Investing in businesses you use?

[Anonymous No.50899073]

Bell pays out a $0.92 dividend every 3 months per stock. I pay $137/month to Bell for internet access. So I'd have to own 447 shares to break even paying for my own internet with dividends from owning the stock.
The stock trades at $64.47, so with $28.8k invested in Bell, I'd be getting paid a dividend of $137/month.
I'd essentially never have to pay for internet again because I'd pay Bell the equivalent of what they'd pay me a dividend.

Is this retarded? When I put it in this perspective it really feels like our entire society is structured to be a scam where with enough capital invested all my costs would go down to 0, and with no costs that'd just free up more of capital to find opportunities that accumulate even more wealth for me. Meanwhile without any capital I'd be struggling to afford anything and my costs would only go up.

[Anonymous No.50899084]

seems legit?

[Anonymous No.50899105]

>>50899073
Honestly based, you could build a portfolio that scales with the cost of sustenance. I did something similar eith REITs and my rent when i was younger.

[Anonymous No.50899228]

>>50899105
It seems like a relatively low risk approach but part of the problem is a lot of companies don't pay dividends or have very low dividends, so how do you evaluate how much of them you should own?
Loblaws for instance has a $0.402 quarterly dividend and their stock is $118. If you're paying $600/month in groceries, to get the dividend equivalent would require 4,477 stocks, at a cost of $528k, which is a crazy high amount and it's not like they're historically a super high growth stock.

For better dividend businesses it seems good though, only bad thing I guess is you get double fucked if there's a natural disaster which affects you directly and the stock, or if they go out of business since then you can't shop there anymore and your stock is worthless.

[Anonymous No.50899287]

>>50899228
Looks like that company has grown pret ty aggresively.

[Anonymous No.50900402]

>>50899073
>Investing in businesses you use?
I don't do it simply because I think having any emotional attachment to my bags leads to bad decisions.

[Anonymous No.50900602]

>>50899073
buy unilever. its the best dividend earning stock, if your going for cash flow, it has the historically highest rates, imo
https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/UL/dividend/

its annual dividend this year is 1.72 per 48$ (current 47.78)
so if you invested 100k in unilever (which is really Johnson and Johnson), you would own approx 2000 shares adn get paid approx 300 a month. its not the highest paying, but if you look back over 40 years, its as predictable as turkey for christmas dinner.

[Anonymous No.50901204]

>>50899073
Investing into a variety of dividend yielding stocks can be a good long-term plan, especially if you have extra money to put away for a long time, but putting all your eggs in one basket is asking for trouble. Not saying Bell is a bad investment, utilities is about as stable as you can get especially with how almost everything uses the internet these days. That said, the power of dividend yielding stocks is that they also retain and hopefully increase their value over time, similar to a standard stock portfolio. Rather than just buying Bell it's probably a better idea to research a dozen or so dividend stocks and buy shares from the ones that look to be good long term investments.

>When I put it in this perspective it really feels like our entire society is structured to be a scam where with enough capital invested all my costs would go down to 0, and with no costs that'd just free up more of capital to find opportunities that accumulate even more wealth for me.
It's not a scam it's just how money works. The more you have, the more you can invest, and the more potential return you can make. 7% return on $10 is 70 cents, but on 10 million dollars is the top 1% of income in the world. Plus, you're forgetting opportunity costs. Bell is a stable company, which means it's not very high growth, so any money invested in Bell to reap dividends could in theory make more money through a higher growth stock just increasing in worth. If one stock pays out $0.92 every 3 months, it's not hard for another stock to increase in value by a dollar in the same time period. Ergo you've lost 8 cents.

[Anonymous No.50901232]

>>50899073
>dividend
Stopped reading, you're retarded
>Elaborate?
No, you wouldn't understand.

[Anonymous No.50901261]

I want to invest in Japanese companies because anime, vidya etc. I'm just afraid that Japan will soon experience massive social unrest and rioting due to inflation caused by the yen collapse.

[Anonymous No.50901288]

>>50899073
What >>50901204 said. There are also high dividend yield ETFs that do the stock picking and rebalancing for you. Money is fungible, you don't have to get your gains from the companies you depend on. Dividend strategies aren't better than broad market cap ETFs by the way (you can just sell enough each year to the same effect), but the built in automation of receiving money without doing anything feels nice.

And yes, your monthly expenses are mostly fixed but passive income can match or exceed them with enough capital. There is a saying, you only need to get rich once.

[Anonymous No.50901483]

>>50901261
Try to remove your personal bias, it's never helpful for investing. As for the Japanese economy, there are definitely some risks for the near term but historically it hasn't gone up or down much in total since the 90s crash. There are dips, like after the 2008 crash hit them, but they've been coasting since the lost generation. If anything the yen crashing is just decades of negative interest rates catching up with them. If you want to invest in something because you believe in it, then whatever but keep in mind that a lot of anime/games turn out totally unprofitable while the best performing stuff are soulless cash grabs like FGO or Kancolle.

[Anonymous No.50901529]

>>50901261
>investing in th emost boring part of japan.

[Anonymous No.50901713]

How much taxes will you pay on those dividends?

[Anonymous No.50902235]

>>50901261
>Be Japan
>notoriously docile/compliant culture
>oldest demographics in the world
>rioting
doubt.
but investing in anime is dumb anyway.

[Anonymous No.50902243]

>>50899073
>OP discovers dividend portfolios
>News at 11

[Anonymous No.50902491]

>>50901261
>japan because anime, vidya etc

do us all a favor and kill yourself, poor ugly genetic scum weeb

[Anonymous No.50902698]

>>50899228
>buy 100k worth of grocery store stock
>it goes up 15%
you now have 115k worth of grocery store stock
>sell 15k worth of grocery store stock
>use money from sale to buy groceries for a year

This is much better then dividends because you get to choose when to take profit.
This way you also don't have to rely on dividends to scrape money back from the company.

>buy 10k of nvidia stock
>it goes up 20% in 6 months cuz GPU prices
>sell 2k worth of stock
>buy GPU worth 2k.

Pretty based idea OP nonetheless. I have a bank etf (RBNK) they pay me a dividend of $200 a month which covers all minimal fees on my credit cards.

[Anonymous No.50903563]

>>50899073
>capitalism is a scam because it disproportionally favours the people with money/capital
yes sherlock, this is indeed true and has been studied for hundreds of years now, royality did the same, but their "dividend stocks" were just retarded traditions and docile cucks working their land

[Anonymous No.50903708]

>>50899073
From what I've read people who go heavy into dividend stocks tend to do worse than those who just buy the entire market or go for growth stocks. This is because most socks offering bid dividends have basically conceded that they don't have any more substantial room for growth or ideas to expand, so they just pay out profits to shareholders. Also, if they fall on tougher times, they may decrease the dividend , which fucks up your plan. Also dividend earnings are treated differently than capital gains from a tax perspective. Yes there is a place for big dividends, but honestly retarded boomers who don't understand anything about the stock market got sold on them because they can't understand the value of a stock unless it gives them a few pennies every so often.

[Anonymous No.50903789]

>>50899073
It sounds good for a smoothbrain. But in reality you only need to cut costs, and invest the rest at the best possible risk/reward. Which obviously isnt sinking 30k on 1 single internet company

[Anonymous No.50904614]

>>50903708
your post is full of misconceptions and bad insights. companies, especially big ones, can finance their investments at 1-2% interest, or even less than that, using their free cash flow entirely for investments and R&D is dumb, just like buying a house for cash would be a retarded idea if you can securely finance it at a great rate. A company that rewards shareholders with a dividend - microsoft and apple pay out dividends as well, apple pays around 1% or something IIRC - attracts more capital, which in turn makes it easier for the company to acquire further capital and it gives them the upper hand in acquisition deals. Obviously it will be hard to outperform the market, generating alpha reliably with a dividend stock is next to impossible, but to match the market's growth and potentially lock in a high yield - in bear markets this is oftentimes very easy - is not that hard to do. You could buy coke at multiple points in the last 10 years and generate strong returns on your capital, that basically matched the market, and also get paid somewhere between 3-6% per year on that stock. Obviously the best option would always be to just be rich from the very start, but generally speaking, buying undervalued/underappreciated stocks that pay a dividend is a great way to build long lasting wealth. growth stocks oftentimes severly underperform the broader market in downswings and most people can statistically never time the markets over long periods of time, even if they get lucky once. growth stocks also never pay you anything, making you highly dependent on speculation and perfomance. most growth stocks are also grossly overvalued by any traditional metrics and offer low risk adjusted returns.

[Anonymous No.50904660]

>>50899073
It's worth it but with 28.8k you could have enough to setup your own ISP. Sell your services as a small local provider, make income to cover the cost of Internet while also having internet provided to you.

28.8k also invested in higher paying dividend stocks or REITs can also yield a better financial plan.

[Anonymous No.50904674]

>>50903789
The premise isnt stupid, but the issue is that you are paying thirty thousand dollars for 20 years of service. now if Bells was in a sector where it had good pricing power and could deploy capital to achieve at least 10% growth on said capital, it might be a good idea if you could buy the stock at a low cost. But as a utility provider you can hardly expect any real growth in a business where margins are generally depressed by design and where competition is fierce. Paying 30 dollars for 20 years of free internet is a bad deal if you can use the 30k to get 20 years worth of groceries for example. But if Bells was actually attractively valued and had some top and bottom line growth, it might make sense.

[Anonymous No.50905866]

>>50899073
>what is opportunity cost?