Investing Catechism

Quote from sprstpd:

Yes, you'd be poor having invested in them. What a joke! I can't stand it when companies make me money!
More...
I would have? If I had bought in 2005, I would be up $3, with a standard deviation of $10.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=CSCO&t=5y

Whooope. I'll try not to spend the $3 which after inflation is $1.50 all in one place.

If instead I had put it in WAG, I would have had a similar fate,

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=WAG&t=5y

but I would have pocketed $2.50 in dividends or even better PG

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=PG&t=5y

$8.50 in dividends with almost no volatility!!!!
 
And if you had invested in CSCO anytime before 1996, you would be up huge. You can play this stupid game if you want, but the fact is an investor can make money on a company regardless of whether or not it pays dividends. Should they? Debatable. Do they? Yes.
 
Quote from sprstpd:

And if you had invested in CSCO anytime before 1996, you would be up huge. You can play this stupid game if you want, but the fact is an investor can make money on a company regardless of whether or not it pays dividends. Should they? Debatable. Do they? Yes.
More...
And if I had invested in PG in 1891 reinvesting dividends, I would own the entire world. Or if I had invested in 95% of tech in late 2000 including CSCO, I would be devistated. At no point in time in WAG or PG history would I ever have these kinds of drawdowns, or standard deviation moves against me.

I am not suggesting tech is bad. I am suggesting companies that are mature enough and generate this kind of revenue like CSCO or MSFT, etc, to pay a dividend, tech or not tech, to start to SHOW ME THE BEEF.

The argument is, well, CSCO can do much better with the money by acquiring companies and growing the business, and blah blah. Yeah, well, pay me a dividend, and then buy those companies.
 
Quote from sprstpd:

And I am saying, it doesn't matter whether they pay the dividend or not.
More...
It matters to me? We are going around in circles. Read this thread in its entirerity.

Creating a synthetic dividend for those companies that don't pay a dividend is the only valid argument agaisnt what I am saying.
 
Quote from nitro:

It matters to me? We are going around in circles. Read this thread in its entirity.
More...

Yes, your argument still makes no sense. In theory it might be nice to think about. But in reality, everyday your theory is continually disproved in the open market.
 
Quote from sprstpd:

Yes, your argument still makes no sense. In theory it might be nice to think about. But in reality, everyday your theory is continually disproved in the open market.
More...
And I have disproven this as well, and is on of the triad of premises of the entire thread. Gains in the stock are funded by OTHER people, not by the company. That is a beauty contest, a ponzi scheme, made possible by endless BLIND 401K funding. Go back pre-401K and see how people invested then. I have already provided that chart as well.

As I said, the only valid argument proposed in this thread is, create a synthetic dividend by using options if the company doesn't do it itself. The thing is, I can do this on dividend paying stocks, and STILL beat the ones that don't.
 
What it comes down to is that there is no guarantee your proposed way of investing makes me anymore money than investing in companies that do not pay a dividend. So because this is true, your arguments, although fun to think about in theory, have no practical value and should be ignored.
 
Good grief !
Dividends are the transfer of your money inside the company to you outside the company.This transfers capital gains money into ordinary income money. Seldom is this a desirable action since taxes are higher.
If the company pays a dividend you are being screwed. It does give you easier income than selling a few shares , but costs you more in taxes.
Just a little common sense please.
 
Quote from sprstpd:

What it comes down to is that there is no guarantee your proposed way of investing makes me anymore money than investing in companies that do not pay a dividend. So because this is true, your arguments, although fun to think about in theory, have no practical value and should be ignored.
More...

So, your theory on companies that make you money without dividends should also be ignored? After all your ignoring the possibility of making money from dividends. After all both are theories. So let's ignore your theory to.

Companies that pay out dividends have a history of being less volatile. They produce a decent return for the investors as well. Their share prices also increase in a more natural uptrend .
If you want to play the game of buying and selling you have to pay a capital gains tax. If you make money through dividends you still have to pay the same tax. So what the hell are you getting on about?

Your freaking retarded no offense, your like every cow. MOO, MOO before they are turned into beef patties. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top