Comments on: Benefits of Dividends

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:58:03 +0000

The single greatest factor determing overall dividend return is the price you pay for the income paying security.

Pay too high a price, and you’ll be dead before your yield breaks 20%. S&P average dividend yield at the bottom of a bear market (let’s say 1982) was almost 6%. Appreciation from 1982 until 2000 was 1200% or 12x.

Even though yields had dropped to 1% in 2000, the average 1982 investor was still seeing a 12% yield on his money every year he held it.

Although you may think that dividend stocks are a no brainer, if you buy them at the wrong time you may not live long enough to see those 12% yields.

By: James

James — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:01:49 +0000

Why all the quivocating about dividends? Dividents are the single best indicator of a companies profitability. Theres no question about it, all things being equal divvy paying stocks are WAY better than non dividend paying stocks.

Best,

James

By: James

James — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:27:27 +0000

I can’t believe this even a debate. Dividents are way, way better. Hands down.

By: Suresh

Suresh — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:21:00 +0000

I have written favorably about Prof. Siegel in the past. But, I think investing in dividend-paying stocks should come with a qualification. If the choice during the post-1929 boom was between dividend-paying equities and non-equities, then clearly dividend-paying equities is the better choice. But, was it the only and/or best choice for that time period? It wasn’t the only choice as alternative investment vehicles included real estate and U.S. Treasury bonds, for example. So, was it then the best investment vehicle for the time period? Not compared to long term U.S. Treasury bonds, which increased in price during 1930s ironically as investors placed an emphasis on return of investment. over return on investment.

It would be convenient if there was a single investment vehicle that we could all mindlessly dump money into every year. But, I would suggest to you that there is nary a single investment vehicle that most of us can use over the long term because most of us will need to tap our investments within a time period shorter than the long term envisioned by academics. Unfortunately, that means that asset classes must be weighed against each other and weighed in view of the macroeconomic environment.

In The Future for Investors, Prof. Siegel may very well have recognized this, and hence mentioned approvingly of Michael O’Higgins Beating the Dow with Bonds, and suggests his own modifications, including one he calls the Core 10.

By: Tim MMF

Tim MMF — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:35:29 +0000

Good info, but dividends are good regardless of the market cycle. Great post, I like the historical info.

By: Inchoate Random Abstractions

Inchoate Random Abstractions — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:12:48 +0000

My financial planner had similar advice for me as well. So, although I own a couple of growth stocks, the bulk of my portfolio is invested in safe but boring companies that pay regular dividends.