Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I purchase both dividend and non-dividend stocks. back in 2009 I loaded up on canadian REIT's. for the 4 companies I purchased they averaged a dividend yield on a yearly basis of almost 25%.
Good solid American stocks that pay a dividend and then reinvest that dividend are safest. Growth is a promise of something tomorrow. I have some, but they are in solid plays like DDD and NDLS. I believe in stocks that are strong, COP,XOM,CVX,PG,PSX,F to name a few, for spec plays I go with the good Pharmas, GILD,CLDX and still dont put a lot into them as its a promise for tomorrow. When you play growth stocks you have to hope that your wins out pace your losses. JCI has paid a dividend for 80 years. KO same thing, even with this pull back of late, KO is only down a buck. These stocks bounce back faster also after the pull back, making this a great buying opportunity. This is a time to sell puts for me in these stocks. Not only would I get a great buy but I am paid to wait. BMY is another. I have been selling puts like crazy. By selling puts I make money if the stock goes up, if it goes down a little and if it goes sideways. Growth stocks are more risk and you tend to get more reward, but also there is more down side. I like the tired and true.
safest? really ? i guess they didn't plunge with the rest in 2008-2009. when it comes to stocks there is no such thing as safest.
want a list of the bluest of blue chips that either failed or turned out to be horrible dividend or not? .
gm was the stock for widows and orphans, it had been said where goes gm goes the nation.
while stocks do well long term they are anything but safe.
one of my biggest losers a long time ago was MO (PHILIP MORRIS) when law suits were hitting them from all directions and courts were ruling against them.
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-25-2014 at 07:17 AM..
one of my biggest losers a long time ago was MO (PHILIP MORRIS) when law suits were hitting them from all directions and courts were ruling against them.
Really?
In his research for the book The Future for Investors, Dr. Jeremy Siegel (Wharton School of Finance, U of Pennsylvania) found that Philip Morris was the #1 company in Total Return over the period February 28, 1957 to December 31, 2003. That is #1 out of all U.S. companies on the original S&P 500 list.
And you, mathjak107 -believer in total return- lost money with them? How did you lose money with the #1 company?
I invested in Altria, the company that Philip Morris became, in December 2005, and have NO regrets. MO has made me money, lots of money! They split off Kraft and Philip Morris International in the intervening years, and Kraft has gone and split off Mondelez Int'l. And the dividends keep rolling in.
Siegel explains quite well how those lawsuits drove down the price of MO so that re-invested dividends purchased more shares than if the prices had been high. It was one of the keys to MO being the highest total return stock over that time period. Maybe you should take a look at that book. It was reported a few years ago that Ben Bernanke held only MO stock in his retirement portfolio; that's how solid many see the old cigarette conglomerate.
Growth stocks are over-rated. You have to sell them to realize the gains. And people tend to hang on to "winners" way too long. I like getting paid quarterly; that cash is not going to get taken away by wasteful corporate spending.
If you want yield, purchase bonds, not stock, especially avoid common stock.
If you prefer equity to debt, then buy preferred stock for yield, again, not common.
In his research for the book The Future for Investors, Dr. Jeremy Siegel (Wharton School of Finance, U of Pennsylvania) found that Philip Morris was the #1 company in Total Return over the period February 28, 1957 to December 31, 2003. That is #1 out of all U.S. companies on the original S&P 500 list.
And you, mathjak107 -believer in total return- lost money with them? How did you lose money with the #1 company?
I invested in Altria, the company that Philip Morris became, in December 2005, and have NO regrets. MO has made me money, lots of money! They split off Kraft and Philip Morris International in the intervening years, and Kraft has gone and split off Mondelez Int'l. And the dividends keep rolling in.
Siegel explains quite well how those lawsuits drove down the price of MO so that re-invested dividends purchased more shares than if the prices had been high. It was one of the keys to MO being the highest total return stock over that time period. Maybe you should take a look at that book. It was reported a few years ago that Ben Bernanke held only MO stock in his retirement portfolio; that's how solid many see the old cigarette conglomerate.
Growth stocks are over-rated. You have to sell them to realize the gains. And people tend to hang on to "winners" way too long. I like getting paid quarterly; that cash is not going to get taken away by wasteful corporate spending.
well i did what alot of people did when mo plunged like a rock. we sold it. hindsite is 20/20 my friend but back then it looked like the game was over for it. apparently the markets thought the same thing.
i mentioned MO just because it was one of the best stocks ever. the point is if you can be blindsided and duped by the best stock ever you can never call any stock SAFE
Thinking just because a company pays a dividend that they are not wasting money,over paying executives or spending money for nothing is nonsense.
Growth stocks can be improving products,buying their own stock back and making aquisitions with that money ,all which is adding to the their share price if the investors are happy.
You can not generalize ,it is a case by case issue and each stock has to be judged on its own merit.
A good company is a good company no matter how they go to market
you may want to re-think that statement
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-25-2014 at 04:45 PM..
Therefore, implying that dividends were in large part responsible for the market having the return that it had is misleading, IMO, because the return very possibly would have been similar WITHOUT the dividends (since 40% of the share price wouldn't have been lost to the dividend payouts).
I think that's BS. Companies tend to think they're better allocators of capital than they really are, as I already said in my previous post (and you ignored).
In the past dividend payers tended to do better because a history of rising dividends showed the company was healthy enough to give away money.
In theory It proudly said look at me ,i have money i don't even need.
Thats it,that is all a rising dividend can lay claim to.
It means nothing as far as how that company is spending ,paying executives or blowing money . Maybe that dividend should have been 2x what it is.
Or maybe the share price should have been higher.
Today even companies on the balls of their butts pay dividends right up until they fail . Just paying a dividend is not good enough. You have to raise that dividend to show you still can.
Personally i look at a stock as a business and judge it for what it is and not the fact it may be reducing its own share price by handing me a piece of the companies value back so they can't spend it.
Many companies have made more money buying back their own stock the last few years then they did with their core businesses and they were able to do that just because they had the cash from not paying a dividend.
Forbes i think it was had a whole list of companies that saw their value increase more from buy backs then they did from their business.
Dividend payers do that too but if they had more avail cash they could have bought even more instead of giving it away.
Stock buy backs were not as much a part of the business plan decades ago like they are more recently.
Perhaps if they were the non dividend payers may have been the ones to historically out perform.
As i always say it is all about total return and not what gets you there.
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-26-2014 at 02:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
