I love dividend stocks.
Every few months, I'd get a check; as a kid, it was a thrill. It might not have been for much, but as a nine-year-old, I was the only one of my friends with a source of income. I discovered that an RC Cola bought with my money tasted better than one my Mom bought me. In college, I learned I could reinvest the checks for more shares, and afterward, I knew I could buy even more shares from the companies through their DRIP program. When brokers charged $50 a trade, Dividend Reinvestment Plans allowed you to buy without extra charges.
Owning stocks at an early age helped me study them and understand why some companies pay generous dividends of as much as ten percent while others pay only one or two percent. Sometime in my thirties, I began collecting half my dividends and reinvesting the rest.
When I left NY, I stopped cashing dividends and reinvested 100%. I'd planned on waiting until I was 65 to begin tapping the income, but then I held off for an extra six months. Last month, I decided to start collecting them. I have four ETFs that pay monthly dividends, while the others pay quarterly. This month, two of my quarterlies and my monthlies will be paid. I recently bought into an AI-driven fund currently paying 20% annually, with monthly payouts.
I've always believed the stock market was the best and easiest way to turn your money into more. you buy a quality stock and just sit back and get paid while the stock grows in value.
Why keep playing when I've already won? I've made decent money all my life, but it often involved working fifty-plus hours a week.
Now I can live the life of a rock star, getting money for nothing....
About as unsexy as it gets, but up is up.
Quote: billryanI recently bought into an AI-driven fund currently paying 20% annually, with monthly payouts.link to original post
Now that's something that makes me perturbed. It sounds too good to be true.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: billryanI recently bought into an AI-driven fund currently paying 20% annually, with monthly payouts.link to original post
Now that's something that makes me perturbed. It sounds too good to be true.
link to original post
It's not a set-it-and-forget-it investment. This fund holds only 15 stocks and does cover calling. It's very aggressive but it is a part of
my portfolio. For every dollar I put in ETFs like this, I put a dollar into a CD or T-bill,
My unconventional thinking- If I put 10% of my stock portfolio into this and I put 10% into CDs I draw the interest out monthly, it covers my nut with a healthy margin, and the other 80% keeps growing untapped. If it somehow loses 50% of its value over five years, the rest of the portfolio will almost certainly make up for the losses. I think the stock will stay fairly flat and the dividend will decline to half that in two years, but I'm not in it for the long run. It's $50 a share and last month paid out $1.09 . It's approaching two years of monthly dividends, so it has some track record.
To be very clear- what I'm doing might work in my position and at my age, and may be very inappropriate for people starting out.
No clue what's the name nor how it's doing.
I need to rebalance.
Haven't rebalanced since pre-covid. I am light on bonds.
Lucky we're in a bull market.
Quote: 100xOddsI have 6 figures in a vanguard dividend ETF in 401k or IRA.
No clue what's the name nor how it's doing.
I need to rebalance.
Haven't rebalanced since pre-covid. I am light on bonds.
Lucky we're in a bull market.
link to original post
We are in the permanent bull run era: Blue skies ahead, and there is a healthy wind at our backs.
Quote: billryanWe are in the permanent bull run era: Blue skies ahead
a ridiculous and misleading post
neither you nor anyone else can predict the near term direction of the markets
there are many different events that could happen in our world that could shock the markets
not saying they will happen but they are possible - nobody can say for sure that they won't happen
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: billryanWe are in the permanent bull run era: Blue skies ahead
a ridiculous and misleading post
neither you nor anyone else can predict the short term direction of the markets
there are many different events that could happen in our world that could shock the markets
not saying they will happen but they are possible - nobody can say for sure that they won't happen
.
link to original post
That is your opinion. Mine is that the algorithms that run the market no longer need to be affected by outside forces and will constantly readjust themselves upward. This month's mini-crash was a perfect example. While people were panicking, the algorithm tapped the brakes, and within hours, things were moving back up. The leading candidate for leader of the free world was almost killed. How did the market react? Russia is at war. How did the market react?
If some banks are too big to fail, do you think the stock market would be allowed to fail??
This isn't your granddaddy's stock market. Treat it like it still is at your peril.
I can't predict the short-term market, nor do I try. However, I know where the long-term market is headed, and that's all that matters.
I can't tell you if the next 1000 point swing will be up or down, but I can guarantee you which way the next 100% swing will be.
Same as it ever was.
Quote: billryanWe are in the permanent bull run era: Blue skies ahead
I can't predict the short-term market, nor do I try.
fair enough
your post, your wording - led me to believe you were trying just that
but you indicate you weren't - my bad - I guess
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: billryanWe are in the permanent bull run era: Blue skies ahead
I can't predict the short-term market, nor do I try.
fair enough
your post, your wording - led me to believe you were trying just that
but you indicate you weren't - my bad - I guess
.
link to original post
Saul Goodman!
Some buy stocks for growth, and some buy when they see value. At this stage, I buy stocks for income. Cutting expenses and raising income makes for a sweet retirement.
Quote: TomGNow that no-fee trades have been around for at least a decade, any rational shareholder should be completely indifferent to dividends. If a company doesn't pay dividends on their corporate profits, that means the money is being used in a way ownership thinks will increase the value of the company. Any shareholder that wants to earn income off their investment can simply sell however many shares they want to end up in exactly the same place as if did pay a dividend. Some people would say it's a good thing that so many participants in financial markets are not ration.
link to original post
Have you considered that different sorts of income are taxed differently? For many people on social security, dividends can be tax-free, while selling shares rarely is.
I don't want to be bothered with the daily market or timing when to sell a few shares for next month's rent. I've got it set up so I get three monthly deposits into my checking account, and I'm never more than a week or two from my next "paycheck." The company tends to grow, and so do the dividends. I don't care if the stock goes up or down if it stays strong and continues its dividend. I don't need growth, I need income. My portfolio used to be mostly growth stocks, but I got lucky with a few other investments, so now I have figured out my needs and put enough into high-dividend stocks that I'm covered.
Could I do better by buying different stocks and selling some each month? Probably, but that would require a lot more involvement.
On a separate note, many dividends are reinvested through DRIP programs, which are supposed to increase the bond between the investor and the company. Companies reward shareholders for their faith in them, and the shareholders invest more in the company
Looked up FEPI and here's some info,Quote: billryanFEPI seems to be the flavor of the month. It's a $50 stock that pays out over a dollar monthly in dividends, representing a yearly return of about 20%. It's not the most efficient of ETFs, but 20% dividends can hide a lot of warts.
Some buy stocks for growth, and some buy when they see value. At this stage, I buy stocks for income. Cutting expenses and raising income makes for a sweet retirement.
link to original post
The top 5 holdings in the portfolio of REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF. [FEPI]
Name......................................Weight
Salesforce Inc ORD...............7.29%
Tesla Inc ORD.........................6.98%
Palo Alto Networks Inc ORD 6.97%
Adobe Inc ORD.......................6.93%
Amazon.com Inc ORD............6.91%
you can see that adds up quickly to about 35% .... this is unusually heavy for top 5
electronic tech generally is 46% approx. weight
make your own assessment as to risk. It's stayed pretty flat in valuation, down 0.58% since inception in late 2023
It's not clear to me how it's paying such good dividends, which is shown to be about 22% annually
I don't know what ORD means. Somewhere in the fine print of my source it may say not to share this, so don't get used to it
If you put $50,000 into a 4% CD and 50,000 into FEPI, you now have 100K in a relatively moderate blend that returns north of 10%.
I don't pretend to understand it. I'm just milking it for all I can.
Know the risks and know your tolerance before investing in something like that.
i'm now close enough to 60% stock, 40% bonds that i probably don't need to re-balance till i collect social security.
(at which point will switch to 40% stock, 60% bonds)
Quote: 100xOddsswitched my vanguard dividend etf for their admiral shares total bond fund.
i'm now close enough to 60% stock, 40% bonds that i probably don't need to re-balance till i collect social security.
(at which point will switch to 40% stock, 60% bonds)
link to original post
I don’t know your age, family status, job and salary, savings total, etc…. so can’t comment on you specifically. But I do have this advice …..
I count my pension and (soon) social security like they are bonds. Here’s how I figure it…. Let’s say I make $100k a year from pension + social security. And interest rates would allow me a safe 5%. So I count my pension + social security as equivalent to $2 million in bonds. So if I have $1 million in real bonds, and $3 million in stocks, I think of my portfolio as 50-50, not 25-75.
I like the concept.
Quote: TomGNow that no-fee trades have been around for at least a decade, any rational shareholder should be completely indifferent to dividends. If a company doesn't pay dividends on their corporate profits, that means the money is being used in a way ownership thinks will increase the value of the company. Any shareholder that wants to earn income off their investment can simply sell however many shares they want to end up in exactly the same place as if did pay a dividend. Some people would say it's a good thing that so many participants in financial markets are not ration.
link to original post
Not so much.
The first part is taxes. Dividends are double taxed, at the corporate level then you pay tax again when you get your own income that was taxed at the corporate level. Average Joe either is unaware of this or says "so what?" Institutions, OTOH, do care. Or large shareholder founders. Why did MSFT not pay anything for years? Because Bill Gates after paying 35% tax at the corporate level would pay another 35% at the personal level. This does not even include state and local taxes. Better to hoard the cash and hope for better tax law later.
To say "any shareholder that wants income can sell their shares" is kind of silly. Kind of like saying you own a small restaurant and if you want to take profit out you can just sell a minority interest. People buy income stocks for INCOME. You try to live off that income, without touching the investment. That is real living!
From the corporate side, a dividend is another thing you have to pay, or else. Slow quarter? Where's my dividend?! You had a fire? Where's my dividend? World War III broke out in the Middle East? Where's my dividend??!! They declare no dividend? Stock will tank. Management will get replaced. So you tell the public you are sitting on the money for building the business.
Of course, sometimes you get way more money than you can effectively use. This leads to waste, a couple examples being lavish management waste at RJR-Nabisco in the 80s or Chrysler buying Lamborghini in the same period. Both companies eventually had their own disasters.
The best thing is a modest dividend for companies with predictable earnings along with companies buying back their own shares. The later has a bad reputation though I cannot see why. But either is a good thing.
Quote: TomGNow that no-fee trades have been around for at least a decade, any rational shareholder should be completely indifferent to dividends. If a company doesn't pay dividends on their corporate profits, that means the money is being used in a way ownership thinks will increase the value of the company. Any shareholder that wants to earn income off their investment can simply sell however many shares they want to end up in exactly the same place as if did pay a dividend. Some people would say it's a good thing that so many participants in financial markets are not ration.
I agree 100% with Tom
the only concerns a person should have in choosing an investment is the estimated total return and that the level of risk of the investment is acceptable to the investor
assuming that the level of risk is the same why would anyone choose a dividend paying stock or fund over one that pays no dividends or smaller dividends if it is likely to have a lesser total return_________?
answer - there is no good reason to do this - anyone can simply sell whatever amount they want at a zero or very low cost at whatever time they want to accomplish the same thing as a stock or fund paying more dividends - which is to move the funds somewhere else for some reason whatever it may be
.
Quote: lilredrooster
assuming that the level of risk is the same why would anyone choose a dividend paying stock or fund over one that pays no dividends or smaller dividends if it is likely to have a lesser total return_________?
Because their concern is a more steady total return. Because they do not want to sell off their stock, they want something that pays regular without touching the principal.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: lilredrooster
assuming that the level of risk is the same why would anyone choose a dividend paying stock or fund over one that pays no dividends or smaller dividends if it is likely to have a lesser total return_________?
Because their concern is a more steady total return. Because they do not want to sell off their stock, they want something that pays regular without touching the principal.
link to original post
I don't agree at all
the principal of someone who owns stock that pays a high dividend is going to increase or decrease greatly depending on the performance of the stock
and of course there is this - from the link:
"After the ex-dividend date, the share price of a stock usually drops by the amount of the dividend."
they use the word "usually" because due to the normal price fluctuation of the stock this may not be obvious
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/091015/how-dividends-affect-stock-prices.asp
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: lilredrooster
assuming that the level of risk is the same why would anyone choose a dividend paying stock or fund over one that pays no dividends or smaller dividends if it is likely to have a lesser total return_________?
Because their concern is a more steady total return. Because they do not want to sell off their stock, they want something that pays regular without touching the principal.
link to original post
I don't agree at all
the principal of someone who owns stock that pays a high dividend is going to increase or decrease greatly depending on the performance of the stock
and of course there is this - from the link:
"After the ex-dividend date, the share price of a stock usually drops by the amount of the dividend."
they use the word "usually" because due to the normal price fluctuation of the stock this may not be obvious
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/091015/how-dividends-affect-stock-prices.asp
.
link to original post
You do not understand investing for income.
First, your way, you sell off part of your investment each month. Lets say you need $5 per year. You buy 100 shares of stock at $1 per share. At the end of the year you have to sell 5 shares to get your $5. Dividend you still have the 100 shares. Next time you have to sell another 5 shares. After 20 periods you have sold off your investment. If there was a dividend you would still have that $5 coming in.
Yes, the share price should be growing. But it may not be. If you want your investment to just grow you can reinvest the dividends, easy to do. I am in a utility fund for years now. I have 10% more shares AND the price is up about 60% over that time. Best of both worlds.
Dividends have gotten less a thing after the 70s as people think GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH. That's nice when you have time, but when you need steady income stream it does not work as well.
Now if we stopped taxing dividends we would really have something, namely more stocks paying them.
and then there is this to consider - from the link:
" A company can decrease, increase, or eliminate all dividend payments at any time.
A company may cut or eliminate dividends when the economy is experiencing a downturn. Suppose a dividend-paying company is not earning enough; it may look to decrease or eliminate dividends because of the fall in sales and revenues. For example, if Company HIJ experiences a fall in profits due to a recession the next year, it may look to cut a portion of its dividends to reduce costs.
Another example would be if a company is paying too much in dividends. A company can gauge whether it is paying too much of its earnings to shareholders by using the payout ratio. For example, suppose company HIJ has a DPS of 50 cents per share and its earnings per share (EPS) is 45 cents per share. The payout ratio is 1.11% = (50/45); this figure shows that HIJ is paying out more to its shareholders than the amount it is earning. The company will look to cut or eliminate dividends because it should not be paying out more than it is earning."
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/091015/how-dividends-affect-stock-prices.asp#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20company%20HIJ%20has,dividend%20payments%20at%20any%20time.
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: TomGNow that no-fee trades have been around for at least a decade, any rational shareholder should be completely indifferent to dividends. If a company doesn't pay dividends on their corporate profits, that means the money is being used in a way ownership thinks will increase the value of the company. Any shareholder that wants to earn income off their investment can simply sell however many shares they want to end up in exactly the same place as if did pay a dividend. Some people would say it's a good thing that so many participants in financial markets are not ration.
I agree 100% with Tom
the only concerns a person should have in choosing an investment is the estimated total return and that the level of risk of the investment is acceptable to the investor
assuming that the level of risk is the same why would anyone choose a dividend paying stock or fund over one that pays no dividends or smaller dividends if it is likely to have a lesser total return_________?
answer - there is no good reason to do this - anyone can simply sell whatever amount they want at a zero or very low cost at whatever time they want to accomplish the same thing as a stock or fund paying more dividends - which is to move the funds somewhere else for some reason whatever it may be
.
link to original post
Selling stock monthly for income means trying to time when to sell; it involves taxes and lowers the next month's income.
Collecting dividends is like collecting a paycheck.
If you buy an annuity for $100,000, you get about $730 a month income, but your $100,000 is gone.
$100,000 in JP Morgans ETFs gives you $850 a month income and you have access to the money.
Buying $100,000 worth of ZZZZZ and selling $800 worth every month doesn't make sense to me, but there is no one best way for everyone.
I don't need the stock to go up; it just needs to keep doing what it is doing and give the investors what they signed on for.
If you don't need the monthly income, avoid them. If you think selling stock every month works better, go for it. Last year, my income portfolio was paying under four percent and is now paying almost ten, more than doubling my monthly income without trying to time when to sell my monthly shares.
Another way of looking at it is I used to need twenty percent of my portfolio to cover my monthly nut, now I can do it with ten. What's not to love?
Quote: lilredrooster.
and then there is this to consider - from the link:
" A company can decrease, increase, or eliminate all dividend payments at any time.
A company may cut or eliminate dividends when the economy is experiencing a downturn. Suppose a dividend-paying company is not earning enough; it may look to decrease or eliminate dividends because of the fall in sales and revenues. For example, if Company HIJ experiences a fall in profits due to a recession the next year, it may look to cut a portion of its dividends to reduce costs.
Another example would be if a company is paying too much in dividends. A company can gauge whether it is paying too much of its earnings to shareholders by using the payout ratio. For example, suppose company HIJ has a DPS of 50 cents per share and its earnings per share (EPS) is 45 cents per share. The payout ratio is 1.11% = (50/45); this figure shows that HIJ is paying out more to its shareholders than the amount it is earning. The company will look to cut or eliminate dividends because it should not be paying out more than it is earning."
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/091015/how-dividends-affect-stock-prices.asp#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20company%20HIJ%20has,dividend%20payments%20at%20any%20time.
.
link to original post
I have no long-term contract with the stocks. If they cut the dividend, they know they risk losing investors. Dividends aren't guaranteed, but quality companies rarely cut or even reduce them. JEPQ paid out 56 cents a share this month, up from 48 cents last month but down from .61 cents ten months ago. I was expecting less, so it was a nice surprise. Another ETF went from .33 to .28 to .41 in the last few months so I work on a base.
Quote: AZDuffmanFirst, your way, you sell off part of your investment each month. Lets say you need $5 per year. You buy 100 shares of stock at $1 per share. At the end of the year you have to sell 5 shares to get your $5. Dividend you still have the 100 shares. Next time you have to sell another 5 shares. After 20 periods you have sold off your investment. If there was a dividend you would still have that $5 coming in.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of an irrational investment: buying shares of stock that you are certain have no chance of increasing in value.
If I instead buy 100 shares of stock at $1 per share that increase in value, I have to sell fewer than five shares to get my needed $5. If it goes up 5% or more every year, after 20 periods my shares are worth more than I paid and I got my $5 per year. It works very well as a steady income stream
Quote: AZDuffmanYes, the share price should be growing. But it may not be.
Which is exactly the same as dividends. They *should* be growing. But they may not be. Thinking risk only applies to share price, but not dividend payouts is irrational.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you want your investment to just grow you can reinvest the dividends, easy to do.
Exactly. Dividends can be reinvested to grow the investment, just as shares can be sold for income. Avoiding one of those, because you think only the other one is easy is irrational.
Quote: AZDuffmanI am in a utility fund for years now. I have 10% more shares AND the price is up about 60% over that time. Best of both worlds.
To not consider that a one world total return of 76% is irrational. Avoiding an alternative investment with a higher return simply because it didn't pay dividends leaves the investor worse off.
Quote: billryanSelling stock monthly for income means trying to time when to sell
No it doesn't it. It means selling whenever I want income, if anything that gives me more flexibility than having to wait until the dividend date.
Quote: billryanit involves taxes and lowers the next month's income.
For most people the taxes from dividends are the same as selling shares of a stock. For those with a different tax situation, then it might make sense to favor one over the other.
Quote: billryanCollecting dividends is like collecting a paycheck.
If you buy an annuity for $100,000, you get about $730 a month income, but your $100,000 is gone.
$100,000 in JP Morgans ETFs gives you $850 a month income and you have access to the money.
Buying $100,000 worth of ZZZZZ and selling $800 worth every month doesn't make sense to me, but there is no one best way for everyone.
If the share price of quad Z goes up by more than the dividend + increase in share price of the ETF, it will mean a bigger paycheck for you next year if you want it.
Quote: TomGQuote: AZDuffmanFirst, your way, you sell off part of your investment each month. Lets say you need $5 per year. You buy 100 shares of stock at $1 per share. At the end of the year you have to sell 5 shares to get your $5. Dividend you still have the 100 shares. Next time you have to sell another 5 shares. After 20 periods you have sold off your investment. If there was a dividend you would still have that $5 coming in.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of an irrational investment: buying shares of stock that you are certain have no chance of increasing in value.
No. thank me for using a simple example. This is an informal forum, not Mark Baum's hedge fund.
Quote:If I instead buy 100 shares of stock at $1 per share that increase in value, I have to sell fewer than five shares to get my needed $5. If it goes up 5% or more every year, after 20 periods my shares are worth more than I paid and I got my $5 per year. It works very well as a steady income stream
And if it goes down the more shares you have to sell. And you still eventually sell off all of your shares. But if you get a stock with a great dividend history even if the stock is down you still get your income.
What you are talking about is swing trading, not income investing.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd if it goes down the more shares you have to sell. And you still eventually sell off all of your shares. But if you get a stock with a great dividend history even if the stock is down you still get your income.
Which is why putting 100% of assets into a single investment is also irrational. If needed income is 5% of my investments, I would have no problem earning that much with virtually no risk of ruin while being completely indifferent to dividends.
Quote: TomGQuote: AZDuffmanAnd if it goes down the more shares you have to sell. And you still eventually sell off all of your shares. But if you get a stock with a great dividend history even if the stock is down you still get your income.
Which is why putting 100% of assets into a single investment is also irrational. If needed income is 5% of my investments, I would have no problem earning that much with virtually no risk of ruin while being completely indifferent to dividends.
link to original post
Who suggested putting 100% of your investments into a single investment?
Quote: TomGIf it isn't 100% of assets, then your hypothetical about needing to sell shares is meaningless. In that scenario, I need $5 of income. But I can get that through many other means. I can sell them for income, but I don't have to sell these shares as you originally said.
link to original post
It is not meaningless at all. You have to sell that 5% whether it is one of many stocks or all of your investment. You still have to sell off your principal.
Bottom line is selling shares off each year is not income investing. Those who say it is the same do not understand income investing.
qqqi = 14% dividends and tries to track nasdaq 100
spyi = 12% dividends and tried to track the s&p 500
so you basically get the nasdaq/sp500 returns plus at least 12% dividends on top of that.
free lunch?
or is there a major downside?
Quote: 100xOddstiktok video:
qqqi = 14% dividends and tries to track nasdaq 100
spyi = 12% dividends and tried to track the s&p 500
so you basically get the nasdaq/sp500 returns plus at least 12% dividends on top of that.
free lunch?
or is there a major downside?
link to original post
Yes, there is a downside. QQQI is like QYLD, buys stocks then writes calls against them. You risk "slippage" when socks go down and you have to write next month's call at a lower level. The dividends they pay are the theta decay they are getting from writing covered calls.
Quote: TomGIf I bought shares across the entire financial markets and spent 20 years selling off whatever I needed to equal 5% of original principal, I would be better off than someone who bought shares that pay 5% dividends but didn't increase in value. Anyone who avoided investment options because they didn't pay dividends acted irrationally and is worse off because of it.
link to original post
For the fifth or more time, that depends on your investment objective. Markets can and do have down times. If you have to sell low over several years you are boned here.
QQQI started 2 Feb 2024: -0.88% all time
Nasdaq 100 since then: +7.46%
SPYI started 2 Sep 2022: +3.35 all time
S&P 500 in that time: +29.22%
Quote: AZDuffmanFor the fifth or more time, that depends on your investment objective. Markets can and do have down times. If you have to sell low over several years you are boned here.
Every investor has different objectives. As I stated originally, many investors are perfectly fine with irrational objectives, such as only focusing about the chance that market price going down and not dividend payouts going down; or maximizing dividend payouts at the expense of other returns. The very title of this thread is about the emotional appeal of dividends.
Quote: TomGIf I bought shares across the entire financial markets and spent 20 years selling off whatever I needed to equal 5% of original principal, I would be better off than someone who bought shares that pay 5% dividends but didn't increase in value. Anyone who avoided investment options because they didn't pay dividends acted irrationally and is worse off because of it.
link to original post
Dividend income is not treated the same as income from selling stock.
You are welcome to your opinions, and I hope that works out for you. I'll be waiting for you in the end zone.
How would you do it?
Quote: billryanWhich stocks would you buy now so they produce a steady ten percent income stream over the next year? I can confidently predict my minimum income for that period with 95%+ confidence. Set it and forget it.
How would you do it?
link to original post
Utility index funds. To get the 10% you need to reinvest and even then more like 6-8%. I asked about their utility fund for my IRA and the guy looks it up. Guy says, "WOW, why haven't we discussed this in our pre-shift meetings?"
I am in VPU and up about 70% over 8 or 9 years or so.
Quote: billryanWhich stocks would you buy now so they produce a steady ten percent income stream over the next year? I can confidently predict my minimum income for that period with 95%+ confidence. Set it and forget it.
How would you do it?
I'll be waiting for you in the end zone
I'm already in the end zone waiting for you - I'm a little older than you but not that much
don't need to make another dime of income - but I will continue investing to leave to charity when I pass
how did I get there_______?- well, you can be 100% sure it wasn't because I focused on dividends
.
I didn't get here by focusing on dividend stocks, but I did get here by paying attention to trends and trying to capture some of the momentum. Owning ETFs like JEPI isn't about owning the stocks within it. It's like owning a sportsbook. They book future bets on the stocks and collect the vig. The stocks themselves are not relevant. If they go uo, we make money; if they go down, we make money; if they stay flat we can make a lot of money.
Quote: TomGquick google search:
QQQI started 2 Feb 2024: -0.88% all time
Nasdaq 100 since then: +7.46%
SPYI started 2 Sep 2022: +3.35 all time
S&P 500 in that time: +29.22%
link to original post
With $100 invested in SPYi, you'd have received thirty percent of your initial investment back in cash, $30, and $103 in stock.
With $100 invested in an S&P fund, you'd have $129 in stock.
Which would you prefer?
Quote: 100xOddstiktok video:
qqqi = 14% dividends and tries to track nasdaq 100
spyi = 12% dividends and tried to track the s&p 500
so you basically get the nasdaq/sp500 returns plus at least 12% dividends on top of that.
free lunch?
or is there a major downside?
link to original post
Quote: billryanQuote: TomGquick google search:
QQQI started 2 Feb 2024: -0.88% all time
Nasdaq 100 since then: +7.46%
SPYI started 2 Sep 2022: +3.35 all time
S&P 500 in that time: +29.22%
link to original post
With $100 invested in SPYi, you'd have received thirty percent of your initial investment back in cash, $30, and $103 in stock.
With $100 invested in an S&P fund, you'd have $129 in stock.
Which would you prefer?
link to original post
hunh____________?
from yahoo finance -
SPYI - year to date total return - 12.46%_____________1 year total return - 14.06%
VFIAX - (Vanguard 500 Index fund) - year to date total return - 16.67%___________1 year total return - 22.10%
SPYI - annual total return for 2023 -18.13%__________VFIAX - annual total return for 2023 - 26.24%
and yes, the total return of SPYI shown by yahoo does include dividends as does the total return of VFIAX which also returns smallish dividends
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPYI/performance/
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VFIAX/performance/
some more about SPYI from the link:
"Essentially, SPYI owns the stocks in the S&P 500. It then generates monthly income for its holders through both the dividend payments from these stocks and by selling call options on the S&P 500 to generate additional income via the premiums from these options contracts.
While this generates a high level of monthly income, investors should also note that by utilizing this strategy, they are potentially sacrificing some level of upside from capital appreciation. If SPYI’s holding rises above the strike price for the covered call contracts it sells to generate this income, SPYI will forgo much of this additional upside.
You can see this dynamic in play by looking at the ETF’s results. For example, in 2023, SPYI generated a total return (which includes price appreciation and dividends) of 18.1% for the year. While this was a strong return, it underperformed the S&P 500’s return of 26.3% for the year."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/spyi-etf-paid-every-month-185527224.html#:~:text=Essentially%2C%20SPYI%20owns%20the%20stocks,premiums%20from%20these%20options%20contracts.
.
.
