/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>15964291

No one makes it big in stocks anymore. Real estate is a better investment.

>>15964291
Dividend companies are most often less growth capable. People buy a non dividend company like let’s say SQ and see a 4-7x on their investment over 5 years but with a high amount of risk. Or they can buy a safer stock like Microsoft and get like a 1.5-2x over the same period plus 2-5% annually in dividends.

Like anything else, it’s just tolerance for risk vs reward.

>>15964298
That's fair, and why I am a realtor and planning on pivoting into real estate investing. But I still want to get some opinions. Preferably from both crank, libertarian types and professional types.

>>15964302
Right, but why is the stock price of SQ appreciating if not for the expectation that dividends will eventually be paid? I understand the concept of high growth now, no dividends now, but if dividends are never expected, then what is the impetus to purchase a stock other than as a hot potato you can hand- off to the next guy? What is the relation between company growth and the stock price?

Non dividend paying stocks are just ways for rich people to launder i think

>>15964291
>How is the modern stock market not just a bunch of hot potatoes?
well youve pretty much answered your own questions. complete financialization of the economy was pretty much completed in early 2000s. this was due to endless money printing by central banks....in such a scenario (access to endless cheap money) it almost never makes sense to do anything productive because that is always harder than doing nothing for free money.
now days the game works like this: ceo's negotiate their entire compensation package based solely on stock price performance, no other metrics (like getting more clients) are considered. they then borrow from banks at 2% and use that money to buy their own stock, simultaneously they offshore everything to 3rd world slave factories and end any and all reinvestment into their products. The result of this is stock price shoots up (less stock in circulation combined with less expenses), they then cashout after 3-4 years and take 100M cashout. the new ceo arrives and does the whole procedure over again. After 20-30 years there is nothing left to the company, its been totally hollowed out...if you could distill jewish mysticism into an excel sheet, this is what it would look like.

>>15964375
forgot to add ^^^

this is why there are no divis -- the ceo needs those shekels to buy back stock to increase his cashout.

>>15964375
Yeah, I guess I am holding out that that's not the answer, but I had a feeling...

>>15964325
Exposed bitch at

https://imgur.com/H3LyZSw

>>15964375
Exposed bitch at

https://imgur.com/H3LyZSw

>>15964375
How corporations get free fed money but everyday americans have to pay absurd interest rates

>>15964291
Dunno, I don't buy what anyone tells me is worth buying. I laugh at the number of obvious scams in the coins. Coupon Coins are the tulip bulb of the early 20th.
I'd make it law that any company which makes a profit must pay at least 10% of their after tax earnings per year to owners. It's impossible to explain how you own a share of a company, which is making $49/share each year, but receive no payment for your risk.

>>15964375
>>15964382
The worst part, the people who get caught in these stocks, are your people, they're the ones who are saying, "fuck the other guy" as they buy into shit and shit-coins hoping to pump and dump. (but it's the jews!) sure it is, that's why you invested in penny stocks, tried to pump, hyped the shit out of them knowing they couldn't match on books, and then got mad when you lost your bet.

>>15964325
That’s like asking why buy real estate when you can buy gold. They’re different investment mentalities and the expected outcomes are different. A balanced portfolio would have a mix of growth and dividend stocks because they’re essentially different investment products and your goals for them are different.

>>15964643
this would be reasonable if growth meant something when used.
Alphabet is a growth company?

>>15964291
look at Nvidia, pays a shit dividend but the price is growing pretty well after the crypto hangover it had in 2018

>>15964325
Because stock prices are based on actual tangible fundamentals. It’s not like crypto where the price fluctuates solely on the movement of dumb money. Companies you invest in have a real world book value based on real measurable things that an investor can look at and decide if it’s a good investment or not.

I think the problem here is just that bizlets don’t understand markets or why they exist, they’re too used to crypto where it literally is just gambling because there’s nothing actually under the surface to invest in.

>>15964291
>"ownership rights in the company"
but stocks don't even confer ownership rights, what brainlets are saying that

>>15964679
>stocks don't even confer ownership rights
oh, and how did that arrangement come into being? and why would you get control if you gained 51%?

>>15964696
You get voting rights from the stocks, not ownership rights. However if you have 51% of the votes you can vote to transfer the ownership of course. But with less than 50% you get no ownership at all.

>>15964710
>you get no ownership at all
Ohh, that's what you think. So what am I getting?

Jesus fuck, you are all retards.

In half the countries in the world dividends are taxed, selling stocks is not.

When company profits are reinvested, for example into purchasing own stock you efficiently get non-taxed income from selling those stocks.

>>15964635
>that's why you invested in penny stocks, tried to pump, hyped the shit out of them knowing they couldn't match on books,
schitzo projection rambling. go eat a bagel and lox and have a rest.

>>15964291
>And why would you care about ownership unless it's to eventually liquidate the company or force the company to start paying dividends?
The shareholders can always do this and I think it is actually the reason stocks have value, so you're wrong to discount it. If the company owners have collectively decided that it would be better to reinvest profits inro the company (e.g. to take advantage of economies of scale), that increases the future profits to which they still are entitled. Of course the moment at which they decide to take money out of the company can be deferred indefinitely, but that doesn't invalidate the principle.

>>15964291
at the off chance this isnt a troll post and you actually want to educate yourself:
http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2016/03/stock-buybacks-demystified.html

>>15964838
jews aren't allowed to shitpost with faggots like you on saturday.

>>15964298
>>15964313
Isn't real estate generally overpriced right now though

>>15964291
Because you don't buy every stock for a long term hodl. The $0.50 you get per share only matters if you hold the stock for 20 or 30 years.

>>15964291
Sometimes you just gotta grab your balls and buy a ROKU or NFLX dawg. Sometimes people just have passionate feelings towards an IPO like Beyond Meat. Just don't be a jackass and try putting your life savings in random biotech bullshit like Shekelreli offered up.

I would say if you find a passionate love affair you feel bad for not taking do that but the other 90% of your life make your portfolio on DRIP. Don't even mess with Options Trading or try that opening bell ((momemtum trading stock dischord chatroom garbagio)), take it from a guy who lost a fortune trying to do that. With a caveat that if you know deep down in your bones and if you learn TA well, you are allowed to sell options on your stocks, like covered calls and puts and shit.

Stocks are a scam unless you go for that hot ACTUAL technology or dividends. That is it, no get rich quick schemes just GROW BABY. GROW. And leverage your growth.

>>15964291
You won, it is a bunch of hot potatoes.

>>15964679
>>15964710
>and "ownership rights in the company" which is also somewhat circular and only applies to big dogs with massive positions.

That's pretty much what I was saying. voting/ownership rights only matters for big-dogs.

>>15964942
I am not trolling. How is the company buying back stocks not just them taking the hot potato themselves?

>>15965189
voting/ownership matters because if a majority agrees they can vote to pay dividends

>>15964302
But where does the theoretical end buyer come from? Is the idea that at some point in the future the company WILL start paying dividends?

>>15964663
You don't understand the question

>>15965224
>Is the idea that at some point in the future the company WILL start paying dividends?
yes

>>15964753
>When company profits are reinvested, for example into purchasing own stock you efficiently get non-taxed income from selling those stocks.
Oh OK, so the idea is a buyback functions as a dividend

>>15964663
My question has nothing to do with Crypto. And the stock price has nothing to do with tangible fundamentals, IF owning the stock does not come with the present or future possibility of accessing the company's profit (via dividends or liquidation). If the stock has no correlation with the profit (via dividend cashflow or liquidation) then the stocks could be $1 as much as could be $1000. There has to be a tie to a cashflow.

I don't understand why people are so resistant to this line of reasoning. It seems elementary, but again, I am holding out hope that there is a non-"muh jews" answer. So far, I haven't seen anything except more convoluted ways of passing hot potatos.

>>15965218
Right, so there is an expectation of dividends at a future point.
>>15965245
Okay. That makes sense, but my suspicion is that is not the full story.

>>15965245
San Francisco is full of groups I can only outright name on /pol/, and you're full of stuff, in my opinion.

>>15965267
>IF owning the stock does not come with the present or future possibility of accessing the company's profit (via dividends or liquidation).
You are not going to get an answer if you refuse to alter this false assumption.

>>15965293
But you just admitted that was the case here:
>>15965245
So how am I incorrect?

Expectation of dividends for cash flow
Liquidation for cash
Avoiding inflation

What other reasons that don't involve passing a hot potato?

>>15965267
Most people on this board haven't read rich dad poor dad dont get your hopes up man

>>15965317
Speculative Musical Chairs isn't valid??!?

>>15965317
Your reasoning is correct but it is simply not relevant since there are no stocks without some possibility of cash payment in the future. That would be pointless. Conclusion: yes, if as you say there is no possibility for payout, then stocks are be worthless hot potatoes. But this is not the case.
If this doesn't answer your q then I'm not sure what else you're asking.

>>15965345
Fair enough. I guess I was picking up on some sentiment (possibly from my imagination) that people considered dividends a thing of the past/unimportant/amateurish. And that is seems people are more willing now to accept "foggier" visions of when dividends should be expected from many large cap stocks. I was trying to figure out if I was missing something else.

>>15965389
just a massive housing bubble in the bay area that will easily tank California.