price immediately declines due to the reduction of cash. Your example was dogshit though, as what you described is not actually a dividend.

[Anonymous No.56540429]

>>56540189
Because your arguments are insensate to begin with and I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage with them.

You've been rebutted dozens of times already, there's nothing I can say to you that will convince you of anything.

[Anonymous No.56540454]

>>56540318
Correct, so there is no point of caring about dividends. A company pays a dividend, means nothing. the fundamentals vs valuation matter. If anything a dividend is a detriment because its taxed worse and is less flexible for the company. Like if you take any company who pays a dividend, any company would be better off if they were able to be more flexible with distributions. Its only because of idiotic regulations that dividends are even a thing to confuse people.

>>56540395
>No. It's literally not. Look up the term: Return of Capital.
>Some companies keep paying dividends beyond the point that they're still technically profitable. Perhaps they still have positive cashflow, or perhaps they simply expect profitability to return in the future.
You just contract yourself

>dividends are irrelevant as they simply shift an unrealized gain into a realized gain, while the stock price immediately declines due to the reduction of cash. Your example was dogshit though, as what you described is not actually a dividend.
Sounds like you agree with me. My example could be a company that made 5% profits a year, and paid a 5% dividend then the next year made nothing or lost money and maintained the dividend by selling something. Tons of companies do this.

[Anonymous No.56540515]

Div investing doesn’t make sense with high enough interest. Unless company is both growing in stock price as well

$100k in t bills net me $5.5k in interest.

$100k in SCHD would be like 1530 shares.

1530 times 2.62(it annual div per share) is $4008…

This all goes out of table if the company grows in value along with the divvy.

[Anonymous No.56540549]

>>56540017
>why not buy at least 100 shares, receipt the dividend, sell (covered) puts at a strike price 5% above market prices
what's the idea behind that play?

[Anonymous No.56540564]

>>56540515
that's a bad example because dividend yield is not the yield. SCHD could pay 1, 4, 20% in dividends and the total yield over some time frame could be -50% or 100%.

While the treasury is denominated in dollars so mathematically guaranteed to be stable in dollars, even if the real yield can be -10% or w/e.

[Anonymous No.56540590]

>>56540454
>Tons of companies do this.
Usually because their book value is low after decades of existence. So the sale is technically a profit. Otherwise they're fucking their shareholders by improperly declaring.
Better example would be a company slowly shrinking their cash pile paying an unsustainable divvy, or one that ignores impending debt deadlines to keep paying their divvy.

[Anonymous No.56540676]

>>56540590
Whatever accounting tricks they use, I don't care. A $100m company pays a $5m dividend, now you have a $95m company and $5m. No money was made. But there is $5m in income taxed. It doesn't matter whether they were a $100m company a year before, and made no money, or if they made $5 mil but had $5m unrealized loss and so paid the dividend from their "profit." Its all just accounting gimmicks, its what dividends are, a gimmick to trick people into thinking its something special because there no actual reason why any company would want to pay a consistent, fixed dividend rather than just pay out profits ad hoc whenever they can't be reinvested.

[Anonymous No.56540690]

>>56540454

[Anonymous No.56540862]

>>56540549
it would mean you receive income from the sale of the put, the dividend, and if your put is assigned then you realise a 5% gain on the investment as well. honestly the amount you make on the sale of the put isn't much though if it's 5% above the current market price

[Anonymous No.56540964]

>>56519632
Based. Dividend investors BTFO once again

[Anonymous No.56541012]

>Dividend stocks are bad
Yeah OHI FRO and PBR all suck

[Anonymous No.56541093]

>>56540862
Not really my style but I guess it could work. I usually do OTM puts and avoid options across ex-dates. But harvesting extra premium from dividend stocks by selling options against them is a decent technique for sure.

[Anonymous No.56541277]

Reminder to buy the /dig/ king Baudax Bio Inc.

[Anonymous No.56541318]

>>56540004
Im Canadian and we have tax free investment accounts here where you don't get taxed on anything you make in the account, including divvies.

[Anonymous No.56541855]

>>56541318
We have those in the US, 401ks, IRA, etc. Its doesn't make dividends better, just less worse. And on the other hand the less gain you have in a retirement account, the less benefit it is, so moving higher taxed, but lower growth investments into your retirement account isn't necessarily better.