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: spindr00 who wrote (30470)	1/21/2019 5:20:02 PM
From: Thehammer	4 Recommendations Recommended By Ditchdigger E_K_S Graustus sm1th Respond to of 34328

Answer that correctly and you'll understand why the dividend isn't income and why subsequent share price appreciation is required to make it income (income being defined as an increase in the value of your aggregate position). I have been reading the back and forth and am not sure if everyone is even talking about the same thing. You keep talking about a point in time (ex date) while most of the people here take a long term perspective on their investments. In your example, someone effectively bot the dividend just before ex and then you look at the price the next day? Most people here don't do that and in a taxable account I'd personally buy after ex. Over the long term, a corporation earns income and in theory, you earn along with them. If you buy a bond just before pay date, the price will be adjusted by the accrued interest earned through purchase date. After that you accrue interest on a normal basis. Kind of the same way with stocks. I have seen a version of this discussion played out on SA and other venues about what is more important, the dividend or capital appreciation. From a DGI perspective that is a "chicken and egg" discussion. Some folks focus on the dividend growth history but that is usually accompanied by rising earnings as well as an increase in share price. I have a good friend of over 40 years, who professionally manages money in the DGI space. Increasing dividends is one of many criteria used in the selection process. Some of the other characteristics: 1) portfolio approach across multiple sectors 2) some degree of business moat 3) increasing earning and other metrics over multiple time horizons (i.e. 3, 5, 10 year) 4) buy at opportune times 5) low payout ratio (by industry) People tend to tweak the "rules" based on their own situation, finances, age, etc. People also set rules on when to sell or pare holdings, but the core concept is to buy stocks who have a history of dividend increases as well as earnings potential and hold them for the long term. I'd also note that many of the folks I know who use DGI are not purists and may include other types of investments in portfolio. It seemed that the discussion started with someone being put T. Not my favorite DGI stock but I do own a few shares. I guess that i am still curious as to your approach to investing. Are you a trader or would you characterize your self as an investor? What is the time horizon of a typical investment? Cheers

To: spindr00 who wrote (30470)	1/21/2019 5:28:11 PM
From: Maurice H. Norcott	3 Recommendations Recommended By JimisJim maverick61 sm1th Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34328

"the dividend isn't income" I'll be sure to tell the IRS that. I'm so happy you came along to tell me I'm not making money. You truly have a dizzying intellect.

To: spindr00 who wrote (30470)	1/21/2019 6:29:46 PM
From: JimisJim	1 Recommendation Recommended By Graustus Respond to of 34328

I can’t spend or pay the bills with the value of the aggregate position necessarily — have to sell some of the underlying position to fit your definition. As I said, I am doing what I am doing after much research inti the 50 odd positions in our tax advantaged retirement accts... it is working better than I had thought it would. Bottom line is what I am doing is exceeding expectations for funding our retirement regardless of how anyone defines profit and won’t change aside from some tweaks around the edges.

To: spindr00 who wrote (30470)	1/23/2019 8:25:30 AM
From: spindr00	Respond to of 34328

"I can’t spend or pay the bills with the value of the aggregate position necessarily — have to sell some of the underlying position to fit your definition." I made no mention of selling off some of the underlying position to fit any kind of definition. You buy a stock. It pays a dividend. The aggregate position is either: 1) Stock + dividends reinvested 2) Stock + uninvested cash Reinvesting complicates the calculation because as share price changes, those additional purchases will have different purchase prices as well as different amounts of gain and/or loss as well. It's easier to just follow if one uses examples without dividend reinvestment. If you need money to spend or pay bills, do not reinvest the dividend. What I have defined repeatedly is that the cash flow in question is coming from your brokerage account value and so far, no one seems to grasp that. To be continued. I have to suit up for the opening.