Dividends

>>970981
If your family owns that much share in a major company there is no excuse for them to have not already talked about this with you. Ask them about their holdings and what it means for you.

Essentially though, a dividend is when a publicly held corporation lures investors to its stock by promising to pay a portion of its revenue to its shareholders. The amount set aside for dividends and the frequency with which they are paid is entirely up to the company. Some companies vary how much they pay based on the performance of the business, others pay out the same dividend every quarter for decades, rain or shine. Stocks that pay dividends tend to not be as growth oriented but have large stable cash flows and business models.

I don't know anything about Canuckian tax law but in the US dividends are taxed as short term investments (basic income tax rate) if the stock is held for a short period of time before the dividend date and as long term investments (at a much lower rate) if held for the long term. If you buy US securities you will have to pay US taxes on them, often handled for you by the brokerage you use.

>>970998

Great, thank you!

So, that's why some people buy dividend stocks right before they pay dividends, then sell them right after, so they get the dividend money, and don't have to pay 'long term' taxes on them? :o At least I think that's what some people do....??

image for ur troubles sir

>>971003
long term taxes are lower than short term in the US (25%-28% short term, 15% long term)

>>971003
The stock price adjusts down for the dividend being payed out ($10 per share, $1 div gets payed -> $9 per share). At least that's what I read. To get the div, you have buy the share the day before the Ex-Dividend day and keep it through the check or close or something with a c day that is 2 days after the Ex-Div day

>>971003
>>971030
And you'd still have to pay the short tern tax.

With that being said, what are some good long-term div stocks to look into?

>>971032
Honestly if you want to make a risky bet buy into some oil companies (CVX, XOM, etc). They've had the shit beaten out of them because the of the large decline in oil prices, but for the most part they've been keeping their dividend payout stable. You'll get some great dividend yield and capture a lot of upside in the stock when oil recovers. The downside risk is them actually cutting the dividend, which would punish the price of the stock significantly. Though I doubt these giants would go bankrupt so you shouldn't fear your investment going to $0. IMO I think CVX is probably the purest play on oil, just because roughly 65% of the business is oil related.

>>971051
>when oil recovers.
My sides.

>>971003
This is usually accounted for in the price, but some people make that strategy work.

>>971083
Someone has to be remotely optimistic >.<

>>970981
Dividends are a very small fraction of the price of the share, so if you want to use the dividend to profit, you'll need to buy very large quantities of shares.

>>971103

I'm not really interested in making big bucks, I just want more than 0.80% interest that my shitty bank is giving me, lmfao, if I can get 8% or so, using dividends, that's way better than less than 1% imo.

>>971065

AHAHAHAHA yeah, but they're really fit and active lol, extremely sexy.

>>971093

I see, interesting, thanks Li!

>>971107
8% after taxes and inflation is very difficult, with this strategy.
Selling options acts like dividends and occurs more often. Every 45 days minimum as opposed to every quarter.

>>970981
if your in canada and want to build a div portfolio. google tmx stock screener, set it to 3% div and up, and 5bil and up market cap. strip out all oil but suncor and maby cenovus, get rid of gold companies and pref shares. buy whats left

>>971137
oh and also the trusts, .un

>>971135
Doesn't have to be after taxes and inflation. The 0.8% that the bank is giving him isn't after taxes and inflation.

File: Dividend Growth.png (17KB, 895x271px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 895x271px

>>971107
>if I can get 8% or so, using dividends, that's way better than less than 1% imo.
>>971135
>8% after taxes and inflation is very difficult, with this strategy.

It's not difficult, you just need patience. We're near the end of a large bull market. Wait for a crash. Yields will rise. Then find companies that you believe have strong odds of raising their dividends aggressively. The long term average dividend growth rate on the S&P 500 is just over 5%. Companies that are committed to raising their dividends can easily raise them by 7% or more every year for a number of years, and some will be more than that.

If you're willing to wait a 10 or 12 years, you could have a portfolio that yields 10% a year in dividends every year.

File: Table[1].jpg (35KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x500px

>>970981
Buy historically safe companies with good dividend payouts. Dividend yield is counted as (Stock Price) / (Total Dividend Payout Per Year)
eg $10 stock with quarterly dividend of $0.20 = (4*0.20)/10 = 0.08 or 8% Yield.
But if you bought the stock during a sudden dip to $9 it turns into
(4*0.20)/9 = 0.088 or 8.8% Yield.
Likewise if you bought the stock for more than it was worth your dividend yield will be lower.

If you're going to buy dividend stocks, expect to hold onto them for years. The way stocks are taxed, if you sell them within a year of purchasing you will be taxed at the normal rate for your tax bracket, but if you hold for just one day past that 1 year mark it drops to a lower tax bracket.

So what this means is that a safe dividend stock will return X% of your initial investment every year, and then if you do sell it years down the line you will pay a lower tax rate. If you do decide to go this route, aim for multiple "safe" companies that provide services or products people need. Viaga, cell service, condiments, electricity, etc. Think of it as a savings account with a massive interest rate.

When I go to buy a stock I start with Google & Nasdaq sites historical closings & dividend payouts. Check their 6m, 1yr, and 5yr history to make sure they're stable and find the proper low price to aim for when buying. I like to use Riemann sums. I take upper/lower estimates & the avg. I buy between the low/avg & expect my potential sale to be equal to the increase of the avg, higher is an unexpected bonus. Keeps my margin for loss low since I aim to make money off the dividend. Adding onto this, before you actually buy you should research the company revenue/profits, plans for the future, and cash on hand. You want companies worth billions, not millions. And you only want them if they're expecting growth in the next 5 years & can afford their dividend payout.

And most importantly, take this advice with a grain of salt.

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.

td;dr dividends are stupid for young investors

>>972107
But how does one obtain a tax advantaged account?

>>972130
IRA, Roth IRA, 401k, HSA, SEP-IRA, 529 ....

>>972151
Ah, neat. I've got a 401k with about 9k going into it every year but that won't help me get out of the Massachusetts renting trap. I'm on a risky race to get something nice before the $15 minimum wage apocalypse shoots rent up by 40%, and housing follows soon after.

I'd say 15 more months.

File: Yield and Payout.jpg (214KB, 1410x595px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1410x595px

>>972107

That's fine in theory, but the part you left out was how to pick the right stocks. That process tends to lead you right back to dividend stocks with particular characteristics.

File: Div Yield Payout Ratio.png (111KB, 1096x551px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1096x551px

>>972173

File: Div Yield Payout Ratio 2.png (75KB, 832x382px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 832x382px

>>972175

File: Value vs Growth Stocks.png (49KB, 654x687px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 654x687px

>>972178

File: tax brackets.png (15KB, 714x252px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 714x252px

>>972107
You've calculated everything for the highest tax bracket available. This would obviously favor your growth stock because it is never taxed in the calculation. Assuming you had sold them in that tax bracket, you're looking at

Growth G: $121 * 0.80 = $96.80

Dividend D: $108 * 0.80 = $86.40 + $8.64 = 95.04

Meaning your Growth G will see 1.76% extra profit in the most extreme case.

But if you account for tax brackets your results will vary. eg I'm a full time student with an untaxable income. I fall into the 10% bracket. If I get the job I'm aiming for after finishing school next year I will be just past the 15% bracket, but can easily reduce my taxable income back into the 15% bracket through a 401k.(can maintain 15% bracket up to just under $54k income single) This allows me to collect dividends tax free.

A 10% increase is obviously more valuable than an 8% yield, but 10% growth is well above the 7% expected average. Furthermore, many dividend paying stocks do in fact see growth beyond 0%. eg Pfizer has seen 5yr growth of 193.9% while paying an avg annual dividend yield of 3.5%. A stock with 10% annual growth would grow by 161% in the same amount of time while paying no dividends.

tldr; Your point about looking at the whole picture is right, but your declaration that dividends are stupid is in fact stupid.

>>972173
>the part you left out was how to pick the right stocks
You don't. You diversify, preferably into a low-cost index fund. Interestingly, Vanguard uses an almost identical chart in its diversification white paper.

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s705.pdf

>>972193
>This would obviously favor your growth stock because it is never taxed in the calculation.
No, your growth stock is taxed when you sell it at whatever tax bracket you happen to be in at that time. And regardless of the fact that you personally are currently in a low tax bracket, I'm sure that's not where you plan or hope to remain.

However, the real difference isn't the tax rate ... it's the timing. Taxes later are always better than taxes now because taxes later don't deplete your capital or impair your compounding.

But, yes, I agree that if you remain forever so poor that you owe no CG taxes, then it's same as if you had a tax advantaged account. But then you're admitting that you plan to be forever poor, so what's the point? I think most people have higher aspirations than you. My advice was intended for them.

>>972057
>It's not difficult! Just wait 10 years!!

You are out of touch with reality. Waiting is difficult when that money could be put to better use.

>>972208
>But, yes, I agree that if you remain forever so poor that you owe no CG taxes, then it's same as if you had a tax advantaged account. But then you're admitting that you plan to be forever poor, so what's the point? I think most people have higher aspirations than you.

A $413k/year job straight out of school would be swell, but you're an idiot if you base your investments & savings on the idea that you're actually going to get that. $40k-$60k is much more reasonable & allows you to easily remain in the 15% tax bracket through retirement savings alone. As a single parent I can make just over $70k/year without ever leaving the 15% bracket just through 401k & HSA. I can make around $80k/year without ever actually losing a cent to taxes through deductions in addition to pretax investments. This is hardly poor for a family of two, benefits my future & my child's future tremendously, & ignores numerous deductions/tax free circumstances.

This is all ignoring the fact that your theoretical expected 10% growth is 42% above the average & that your comparison expects 0% growth from the dividend paying stocks. My example of Pfizer, a well known "safe" stock also just happens to shit all over it in every possible way.

>My advice was intended for them
You gave a blanket statement that was just wrong. Your new audience does not browse /biz/ for investment advice, they seek out actual professionals.

>>972241
>A $413k/year job straight out of school would be swell
Nice hyperbole...

>As a single parent I can make just over $70k/year without ever leaving the 15% bracket just through 401k & HSA
If that's the best salary you can earn with your skills and education, then that's fine. You don't have to be defensive about it.

But you still haven't countered my argument that someone in your position seeking dividend stocks is stupid compared to seeking total return (i.e., the strategy that you would follow in a tax advantaged account). So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

>This is all ignoring the fact that your theoretical
And you're ignoring the fact that its a hypothetical example to demonstrate the tax consequences of dividend stocks. Hypothetical examples are a common teaching tool, but aren't meant as literal real world illustrations. I thought that was common knowledge.

>You gave a blanket statement that was just wrong.
No, you just failed to read the whole post. I realize it was a lot of words, but the tl;dr wasn't really intended as a summary. Life's not always that easy.

>>972214
>Waiting is difficult when that money could be put to better use.
What better use? Buying consumerist shit like iPhones, 4K televisions, and BMWs?

Some people have immense patience and self-control and are willing to wait 10, 20, 30 years for compound growth to really pay off.

File: Market Risk.png (12KB, 632x355px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 632x355px

>>972208
>>the part you left out was how to pick the right stocks
>You don't. You diversify, preferably into a low-cost index fund. Interestingly, Vanguard uses an almost identical chart in its diversification white paper.

You don't need an index fund for diversification. There's very little benefit to holding more than a dozen stocks, assuming you know how to diversify properly. And with a low per trade transaction cost rather than an annual percentage, buying your own stocks could be more economical. The downside of an index fund is that you're forced to hold a lot of shit companies along with the good ones.

>>972214
>You are out of touch with reality. Waiting is difficult when that money could be put to better use.

Well, I'm not 19, so my time horizon is more than 48 hours. The stocks could appreciate in the mean time, I was only addressing the dividend aspect of it. And I didn't even take into account reinvested dividends.

But if you want more action, you can always chase the next "it" company, with zero sales and $2 billion of debt, but a hundred million users/potential customers, if they can ever figure out how to monetize them. Or penny stocks. Or 6x leveraged ETFs. I'll pass, though. I gave up penny stocks a long time ago, and there weren't any ETFs leveraged that much back then.

>>972344

Stop with the passive/aggressive shit if you want a serious discussion.

>>972360
>The downside of an index fund is that you're forced to hold a lot of shit companies along with the good ones.
And the downside of picking your own twelve stocks is that you're statistically likely to miss winners, pick losers, or both.

Stock pickers underperform index investors by 4-8% according to the annual Dalbar studies. Fees account for about 2-3% of that. The rest is asset selection and timing.

There's lots of strategies where people try to selectively tweak or improve indexing. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of evidence that any of those strategies are successful.

>>972362
>Stop with the passive/aggressive shit
You're right. Next time I'll just be blatantly hostile when someone makes a stupid comment. Maybe I'll start with you, retard.

>>972380
>And the downside of picking your own twelve stocks is that you're statistically likely to miss winners, pick losers, or both.

You're statistically guaranteed to get losers in an index fund.

>Stock pickers underperform index investors by 4-8% according to the annual Dalbar studies. Fees account for about 2-3% of that. The rest is asset selection and timing. There's lots of strategies where people try to selectively tweak or improve indexing. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of evidence that any of those strategies are successful.

You know who gets selected for those studies? Professionals who have to invest a billion dollars. They start throwing money at everything because they feel they have to be invested all the time. They end up with so many stocks that they can't follow them all, even working full time. They try to actively manage their stocks, trading in and out of them, which is obviously not what I'm suggesting. Or, they can take a man on the street survey, and half of those guys are like /biz/ and are out chasing penny stocks and trading even more actively.

You know who isn't included in those studies? People who pick high quality stocks and sit on them for 20 years.

>You're right. Next time I'll just be blatantly hostile when someone makes a stupid comment. Maybe I'll start with you, retard.

You could do that, but you still won't be taken seriously.

>>972057
I'm a more aggressive investor. but avg dividend is around 2% adding 5% to the two gives 2.01% its not worth anything till compounded.

>>972400
>You're statistically guaranteed to get losers in an index fund.
And you're statistically guaranteed to get all the winners too. Do you have a point here?

>You know who gets selected for those studies? Professionals who have to invest a billion dollars.
Actually, the Dalbar study looks at real investor returns and NOT investment professionals.

Any other comments you want to pull out of your ass, moron?

>You know who isn't included in those studies? People who pick high quality stocks and sit on them for 20 years.
Congratulations on your ability to only choose "high quality" stocks (whatever the fuck that non-existent term means). That's a rare skill that's worth millions on Wall Street. I look forward to reading your profile in the WSJ.

>>972415

That's true, if you're talking about the S&P 500. Many of those companies pay no dividend at all, and others are less than 1%.

There are 8 stocks in the Dow Jones which pay 3.5% or more. There are 90 stocks on the Dividend Champion/Contender/Challenger lists that yield 5% or more. Plenty to choose from.

>>972438

If you can't tell the difference between a company that generates a high rate of return, has moat, has manageable debt, and so forth, vs a company that is bleeding money in a cut throat field with a mountain of debt... yes, you should be investing in index funds.

>Actually, the Dalbar study looks at real investor returns and NOT investment professionals.

I'm going to stand by my earlier comment that you deliberately ignored -

... Or, they can take a man on the street survey, and half of those guys are like /biz/ and are out chasing penny stocks and trading even more actively.

You know who isn't included in those studies? People who pick high quality stocks and sit on them for 20 years.

>>972449
>If you can't tell the difference between a company that generates a high rate of return, has moat, has manageable debt, and so forth, vs a company that is bleeding money in a cut throat field with a mountain of debt... yes, you should be investing in index funds.
Kek. Great performing companies can still be overpriced, and dogs can be attractively under-valued. Stop throwing out fundamental analysis buzzwords as if you know anything. You sound retarded, and its clear you don't have a workable strategy.

>You know who isn't included in those studies? People who pick high quality stocks and sit on them for 20 years.
Until you understand why this is a monumentally retarded statement, there's really no use in talking to you or reading any more of your posts. You're basically saying that the study is irrelevant because it reflects the real world, and not the fantasy land inside your head.

But like I said before, if you're really the guy who only picks winners, then congrats in advance on your millions. (That was sarcasm. I feel the need to explain this to you.)

>>972344
>Nice hyperbole...
It's what someone would need to be making in the real world for your theory to apply. Tax brackets are extremely important when looking at investments. You cannot make an educated decision if your theory is based on the highest bracket available for the top 1%.

>If that's the best salary you can earn with your skills and education, then that's fine. You don't have to be defensive about it.

Have you never worked in your life? $70k for a single man is plenty good, I'd hardly be ashamed of that.

>But you still haven't countered my argument that someone in your position seeking dividend stocks is stupid compared to seeking total return (i.e., the strategy that you would follow in a tax advantaged account). So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

I agreed that you should look at the total return, then I pointed out that you would be dumb to ignore your own advice & write off stocks with high dividend yields as bad.

I also pointed out that tax advantaged accounts like the 401k & HSA are great for lowering your tax bracket in the scenario I'm looking at while securing your future. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

The problem with tax advantaged accounts is that they generally have lower returns & lockup cash for years. Attempting to withdraw early tends to incur massive fees, or they just won't let you. You need investments that can be liquefied when needed.

>And you're ignoring the fact that its a hypothetical example to demonstrate the tax consequences of dividend stocks. Hypothetical examples are a common teaching tool, but aren't meant as literal real world illustrations. I thought that was common knowledge.

A Hypothetical example that only applies to the top 1% of the US & completely ignores the fact that 90% of the US population can dodge taxes completely either because their income is under $50k/year or because they did something to reduce their taxable income. Like invest in a 401k.

>>972604
>You cannot make an educated decision if your theory is based on the highest bracket available for the top 1%.
As I said in the original post, the tax bracket doesn't matter. The math changes, but the effect is the same. Only in the exceptional case of someone who pays 0% capital gains does the scenario switch over as I already discussed above.

>The problem with tax advantaged accounts is that they generally have lower returns
No they don't. Stop saying stupid things. The type of account doesn't determine what it holds or how it performs.

>You need investments that can be liquefied when needed.
Maybe you need your wealth to be liquid, but millions of people use tax advantaged accounts every day and they work fine for them. If you can't save enough to put money away for the long term, perhaps you need to take a hard look at your expenses.

>90% of the US population can dodge taxes completely
You're deluded if you think 90% of Americans pay 0% in capital gains. This is getting stupid. Stop wasting my time.

>>972646
>Only in the exceptional case of someone who pays 0% capital gains does the scenario switch over as I already discussed above.
Which is a pretty big deal.

>No they don't. Stop saying stupid things. The type of account doesn't determine what it holds or how it performs.
On average, they have lower yields. I'd be delighted if you could prove me wrong.

>Maybe you need your wealth to be liquid, but millions of people use tax advantaged accounts every day and they work fine for them
Millions of people have made pennies on the dollar with them, when adjusted for inflation.

>If you can't save enough to put money away for the long term, perhaps you need to take a hard look at your expenses
I have repeatedly stated that putting money into long term savings is a good idea. I have also stated that stocks should be bought with the intent to hold over a year at the least. Unless you've got some crystal ball to tell you your future, you'd have to be an idiot to invest all of your savings into something that can't easily be converted to cash money.

>You're deluded if you think 90% of Americans pay 0% in capital gains. This is getting stupid. Stop wasting my time
I don't believe that, most don't invest in stocks because it's scary. Roughly 50% of Americans would not pay tax on dividends or long term stock holdings though if they did invest in them. Another 70%-90% can artificially reduce their tax bracket into that range through 401ks & the like. Actual taxes can be further reduced through deductions and other means of tax exemption. Ranges obviously favor couples over singles.

How old are you?

>>972675
>On average, they have lower yields.
How can an account have a lower yield? Accounts don't have yields.

>Millions of people have made pennies on the dollar with them, when adjusted for inflation.
Huh? How do you know the investment returns of millions of retirement accounts?

>Unless you've got some crystal ball to tell you your future, you'd have to be an idiot to invest all of your savings into something that can't easily be converted to cash money.
Huh? So we shouldn't have 401ks, IRAs, or Roths because they can't be instantly converted to cash? Great advice....

>I don't believe that, most don't invest in stocks because it's scary.
An entire paragraph of bullshit stats pulled out of your ass, with no attribution or evidence.

I'm going to assume that I'm being trolled, and bow out at this point. I'd rather think this than the more likely conclusion, which is that you're a dangerously stupid person who shouldn't be permitted to handle their own finances. I've got a kind heart, so I'd rather believe that you just have an idiotic sense of humor rather than a defective brain.

Either way best of luck with your life, your dividends, your crackpot theories, and whatever else you said. I can't even be arsed to care at this point.

>>972809
>How can an account have a lower yield? Accounts don't have yields
You're going to get something back eventually, don't play dumb.

>Huh? How do you know the investment returns of millions of retirement accounts?
Financial training. I've been required to sit through many government sponsored seminars related to investing in 401k, ira, tsp, etc. The accounts that actually make decent returns are focused on stocks.

>An entire paragraph of bullshit stats pulled out of your ass, with no attribution or evidence.
It's not difficult to google the tax brackets & US income by population, all of it is readily available information reported by the US government itself. Your refusal to acknowledge real world statistics while encouraging 100% investment in accounts that lock up money for extended periods of time is quite telling.