Which dividend-paying stocks are you invested in?

Why would you come to an American anime message board for foreign financial advice? Surely your shithole country has their own anime message boards? Try there, Pajeet.

never thought of it like this before, Thanks!

The majority of Veeky Forums users (53%) are NOT American. So the advice you gave is irrelevant for the majority of people here.

You needn't call me "Pajeet", like you always do when someone reminds you the world =/= the USA. I recognised you right away, little fag.

Sorry Pajeet, but Veeky Forums is a U.S. site. Perhaps you overlooked the fact that we speak English here? Perhaps you forgot that we have an /intl/ board for you foreign dirteaters to let down your hair?

You can whine and cry about it all you want, but that won't change anything.

Have a good day m8.

Thanks. 'Preciate a non shitpost every once a while.

EVERYONE LISTEN

Dividend stocks are good investments!
DO NOT build up your portfolio of all dividend stocks. Not all dividend stocks can sustain a dividend and will likely cut the dividend or the dividend will run the company to the ground.
If a company cuts its dividend this could cause the stock to plunge.

Dividend stocks should be a part of EVERYONES portfolio but they should not be all of their portfolio.
EVERYONE should have some income from their portfolio.

I rather keep getting paid a dividend on a stock that im underwater on then to not get paid a dividend on a stock im underwater on.

Sounds like Ihaz copy pasta

>Sounds like Ihaz copy pasta
It came straight from the archive. You think I got time to type all that? No idea who posted it first, but he's got my respect.

>implying it's not iHaz himself, recycling his own stuff

He's completely transparent.

>2016
>not knowing Veeky Forums has an archive
back to alta vista, gramps

warosu.org/biz/thread/S1349984#p1351862

No.
He's a faggot.
He goes around Veeky Forums and spreads lies.

just get a job, work hard, save ur money, do ur research look at those chart things or whatever or read the news and paper or look at whats needed and just invest wisely and if u have faith and do it right ull get it OP u can get rich......

>2016
>thinks he is the only one that knows about Veeky Forums archive
>doesn't even know who iHaz is.

It's been posted by iHaz (several times) one year ago. Check it on the archive.

Were you underage back then?

He's certainly an obnoxious person, but not a liar (as far as we know).

BAE Systems
Royal Dutch Shell (B)
Lloyds Banking Group
Persimmon

A good mix. High dividends. Latter two quite UK focused but I believe in Britain.

Why Lloyds, among so many banks?

>le dividend meme
Enjoy being assraped by taxes.

i put all my spare change that cant go into my blue chips into NMM whenever its low.
oddly enough it turns out to be one of my best performers day after day , simply because i buy it at the right times. and its gonna pay for itself and bouy any losses i might have sustained elsewhere . its a pretty sick deal

>it has a bvp of 8 and trades around 1.20-1.50
any given time of day.
%69 percent div

its fun 2 dick around with if ur bored or geting antsy about the blue chips

>Enjoy being assraped by taxes.
dude, i've been saying EXACTLY that the entire thread. and all these faggots want to talk about is some tripfag. no wonder they're all poor. desu senpai.

Dividends get a lower tax rate than income.

Rich people move their money from income to dividends in order to pay less taxes.

Like me.

Stay poor, and stay pleb.

>Dividends get a lower tax rate than income.
you need to understand the difference between earned and passive income, moron. they're not even in the same category. if you think dividends are going to make up for the fact that you have a shitty job with low wages, you're gonna have bad time.

Read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#United_States

I keep more of my money because I invest in dividends rather than growth stocks when you include the WACC of the equity investment.

This trip is vehemently anti dividend for some reason, even though he's been given a dozen specific examples of when they're actually better.

Then he gets mad at specific examples and goes back to his general copy pasta and insults everyone, by saying they don't know what they're talking about.

Lather, rinse, repeat,

aren't you the king of the retards?

good goy
keep giving those shekels to uncle sam

Verizon VZ isnt going anywhere anytime soon I think. They pay 4%.

If I ever have $5m lump sum I could live off that comfortably I think.
Is that so much to ask?

Canadian so:
TD
RBC
NPI
CN

>doesn't even know the STCG rate is the same at the dividend rate, and that the LTCG rate is the same as the qualified dividend rate
>posts anyway
Veeky Forums, ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell

I just buy either
CEFL
MORL
DHY
DHF
WHLR
or
ORC
Every month on robinhood and reinvest the dividend in what ever dividend stocks are low. I don't care about taxes because im still making money.

Once you sell stock G isn't it essentially the same in this example? Stock D has actually put that $16.64 into my pocket whereas I would still need to sell stock G in order to realize my gains. You are basically saying that untaxed on-paper gains are better than taxed in-pocket gains. I realize that G will compound faster, and if they're taxed at the same rate G will eventually pull out ahead even then. However they can be subject to wildly different tax rates. If G is cashed out in this example at the 28% or 33% tax rate it is significantly behind.
Dividend stocks also still have a growth component that is ignored in this example.

My understanding is that the primary advantage of growth stocks is that you can cash out growth stocks when the tax burden is advantageous i.e. to offset losses in other areas or if your income is is lowered significantly due to job loss or retirement. For example it is entirely possible to cash out growth stocks up to whichever income bracket and then switch to a tax-exempt investment to avoid higher brackets.

I agree that they play an important role in financial planning but I'm not convinced they're actually a better option even outside of the exceptions that have been outlined.

Top kek. Check your biliar duct, kiddo.

Twitter, speculation about steve ballmer buying it, is generating its profit :D

Does it make any sense to put like 20 bucks a month into dividend stocks?

>Stock D has actually put that $16.64 into my pocket
Nothing is put in your pocket in the example because all dividends are reinvested. If you actually pocket your dividends and spend them, the difference between G and D grows even wider and even faster.
>untaxed on-paper gains are better than taxed in-pocket gains
Exactly. You can compound untaxed gains, but taxed gains are gone forever.
>If G is cashed out in this example at the 28% or 33% tax rate it is significantly behind.
Long-term capital gains aren't taxed at income rates. So unless there was some rewrite of the tax code, you never get into these kinds of tax rates.

Moreover, as you note, because you defer those gains until a time of your choosing, you can control (to a degree) the tax that you pay. In fact, its even possible to pay ZERO tax on your G gains, under some circumstances. That will never happen with D.
>I'm not convinced they're actually a better option even outside of the exceptions that have been outlined
Then give me a scenario where D is better than G that doesn't assume a re-write of the tax code.

Is there any evidence that:
>3. They think that dividend paying stocks are more stable or secure, which used to be the case historically, but not in current markets.

Dividend-paying stocks used to be the most rock-stable companies on the exchange. They were primarily the bluest of the bluechips, along with municipal utilities. These were companies that every knew: Coca Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Commonwealth Edison, Proctor & Gamble, etc. None of these stocks was going to lose you money.

Today, the list of highest-paying dividend stocks is filled with energy exploration limited partnerships, no-name investment trusts, and oil exploration companies. Names that you've never heard of before. And, these stocks are designed to FALL in value. They pay out large dividend rates but the stock price is calculated to go to zero in many cases. So you're getting in one hand and giving away in another. But people are stupid, and they don't know, don't care, or don't bother to understand the difference.

The most obvious is that a good number of D stocks will also grow in value outside of dividend reinvestment. Just as an example with the Ford stock I held onto it's had 300% gains while paying out a dividend. In fact, now that I look at it every position I've taken has at least doubled. I imagine this has to be pretty common because I'm no investment genius.

What can you reasonably expect out of a G type stock? Is it reasonable to expect it will beat the Boeing I bought at $20 a share in 1992?

>poor fag calling a millionaire a faggot

Kek kek

AAPL

>What are Dividend Aristocrats ETFs?

Explain this.

>The most obvious is that a good number of D stocks will also grow in value outside of dividend reinvestment.
Well sure, if you change the hypothetical to give D a combination growth and dividends that exceed G, then of course at some point D is going to be a better choice. That's pretty damn obvious, and largely irrelevant to the exercise.

Since you seem to be missing the entire point of the hypothetical, let me try restating the proposition: all other things being equal, a growth stock will outperform a dividend stock due to tax consequences.

>Protip: The "all other things being equal" is pretty important here.

Not to mention, its pretty easy to cherry-pick dividend stocks that have done well historically when you get to look back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Trust me, I can just as easily cherry-pick some growth stocks with numbers that would make your head pop off. But I'm not a psychic and neither are you, and I don't have a time machine and neither do you. So let's stick with things that will actually help us make money going forward, and not in fantasyland.

>Explain this.
Easy. There are always going to be some stocks that have a strong combination both growth and dividend yield. Similarly, there are stocks with outlier growth, and with outlier dividends.

The problem, as I explained to user above, is that you can't go back in time and pick only the winners. And while you can try to pick the winners going forward, research shows your gonna have bad time with that.

I also believe that dividend stocks have been over-inflated in recent years due to regular joe's investment flaws. As I already said above, people have flocked to dividend stocks in recent years, but for mostly the wrong reasons.

However, I honestly hope it isn't a bubble, because I have plenty of money in dividend stocks. They're in my tax-advantaged accounts where they belong, and they're an appropriate % of my portfolio (i.e., not a majority).

Capital growth usually comes from fast growing businesses - small and medium sized. These are riskier than dividend paying large multinational companies.

SMEs are more volatile and vulnerable to economic downturns. Their income often comes from the country they are based in. They are more likely to fail.

Dividends are more predictable than capital growth. They help to keep the share price stable. If the dividends are growing then the share price will also rise.

Diversifying into different equity types or just buying a balanced/managed fund is suitable for most people.

It's possible to make a lot of money with smaller companies but you need to spend a lot of time on research to pick out the good ones at a low price. You will always end up with winners and losers.

If the small company has good management and a strong track record together with IP that keeps it as a market leader then it's a good pick. Stay invested through the ups and downs and there is a good chance it will eventually be bought out by a bigger company at a premium.

The charts showing better returns from capital growth are often based on flawed data. They usually don't include the companies that failed and were delisted. The only smaller companies with a long enough track record to plot over 10 years are the winners.

In the UK, dividend income under £5k is tax free. There is a case for higher income taxpayers to aim for capital growth and use their £10k capital gains allowance. Above that, capital losses can be offset against gains.

My current strategy is value investing in multinational dividend paying companies when the market is down. Reinvesting divis.This takes less time spent researching and has been successful so far. My portfolio has gone up 15% since brexit.

So basically in order to beat the returns I've seen on all my picks I've got to invest in some random trash and hope it hits. Thanks for the brilliant insight.

They're cheap following panic selling after Brexit. Their balance sheets are good. UK focused but a little bit of post-Brexit nationalism and foreign facing stocks soaring with British facing stocks suffering, I thought it a good buy.

Tbh the FTSE 100 yields 4% and is like 10% HSBC and I have a lot in that index. Don't need more HSBC exposure. Other banks had less healthy looking profits and dividends

>we speak english here
>must be american
kek

+1 on Shell. Solid 4 to 6% dividend every year, in the past 5yrs. However due to low oil prices they may reduce dividend payouts. Q2-2016 dividends cost them quite a bit.

>the returns I've seen on all my picks
Yes, please tell us all about the amazing returns on your entirely real and not imaginary at all portfolio. Just like all the other roleplayers, we're always fascinated when people like you make unsubstantiated claims that we totally take at face value and believe without a shred of evidence.

It could be U.K. or Australian I suppose, but why are you being a faggot?

>Christopher Poole (born c. 1988)[1] is an American entrepreneur. He is best known for founding two web sites, Veeky Forums and Canvas. He started Veeky Forums pseudonymously, under the screen name moot (written entirely in lower case). In 2016 he began working for Google.

Don't know what to tell you bro. I picked a bunch of giant companies everyone has heard of and have reaped the rewards over the course of 25 years. You come along telling me I could improve my returns so I ask for more details and you basically tell me to take more risks by investing in memes and keks. Wow! Brilliant insight!

Started investing in January this year. R8 my stocks

After realising that I'm going to get raped by commissions I decided to invest in ETFs, I opened an ISA account (tax free up to a certain limit per year).

Next paycheque I'm going to invest in a growth stock, possibly iShares S&P 500 ETF

Recommending that you balance growth and dividend stocks, and that you employ tax-efficient strategies translates as "memes and keks" to you?

Know how I know you're 14? See above. Reported for underage.

Looks solid, good work m8.

Maybe look into some Corp Bond ETFs, and some funds focusing on uncorrelated assets like gilts or commodities next. And some non-UK equity indexes.That way you aren't all in on the FTSE100.

You've made a better start than I did, nicely done.

Long 500 shares of Valero (VLO) which yields around 5% and they are insulated for the oil market at large their profits depend on crack spreads look it up

this

>personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0029&FundIntExt=INT

Bought in at $2.25 and it's paid for iitself a few times over.

I really don't think they will. They haven't since WWII. They seem very unwilling to.

>Then give me a scenario where D is better than G that doesn't assume a re-write of the tax code.
I would argue that companies typically increase their dividend so a 10% dividend year 1, 11% dividend year 2, 12% dividend year 3, and so on is a realistic scenario (well, inasmuch as your original scenario is anyway) and it would yield a much different result after a few years.

Also, the market will inevitably take another massive shit. And when that happens, that sweet dividend just gets me more shares.

>not buying 20%+ paying leveraged mortgages

ITT:
We must continue to be cucks for the federal reserve

who is ihaz

POT.TO
just fertilizer my shit up bro

>POT.TO
when did you buy?

In Canada/Ontario
Those two levels of gov give out tax credits to offset dividend gains.
Plus of course you can just put it inside an TSFA

Here are some of my holdings

BNS
T
AQN

Overall I am up ~16% this year to date.
I try to stick to Canadian stocks since withholding tax kills like 25% of any incoming dividends.

A sanctimonious tripfag who has $14 million.

>I would argue that companies typically increase their dividend
Um, no. There are no companies that linearly increase their dividends year after year. There's not enough profit in the world to permit that. Please do some research before making silly claims.

>the market will inevitably take another massive shit. And when that happens, that sweet dividend just gets me more shares
History says the markets will experience down-swings. They tend to happen when something shocks the economy and adversely affects the businesses on the stock exchange. When those businesses experience hard times, the first thing they do is cut their dividends (smaller profits, smaller dividends). So your safety net is pretty much an illusion.

>In Canada/Ontario
I'm an American, and I'm giving advice based on the American tax system on an American anime message board. I understand that some of you are not American. Good for you. Seriously snowflake, aren't you special? Now go follow someone else's advice.

>fucking leafs

>$14 million
proove it

>American anime message board

You would think that the gov being owned by the rich would also have dividend tax credits since it would help them immensely.

>History says the markets will experience down-swings. They tend to happen when something shocks the economy and adversely affects the businesses on the stock exchange. When those businesses experience hard times, the first thing they do is cut their dividends (smaller profits, smaller dividends). So your safety net is pretty much an illusion.

We each have our own strategies and each believe in something else, can we just leave it at that ? I don't think we will ever come to an agreement here.
I believe in the power of a well diversified portfolio that resolves around dividends, you don't and that's ok since its your money.

>We each have our own strategies and each believe in something else, can we just leave it at that ? I don't think we will ever come to an agreement here.
You misunderstand me, tragically. I don't give a flying fuck what you do with your money. It's a jungle out there baby, and if you intentionally mismanage your money then you deserve your fate. I'll rest comfortably at night regardless.

But don't come here and start making false claims, citing illusory statistics, or pushing baldface lies. Let others make their own decisions based on the real facts. If they follow your advice, shame on them. But if you deceive them into making mistakes, then fuck you with a hot poker.

>There are no companies that linearly increase their dividends year after year.
>Please do some research
>the first thing they do is cut their dividends

>implying I'm the one that should do some research.

How do guys like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates live off their investments? Serious question, since apparently dividends are no good

>since apparently dividends are no good
If that's the conclusion you drew from the thread, I'd recommend you start at the top, work your way back down, and read slo-o-o-o-o-owly. Try to actually understand the points being made. Feel free to skip the shitposts to save time.

wait for the market to dip and buy $VV

Yeah. I wonder what bullshit he's going to make up after clicking on the link below:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S&P_500_Dividend_Aristocrats

And these are just American companies.

>define linear

>let's play with words for better damage control

It's a direct quote from my post, retard.

>There are no companies that linearly increase their dividends year after year.

Now's a good time to buy safe dividend stocks. The US stock market is basically done for in terms of growth. Interest rates are at an all time low. Stock market is at an all time high. Cheap money equals fast life. The US is finished and this QE only covers the grave with pretty flowers.

You were the one spouting the "linear" fallacy indeed.

The rest of your rambling was wrong too, all stocks in the Dividend Aristocrats ETFs increased their dividends during the 2000 and 2008 bear markets.

And here's a graph for P&G dividend history (took the first company that came to mind).

>inb4 you go back to rants about taxes

I'm sorry that you don't understand the tax consequences of investing. It's a shortcoming that is going to adversely affect your results until you figure it out. Obviously you're not smart enough or have a sufficient attention span to appreciate the advice now. Maybe, hopefully, you'll pick this up down the road.

>what are the tax consequences of a Dividend Aristocrats ETF where all dividends are reinvested?
>what are the tax consequences of dividends for people who live in countries where dividends aren't taxed?
>why bother about the tax consequences when people do need the dividends to live?
>why do you post lies and misinformed claims ("hurrr no one can increase dividends year after year") before going full damage control?
>why are you currently the worst poster on Veeky Forums?

>what are the tax consequences of a Dividend Aristocrats ETF where all dividends are reinvested?
Dividends are taxed regardless of whether they are reinvested or not. You should know this.
>what are the tax consequences of dividends for people who live in countries where dividends aren't taxed?
Taxes are complex and specific to locality. I don't give non-U.S. tax advice. Bechaps you can find a non-U.S. anime picture board to answer your question.
>why bother about the tax consequences when people do need the dividends to live?
Don't assume your conclusion. No young, able-bodied person under the age of 60 needs dividends to live. Your job is for your income, not your stocks.
>why do you post lies and misinformed claims ("hurrr no one can increase dividends year after year") before going full damage control?
Everything I've said is 100% accurate and sourced. You're just being triggered, and on the edge of going full retard. Don't do that.
>why are you currently the worst poster on Veeky Forums?
And, you went and did it.

Relax newfag, you don't have to get angry just because you're slow. Try to learn one thing at a time, and add to your knowledge slowly over many years. That way you won't be such a tragic loser. Start with . Read it slo-o-o-o-o-o-wly. There's no timer. Try to understand each sentence before moving on to the next. Ask questions if you get stuck. It's not so bad if you work at it.

Can't believe you're still meme vending over here.

>your job is your income

lmao this fucking wagie trying to give advice

come back when you aren't a retarded slave

What's a "wagie"? Someone who trades their talents and time for hard, spendable cash? Sounds pretty smart to me.

But then again, your mom's basement is probably pretty chill too. Too bad you have to share the 'puter with the whole family.

bad news for u regarding to Allianz...stormy weather incoming

classic wagie cope