PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Discussion of the Stock portion of the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
shekels
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 am

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by shekels » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:10 am

Xan wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:15 am
Getting a return by selling requires a buyer. Agreed? That means that investors are passing around money and shares, but the sum total of all investors have not achieved more dollars until a dividend is paid. (Boglerdude might be right about buybacks, but I think that's a sneaky dividend.)

How is it possible for dollars to be created by exchanging shares with other investors?

You are not arguing in good faith if you are assuming your initial presumptions are correct, and then choosing to ignore anything that disagrees with them.
I hate to type so I will make this brief.
IMHO Dividends are received as a means to extract value or profit from a stock/company.
The other way to extract profit is by selling a stock at a higher price than was purchased, which is not always possible.
The difference I see is from profits from the gain of a company, and a profit from a stock of a company.
Both have a effect on share price.
Yes, stocks go up and down but what is the true real value of a stock? To me It is a Confidence game.
How confident are you in the management,practices,assets and the future of the company.
Take for instance ATT, If no dividend was paid what would the stock be worth with the debt load they have today?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:26 am

Xan has it right in this debate.

People confuse the idea that dividends are not a factor with the idea that dividends are a stock's only source of value to the investor. A stock is only valuable because it either pays a dividend now, or is engaging in plowback theory to presumably pay more dividends in the future. This doesn't invalidate the fact that dividends are simply a payment of your own property and are not a factor. There's no contradiction there.

I was confused on this issue myself a while back, and engaged in a PM discussion with the king of dividend irrelevance himself: Larry Swedroe.

It really boiled down to this exchange.
question.png
question.png (26.63 KiB) Viewed 5570 times
response.png
response.png (30.96 KiB) Viewed 5570 times
Make no mistake, a stock's only source of return and value is either the dividend being paid in the present, or the fact that its ability to distribute dividends in the future is increasing. Either way, the dividend is the source of the return. This should never be confused with the fact that dividends are not a factor. Totally separate issues.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:34 am

I disagree of course ,dividends are part of the total return and roi on your investment. Appreciation from growth of the company shares ,compounds returns on an investors money , the paying of a dividend is just taking some of that growth FROM THAT APPRECIATION and giving the investor the option of taking some out or he can stay as is like any stock that pays no dividend and reinvest the same dollars they handed him back in the same value he had before.

It all stems from growth of the share value or you have no roi at all despite getting that dividend ...shares grow in value for all the reasons above and that is why investors want those stocks like Berkshire or any of those 78 s&p stocks

Rebalancing share appreciation in a portfolio provides cash flow, what is important is the compounding on investor dollars , not how it is drawn off
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:47 am

I see what you are getting at, but again, I think you are taking the idea that dividends are not a factor a little too far.

The gold standard for firm valuation in every finance course, degree, program, and certification in the world is the dividend discount model.

There is just no getting around that fact. The dividend discount model is king.

A firm is only valuable based on its current distribution of dividends or its growing ability to distribute dividends in the future. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway, the firm is as valuable as it is not because of any current dividend (obviously), but because its ability to distribute dividends grows over time.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:01 pm

There are loads of mid caps and small caps that will never pay a dividend ever ...so in theory we can make up all the reasons we like for cause and effect

...the reality is that it is what it is and stocks grow and produce wealth for share holders never ever producing a dividend and shareholders produce cash flow from those stocks or sell and gain appreciation and make money ....and that’s the way it works
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:32 pm

Yes, and those stocks, when the market sees that they have diminishing prospects for ever paying a dividend, fall in price. So no conflict there.

It's not made up -- it's the dividend discount model. The gold standard for valuing stocks and firms. Again, this should not be conflated with the fact that dividends are not a factor.

And yes, stocks grow and produce wealth for shareholders without paying a dividend, but that is because their ability to distribute dividends in the future is growing.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:53 pm

Really ,the stocks go down because they never paid a dividend ...someone better tell Berkshire , google ,Facebook ,biogen ,Tesla ,amazon and if I had the time I would list over 70 more big names that have never paid a dividend nor intend to , that they need to go down for that reason......

I think that thinking stocks will go down who don’t pay dividends is a poor assumption....you can’t generalize about this , it is going to be an individual case
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:46 pm

You are misconstruing what I said.

If a stock doesn't pay a dividend, the market values the stock based on its ability and capacity to pay dividends in the future. This is why the dividend discount model works for all firms -- even ones that don't pay a dividend. This includes the companies you mentioned like Tesla and Facebook.

If the market judges that the prospect of future dividends has diminished or is in jeopardy, then all other things being equal, the price will go down.

The dividend discount model is a robust mathematical framework, and is taught in every finance class in the world for stock valuation. If the firm never makes a cash distribution, then the numerator in each term of the equation below would be zero. Then the firm value would come out to be zero. There must be either a dividend now, or the expectation of dividends in the future for stocks to have any value to investors.


iu.jpeg
iu.jpeg (35.07 KiB) Viewed 4780 times
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:06 pm

Markets trade on fear greed and perception of future GROWTH in the real world not formulas ....the markets and growth stocks speak for themselves as they create wealth for their shareholders dividends or not..in the real world a forced withdrawal by the company of my own invested dollars which is what that payout is does not make or break a stock.

It reminds me of when people are thrilled they are getting a tax refund like it’s found money.

dividends are simply a withdrawal forced upon you by the very company you’re invested in. If you’re truly investing with a long time horizon, chances are you don’t need the dividend distribution as income monthly, quarterly, or even annually. Even if you did, you could simply withdraw what and when you wanted as discussed above.
Instead, dividend distributions force you to withdraw money at regular intervals regardless of whether or not you want to. This can be particularly problematic if you are purposely trying to keep your taxable income low in a specific year.

Buffett says it best

Paying dividends may not always be the best option. In fact paying no dividend could even have a positive impact on the fortunes of companies like Coke. Buffett says, "If Coke had paid no dividends, and simply repurchased shares and developed the bottling system, the shareholders probably would have been even better off...And that's true for Gillette and Disney"


https://www.valueresearchonline.com/sto ... investors/
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by vnatale » Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:47 pm

mathjak107 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:06 pm
Markets trade on fear greed and perception of future GROWTH in the real world not formulas ....the markets and growth stocks speak for themselves as they create wealth for their shareholders dividends or not..in the real world a forced withdrawal by the company of my own invested dollars which is what that payout is does not make or break a stock.

It reminds me of when people are thrilled they are getting a tax refund like it’s found money.

dividends are simply a withdrawal forced upon you by the very company you’re invested in. If you’re truly investing with a long time horizon, chances are you don’t need the dividend distribution as income monthly, quarterly, or even annually. Even if you did, you could simply withdraw what and when you wanted as discussed above.
Instead, dividend distributions force you to withdraw money at regular intervals regardless of whether or not you want to. This can be particularly problematic if you are purposely trying to keep your taxable income low in a specific year.
This seems to be one of those debates - abortion, death penalty, slavery, gun ownership - wherein one firmly falls into one camp or the other.

I'm definitely with Mathjak in his camp.

Companies create perceived value. They can pay out some of this increased value along the way in the form of dividends. Or, it can retain it all and you get all its value either when the company ends or you sell your investment in it.

The problem with the dividends is that they are at the company's choosing and timing and they cause a taxable event for you and, a short-term one at that.

If you really desire the cash amounts that those dividends provided then you can create your own "dividends" by selling an equivalent amount of stock. You'll also have a taxable event but a) it will only be on the gain portion of that "dividend" and b) you can also time it so it is taxed at long-term rates.

We'll see if Mathjak agrees with another simple example of mine.

A private company goes public and has a $200 million valuation. You bought 1% of it, thereby investing $2 million.

For ten years its valuation is flat. You sell and get back your $2 million.

Now assume that the company had paid out 10% of its valuation in the form of dividends. So you were paid $200,000 ( along with everyone else).

Now again assume valuation is flat except it has to take into account the dividends that were paid out.

Therefore, the company is now valued at $180 million and you only get back $1.8 million. Add back those $200,000 in dividends and it is equivalent to the $2,000,000 no dividend scenario.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:53 pm

Buffett says that if you can retain the money and generate more than a dollars worth of value than dividends should not be paid out ..

The test
Should a company go in for dividend distribution? Buffett says, "The test on dividends is, 'can you create more than one dollar of value with the one you retain?'...If we do that, taxable or not, they are better off if we retain money. But when the time comes that we don't think we can use money effectively, we will pay it out.


To be honest when the time comes a company can’t grow the money I invested with them ,then perhaps it is time to find an investment that can
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by dualstow » Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:57 pm

mathjak107 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:53 pm

To be honest when the time comes a company can’t grow the money I invested with them ,then perhaps it is time to find an investment that can
Seems that many companies can do both. Apple is always plowing cash into its business but it has more cash than it knows what to do with, and has been paying a dividend for a few years now. Is it a stodgy, slow-growing company? Not yet.

Amazon was probably smart to put everything back into growing the company for so many years —and, funnily enough, it did not stop the share price from defying gravity (or logic) during that time, anyway. Now, they probably have enough warehouses, and I bet they will pay a dividend by 2025.

Berkshire hasn’t made any great deals lately, but I’ll always hold the stock. I have no idea what they’re going to do, but I sincerely wish they would start paying a dividend, today.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:27 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:47 pm

This seems to be one of those debates - abortion, death penalty, slavery, gun ownership - wherein one firmly falls into one camp or the other.
I think the real issue is that the debate in this case isn't even real. Mathjak and I are not debating. Just talking past each other.

I keep telling him that I agree that dividends are not a factor. Dividends are just payment of your own property. You can just create your own dividend by selling shares. Yet he keeps reiterating this point for some reason.

That's an entirely different topic from whether dividends are the key component in stock valuation à la the dividend discount model. They are. And every textbook used in every accredited finance class in the world says so.

Mathjak has since posted Buffett quotes that have actually supported my argument and not his.

The factor literature says that size, value, and market beta explain over 90% of the cross section of stock returns. Dividends are not a factor. Modigliani and Miller and their dividend irrelevance theorem shows that it doesn't matter how a firm is financed.

However, it is also true that dividends are the only reason why stocks are valuable to investors. The dividend discount model is a simple fact. If all the numerators in terms of the equation are zero (no dividends now and in the future), then the stock has no value. It's really that simple. There must be dividends now or the expectation they will be delivered in the future for the stock to have value.

Again, I'm simply pointing out that the dividend discount model is entirely different from the various Fama-French factor models and the M&M theory of dividend irrelevance. They are all equally valid and do not actually contradict, despite the fact that many seem to think that they do.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Xan » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:46 pm

Smithy is right that there is no conflict. I think we're largely in violent agreement here. Mathjak is arguing against a straw man with the whole "but it takes money out of the company" thing. Of course it does, that's the point.

I think in the bigger picture I could have been clearer about what my position is. I've expressed opinions on different things in this thread and I think that's been confusing.

One thing I said was that I generally like dividend stocks, because paying a dividend keeps companies humble and focused on the right things. That's entirely an opinion. And it's one that can be argued against by saying it generally makes more sense to keep the money in the company. That's fine. We can agree to disagree on that, no problem. Mine is just a not-strongly-held preference. Most of the arguments Mathjak has made here are against this position, which is not what the debate has been about.

Another thing I've said is that dividends are fundamental to stocks, and that poo-pooing them entirely is a wrongheaded approach. This is the point that I've been seriously arguing for. As my examples demonstrated, and Smithy's academic research agreed with, it is a stock's theoretical ability to pay a dividend which gives it any value. Its value may go up or down based on many things, but at their core, all those other things boil down to how much value the shareholders could theoretically one day get out of the stock in the form of a dividend.

This does not mean that I'm saying that stocks that pay dividends are better stocks to own. Or that stocks that pay dividends are better-run companies. It does mean that all companies, fundamentally, whether they ever actually pay a dividend or plan to pay a dividend in the future, are valued based on how much a theoretical dividend might one day be able to be paid out.

I believe this is largely because before dividends are paid out, investors AS A WHOLE are net zero. Yes, they have shares which are worth some amount of money, which amount may go up over time. But investors AS A WHOLE cannot turn those shares into that money. They can exchange those shares with each other, swapping different amounts of money. But only a dividend can actually make the investors AS A WHOLE positive in dollars for holding the stock. (Or a stock buyback, I suppose, which is basically a dividend.)

Mathjak will say "I've made lots of money buying and selling stocks with no dividend involved!" Yes. But you're up by exactly the amount that somebody else is down, in terms of actual realized dollars. So investors AS A WHOLE are still net zero.

This does not mean that more companies should pay dividends. It does not mean that you can't "make your own dividend" by selling shares. Mathjak is right about all those things, and nobody has been saying he isn't.

mathjak107 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:53 pm
Buffett says that if you can retain the money and generate more than a dollars worth of value than dividends should not be paid out ..

The test
Should a company go in for dividend distribution? Buffett says, "The test on dividends is, 'can you create more than one dollar of value with the one you retain?'...If we do that, taxable or not, they are better off if we retain money. But when the time comes that we don't think we can use money effectively, we will pay it out.
I think that's exactly the right way to look at it. If a company chooses not to pay dividends, it does so in order that when the time comes that it can pay out a bigger dividend. That time may "never" come. But all the value of the stock is based on what the size of the dividend may be in the future.

This is different from gold: gold is money, a store of value, a medium of exchange. Yes, it doesn't pay a dividend. We do hold it knowing that it's zero sum.

Stocks are different: the point of a business (and I think it's all too easy for us to forget that these are just businesses, often very big business with complicated financials) is to take in more money than it spends so that money can be distributed to stockholders. That is the one and only point of a business.

People might own the business for whatever reason, but fundamentally that reason, whatever it is, MUST boil down to at least the theoretical potential for a dividend.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:00 pm

Some really excellent points, Xan. I couldn't have said it better myself.

While we are on the topic of Buffett and dividends, it may be worth mentioning that in his 1992 shareholder letter, he advocated a particular method of stock valuation created by John Burr Williams in his book The Theory of Investment Value. (https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1992.html)
In The Theory of Investment Value, written over 50 years ago, John Burr Williams set forth the equation for value, which we
condense here: The value of any stock, bond or business today is determined by the cash inflows and outflows - discounted at an appropriate interest rate - that can be expected to occur during the remaining life of the asset. Note that the formula is the same for stocks as for bonds.

-Warren Buffett, 1992

That equation and modelling he's referring to? That's the dividend discount model! I happen to have a copy of the book myself.

ddm.png
ddm.png (561.84 KiB) Viewed 4701 times

Again, no dividends. No value. 8)
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by vnatale » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:40 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:00 pm
Some really excellent points, Xan. I couldn't have said it better myself.

While we are on the topic of Buffett and dividends, it may be worth mentioning that in his 1992 shareholder letter, he advocated a particular method of stock valuation created by John Burr Williams in his book The Theory of Investment Value. (https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1992.html)
In The Theory of Investment Value, written over 50 years ago, John Burr Williams set forth the equation for value, which we
condense here: The value of any stock, bond or business today is determined by the cash inflows and outflows - discounted at an appropriate interest rate - that can be expected to occur during the remaining life of the asset. Note that the formula is the same for stocks as for bonds.

-Warren Buffett, 1992

That equation and modelling he's referring to? That's the dividend discount model! I happen to have a copy of the book myself.


ddm.png


Again, no dividends. No value. 8)
Are we saying that Venture Capitalists are a special class of investors and that the formulas you have given us do not apply to them? I'm sure we'd all be in agreement that Venture Capitalists are not at all interested in dividends, invest in many companies knowing that the majority of them are going to give them a negative return, in the hopes of investing in a few that gives them a 10X return in a relatively short period of time?

I don't think anyone here will dispute what I just wrote above?

Then it comes down to how many investors at our level are "venture capital" type investors versus being "dividend" investors or even a combination - venture capital & dividend investors?

I'd then argue for those in the first category the formulas do not apply. They are not expecting nor desiring any dividends. They want to make an investment whether for a day, a week, a month, a year, or years that will give them a healthy return on their initial investment.

And, I don't think Harry Browne would call them investors. He'd probably label them as speculators? If so, what percentage of all investors fall into which category? "Investors" or "speculators".

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:52 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:40 pm

Are we saying that Venture Capitalists are a special class of investors and that the formulas you have given us do not apply to them? I'm sure we'd all be in agreement that Venture Capitalists are not at all interested in dividends, invest in many companies knowing that the majority of them are going to give them a negative return, in the hopes of investing in a few that gives them a 10X return in a relatively short period of time?

I don't think anyone here will dispute what I just wrote above?

Then it comes down to how many investors at our level are "venture capital" type investors versus being "dividend" investors or even a combination - venture capital & dividend investors?

I'd then argue for those in the first category the formulas do not apply. They are not expecting nor desiring any dividends. They want to make an investment whether for a day, a week, a month, a year, or years that will give them a healthy return on their initial investment.

And, I don't think Harry Browne would call them investors. He'd probably label them as speculators? If so, what percentage of all investors fall into which category? "Investors" or "speculators".

Vinny
Some compelling thoughts, Vinny. My take is that the same dividend discount model logic still applies to firms that are at the VC stage, and even the VC investors themselves.

A VC investor may not be interested in dividends. As you say, he may want to see a 10x increase in the capital value he has placed in his chosen firm and then cash out.

But what makes it so that the firm multiplies its value by 10x? Same as any other company: its ability to pay dividends in the future must have increased commensurately.

I don't think it's fundamentally any different from a publicly traded stock that doesn't pay a dividend. It's still valuable (and potentially increasing in value) because the of the expectation of future dividends.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Xan » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:04 pm

Also, don't forget that the VC has to find a buyer for the 10x appreciated stock. Why would a buyer think the stock is worth that much?

Remembering that somebody is on the other side of every trade is a big part of keeping all this straight, I think. Prices aren't just "what the stock is worth" in a vacuum: they're nothing other than what somebody else is willing to pay. Keeping this straight is what makes it clear that investors overall are net zero before dividends. And it makes it clear that the only reason a VC (or anybody) can sell stock at a gain is because somebody ELSE has high expectations of it.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:32 am

Remember , at the end of the day markets trade on greed ,fear and perception.... after the Great Depression there was a new mindset ...investors liked companies that returned investors money because it was perceived as a show of health for that company .

It said look at me , I have money I don’t even need , so here take some of your money back ..

So there was a perception that these companies were some how financially healthier ..of course in reality once a company paid a dividend it was suicide to try to stop , even with one foot in the blue chip grave yard ...many blue chips kept paying right up until they were buried .

So the crux is that a company doing well financially is perceived to have money they don’t need and while they could pay out that unneeded money they may choose not to .but their financial well being is judged by the fact they could if they wanted to .

So companies don’t actually have to pay out ever , they only need to demonstrate they could pay out .

It reminds me of us guys when we first became of clubbing age ...we were on the hunt for girls ....it was the thrill of the hunt that was the fun ...when we met someone and we knew we could score , that was the biggest thrill of the hunt ...we did not even have to actually have sex , but the mere fact we knew we could if we wanted to was 90% of the game .


So perception is a huge part of compounding our dollars , not whether those dollars actually ever need to be paid out , just the fact the company is doing well enough that they could pay out is all it takes ..
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:08 am

So now you agree that the potential for a dividend payout is the foundation of a stock's value? Do you also now agree that investors as a whole are net zero (or slightly negative) in dollars until a dividend is paid?

I certainly disagree that it's a matter of perception. And do you really believe that the idea of shareholders receiving profits from owning a company was invented after the Depression? That's a real laugher, isn't it?
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:54 am

Being able to afford to pay out a dividend vs what was said about a stock that does not pay a dividend will fall and is useless is a world of difference .

Of course I want a financially healthy company if I own a stock long term but whether they pay a dividend or not is irrelevant ..they just need to be in strong shape so they could if they ever wanted ..but either way I couldn’t care less if they did or not.

I can afford to buy a rolls at this point of my life ..but I never will ...that does not make me any poorer or make me worth less because I don’t flaunt my money or show the things it buys ....as long as the company is compounding my money and is financially healthy how I take draws from that company is irrelevant. Whether forced to take that draw via dividend or voluntary on my own is not something that matters except in tax planning ....if I don’t need the cash flow I want them to grow all my money.

If they can’t meet my expectations on all the money I invested then I may rethink that investment.

In the mean time all my money is in funds and etfs ....they all pay 2% or so in dividends or less ...all growth is really share appreciation as well as all the underlying asset growth is mostly share appreciation.most of the s& p is in the 1-2% dividend range.

Today the dividend portion of a stocks total return is at one of its lowest points because share appreciation has accounted for the biggest portion of roi to investors
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:28 am

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:54 am
Being able to afford to pay out a dividend vs what was said about a stock that does not pay a dividend will fall and is useless is a world of difference .
Is that what you've been arguing against? It's a figment of your imagination. I never said anything like that.

But it is true that the only way stocks give money to their investors as a whole is through dividends.
mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:54 am
If they can't meet my expectations on all the money I invested then I may rethink that investment.
But when you divest, the investment doesn't disappear. It just goes to someone else, zero-sum style.
mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:54 am
Today the dividend portion of a stocks total return is at one of its lowest points because share appreciation has accounted for the biggest portion of roi to investors
The overall, realized ROI to investors without dividends is zero.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:34 am

Again I have to disagree with everything you just posted .... so my growth funds that have near zero dividend yield which have appreciated tremendously over the years have near zero roi ?... does that even make sense .....my return on investment has nothing to do with taking a draw or not .

My roi is only dependent on the companies doing well , increasing their value ...they may have the ability to pay a dividend but
If they never do it is irrelevant my roi is my roi ...I make money when I sell based on share price because of market fear ,greed and perception of everything known about that company and its competitors.

A zero sum game is having a loser for every winner ... stocks are never a zero sum game ....we can all be winners ..you are mis-using a term .

And so we go round and round
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:45 am

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:34 am
Again I have to disagree with everything you just posted .... so my growth funds that have near zero dividend yield which have appreciated tremendously over the years have near zero roi ?... does that even make sense .....my return on investment has nothing to do with taking a draw or not .

My roi is only dependent on the companies doing well , increasing their value ...they may have the ability to pay a dividend but
If they never do it is irrelevant my roi is my roi ...

A zero sum game is having a loser for every winner ... stocks are never a zero sum game ....we can all be winners ..you are mis-using a term .

And so we go round and round
Do you think it might help if you made an effort to understand an idea that's new to you?

Yes, you may be up on an investment, but the dollars only came from another investor. The set of investors as a whole cannot realize an increase in dollars until there's a dividend. This should not be controversial. It's like you have a mental block when I say "as a whole".
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: PP vs Dividend Growth Investing

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:54 am

What Is A Zero-Sum Game

what exactly is a zero-sum game? Game theory was first introduced by John von Neumann in 1944 in his book, Theory of Games And Economic Behavior.

It takes into account various factors, including gains, losses, individual behaviors and more.

The classic definition of zero-sum game is when one person wins, the other person loses. For example, if you and I are playing poker and my hand is better than yours and I win, then you lose. I take the money in the pot.

In other words, the winner takes the money and the loser is left with nothing. Understand that a zero-sum game can happen between two people or hundreds or even millions of people. All that matters is there is a winner and loser.

Why Investing Is Not A Zero-Sum Game

Now that we know exactly what a zero-sum game is, how is investing not this? After all, when I sell a stock that I’ve lost money in, I am losing aren’t I? Not necessarily.

First off, it is important to know that part of zero-sum games is that it assumes all parties in the transaction have all of the information to make the best decision. When it comes to buying or selling stock, both parties don’t have all the same information. One might have more information or better information that leads them to believe a stock is worth buying or selling.

As a result, they make their informed decision based on what they know.

When it comes to the money aspect, just because someone is selling a stock it doesn’t mean they are losing money. They might have made a substantial gain and are looking to lock in this gain. Or they may decide there is another investment that better fits their needs.

In either case, both parties of the stock transaction can come out winners or even losers.

https://www.modestmoney.com/investing-n ... /40330/amp
Post Reply