If I would have been listening to all of those that said I was crazy for not holding a ton of cash over the last few years I'd be sitting on
a lot less dividend income and a smaller portfolio.
Not exact matches
It then becomes a trade off between getting paid a
lot today for little growth in the future or getting paid a little
less today for higher future
dividend growth.
They've got a
lot less in the US and a
lot more emerging markets exposure than their peers, a
lot smaller market cap, higher
dividends, lower p / e.
If funds invest as we advise, sticking with well - established, mostly
dividend - paying companies and spreading their assets out across most if not all of the five main economic sectors, they will tend to lose a
lot less than the market indexes in periods when the indexes fall sharply.
Is book value growing a
lot more slowly than earnings
less dividends would indicate?
Like I said above, I don't think I'll be tilting my portfolio towards them, but
dividend investing is a
lot less harmful than some other investing strategies.
I purchased them a while ago for much
less than the current price and received
lots of
dividend payments during the period.
However, insofar as a company pays regular
dividends which are increased periodically market prices tend to be a
lot less capricious than would otherwise be the case because the shares tend to get priced, at least in part, on a return (or yield) basis.
I'm not that strict, as that would preclude a
lot of great companies that have
less than 10 years of growth, but have clearly shown shareholders a commitment to
dividend growth.
If you want to brag about how it doesn't matter that you bought stocks in the tech bubble because at least you earned
dividends for the next 10 years, it's disingenuous not to mention that you'd have been better off buying T - bonds at 8 % back then and earning a hell of a
lot more income with significantly
less risk.