Which dividend-paying stocks are you invested in?

>>1421921
4chan

>the more you know

OUTSIDE a tax-advantaged account, a dividend stock will lose out to a growth stock over time because the dividends are taxable as long-term capital gains. This eats into your investment capital, and saps your compounding.

Consider two equivalent stocks -- a growth stock (Stock G) and a high-dividend stock (Stock D) -- both of which yield 10% per year. Stock G earns its 10% by price accumulation alone, and Stock D earns its 10% by paying a 10% cash dividend. You own 1 share of each, and they are both worth $100/share. At the start, therefore, both Stock G and Stock D are worth $100.

At the end of 1 year, Stock G is now worth $110 (10% growth), and Stock D is still worth $100 but has paid you a $10 dividend which you re-invest. Your return on both stocks is the same -- before taxes. After taxes, however, Stock G is still worth $110 (no tax consequences) but Stock D has only returned you $108 because you paid 20% in capital gains taxes on the dividends. (I'm using 20% to keep the math simple in this example, but the principle is the same for any tax rate.) So after one year, Stock G is ahead by $2.

After year two, Stock G is now worth $121 ($110 x 10%), and stock D is worth $108 ($100 original + $8 reinvested) but has paid you a $10.80 dividend, reduced by taxes to $8.64, for a total gain of $116.64. Stock G is now ahead by $4.36

Hopefully you can now see where this is going. Every year the spread between Stock G and Stock D is going to get wider and wider because taxes aren't depleting any of your Stock G capital.

INSIDE a tax-advantaged account, you don't suffer the tax hit when dividends are declared. You get to reinvest the full amount. Therefore, inside a tax-advantaged account, growth and distributions both add EQUALLY to your growth and your compounding. So what you should be focused on is maximizing your overall return (growth PLUS dividends) instead of focusing on one or the other.

>>1421921
I like Total, Allianz, and Imperial Brands.

>>1421942
No one cares m8.

>>1421921
I bought a bunch of Ford stock at $4.78 in 2009 after the bailout. Held onto it for whatever reason.

>>1421977
Just admit you're too stupid to understand it, and I'll explain it to you slowly like a child. Or you can lose money. My wallet stays fat either way.

>>1422000
Yeah I'd love further explanation. Why do you think people invest in dividend yielding stocks if they're such a bad idea?

>>1421979
same here but with GD general dynamics

>>1422000
1. Not everyone is taxed on his dividends because not everyone is a fucking American. Your little country is not the world.

2. People can have good reasons to want dividends, like, you know, actually living off these dividends?

3. Derailing the thread from the beginning with a semi-unrelated wall of text, instead of answering shortly to OP's question, is poor etiquette.

>>1422009
>Why do you think people invest in dividend yielding stocks if they're such a bad idea?
Three main reasons:

1. They falsely believe that dividend stocks outperform growth stocks because they get distracted by that regular cash deposit to their accounts.

2. They're woefully ignorant of the tax consequences of investing.

3. They think that dividend paying stocks are more stable or secure, which used to be the case historically, but not in current markets.

Also there are people who invest in dividend stocks correctly, because they are older and need the income or because they diversify inside a tax-advantaged account. The former applies to no one on this site, and very few here correctly implement the latter. Hopefully I can help with that.

Make sense?

>>1422018
Why would you come to an American anime message board for foreign financial advice? Surely your shithole country has their own anime message boards? Try there, Pajeet.

>>1421942
never thought of it like this before, Thanks!

>>1422031
The majority of 4chan users (53%) are NOT American. So the advice you gave is irrelevant for the majority of people here.

You needn't call me "Pajeet", like you always do when someone reminds you the world =/= the USA. I recognised you right away, little fag.

>>1422055
Sorry Pajeet, but 4chan is a U.S. site. Perhaps you overlooked the fact that we speak English here? Perhaps you forgot that we have an /intl/ board for you foreign dirteaters to let down your hair?

You can whine and cry about it all you want, but that won't change anything.

>>1422068
Have a good day m8.

>>1421942
Thanks. 'Preciate a non shitpost every once a while.

EVERYONE LISTEN

Dividend stocks are good investments!
DO NOT build up your portfolio of all dividend stocks. Not all dividend stocks can sustain a dividend and will likely cut the dividend or the dividend will run the company to the ground.
If a company cuts its dividend this could cause the stock to plunge.

Dividend stocks should be a part of EVERYONES portfolio but they should not be all of their portfolio.
EVERYONE should have some income from their portfolio.

I rather keep getting paid a dividend on a stock that im underwater on then to not get paid a dividend on a stock im underwater on.

>>1421942
Sounds like Ihaz copy pasta

>>1422078
>Sounds like Ihaz copy pasta
It came straight from the archive. You think I got time to type all that? No idea who posted it first, but he's got my respect.

>>1422078
>implying it's not iHaz himself, recycling his own stuff

He's completely transparent.

>>1422089
>2016
>not knowing /biz/ has an archive
back to alta vista, gramps

https://warosu.org/biz/thread/S1349984#p1351862

>>1422086
No.
He's a faggot.
He goes around /biz/ and spreads lies.

just get a job, work hard, save ur money, do ur research look at those chart things or whatever or read the news and paper or look at whats needed and just invest wisely and if u have faith and do it right ull get it OP u can get rich......

>>1422100
>2016
>thinks he is the only one that knows about /biz/ archive
>doesn't even know who iHaz is.

>>1422100
It's been posted by iHaz (several times) one year ago. Check it on the archive.

Were you underage back then?

>>1422101
He's certainly an obnoxious person, but not a liar (as far as we know).

>>1421921
BAE Systems
Royal Dutch Shell (B)
Lloyds Banking Group
Persimmon

A good mix. High dividends. Latter two quite UK focused but I believe in Britain.

>>1422123
Why Lloyds, among so many banks?

>le dividend meme
Enjoy being assraped by taxes.

i put all my spare change that cant go into my blue chips into NMM whenever its low.
oddly enough it turns out to be one of my best performers day after day , simply because i buy it at the right times. and its gonna pay for itself and bouy any losses i might have sustained elsewhere . its a pretty sick deal

>>1422164
>it has a bvp of 8 and trades around 1.20-1.50
any given time of day.
%69 percent div

its fun 2 dick around with if ur bored or geting antsy about the blue chips

>>1422158
>Enjoy being assraped by taxes.
dude, i've been saying EXACTLY that the entire thread. and all these faggots want to talk about is some tripfag. no wonder they're all poor. desu senpai.

>>1422179

Dividends get a lower tax rate than income.

Rich people move their money from income to dividends in order to pay less taxes.

Like me.

Stay poor, and stay pleb.

>>1422186
>Dividends get a lower tax rate than income.
you need to understand the difference between earned and passive income, moron. they're not even in the same category. if you think dividends are going to make up for the fact that you have a shitty job with low wages, you're gonna have bad time.

>>1422197

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#United_States

I keep more of my money because I invest in dividends rather than growth stocks when you include the WACC of the equity investment.

>>1422204

This trip is vehemently anti dividend for some reason, even though he's been given a dozen specific examples of when they're actually better.

Then he gets mad at specific examples and goes back to his general copy pasta and insults everyone, by saying they don't know what they're talking about.

Lather, rinse, repeat,

>>1421942
aren't you the king of the retards?

>>1422280
good goy
keep giving those shekels to uncle sam

Verizon VZ isnt going anywhere anytime soon I think. They pay 4%.

If I ever have $5m lump sum I could live off that comfortably I think.
Is that so much to ask?

Canadian so:
TD
RBC
NPI
CN

>>1422204
>doesn't even know the STCG rate is the same at the dividend rate, and that the LTCG rate is the same as the qualified dividend rate
>posts anyway
/biz/, ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell

I just buy either
CEFL
MORL
DHY
DHF
WHLR
or
ORC
Every month on robinhood and reinvest the dividend in what ever dividend stocks are low. I don't care about taxes because im still making money.

>>1421942
Once you sell stock G isn't it essentially the same in this example? Stock D has actually put that $16.64 into my pocket whereas I would still need to sell stock G in order to realize my gains. You are basically saying that untaxed on-paper gains are better than taxed in-pocket gains. I realize that G will compound faster, and if they're taxed at the same rate G will eventually pull out ahead even then. However they can be subject to wildly different tax rates. If G is cashed out in this example at the 28% or 33% tax rate it is significantly behind.
Dividend stocks also still have a growth component that is ignored in this example.

My understanding is that the primary advantage of growth stocks is that you can cash out growth stocks when the tax burden is advantageous i.e. to offset losses in other areas or if your income is is lowered significantly due to job loss or retirement. For example it is entirely possible to cash out growth stocks up to whichever income bracket and then switch to a tax-exempt investment to avoid higher brackets.

I agree that they play an important role in financial planning but I'm not convinced they're actually a better option even outside of the exceptions that have been outlined.

>>1422068
Top kek. Check your biliar duct, kiddo.

>>1421921
Twitter, speculation about steve ballmer buying it, is generating its profit :D

Does it make any sense to put like 20 bucks a month into dividend stocks?

>>1422951
>Stock D has actually put that $16.64 into my pocket
Nothing is put in your pocket in the example because all dividends are reinvested. If you actually pocket your dividends and spend them, the difference between G and D grows even wider and even faster.
>untaxed on-paper gains are better than taxed in-pocket gains
Exactly. You can compound untaxed gains, but taxed gains are gone forever.
>If G is cashed out in this example at the 28% or 33% tax rate it is significantly behind.
Long-term capital gains aren't taxed at income rates. So unless there was some rewrite of the tax code, you never get into these kinds of tax rates.

Moreover, as you note, because you defer those gains until a time of your choosing, you can control (to a degree) the tax that you pay. In fact, its even possible to pay ZERO tax on your G gains, under some circumstances. That will never happen with D.
>I'm not convinced they're actually a better option even outside of the exceptions that have been outlined
Then give me a scenario where D is better than G that doesn't assume a re-write of the tax code.

>>1422028
Is there any evidence that:
>3. They think that dividend paying stocks are more stable or secure, which used to be the case historically, but not in current markets.

>>1423652
Dividend-paying stocks used to be the most rock-stable companies on the exchange. They were primarily the bluest of the bluechips, along with municipal utilities. These were companies that every knew: Coca Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Commonwealth Edison, Proctor & Gamble, etc. None of these stocks was going to lose you money.

Today, the list of highest-paying dividend stocks is filled with energy exploration limited partnerships, no-name investment trusts, and oil exploration companies. Names that you've never heard of before. And, these stocks are designed to FALL in value. They pay out large dividend rates but the stock price is calculated to go to zero in many cases. So you're getting in one hand and giving away in another. But people are stupid, and they don't know, don't care, or don't bother to understand the difference.

>>1423605
The most obvious is that a good number of D stocks will also grow in value outside of dividend reinvestment. Just as an example with the Ford stock I held onto it's had 300% gains while paying out a dividend. In fact, now that I look at it every position I've taken has at least doubled. I imagine this has to be pretty common because I'm no investment genius.

What can you reasonably expect out of a G type stock? Is it reasonable to expect it will beat the Boeing I bought at $20 a share in 1992?

>>1422101
>poor fag calling a millionaire a faggot

Kek kek

AAPL

File: aristocrats.jpg (65KB, 793x509px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 793x509px

>>1423693
>What are Dividend Aristocrats ETFs?

Explain this.

>>1423706
>The most obvious is that a good number of D stocks will also grow in value outside of dividend reinvestment.
Well sure, if you change the hypothetical to give D a combination growth and dividends that exceed G, then of course at some point D is going to be a better choice. That's pretty damn obvious, and largely irrelevant to the exercise.

Since you seem to be missing the entire point of the hypothetical, let me try restating the proposition: all other things being equal, a growth stock will outperform a dividend stock due to tax consequences.

>Protip: The "all other things being equal" is pretty important here.

Not to mention, its pretty easy to cherry-pick dividend stocks that have done well historically when you get to look back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Trust me, I can just as easily cherry-pick some growth stocks with numbers that would make your head pop off. But I'm not a psychic and neither are you, and I don't have a time machine and neither do you. So let's stick with things that will actually help us make money going forward, and not in fantasyland.

>>1423789
>Explain this.
Easy. There are always going to be some stocks that have a strong combination both growth and dividend yield. Similarly, there are stocks with outlier growth, and with outlier dividends.

The problem, as I explained to anon above, is that you can't go back in time and pick only the winners. And while you can try to pick the winners going forward, research shows your gonna have bad time with that.

I also believe that dividend stocks have been over-inflated in recent years due to regular joe's investment flaws. As I already said above, people have flocked to dividend stocks in recent years, but for mostly the wrong reasons.

However, I honestly hope it isn't a bubble, because I have plenty of money in dividend stocks. They're in my tax-advantaged accounts where they belong, and they're an appropriate % of my portfolio (i.e., not a majority).

Capital growth usually comes from fast growing businesses - small and medium sized. These are riskier than dividend paying large multinational companies.

SMEs are more volatile and vulnerable to economic downturns. Their income often comes from the country they are based in. They are more likely to fail.

Dividends are more predictable than capital growth. They help to keep the share price stable. If the dividends are growing then the share price will also rise.

Diversifying into different equity types or just buying a balanced/managed fund is suitable for most people.

It's possible to make a lot of money with smaller companies but you need to spend a lot of time on research to pick out the good ones at a low price. You will always end up with winners and losers.

If the small company has good management and a strong track record together with IP that keeps it as a market leader then it's a good pick. Stay invested through the ups and downs and there is a good chance it will eventually be bought out by a bigger company at a premium.

The charts showing better returns from capital growth are often based on flawed data. They usually don't include the companies that failed and were delisted. The only smaller companies with a long enough track record to plot over 10 years are the winners.

In the UK, dividend income under £5k is tax free. There is a case for higher income taxpayers to aim for capital growth and use their £10k capital gains allowance. Above that, capital losses can be offset against gains.

My current strategy is value investing in multinational dividend paying companies when the market is down. Reinvesting divis.This takes less time spent researching and has been successful so far. My portfolio has gone up 15% since brexit.

>>1423881
So basically in order to beat the returns I've seen on all my picks I've got to invest in some random trash and hope it hits. Thanks for the brilliant insight.

>>1422134
They're cheap following panic selling after Brexit. Their balance sheets are good. UK focused but a little bit of post-Brexit nationalism and foreign facing stocks soaring with British facing stocks suffering, I thought it a good buy.

Tbh the FTSE 100 yields 4% and is like 10% HSBC and I have a lot in that index. Don't need more HSBC exposure. Other banks had less healthy looking profits and dividends

>>1422068
>we speak english here
>must be american
kek

>>1422123
+1 on Shell. Solid 4 to 6% dividend every year, in the past 5yrs. However due to low oil prices they may reduce dividend payouts. Q2-2016 dividends cost them quite a bit.

>>1423914
>the returns I've seen on all my picks
Yes, please tell us all about the amazing returns on your entirely real and not imaginary at all portfolio. Just like all the other roleplayers, we're always fascinated when people like you make unsubstantiated claims that we totally take at face value and believe without a shred of evidence.

>>1424145
It could be U.K. or Australian I suppose, but why are you being a faggot?

>Christopher Poole (born c. 1988)[1] is an American entrepreneur. He is best known for founding two web sites, 4chan and Canvas. He started 4chan pseudonymously, under the screen name moot (written entirely in lower case). In 2016 he began working for Google.

>>1424161
Don't know what to tell you bro. I picked a bunch of giant companies everyone has heard of and have reaped the rewards over the course of 25 years. You come along telling me I could improve my returns so I ask for more details and you basically tell me to take more risks by investing in memes and keks. Wow! Brilliant insight!

File: current.jpg (85KB, 1296x301px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1296x301px

Started investing in January this year. R8 my stocks

File: ISA.jpg (37KB, 1117x302px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1117x302px

>>1424218

After realising that I'm going to get raped by commissions I decided to invest in ETFs, I opened an ISA account (tax free up to a certain limit per year).

Next paycheque I'm going to invest in a growth stock, possibly iShares S&P 500 ETF

>>1424218
Looks solid, good work m8.

Maybe look into some Corp Bond ETFs, and some funds focusing on uncorrelated assets like gilts or commodities next. And some non-UK equity indexes.That way you aren't all in on the FTSE100.

You've made a better start than I did, nicely done.

Long 500 shares of Valero (VLO) which yields around 5% and they are insulated for the oil market at large their profits depend on crack spreads look it up

>>1424293
this

>https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0029&FundIntExt=INT

>>1421979
Bought in at $2.25 and it's paid for iitself a few times over.

>>1424149
I really don't think they will. They haven't since WWII. They seem very unwilling to.

>>1423605
>Then give me a scenario where D is better than G that doesn't assume a re-write of the tax code.
I would argue that companies typically increase their dividend so a 10% dividend year 1, 11% dividend year 2, 12% dividend year 3, and so on is a realistic scenario (well, inasmuch as your original scenario is anyway) and it would yield a much different result after a few years.

Also, the market will inevitably take another massive shit. And when that happens, that sweet dividend just gets me more shares.

File: morl.jpg (50KB, 670x484px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 670x484px

>not buying 20%+ paying leveraged mortgages

ITT:
We must continue to be cucks for the federal reserve

>>1422107
who is ihaz

>>1421921
POT.TO
just fertilizer my shit up bro

>>1424560
>POT.TO
when did you buy?

>>1421942
In Canada/Ontario
Those two levels of gov give out tax credits to offset dividend gains.
Plus of course you can just put it inside an TSFA

Here are some of my holdings

BNS
T
AQN

Overall I am up ~16% this year to date.
I try to stick to Canadian stocks since withholding tax kills like 25% of any incoming dividends.

>>1424557
A sanctimonious tripfag who has $14 million.

>>1424534
>I would argue that companies typically increase their dividend
Um, no. There are no companies that linearly increase their dividends year after year. There's not enough profit in the world to permit that. Please do some research before making silly claims.

>the market will inevitably take another massive shit. And when that happens, that sweet dividend just gets me more shares
History says the markets will experience down-swings. They tend to happen when something shocks the economy and adversely affects the businesses on the stock exchange. When those businesses experience hard times, the first thing they do is cut their dividends (smaller profits, smaller dividends). So your safety net is pretty much an illusion.

>>1424611
>In Canada/Ontario
I'm an American, and I'm giving advice based on the American tax system on an American anime message board. I understand that some of you are not American. Good for you. Seriously snowflake, aren't you special? Now go follow someone else's advice.

>fucking leafs

>>1424616
>$14 million
proove it

File: thequeendissaproves.jpg (11KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x236px

>>1424625
>American anime message board

>>1424625
You would think that the gov being owned by the rich would also have dividend tax credits since it would help them immensely.


>>1424619
>History says the markets will experience down-swings. They tend to happen when something shocks the economy and adversely affects the businesses on the stock exchange. When those businesses experience hard times, the first thing they do is cut their dividends (smaller profits, smaller dividends). So your safety net is pretty much an illusion.

We each have our own strategies and each believe in something else, can we just leave it at that ? I don't think we will ever come to an agreement here.
I believe in the power of a well diversified portfolio that resolves around dividends, you don't and that's ok since its your money.

>>1424635
>We each have our own strategies and each believe in something else, can we just leave it at that ? I don't think we will ever come to an agreement here.
You misunderstand me, tragically. I don't give a flying fuck what you do with your money. It's a jungle out there baby, and if you intentionally mismanage your money then you deserve your fate. I'll rest comfortably at night regardless.

But don't come here and start making false claims, citing illusory statistics, or pushing baldface lies. Let others make their own decisions based on the real facts. If they follow your advice, shame on them. But if you deceive them into making mistakes, then fuck you with a hot poker.

File: 1427498036339.gif (1MB, 305x239px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 305x239px

>>1424619
>There are no companies that linearly increase their dividends year after year.
>Please do some research
>the first thing they do is cut their dividends

>implying I'm the one that should do some research.

How do guys like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates live off their investments? Serious question, since apparently dividends are no good

>>1424866
>since apparently dividends are no good
If that's the conclusion you drew from the thread, I'd recommend you start at the top, work your way back down, and read slo-o-o-o-o-owly. Try to actually understand the points being made. Feel free to skip the shitposts to save time.

>>1421921
wait for the market to dip and buy $VV

>>1424828
Yeah. I wonder what bullshit he's going to make up after clicking on the link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Dividend_Aristocrats

And these are just American companies.

>>1426188
>define linear

>>1426220
>let's play with words for better damage control

>>1426319
It's a direct quote from my post, retard.

>>1424619
>There are no companies that linearly increase their dividends year after year.

Now's a good time to buy safe dividend stocks. The US stock market is basically done for in terms of growth. Interest rates are at an all time low. Stock market is at an all time high. Cheap money equals fast life. The US is finished and this QE only covers the grave with pretty flowers.

>>1426321
You were the one spouting the "linear" fallacy indeed.

The rest of your rambling was wrong too, all stocks in the Dividend Aristocrats ETFs increased their dividends during the 2000 and 2008 bear markets.

File: 184a66b8e992d25433be6b8bbf38c364.png (22KB, 590x397px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 590x397px

>>1426321
And here's a graph for P&G dividend history (took the first company that came to mind).

>inb4 you go back to rants about taxes

>>1426349
I'm sorry that you don't understand the tax consequences of investing. It's a shortcoming that is going to adversely affect your results until you figure it out. Obviously you're not smart enough or have a sufficient attention span to appreciate the advice now. Maybe, hopefully, you'll pick this up down the road.

>>1426491
>what are the tax consequences of a Dividend Aristocrats ETF where all dividends are reinvested?
>what are the tax consequences of dividends for people who live in countries where dividends aren't taxed?
>why bother about the tax consequences when people do need the dividends to live?
>why do you post lies and misinformed claims ("hurrr no one can increase dividends year after year") before going full damage control?
>why are you currently the worst poster on /biz/?

File: bptgxEJb.jpg (203KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1252x1252px

>>1426502
>what are the tax consequences of a Dividend Aristocrats ETF where all dividends are reinvested?
Dividends are taxed regardless of whether they are reinvested or not. You should know this.
>what are the tax consequences of dividends for people who live in countries where dividends aren't taxed?
Taxes are complex and specific to locality. I don't give non-U.S. tax advice. Bechaps you can find a non-U.S. anime picture board to answer your question.
>why bother about the tax consequences when people do need the dividends to live?
Don't assume your conclusion. No young, able-bodied person under the age of 60 needs dividends to live. Your job is for your income, not your stocks.
>why do you post lies and misinformed claims ("hurrr no one can increase dividends year after year") before going full damage control?
Everything I've said is 100% accurate and sourced. You're just being triggered, and on the edge of going full retard. Don't do that.
>why are you currently the worst poster on /biz/?
And, you went and did it.

Relax newfag, you don't have to get angry just because you're slow. Try to learn one thing at a time, and add to your knowledge slowly over many years. That way you won't be such a tragic loser. Start with >>1421942. Read it slo-o-o-o-o-o-wly. There's no timer. Try to understand each sentence before moving on to the next. Ask questions if you get stuck. It's not so bad if you work at it.

File: 1393976335074.jpg (51KB, 433x242px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 433x242px

>>1426670
Can't believe you're still meme vending over here.

>>1426670
>your job is your income

lmao this fucking wagie trying to give advice

come back when you aren't a retarded slave

>>1426729
What's a "wagie"? Someone who trades their talents and time for hard, spendable cash? Sounds pretty smart to me.

But then again, your mom's basement is probably pretty chill too. Too bad you have to share the 'puter with the whole family.

>>1421977
bad news for u regarding to Allianz...stormy weather incoming

>>1426784
classic wagie cope

File: db2405-fat-loser.jpg (32KB, 509x379px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 509x379px

>>1426840
You sure rekt me, NEET. Your typing skills are beyond compare. You must have "cope" on a macro considering how often you type it.

>>1426670
>Dividends are taxed regardless of whether they are reinvested or not.
Who cares, if Dividend Aristocrats ETFs have a vastly superior performance compared to the S&P 500?

>find a non-U.S. anime picture board
The owner of this website is Japanese. It talks about Japanese culture. Thus, please talk about Japanese stocks only. Go to American-owned boards about American culture if you want to assume everyone here is American.

>Your job is for your income
Okay, Mr. Wageslave. Talk to me again when you'll have several millions in the bank, like me. Your errors aren't helpful anyway.

>Everything I've said is 100% accurate and sourced
Like the fact dividend-paying stocks (we were talking about the quality ones) cut their dividend when there's a crisis? Like the fact there are no companies who "linearly" increase their dividend year after year?

>Relax newfag
I bet you weren't on /biz/ in 2012, faggot.

>>1424546

Looks like this has actually worked for 3 years? What is the catch?!

>>1426925
>Who cares
If you didn't care, why did you ask the question? Stop being stupid. Your trolling is low-test.

>when you'll have several millions in the bank, like me
I'll gladly compare my 2015 capital gains against yours. Loser leaves 4chan forever. Deal?

>>1426973
Post dem Schedule-D's nignogs

File: gldnll.jpg (4KB, 118x114px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 118x114px

>>1426973
Sorry, I don't partake in games with poor people.

>he wasn't on /biz/ in 2012

>>1426987
>Post dem Schedule-D's nignogs
I would, but the poorfag NEET who claims to be a "millionaire" won't take my challenge.

Makes you think....

>>1427027
>I made c-capital gains g-guys
>but I won't even tell h-how much
>you f-first hahaha
>finally I won't show or claim anything but YOU LOSE LOL

>>1427027
Maybe he's waiting on you to post yours first to see if you're bluffing. Go ahead and post your Schedule-D to show him who's really boss.

File: portfolio.png (47KB, 369x851px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 369x851px

>>1421921
>Which dividend-paying stocks are you invested in?
All these names. (Berkshire and Markel don't pay dividends though)

>>1427081
I'll happy post mine first, as long as you agree to leave 4chan for, say, 6 months, when you can't top me. I even admit I can't enforce the bet. It'll be worth it just to know you lost and that you'll feel like a piece of shit after.

So, poorest fag leaves 4chan. Deal?

>>1427173
Damn son you triggered as fuck. Better go toss your cash at some growth stocks while I bathe in these succulent dividends.

>>1427173
Post any claim you want m8, we're all watching.

I don't feel concerned enough to stop posting if you "beat" me, and you shouldn't either (although you're a terrible poster, really). It's not a contest, and I don't partake in it.

File: 1420661819898.jpg (22KB, 398x500px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 398x500px

>>1427192
>you agree to leave 4chan for, say, 6 months
We'll know if you come back early.

File: Portfolio-8-5-16.png (138KB, 867x427px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 867x427px

>>1427173
Can I play your game? I love shit like this. I'll start with my portfolio and you try your best to top me any way your little heart desires.

File: christian-bale.jpg (48KB, 365x467px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 365x467px

>>1427280
>mfw he actually left for 6 months

>>1427304
Nah man I'm sure he has to make some phone calls to get his millions together. Surely he will deliver.

File: IMG_20160805_204113.jpg (2MB, 2983x4254px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2983x4254px

>>1427316
>Surely he will deliver
Guess I'll being seeing you faggots next February. Buh-bye.

>>1427320
Does your daddy know you've been going through his very important paperwork again?

>>1427320
Section 11 of Schedule D is from the Sale of Business Property not marketable securities bud. You literally gutted a business last year and sold off the PPE, you didn't trade for the profits. Nice try.

>>1427320
Wait, do you own farmland by chance?

why can't i buy O on robinhood?

>>1427336
I never said where my capital gains were going to come from, just that they'd exceed every faggot in this thread.

BTW, this gain was in spite of aggressive tax loss harvesting. I literally couldn't offset any more gain. So much gain. Gain for days.

>jelly?

>>1427457
So was it from farm land or selling PPE?

iHaz is like the Donald Trump of 4chan. Has a lot of money but still retarded. Must be why he sticks around people of his own mental age.

>>1427505
I'm not a farmer or a liquidator, moron. It was a private equity transaction.

>>1427506
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that guy is all about index funds. You honestly think index funds generate $2 million in capital gains?

>>1427280
Calm down on your Pfizer position anon. Your whole 5 shares of PFE is heavily outweighing the rest of your portfolio

>>1427506

iHaz was one of the only good posters on this board. Too bad the coin kiddies ran him off.

>>1421942
Except stock G is dependent on perpetual, and in fact, exponential price increases from the original price. Additionally, there is no guarantee of meeting this 10% annual compounding growth target so you're taking on quite a bit of uncertainty. Combined, you're rolling the dice on meeting a perpetual annual stock price increase target.

Dividends, on the other hand, grant a degree of certainty. Reinvested dividends, even if taxed, will enable you to reinvest elsewhere for the benefit of diversification; may continue to be received in a down market; can be reinvested at lower prices for the benefit of dollar-cost-averaging; and requires nothing more than a static dividend to see exponential portfolio growth (when reinvested).

Simply put, dividends are versatile and intrinsically allow for risk-management while your 'growth stock' example is predicated on bubble-formula perpetual and exponential price increases with no degree of certainty.

>>1428021
Fair point, but you're missing two things.

First, the example is educational hypothetical meant to teach people about tax consequences. It's not a real world investing strategy. In the real world, there are very few stocks that are all growth or all dividend. However, for illustrative purposes, the example assumes that both G & D are equal long-term performers.

Second, while you are correct that in the real world, picking an individual stock with consistent long-term year-over-year growth is challenging. But only because growth stocks tend to have both ups and downs, while dividends are also positive cash flow. In the real world, a growth stock is going to have big up years, and maybe down years too. Some years G will outperform D, and some years not. Because of that, it is not at all unreasonable to make the assumption, for illustrative purposes, that G & D perform the same over the long-term since the growth variances of G will smooth out given enough years.

Lastly, I have to point out that your criticism implies that investing in growth stocks long-term is sub-optimal strategy compared to dividend investing. If your premise were true, then dividend stocks would be vastly superior. But history shows this is not the case. I'll grant you that dividend stocks are less volatile than growth stocks, but volatility doesn't matter a whole lot given a long-enough investing horizon. All that matters is alpha, and dividend stocks do not outperform growth, especially not with a tax headwind.

tl;dr Dividend stocks are great, but not necessarily better (or worse) than growth stocks.