companies that reward their shareholders with solid growth do not need to pacify them with dividends. Dividends should be an additional reward once the company has achieved it promised growth.
I'm not against dividends, I'm saying there is a better way to reward shareholders. Remember when banks used to reward you with a toaster?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Dividends do not guarantee continued growth, reinvestment serves as a much better tool. Dividends serve one purpose - to attract and keep the shareholder invested in the company. All companies do not operate exactly according to the manifesto. GE is a good example. Had they spend that money on reinvestment maybe things wouldn't be so bleak for them and their dividend receiving shareholders.
My entire point is this and companies like GE back it up: The fact that a stock pays dividends does not prove that it is a good investment. Dividends are over rated by the brokers that push such investments.
That said, dividends can be an added plus when investing in the right company that pays them. Investing strictly based on dividends can prove a disaster when the equity itself is not on solid ground.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Least we forget that the board members approving these dividends are most often the majority shareholders receiving the bulk of these dividends.
Just another transfer of wealth by those that have wealth. And as usual the little guy gets a few crumbs to keep him happy.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Ok....Time for the truth about dividends and destroy misplaced assumptions and falsehoods.
Lets pretend in 1989 (30 years ago to retort that dividends are only for short term), that you bought 100 oz of gold for $400/oz or $40,000 total. Wait, gold, I thought this was about dividends? Bare with me. Now, lets suppose that today, that $40,000 in gold will give you $25,000 in cash (dollars) this year. Wouldnt that be cool? Every year, that 40k investment spins off 25k in cold hard cash. WOW!!!
Yeah, of course that would be cool, coho, so whats your point?
Now slide your mouse over the graph all the way to the left until you come to 1989. This is a chart or price and dividend payout for 3M. Yeah, not exactly a go go internet or biotech stock--and thats the point. Just boring old Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. You'll see in 1989 the stock was about $7.50 and paid a dividend of 24 cents per share. Now slide your mouse all the way to the right and you'll see that MMM now pays $5.43 per share. Thats over 70% of the value of your initial investment. WOW!!!, 70% return on initial investment every year (which most likely only increases over time).
Go ahead and play around with other stocks. ADP (boring old payroll processing) is another good one with almost 100% annual return.
Nothing nefarious, no benefit for only the rich, no lack of growth prospects (look at the capital appreciation of the stocks). Just plain old fashioned investing that im sure even jmski could appreciate.
Now again, wouldnt it be cool if gold paid a dividend?
@jmski52 said:
I bought a stock yesterday (for my grandson, not for me - are you kidding?) Time to really load up on metals.
Question for BL, have reinvested dividends really spiked upwards 4X more than the gains in the underlying stocks in the past 10 years? That chart doesn't seem to make much sense. Seems very odd. Please explain.
Your answer is provided in my previous post. The compounding of an increasing number. Unfathomably powerful.
@cohodk said:
Ok....Time for the truth about dividends and destroy misplaced assumptions and falsehoods.
So, using your data what would one share of MMM bought in 1989, dividends reinvested, be worth today?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
So, if I'm interpreting the chart correctly, $600,000 in the 2010 S&P will grow to $2,600,000 if the dividends are reinvested - which is pretty good. Keeping in mind that this is during a period where the stock market is being supported by historically low interest rates at the cost of major increases in the national debt this exceeds the increase of "the rule of 7's" of a doubling every 7 years at a 10% interest rate. So this implies a compounded growth rate of something like 20% per year, right?
Which would all be pretty good, if it weren't for the massive debt & unfunded liabilities that will certainly land at someone's feet in the not-too-distance future. I still see the advantages of gold, which has no counterparty risk in such an environment. Paper is paper and there are no guarantees no matter what you hold as assets.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
So much for tightening. Freeze/lower interest rates next? Good for gold and equities.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Comments
JMSKI, just long term power of compounding, it becomes exponential as time goes on not really so much at the beginning. It's a 50+ year chart
The great Albert Einstein once said “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn't … pays it.”
Ok now, what did you get?
No right or wrong here and if it pays a div, make sure it's set up on div reinvestment.
companies that reward their shareholders with solid growth do not need to pacify them with dividends. Dividends should be an additional reward once the company has achieved it promised growth.
I'm not against dividends, I'm saying there is a better way to reward shareholders. Remember when banks used to reward you with a toaster?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Dividends do not guarantee continued growth, reinvestment serves as a much better tool. Dividends serve one purpose - to attract and keep the shareholder invested in the company. All companies do not operate exactly according to the manifesto. GE is a good example. Had they spend that money on reinvestment maybe things wouldn't be so bleak for them and their dividend receiving shareholders.
My entire point is this and companies like GE back it up: The fact that a stock pays dividends does not prove that it is a good investment. Dividends are over rated by the brokers that push such investments.
That said, dividends can be an added plus when investing in the right company that pays them. Investing strictly based on dividends can prove a disaster when the equity itself is not on solid ground.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Least we forget that the board members approving these dividends are most often the majority shareholders receiving the bulk of these dividends.
Just another transfer of wealth by those that have wealth. And as usual the little guy gets a few crumbs to keep him happy.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Busted. Trolling and oblivious. Fat too.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
And back to the matter of gold's future performance:
The Short-Term Outlook For Gold
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Ok....Time for the truth about dividends and destroy misplaced assumptions and falsehoods.
Lets pretend in 1989 (30 years ago to retort that dividends are only for short term), that you bought 100 oz of gold for $400/oz or $40,000 total. Wait, gold, I thought this was about dividends? Bare with me. Now, lets suppose that today, that $40,000 in gold will give you $25,000 in cash (dollars) this year. Wouldnt that be cool? Every year, that 40k investment spins off 25k in cold hard cash. WOW!!!
Yeah, of course that would be cool, coho, so whats your point?
Go to this website. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MMM/3m/dividend-yield-history
Now slide your mouse over the graph all the way to the left until you come to 1989. This is a chart or price and dividend payout for 3M. Yeah, not exactly a go go internet or biotech stock--and thats the point. Just boring old Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. You'll see in 1989 the stock was about $7.50 and paid a dividend of 24 cents per share. Now slide your mouse all the way to the right and you'll see that MMM now pays $5.43 per share. Thats over 70% of the value of your initial investment. WOW!!!, 70% return on initial investment every year (which most likely only increases over time).
Go ahead and play around with other stocks. ADP (boring old payroll processing) is another good one with almost 100% annual return.
Nothing nefarious, no benefit for only the rich, no lack of growth prospects (look at the capital appreciation of the stocks). Just plain old fashioned investing that im sure even jmski could appreciate.
Now again, wouldnt it be cool if gold paid a dividend?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Your answer is provided in my previous post. The compounding of an increasing number. Unfathomably powerful.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
So, using your data what would one share of MMM bought in 1989, dividends reinvested, be worth today?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
$8 turned into more than $400.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
So, if I'm interpreting the chart correctly, $600,000 in the 2010 S&P will grow to $2,600,000 if the dividends are reinvested - which is pretty good. Keeping in mind that this is during a period where the stock market is being supported by historically low interest rates at the cost of major increases in the national debt this exceeds the increase of "the rule of 7's" of a doubling every 7 years at a 10% interest rate. So this implies a compounded growth rate of something like 20% per year, right?
Which would all be pretty good, if it weren't for the massive debt & unfunded liabilities that will certainly land at someone's feet in the not-too-distance future. I still see the advantages of gold, which has no counterparty risk in such an environment. Paper is paper and there are no guarantees no matter what you hold as assets.
I knew it would happen.
FED nearing end to its balance sheet reduction
So much for tightening. Freeze/lower interest rates next? Good for gold and equities.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey