/biz/ - Business & Finance

i get a higher yield from my savings account interest today, than what most those companies pay out in divvies

>>56885869
How much capital gains does your savings account give?

A money market fund will outperform this general.

Why do anti-dividend niggers act like we're buying shitcoins over here? Buy good companies. 0dte tqqq calls are for smg. Cool old coins are for pmg. Dig is for us boomer wannabes.

>>56885869
Starting yield today maybe but you lose out on dividend growth and more than likely the yield in your savings account will be lower next year.

>>56885886

oh wow a bunch of shit boomer americana stocks that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole!

>>56886283
You aren’t very good at this

>>56886384
>he holds Ford
okay dad

>>56886448
fyi good stocks can also pay a dividend

>>56886470
I bought NVDIA at $115 and sold at $510. I don't care about boomer dividends.

>>56886708
>i don't care about dividends
>posts in dividend general

>>56886448
I don’t hold Ford. My dividend portfolio only has 9 positions. 8 excellent individual stocks and 1 excellent wtf
>SCHD
>COST
>V
>MSFT
>JNJ
>NEE
>O
>AMT
>PEP

>>56886708
Also prove that you bought at $115 and sold at $510. It seems like your just citing a successful growth stock to further your argument

I’m so glad I liquidated and loaded up on O at $47. The one downside is that O is now 75% of my portfolio. I’m pausing all contributions to O going forward and will just let it DRIP until my other positions catch up.

>>56887423
unfortunately I had too much exposure to real estate already so i couldn't myself

good swing anon and divs will make it easy to rebalance in coming months

>>56887617
Sold 2 covered calls for $60 Jan 19th. Hopefully they don’t get assigned but if they do that’s a few thousand $ in profit

>>56887928
generally I don't like covered calls right now with vix this low (low premiums considering capped upside participation); I think the market's gonna move quite a bit in the next 1-6 months given econ data and possibility of fed cuts so I'm using them mostly to de-risk some more speculative positions rather than as a fancy sell order or theta harvesting strat

hard to go wrong with buying O at $47 either way though, it's either free premium on a blue chip or a 30% profit in a few months

>>56888335
I was really hoping we wouldn’t recover so quickly. My investing horizon is a long ways out so the high rates driving down REITs was great for accumulating.

Mastercard just raised their dividend 15% and authorized $11B in buybacks. One of the duopolies that I wouldn’t be scared to own both. I already stack visa in my Roth and I think I’ll start stacking Mastercard in my taxable account

Dividends are irrelevant in an idealized market — one with no mispricings that you can reliably exploit, no taxes, no transaction costs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5j9v9dfinQ

>The researchers are wrong
That's very unlikely. If you proved that Miller and Modigliani's famous research on dividends was wrong on its own terms, you'd quickly become a celebrated intellectual.

>But real markets aren't ideal
You're right. Keep reading this.

>But there are mispricings I can reliably exploit
Then make money by exploiting your special knowledge of stock valuations. Don't worry about dividends per se.

>But tax treatment of dividends is significant for me
Fair enough. Seek or avoid dividends based on your tax situation (but as little as possible, because it's valuable for your portfolio to be broadly diversified).

>But transaction costs are high for this stock (for example, it's not publicly traded)
Fair enough. Dividend policy might matter in your case.

>But pushing the "sell" button is so much work
No it's not. If you can handle buying securities, transferring money to and from your bank account, and reading an investing forum, then you can handle periodically selling shares.

>But dividends prove that the company is making genuine profits, that its management actually works for the shareholders' benefit, etc. etc.
Every investor can see that. So either it's already reflected in the price or it's a special case of "but there are mispricings I can reliably exploit."

>But some stocks have steady dividends, whereas the price at which I can sell shares fluctuates and is sometimes very low
Every investor can see that. So either it's already reflected in the price or it's a special case of "but there are mispricings I can reliably exploit."

>But I just like dividends
That's fine. But some people reading this thread want to maximize their investment returns and would benefit from knowing about the science.

>>56889764
>dividends are irrelevant
>posts a bunch of links praising dividends for their relevance
What did he mean by this

>>56889764
>here's a bag that's heavy but at least it pays
>here's a bag that's just doesn't do shit
Which one would you buy retard?

>>56886245
Why do you get paid dividends if you have to reinvest them? why not just buy the SP500 and not have o constantly revinest and fill taxes for the dividends? fucking retarded.

Getting dividends paid for is when you are already rich and want to neetmax on the dividends.

>>56889941
Is this a serious question? Some people who own the stock will use the dividends for whatever and some people who own the same stock will reinvest them.
>Getting dividends paid for is when you are already rich and want to neetmax on the dividends.
uh what? Who told you that?

>>56889941
Also LMAO for not knowing that most S&P trackers pay quarterly dividends

Anyone buy BTI today?

>>56889886
>posts a bunch of links
Which links?

>>56890190
Holy shit look at this guy squirm

>>56890256
Were you using English incorrectly? For example, did you not understand what the word "link" meant in that context? I don't mean this disrespectfully. I'm just trying to get to the root of the problem.

To explain, there's one link in the post you replied to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5j9v9dfinQ

It's a video that explains dividend irrelevance. You described that one link as "links praising dividends for their relevance." Why did you think there were multiple links? And why did you believe that video praised dividends for their relevance – can you provide quotes and timestamps?

>>56890106
i generally don't do tobacco just because there's tightening regulations combined with customers aging out

i know those concerns have existed forever but i don't know enough about the business to confidently say whether or not this time will be different so i'm playing it safe

>>56890429
Yeah you’re just misunderstanding what they mean when they say dividends are incredibly relevant. Why are you even posting this podcast tier YouTube video. All of the dividend relevance links are peer reviewed stuff

I'm going to dump my crypto earnings from my roth into schd next bull. Hoping to get 1500 shares and just ignore it for the rest of my life

>>56890530
sounds comfy anon, gl

>>56885821
Dividend investing is a huge midwit trap unless you live in a place with strange dividend tax advantages (hint: not the US).

>>56890582
Could you be more specific? All of the science points to dividend investing being good to go.

A lawsuit could really destroy a company. Company assets that are calculated into the share price can be seized. You know what can’t be seized? The dividends already paid out to me. Checkmate

>>56885821
I just hold BRK-B and let the boomies do my divvie work for me

>>56890502
>when they say dividends are incredibly relevant
Who is "they" and what do they mean?
>Why are you even posting this podcast tier YouTube video.
Because I think it does a decent job of concisely explaining the research on dividend irrelevance. There may be something better on the web.
>All of the dividend relevance links are peer reviewed stuff
Which links? Do you mean the links in the OP? Are you claiming that the following are peer-reviewed scientific papers?
>https://www.nasdaq.com/stocks/investing-lists/dividend-aristocrats
>https://www.reit.com/what-reit
If so, you're obviously wrong.

You still haven't answered my questions:
>Were you using English incorrectly? For example, did you not understand what the word "link" meant in that context?
>Why did you think there were multiple links? And why did you believe that video praised dividends for their relevance – can you provide quotes and timestamps?

>>56890591
The only idea that's relevant to understanding this is that dividends aren't "free money". If a company announces a $1 dividend it's share price will drop by $1 on the ex-dividend date. Ignoring taxes, it's equivalent to selling $1 worth of the stock.
The disadvantage with dividends is you have no control over when you do your "selling", and it's likely less tax efficient than CGT.
You can argue that companies that tend to pay high dividends have some special characteristics which is somewhat true; their total return volatility is lower than the market in return for lower total returns. But that's the opposite of what most young people should be seeking.
People who love dividends have an emotional connection to the seemingly free money.

the best dividend growth stock out there is BABA

>>56889764
>repeatedly shows up in a thread to prove a point that's supposed to be obviously true
that point is obviously false

>>56890695
Yes I’m a vacuum they are exactly the same. The market has never once operated in a vacuum.
>>56890691
Could you try asking again more clearly? You are all over the place it’s getting hard to understand what point you are trying to make.

>>56890783
>Could you try asking again more clearly?
Sure. You posted this:
>Yeah you’re just misunderstanding what they mean when they say dividends are incredibly relevant.
Please explain. Who are "they"?

>>56890695
yeah, to give dividend irrelevance autist his due a dividend is not free money from nowhere

it's not precisely equivalent (for example shares determine voting rights) but in a way there's not much difference between someone who reinvests a dividend they receive (treating a dividend company like a growth company) and someone who sells a growth stock quarterly (treating a growth company like a dividend company)

but there are cases where dividend-paying stocks happen to be a good buy for various reasons much like there are cases where companies who do share buybacks are a good buy, or companies that invest in capex are a good buy, or those who pay down debt are a good buy; they're all just different ways to use cashflow and sometimes one way happens to be more suitable for a specific company or business sector, broader economic conditions over the medium term, or your personal psychology as an investor

>>56889764
>>56890695
>Ben Felix
Even though dividends are not “free money”, the choice to receive and re-invest dividends is not the same as the company retaining 100% of its earnings. This is the most prevalent myth perpetrated – unknowingly – by those who claim that dividends are irrelevant.

Those arguing against the relevance of dividends provide the following argument. Let’s say a company’s stock is worth $10. In scenario A, it provides a $1 dividend. In scenario B, it retains its earnings. According to them, the two scenarios are equivalent because of the following math:

Scenario A – with a dividend
Total value = Dividend + (Stock Price – Dividend)

= $1 + ($10-$1) = $10

Scenario B – without a dividend

Total value = Stock price = $10

In other words, the total return is the same because the value of your stock drops by $1 after issuing the dividend (which is paid from the company’s assets). So according to them, this is like transferring money from one pocket to the other. Ben Felix – who has become famous, thanks to his well-known Youtube video on the “Irrelevance of Dividends”

But Ben Felix and others who repeat the above sentiment are wrong. While the math for the immediate stock price + dividend is the same because the dividends come out of the stock price, the difference behind the scenes is very large.

When you use your dividends to purchase additional shares in a company, you are purchasing more of the same, proven cashflow that the company has already demonstrated it can pull off. There’s no speculation. Mind, I’m not saying that dividends are guaranteed and that the company won’t cut them in the future. But the company has shown that it can generate the cashflow it already has, and you are using your dividends to buy more of the same.

1/2

>>56890920
In other words, you are using your dividends to purchase another tap, compared to retained earnings, where the company only promises to grow the size of the existing tap.
Each time you re-invest your dividends, you are purchasing another tap that already exists.

Retained Earnings are Only a Promise of Future Growth

When a company retains its earnings, it’s making the following promise to you:

I will invest this money into the company to generate at least the same returns as the one I’m generating now, if not more. These earnings will be in addition to my existing operations.

The last part is important. The company is promising to grow its business at an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) that is at least the same as what it is currently generating. That growth hasn’t happened yet. It is a speculation. It may never happen. There’s a good chance that the company will fail to generate higher returns on its retained earnings than what it is currently generating.

In general, I don’t believe that magical, revenue-growing opportunities are just randomly lying around in which companies can easily invest their retained earnings at a higher IRR than their already existing cashflow machine.

If you think of a company as a tap from which money flows, then by retaining its earnings, a company is promising to increase the size of that tap.

How much faith do you have in the capacity of human managers to consistently grow the rate of a cashflow? Do you think that they’re all-wise and super-efficient? I don’t. Companies suffer from an exaggerated sense of their own importance and capabilities and routinely overestimate the IRR they can generate from new investments.

>>56890783
>Yes I’m a vacuum they are exactly the same. The market has never once operated in a vacuum.
What do you mean by this? The ways in which dividends look different due to the market not being idealized only look bad for young, wealth-building people.
And there's still the question of tax efficiency which is a big one.

>>56890953
See
>>56890920
>>56890947

>>56890953
>tax efficiency

I won’t debate this one. Yes, you will most likely be taxed on your dividends. Some countries, like Canada, give extremely favorable treatment to Canadian dividends, so you might be impacted to a greater or a lesser degree depending on where you live. In most countries, dividends – at least those generated in your home country – are taxed quite favorably, and often at the same rate as capital gains. Nonetheless, there’s no denying that they are taxed in one way or another, while capital gains are not.

The question then becomes, are the taxes worth it? For me, knowing that I’m buying something of value is worth the additional taxation. Yes, your unrealized capital gains are safe from being taxed. But at the same time, you are holding worthless assets that don’t generate a cashflow. If I need to pay tax to hold assets that have value, then so be it. I’m not going to force myself to make poor investing decisions by buying something I consider worthless, simply to avoid taxes. The tail cannot wag the dog.

>>56890947
>Companies suffer from an exaggerated sense of their own importance and capabilities and routinely overestimate the IRR they can generate from new investments.
This is probably true of managers at the individual level, but for the overall conclusion to be correct the market would need to have obvious inefficiencies. Hedge funds could gain money by shorting a stock clearly overvalued due to bullshit earning projections, and wouldn't pass up that opportunity. If future earnings were badly overpriced it wouldn't take long for it to be squeezed out by profit seekers.

Dividend stocks may well have lower growth and volatility overall than the market which I've said above, but this is a "fair" tradeoff wrt. the market as a whole, and isn't a good trade for younger people who don't need a steady investment income stream and would benefit from the skew towards growth.

This 21 pbtid nigger is advertising his shitty post in /smg/ >>56891067
hahaha I can't think of anything more pathetic kys and stop spamming about your thread
btw notice how OP is 1 pbtid but this nigger is doing all the posting and spamming, he used another IP just to make the thread just so it doesn't look like OP alone in his schizo general

>>56891109
>Dividend stocks may well have lower growth and volatility overall than the market which I've said above, but this is a "fair" tradeoff wrt. the market as a whole, and isn't a good trade for younger people who don't need a steady investment income stream and would benefit from the skew towards growth.
On the other hand, lower volatility investments means you can invest with less risk, less risk means you can afford to invest a larger portion of your capital, and young people disproportionately benefit from additional capital invested.

Markets may not be efficient but finding the inefficiencies is unfortunately real hard.

>>56890920
>When you use your dividends to purchase additional shares in a company, you are purchasing more of the same, proven cashflow that the company has already demonstrated it can pull off.
That demonstration is public information, so other investors have it too. Either it's already priced in or you're claiming (wrongly) that the market ignores its moneymaking value.

>>56890947
>How much faith do you have in the capacity of human managers to consistently grow the rate of a cashflow? Do you think that they’re all-wise and super-efficient? I don’t. Companies suffer from an exaggerated sense of their own importance and capabilities and routinely overestimate the IRR they can generate from new investments.
You could be correct about this, but it doesn't necessarily grant an edge in investing. Remember, other investors have that information too, so either it's already priced in or you're claiming (wrongly) that the market ignores its moneymaking value.

Do you think one stock is a better purchase than another if the issuing company is better?

>>56891161
Man you really didn’t like getting BTFO huh

What exactly do I own with a non-dividend stock? I have basically no say in how the business operates, nor do I get any real stake other than selling it. Pretty sure it makes my stock less desirable for sale too for the next person.

>>56891323
> That demonstration is public information, so other investors have it too. Either it's already priced in or you're claiming (wrongly) that the market ignores its moneymaking value.
This isn’t a coherent argument.

>>56891615
Why do you think that?

>>56890591
>All of the science points to dividend investing being good to go.
That's false. As one example, how does Modigliani and Miller's research point to that conclusion?

>>56891646
Because you’re just grasping at straws now after dividend irrelevance got exposed.

>>56891161
nigga chill like damn. Why are you so upset about people who want to invest in dividends?

>>56891693
Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with coherence.

>>56891756
It might be that guy who lost his inheritance a few years back gambling on options then spent a week crying about how he should have just bought divvy stocks

This fucking nigger did it again >>56891726 SHUT THE FUCK UP FAGGOT NO ONE CARES STOP SPAMMING LINKS TO YOUR RETARDED ARGUMENTS ON ANOTHER THREAD NO ONE GIVES A FUCK YOU PIECE OF SHIT AUTISTIC FAGGOT

>>56891525
you switched IPs just because I called you out

nothing demonstrates the superiority of dividend investing like the contrarian shills

>>56891877
Looks like you care

>>56891756
wish dividend defender and dividend destroyer anons would both give it a break, i just wanna talk about value and income investing

--


i guess to be the change i want to see in the world: which dividend stock near its 52 week low does everyone like best?

>>56892091
I’d have to say JNJ or PEP. Even SCHD is a value play at the moment.

>>56886708

Blessed divi thread
Bought 27 shares of Legget & Platt yesterday and already up 7,8%.

Imagine investing in dividends when you can just stake to earn yield and know your coin will go up because the whole system is closer to zero than fucking doge coin.
There’s even cryptos with compounding staking rewards. I have a shitcoin that’s partnered to actually significant players in CeFi and all though it dumped 40% from when I bought the yield alone makes it so I lost nothing, AND IT GOING UP.

>>56892474
It’s just that I trust in more tangibility. I see people consume a lot of pepsi products and see them sold in all stores. I buy shares of pepsi. I just don’t understand how an unregulated cryptocurrency has any value whatsoever.

i dont care about divies, but i buy vig in my ira instead of voo because it doesnt have tesla, faceberg and kikeflix, and vigi because all the other international etfs seem to suck ass

Tangentially dividend related.

I decided to swap my HYSA out for something that gives me a little more cashflow. I picked HIGH, which has something like an 8% yield right now, paying $0.20 per share, monthly.

Over 98% of HIGH is in treasures and the rest is used to put call spreads and put spreads on high-volume positions. I'm not a huge fan of their expense ratio, though.

Any other anons have recommendations for HYSA substitutes?

>>56892996
Never looked into it. I like my HYSA for emergency funds and for saving up for home improvement

Page 8. Nah

>>56890005
thats why you but an accumulatio one
>uh what? Who told you that?
its just common sense
>Is this a serious question? Some people who own the stock will use the dividends for whatever and some people who own the same stock will reinvest them.
im talking if you are just reinvesting 100%, you might as well buy an accumulation index fund

>>56894608
Depends

A view of every single SCHD dividend since inception.

>>56890617
Which lawsuit would destroy the sp500?

>>56894855
Should be exponential instead of linear fit

Im going to go all in on MSTR with 400k€ which just follows BTC with a premium and hope to 3x this by 2025, which would be around 1.2MM€
Then I will put all of that on SCHD. After taxes it may be around 980€.
Then I will go back to 1MM€ due compound interest even if I spend all of my dividends on things.
I have lost my income, im 34 and have 0 job experience, I just lifehacked myself into money on youtube in a niche I found 7 years ago that stopped being monetizable. I was making 10k+€ a month. Instead of killing myself, I have decided to take this bet and hope to finally be free of stressing about money. I only need around 2k€ a month.
Thoughts?

>>56890617
>You know what can’t be seized? The dividends already paid out to me.
That's false. If the company obtained its dividend money through financial crime, a court can require investors to back dividends they previously received. Look into clawbacks and restitution.

>>56890617
>You know what can’t be seized? The dividends already paid out to me.
That's false. If the company obtained its dividend money through financial crime, a court can require investors to return dividends they previously received. Look into clawbacks and restitution.

>>56885821
How do you guys deal with such pathetic returns?

>>56895708
By being consistent. Your graph only goes back to 2023

>>56885821
>not buying preferred equities at 20 to 30% discount to par currently yielding 8-10%