Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Dividend investing for retirement -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JimisJim who wrote (30429)	1/17/2019 6:49:37 PM
From: Maurice H. Norcott	Respond to of 34328

Well said. It's nice to see my holdings go up in value but I have no plan to sell any dividend paying stock I hold irregardless of the capital gains.

To: JimisJim who wrote (30429)	1/17/2019 7:14:40 PM
From: E_K_S	5 Recommendations Recommended By B.O. Plenty Fuzzy JimisJim Kip S maverick61 Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 34328

Dividend income and the 4% rule The 4 percent rule is a rule of thumb used to determine how much a retiree should withdraw from a retirement account each year. This rule seeks to provide a steady income stream to the retiree while also maintaining an account balance that keeps income flowing through retirement. Experts consider the 4 percent withdrawal rate safe, as the withdrawals will consist primarily of interest and dividends. Bengen concluded that even during untenable markets, no historical case existed in which a 4 percent annual withdrawal exhausted a retirement portfolio in less than 33 years. Theoretically, if you have dividend payers that yield 4% or more, then if you withdrew 4% per year from the portfolio, you would never tap into your principal. There is always the remaining that would compound. My rule of thumb is look for dividend payers that yield 4% or more However, I do look at the total portfolio dividend yield and that is critical that my blended yield is 4% or higher. I find that it is not that hard during different sector cycles to find those 4% dividend payers. This was the case w/ Drug/Pharma stocks which could be had on the cheap in 2009 and 2015. I picked up MRK & PFE during these periods when they yielded around 4%. Now, a 2-3 bagger if you had the nerve to pick up shares in 2009 and still a 40%-50% gainer if you got shares in 2015/2016. I do fold in some lower 3% dividend payers from time to time to add more growth. To be fair, Steve's Total Return table can be significantly more or less depending on (1) when and (2) sector you bought over those years. So the Buyer's stock selection of dividend payers import too in that equation. Good Investing EKS

To: JimisJim who wrote (30429)	1/17/2019 7:30:58 PM
From: Steve Felix	2 Recommendations Recommended By B.O. Plenty JimisJim Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34328

Most common argument seems to be that what is paid out as dividends would be better spent growing the company/earnings. It sounds good, but if that was in fact how things played out in the real world, the previous graphs would be flipped.

To: JimisJim who wrote (30429)	1/18/2019 6:08:17 PM
From: spindr00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34328

What's rude about pointing out that a reply has nothing to do with what I wrote? I'm not sure why you are sensitive and defensive about another person's opinion and information (mine) but I'll leave that to you to thrash that out. I have no axe to grind nor do I have any issues with dividends. In fact, I'm agnostic about them. I just stated that dividends do not produce Total Return and that seems to trouble you and others here. If you look at post #30370, I mentioned AT&T which as of the date of posting had dropped $5.61 per share while receiving $2.01 per share in dividends for a net loss of $3.60 per share (or $3.66 per share if you reinvested the dividends). And that's before taxation, if non sheltered Are you suggesting that under such circumstances, one is achieving income and can live off of that dividend stream?