Is ok to say that is what you maybe think Nitro, I know that is true. Big difference with male and female.
Investing Catechism
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Is like for example if I go to the office of the financial advisor, and he ask me to go to lunch, but he not talk too much about finance.
But if I have good questions, I can get good answers, true?
But if I have good questions, I can get good answers, true?
I am not sure why it is. I just know that it is true. I have seen it. A persons voice, their accent, their tone, how they ask, how knowledgeable they sound, etc...My point is that you want to remove as many of these intangibles as possible when getting information, since you are dealing with people and not machines.
Sometimes you want "color". The problem is that most of the time it is worthless and it will only confuse us in the long term.
BTW, this is only icing on the cake. If a company has a good dividend, has a history of raising it in a logical manner, it already says a great deal about the management and their relationship with their shareholders. For example, you don't bother with this on PG. This is more on newer companies that are starting to offer a dividend, and you want to dig deeper.
Ok, thank you Nitro. I understand I think. You are saying someone will only answer my questions to say what they think I want to hear or think I can understand.
Established companys like your example PG no homework to do. So you are talking about emerging companys and to see if they will grow.
Yeah, pretty good thread. Always remember, building wealth for the long run is an investors objective. So always allocate money towards longer term compounding strategies 
Quote from nitro:
Please explain something to me. Today as an example, AMZN is up 25% because earnings obliterated analyst estimates.
What I don't understand is, who cares from an investor point of view? Break it down for me: how does the fact that AMZN made all that money, relate into money in my own pocket as an investor? People will say, well, the company has more money, so it can acquire other companies which will lead to even more revenues, and it can buy more books, update it's computers, hire more programmers, etc etc etc. But how does any of that translate into money in my pocket if I am an investor in AMZN? Unless I share in that profit, why would I ever care? Is the value of the higher earnings only that I know you care because you are an idiot, so I will be an idiot with you and anticipate that you are going to buy the stock, and I buy the stock too, hoping to sell it to an even bigger idiot later? Is it all an illusion?
To me, the only thing that matters as an investor is the dividend because ultimately, unless I work for AMZN, it is the only tangible way I can profit from AMZN doing well. And yet, investors bid up the stock of AMZN as if it was money they were makingPeople say, dividends are double taxed, blah blah blah. That's why companies don't pay more dividends. Well, yeah, but it is real!
I must be missing something.
your not buying the dividend ur buy the company ur gaining a piece of a rather large pie... if the company earns well ur share will be worth more.. that why it matter simple enough.. but if your investing ... this question doesnt matter.. as your portfolio should be constantly rebalanced and use some sort of dynamic sector rotation.. because when stocks are a good buy bonds are not when bonds are stocks are not.. and essentially all u want to see is earnings and debt being payed down in relation to revenues.. that is all everything else is meaningless it doesnt matter how amzn performs at all.
This doesn't make sense. A zero coupon bond only has one cash flow--payment of par at maturity (hence it's name "Zero Coupon"). You buy it at a premium or discount. Don't know what you're talking about cash flow(s)....
BTW, I think this is what the original poster is alluding to. That there are no "coupons" (dividends). There is no cash flow. You are hoping for a payout in the future, or to sell it to someone else's hopes.
BTW, I think this is what the original poster is alluding to. That there are no "coupons" (dividends). There is no cash flow. You are hoping for a payout in the future, or to sell it to someone else's hopes.
Markets move higher on one law - the supply side knows there will always be some moron mutual fund(s) that comes in once or twice a month and spend your and mine retirement money on stocks and bonds mindlessly. The rest of the world is trying to position themselves to sell to these animals. If you ask these people that run the mutual funds where their own money is, it is in tangible assets like real estate, or gold, or oil, or a good dividend paying stock like PG, or perhaps in VC in discovering the _next_ AAPL or AMZN. Certainly not on some worthless piece of paper like AAPL or AMZN stock. I _love_ both of those companies products, but you couldn't get me to _invest_ in either stock in ten million years, or they pay me a decent dividend, whichever comes first.
It reminds me of lions gathering at a watering hole. Lions (supply side) know where to find easy food, and they arrive early for the best spot.
I would love to see mutual funds go the way of dinosaurs. Trading would become far more interesting.
It reminds me of lions gathering at a watering hole. Lions (supply side) know where to find easy food, and they arrive early for the best spot.
I would love to see mutual funds go the way of dinosaurs. Trading would become far more interesting.
In theory that's great. However, in practice it doesn't hold water. You cannot differentiate people who are playing the greater fool game from the ones who are buying a company based on rising earnings and the future ability of companies to pay out the dividends you so covet. You are just limiting your investment potential based on a personal view that doesn't jive with reality.