Does anybody here invest for dividends?

90smxer
Posts
99
Joined
6/9/2011
Location
Cincinnati, OH US
Edited Date/Time 1/26/2012 4:22am
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does not matter so much.

When my total stock portfolio drops, I don't really care, I get the same dividends.

Peoples goal should be to amass enough dividend paying stocks to fund their entire retirement. That way, the market does not matter so much, and, you will never run out of money, even if you live to 110. The principal will always be there.
|
borg
Posts
6666
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
8/21/2011 3:01pm
90smxer wrote:
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does...
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does not matter so much.

When my total stock portfolio drops, I don't really care, I get the same dividends.

Peoples goal should be to amass enough dividend paying stocks to fund their entire retirement. That way, the market does not matter so much, and, you will never run out of money, even if you live to 110. The principal will always be there.
Most financial planners would give the opposite advice.
90smxer
Posts
99
Joined
6/9/2011
Location
Cincinnati, OH US
8/21/2011 3:09pm Edited Date/Time 8/21/2011 3:12pm
90smxer wrote:
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does...
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does not matter so much.

When my total stock portfolio drops, I don't really care, I get the same dividends.

Peoples goal should be to amass enough dividend paying stocks to fund their entire retirement. That way, the market does not matter so much, and, you will never run out of money, even if you live to 110. The principal will always be there.
borg wrote:
Most financial planners would give the opposite advice.
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't afford them, so most people get horrible advice.

Any financial planner who advises their client to forgo 100k in dividends per year for the rest of their life, is a complete fuktard.
mxknowitall
Posts
450
Joined
5/8/2008
Location
Clearwater, FL US
8/21/2011 5:46pm
90smxer wrote:
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does...
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does not matter so much.

When my total stock portfolio drops, I don't really care, I get the same dividends.

Peoples goal should be to amass enough dividend paying stocks to fund their entire retirement. That way, the market does not matter so much, and, you will never run out of money, even if you live to 110. The principal will always be there.
borg wrote:
Most financial planners would give the opposite advice.
90smxer wrote:
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't...
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't afford them, so most people get horrible advice.

Any financial planner who advises their client to forgo 100k in dividends per year for the rest of their life, is a complete fuktard.
Any person invested 100% in equities during retirement is taking substantial risk. If you are only looking for the annual income, you would be better off with a majority of your retirement portfolio in a ladder of bonds. You receive the income payments, without the potential capital losses that come with equities.
90smxer
Posts
99
Joined
6/9/2011
Location
Cincinnati, OH US
8/21/2011 6:22pm
borg wrote:
Most financial planners would give the opposite advice.
90smxer wrote:
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't...
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't afford them, so most people get horrible advice.

Any financial planner who advises their client to forgo 100k in dividends per year for the rest of their life, is a complete fuktard.
Any person invested 100% in equities during retirement is taking substantial risk. If you are only looking for the annual income, you would be better off...
Any person invested 100% in equities during retirement is taking substantial risk. If you are only looking for the annual income, you would be better off with a majority of your retirement portfolio in a ladder of bonds. You receive the income payments, without the potential capital losses that come with equities.
The problem with bonds is, you would need 10 million to have a decent wage at retirement. Bonds don't pay shit, and even those aren't as safe anymore.

There are many companies out there who have been paying nice dividends, never decreased dividends and have been doing it since before the great depression.

But, almost nobody under the rich invests that way, they buy the hot stock of the moment, feel rich when the stock increases in value, and then complain when the stock tanks and they lose most of their 20 or 30 year savings.

The Shop

rucka356
Posts
1062
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Knoxville, TN US
8/21/2011 7:01pm
Not quite sure i agree with you on the bonds. I have a vanguard high yield corporate that is up roughly 15% YTD, and is paying about 6% (dividend) right now. Was paying over 7% a year ago. It's been a good solid, reliable investment for me. A lot better than the .025% you can get in a CD right now. Of course i just sold some stock for over 15% gains, but diversity is very important.
borg
Posts
6666
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
8/21/2011 7:31pm
90smxer wrote:
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does...
I keep reading about how the dips in the stock market hurt peoples retirement portfolios, but if people were investing smartly, for dividends, the market does not matter so much.

When my total stock portfolio drops, I don't really care, I get the same dividends.

Peoples goal should be to amass enough dividend paying stocks to fund their entire retirement. That way, the market does not matter so much, and, you will never run out of money, even if you live to 110. The principal will always be there.
borg wrote:
Most financial planners would give the opposite advice.
90smxer wrote:
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't...
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't afford them, so most people get horrible advice.

Any financial planner who advises their client to forgo 100k in dividends per year for the rest of their life, is a complete fuktard.
I have no inclination to argue with you about it. It's fairly commonly understood that a portfolio should shift from stocks towards bonds as a person approaches retirement. The reason I wont argue with you about it is because everybody that gives market advice is a fucking snake oil salesman. Including you. That's the beauty of it though. You can be be as completely full of shit as you want to be and it wont affect me one iota. As apposed the ass clowns that constantly want the government to do this and do that. I will argue with them because it affects me. Dividend on dude!
90smxer
Posts
99
Joined
6/9/2011
Location
Cincinnati, OH US
8/21/2011 8:17pm Edited Date/Time 8/21/2011 8:27pm
borg wrote:
Most financial planners would give the opposite advice.
90smxer wrote:
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't...
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't afford them, so most people get horrible advice.

Any financial planner who advises their client to forgo 100k in dividends per year for the rest of their life, is a complete fuktard.
borg wrote:
I have no inclination to argue with you about it. It's fairly commonly understood that a portfolio should shift from stocks towards bonds as a person...
I have no inclination to argue with you about it. It's fairly commonly understood that a portfolio should shift from stocks towards bonds as a person approaches retirement. The reason I wont argue with you about it is because everybody that gives market advice is a fucking snake oil salesman. Including you. That's the beauty of it though. You can be be as completely full of shit as you want to be and it wont affect me one iota. As apposed the ass clowns that constantly want the government to do this and do that. I will argue with them because it affects me. Dividend on dude!
I have no stake in what you do, so I don't care what you do. You speak of what is fairly commonly understood, but what is fairly common amongst most Americans, is their retirement portfolio isn't worth shit when they reach retirement age. Makes you wonder if what is fairly commonly understood is correct, doesn't it?

I just know what works for me, my parents and grand parents. I see how most people end up with a miniscule retirement account and it is sad.

My whole point in the post was to get info as to why people fvck their retirements up, as that is what 90% of Americans do, not give detailed advice. I am trying to understand why so many Americans have no clue how to create a decent retirement for themselves.
90smxer
Posts
99
Joined
6/9/2011
Location
Cincinnati, OH US
8/21/2011 8:20pm
borg wrote:
Most financial planners would give the opposite advice.
90smxer wrote:
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't...
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't afford them, so most people get horrible advice.

Any financial planner who advises their client to forgo 100k in dividends per year for the rest of their life, is a complete fuktard.
Any person invested 100% in equities during retirement is taking substantial risk. If you are only looking for the annual income, you would be better off...
Any person invested 100% in equities during retirement is taking substantial risk. If you are only looking for the annual income, you would be better off with a majority of your retirement portfolio in a ladder of bonds. You receive the income payments, without the potential capital losses that come with equities.
I never said that a person should be 100% invested in equities. But, receiving, lest say 100k in dividends, from 1/4 or 1/3 of your assets is pretty nice.

Most people have to start tapping their principal directly upon retirement and that is ridiculous way to invest.
borg
Posts
6666
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
8/21/2011 8:30pm
90smxer wrote:
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't...
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't afford them, so most people get horrible advice.

Any financial planner who advises their client to forgo 100k in dividends per year for the rest of their life, is a complete fuktard.
borg wrote:
I have no inclination to argue with you about it. It's fairly commonly understood that a portfolio should shift from stocks towards bonds as a person...
I have no inclination to argue with you about it. It's fairly commonly understood that a portfolio should shift from stocks towards bonds as a person approaches retirement. The reason I wont argue with you about it is because everybody that gives market advice is a fucking snake oil salesman. Including you. That's the beauty of it though. You can be be as completely full of shit as you want to be and it wont affect me one iota. As apposed the ass clowns that constantly want the government to do this and do that. I will argue with them because it affects me. Dividend on dude!
90smxer wrote:
I have no stake in what you do, so I don't care what you do. You speak of what is fairly commonly understood, but what is...
I have no stake in what you do, so I don't care what you do. You speak of what is fairly commonly understood, but what is fairly common amongst most Americans, is their retirement portfolio isn't worth shit when they reach retirement age. Makes you wonder if what is fairly commonly understood is correct, doesn't it?

I just know what works for me, my parents and grand parents. I see how most people end up with a miniscule retirement account and it is sad.

My whole point in the post was to get info as to why people fvck their retirements up, as that is what 90% of Americans do, not give detailed advice. I am trying to understand why so many Americans have no clue how to create a decent retirement for themselves.
I dont know the retirement portfolio of even 2 people. The fact that you claim to know that the retirement portfolio of most Americans makes you a snake oil salesman.

Your point in the post was to gloat about how fucking smart you think you are. Fail!
90smxer
Posts
99
Joined
6/9/2011
Location
Cincinnati, OH US
8/21/2011 8:34pm Edited Date/Time 8/21/2011 8:41pm
borg wrote:
I have no inclination to argue with you about it. It's fairly commonly understood that a portfolio should shift from stocks towards bonds as a person...
I have no inclination to argue with you about it. It's fairly commonly understood that a portfolio should shift from stocks towards bonds as a person approaches retirement. The reason I wont argue with you about it is because everybody that gives market advice is a fucking snake oil salesman. Including you. That's the beauty of it though. You can be be as completely full of shit as you want to be and it wont affect me one iota. As apposed the ass clowns that constantly want the government to do this and do that. I will argue with them because it affects me. Dividend on dude!
90smxer wrote:
I have no stake in what you do, so I don't care what you do. You speak of what is fairly commonly understood, but what is...
I have no stake in what you do, so I don't care what you do. You speak of what is fairly commonly understood, but what is fairly common amongst most Americans, is their retirement portfolio isn't worth shit when they reach retirement age. Makes you wonder if what is fairly commonly understood is correct, doesn't it?

I just know what works for me, my parents and grand parents. I see how most people end up with a miniscule retirement account and it is sad.

My whole point in the post was to get info as to why people fvck their retirements up, as that is what 90% of Americans do, not give detailed advice. I am trying to understand why so many Americans have no clue how to create a decent retirement for themselves.
borg wrote:
I dont know the retirement portfolio of even 2 people. The fact that you claim to know that the retirement portfolio of most Americans makes you...
I dont know the retirement portfolio of even 2 people. The fact that you claim to know that the retirement portfolio of most Americans makes you a snake oil salesman.

Your point in the post was to gloat about how fucking smart you think you are. Fail!
I guess you don't read the news.

I do read info on the plight of Americans retirement savings each day.

Also, I worked at JP Morgan Transfer Agency and have analyzed at least 30,000 portfolios during my tenure there, most of which were horrible.

Not sure how I'm a snake oil salesman when I am not selling anything and have many years of experience at an investment company.

I was never a financial planner but I was an analyst for many years.
borg
Posts
6666
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
8/21/2011 8:42pm
I'm pretty sure Bear and Lehman paid dividends. I wonder who's retiring on that shit.

As far as you being a snake oil salesman goes, If you really did work for JP Morgan, then I rest my case.
8/21/2011 8:45pm
Guys, mineral resources is the way to go. Quit your arguing and put your respective houses on Aussie mining shares.
90smxer
Posts
99
Joined
6/9/2011
Location
Cincinnati, OH US
8/21/2011 8:52pm
borg wrote:
I'm pretty sure Bear and Lehman paid dividends. I wonder who's retiring on that shit. As far as you being a snake oil salesman goes, If...
I'm pretty sure Bear and Lehman paid dividends. I wonder who's retiring on that shit.

As far as you being a snake oil salesman goes, If you really did work for JP Morgan, then I rest my case.
Of course you need to invest in stable companies, such as Procter & Gamble, who has never skipped or decreased a dividend in the history of the company.

Stable companies who sell physical products that are needed at all times, such as soap, diapers, baby food, batteries, toohpaste, toilet paper, basically consumer products, are the more stable companies to invest in. Not companies like Bear an Lehman.

I worked for Integrated Investment Services which was bought by JP Morgan. We were the transfer agency for 29 financial companies including Fidelity and Vanguard.
borg
Posts
6666
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
8/21/2011 9:03pm
borg wrote:
I'm pretty sure Bear and Lehman paid dividends. I wonder who's retiring on that shit. As far as you being a snake oil salesman goes, If...
I'm pretty sure Bear and Lehman paid dividends. I wonder who's retiring on that shit.

As far as you being a snake oil salesman goes, If you really did work for JP Morgan, then I rest my case.
90smxer wrote:
Of course you need to invest in stable companies, such as Procter & Gamble, who has never skipped or decreased a dividend in the history of...
Of course you need to invest in stable companies, such as Procter & Gamble, who has never skipped or decreased a dividend in the history of the company.

Stable companies who sell physical products that are needed at all times, such as soap, diapers, baby food, batteries, toohpaste, toilet paper, basically consumer products, are the more stable companies to invest in. Not companies like Bear an Lehman.

I worked for Integrated Investment Services which was bought by JP Morgan. We were the transfer agency for 29 financial companies including Fidelity and Vanguard.
I'm just busting your balls. I hope your strategy works out. Don't even try to sell me gold. Wink
mxknowitall
Posts
450
Joined
5/8/2008
Location
Clearwater, FL US
8/22/2011 5:33am
90smxer wrote:
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't...
Most financial planners don't know shit. Hence, their clients are not doing so well. Good financial planners are hard to come by, and most people can't afford them, so most people get horrible advice.

Any financial planner who advises their client to forgo 100k in dividends per year for the rest of their life, is a complete fuktard.
Any person invested 100% in equities during retirement is taking substantial risk. If you are only looking for the annual income, you would be better off...
Any person invested 100% in equities during retirement is taking substantial risk. If you are only looking for the annual income, you would be better off with a majority of your retirement portfolio in a ladder of bonds. You receive the income payments, without the potential capital losses that come with equities.
90smxer wrote:
I never said that a person should be 100% invested in equities. But, receiving, lest say 100k in dividends, from 1/4 or 1/3 of your assets...
I never said that a person should be 100% invested in equities. But, receiving, lest say 100k in dividends, from 1/4 or 1/3 of your assets is pretty nice.

Most people have to start tapping their principal directly upon retirement and that is ridiculous way to invest.
100k off of 1/4 of the portfolio? Lets saying we're talking about a 4% dividend rate... That's a 10 million dollar portfolio.
dougie
Posts
2140
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Temecula, CA US
8/22/2011 9:29am
Id think that most Americans dont earn enough money during their lives to both exist and invest for retirement. Perhaps they could if they lived well within their means but who does that? And if they did live within their means what would that do to our credit based economy?

Ive known a few older folks (my parents and some of their friends) that thought they'd saved plenty for their retirements only to find that shortly after retirement they were dipping into their principal. A few reasons for that. One, as your saving during your working life you really have no freaking idea what the dollar is going to be worth at your retirement on in the years following. Another reason today is the horribly low interest rates. I know one older person that was just a few years ago earning like $4000.00 a year on some CD savings. Now that same person is earning like $18.00 a year on the same balance. Or so Im told.
Frogman
Posts
906
Joined
10/14/2006
Location
Washington, DC US
8/22/2011 12:33pm
90smxer wrote:
I never said that a person should be 100% invested in equities. But, receiving, lest say 100k in dividends, from 1/4 or 1/3 of your assets...
I never said that a person should be 100% invested in equities. But, receiving, lest say 100k in dividends, from 1/4 or 1/3 of your assets is pretty nice.

Most people have to start tapping their principal directly upon retirement and that is ridiculous way to invest.
That is unrealistic for about 90-99% of the people in the US.

A 100 percent dividend strategy is leaving a lot of money on the table in my opinion. Basically the money is dead except 4 times per year.
mxknowitall
Posts
450
Joined
5/8/2008
Location
Clearwater, FL US
8/22/2011 2:39pm
If you're looking for high dividend income another option is MLPs.
pelted
Posts
672
Joined
6/25/2007
Location
. US
8/22/2011 5:03pm
90smxer wrote:
I guess you don't read the news. I do read info on the plight of Americans retirement savings each day. Also, I worked at JP Morgan...
I guess you don't read the news.

I do read info on the plight of Americans retirement savings each day.

Also, I worked at JP Morgan Transfer Agency and have analyzed at least 30,000 portfolios during my tenure there, most of which were horrible.

Not sure how I'm a snake oil salesman when I am not selling anything and have many years of experience at an investment company.

I was never a financial planner but I was an analyst for many years.
Wait, was your tenure at JP before or after you were an intelligence consultant for the DoD, a university teacher, job-exporting consultant, or illegal exporter?

Post a reply to: Does anybody here invest for dividends?

The Latest