Dividend club

vanguard utilities is a good one too. same with JNK high yield corporate bond

>CJREF
you do know that 18%+ dividends are not sustainable and likely are just ways for the directors to liquidate asset strip the company through the back door.

Jow Forums is filled with IG star glazed teenagers,young adults who want the hype lifestyle(lambos and bitches) but dont realize thats mostly just kids with rich parents who had generations of wealth building or people who are just larping going broke by renting cars and taking pics then spread out their pic uploads over the months.

Because people are retarded and easily fall for shills. Theyre not investors, theyre gamblers. It's funny because Warren Buffets way basically guarantees wealth, but they dont want to wait for it.

Instead theyll just spend all that time gambling and losing, and end up at the same point in time as a wage slave with no money, while they couldve honestly had hundreds of thousands if not millions.

You're absolutely correct.

Aware.

risky, but it's been good to me. dca for this stock is like $3.15

most of my portfolio is vanguard funds and blue chips.

I agree with this as well.

Buffet/Graham
the buffet approach is a meme.

Unless you dumped all your savings when AMZN was $1 a share and are now worth millions. the buffet approach is nonsense.

What people dont tell you is that buffett is a hedge fund disguised as an investor.
His approach involves, USING OTHER PEOPLES MONEY by managing and buying controlling stakes in cash flowing businesses, increasing efficiency to increase the share prices through EPS then he either sells or takes the dividends and buys more stocks.
The average person cant do that.

how many buffets are there?

so he does the same thing normie investors do, but on a much larger scale because he has a good financial track and people trust him with their money and doesn't seem to be going broke any time soon.

>nice meme

dca average a stock that could liquidate?
are you serious?, what do you think will happen if they have a dividend cut to reasonable level the share price will tank to like $1.
Ive seen it so many times.
In fact vulture investor invest specifically looking out for shit like that.
You would have been better learning how to use butterfly options on that stock

again how many buffets are there?
go look at the forbes list and tell me how many investor billionaires there are that dont own funds

listen if you want to invest to make 3 to 5million over your lifetime when your 65 and have no use for yourself at that age knock yourself out.
but buffett started a fund when he was younger and build it from there, the average investor isnt going to start a fund or knows how to use leverage in a way that he can get those level of returns.

also to be a a+ investor like buffett you have the live and breathe the companies you invest in and understand what a certain factors could increase or decrease their eps

It's true, you can get rich quick in crypto.

not anymore

crypto will rebound, but i think alot of shit projects just need to die off

I'm personally in it for the long haul so I go for growth over dividends.

I have around 40k in VTSAX

>VTSAX
div yield 1.88%
yikes.

>45 dollars from based Nextera Energy Partners

They've been good to me over the years.

my dividends were close to the dividend of the total US and international equities markets because I don't fixate on dividends over capital appreciation as it ultimately makes ZERO DIFFERENCE

dividends and capital gains are taxed differently so it does matter

30% municiple bonds

50% VTI

20% REIT

But look at that 10 year growth history nigga

in a taxable account yes
in that case "high dividends" are about as tax inefficient as you can possibly get
it's about as dumb of a strategy as """blue chip stocks"""

Different countries exist bro

That's why you go with index funds. The dividends are qualified and much more tax efficient

Stock index funds are one of the best investments for a taxable brokerage

yep, on top of that, index ETF's provide higher tax efficiency than mutual funds except Vanguard's, due to their patented dual structure where the mutual fund and ETF are the same
also if you decide on an international allocation, international stocks work well in taxable because you can take a tax credit on foreign income you couldn't if that was held in tax deferred

which country offers tax-free dividends and taxes unrealized capital gains?

>VTSAX
10 years ago it was 31 now its 66 dollars
rule of 72 thats like 7.2%~ compounding rate. Thats a tame rate of return i guess if you add the div its 9~% rate of return(if you drip)

Good info in here for noobs, go with any international allocation in taxable, any bonds/foreign bonds in tax advantaged. Always have a little fun on the side to get some skin in the game ala options or growth stocks

Who is Graham?

Graham Stephan?

What is your opinion on international/bond allocation? I'm personally fully invested in US equities and yet to be convinced otherwise. I have no interest in international markets (though I do realize the benefits of diversification over a multi-decade time-frame) and I personally don't believe in needing any bonds until ~10 years out of retirement

Benjamin Graham

At anytime you want even a small percentage to stabilize your portfolio while receiving dividends. Then later on when the market tanks like it has, you have bonds to sell and buy stocks. 90/10 and 100/0 are very similar so I'd either go 90/10 or 80/20

What do you mean by "stabilize your portfolio while receiving dividends"? I have my dividends automatically re-invested back into my index fund holding. What becomes unstable when I get dividends?

>Then later on when the market tanks like it has, you have bonds to sell and buy stocks
I suppose this makes sense, but can't I just use cash to buy more? I invest regularly (bi-weekly basis) so regardless of when the market is up/down I'm continuously buying stocks. I think 80/20 would be too conservative for me. I don't care about my investments going down. I don't need that money for a couple decades at the least. Is there really any benefit being 90/10 over 100/0?

No, the last 4-5 months has seen volatility and a tanking in the big 5 tech stocks which steer the market. Because VTI/VTSAX took a nosedive, you could sell bonds to buy more on the dips, but if all your portfolio is stocks, what are you selling to buy more? Stability means not your entire portfolio is on a downward slope at once

it means the portfolio is less volatile and risky over time
the idea is that for a small cost in annualized return the benefit outweighs it

how many people do better?
warren buffet and peter lynch?
that makes two

Attached: An-Efficient-Frontier.png (3606x2290, 318K)

You have to have money to begin with to make dividend income. Once I hit my lick, of course I will be a divvy cuck but until then I have to high risk gamble.

>Because VTI/VTSAX took a nosedive, you could sell bonds to buy more on the dips, but if all your portfolio is stocks, what are you selling to buy more?
I still don't understand how this is better than just buying more by using cash that I would be investing anyway. Like I said, because I invest regularly I will be buying those dips. I've been doing some good buying over the past couple months as prices have been falling. Why do I need bonds to sell? How does this help me?

>Stability means not your entire portfolio is on a downward slope at once
Right, but why do I care about this now? I'm not going to withdrawing any of my investments for many years. I can see the need for stability once you get closer to when you want to sell off some of your stocks for cash. You don't want your portfolio taking a 5% hit right as you're about to sell, but right now I don't see why it matters. This also means that when things are going up, I see less growth than if I was 100% in stocks. I'd rather capture as much growth as I can now while I don't need to touch any of the money

Yes, I understand that adding a percentage of bonds reduces risk and decreases volatility, but how does that benefit me when I don't plan on selling any of my holdings for multiple decades? I'd rather take advantage of the highest possible annual return for as long as possible, and then once I get closer (~10 years) to when I want to start selling, then I can shift to a more conservative allocation. I thought this was the best move?

I make a few hundred $ each quarter, it's not much but its pretty satisfying

Attached: dividends.png (1077x645, 33K)

There are periods in history where bonds have outperformed stocks. Listen if you're young you don't need them, but at a certain age its a good hedge and adds diversity to the portfolio as a different asset class. If your'e young, ignore this and go 100/0 stocks

Dividends are retarded. Enjoy getting raped by taxes.

>tfw british
>tfw £2000 tax free dividends
>tfw only 7.5% after that
>tfw if neet you can get £14000 tax free dividends

only ameriblubbers are cucked on dividends

There is no shortage of people with your way of thinking, that they have no need for bonds, that things are different this time, and that 100/0 is acceptable
I'm willing to bet most of them aren't old enough to have even experienced the last bear market

you will see the benefit when rebalancing on a strict schedule, and obviously you aren't going to keep a lot of cash around because your return is guaranteed to be negative after inflation, not so with bonds, that efficient frontier I posted would have worse returns if you tried to do the same thing with cash

About $20 a month now but I'm building it up. Comfy here I come.

Attached: ww1.jpg (546x558, 192K)

How many bonds should i have, mr bond

10 year treasury yield is currently 3.08%,
which means with 10k you are guaranteed(unless collapse happens) 30% return on your money with zero volatility.

the more it ticks up to say 3.75% or 4.25% (again not assuming a collapse) the more people will flood into bonds

I know but at this point i cannot reason with people who don't want to learn. I have treasuries myself

however many you feel comfortable with, which you'll only discover after the next market crash

i have no treasuries, personally i own LNG stocks and preferreds. Since in the event of a stock crash these will be safe.
and id just buy more durign the panic, since LNG isnt going anywhere for the forseeale future

Attached: (m=e-yaaGqaa)(mh=e7Kdh2yTcrcXAvAp)original_209867791.jpg (575x866, 54K)

$7 diverdents per month, woo yeah baby I can retire on this

No. Bond prices change too, dickface.
If yield goes up, people ditch the overvalued stock market. Learn basic economics.

you realize that german jews were over represented in the military, and in front line positions.

This. Finally someone taking sense. Buffet is a PE player and active investor. He generates lots of “deep value” with acquisition, LBO, takeover strategies and then makes those enterprises efficient. Many companies held under BH are actually private. Common man can’t do that.

What you can do though is to identify dividend-paying companies with durable moats at fair prices (or during a crash) and then reinvest them over at least 7-10 years. Instead of passive index, just pick 10 dividend bluchips with durable moats diversified accross appropriate sectors. If you can pick correctly, you will get low beta, high alpha, lower-than-index volatility and much higher income.

I can point to such a portfolio.

plz share

Use portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio#analysisResults to validate the portfolio results.

Portfolio 1 (pic related) is a model portfolio as described earlier. Portfolio 2 and 3 are for reference comparison.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 7.25.10 pm.png (917x387, 55K)

# 2

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 7.25.19 pm.png (902x203, 35K)

Nice trips. Now spit out your list.

Attached: 1538844800177.jpg (634x754, 115K)

#3

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 7.25.28 pm.png (905x414, 72K)

comparison.

Attached: portfolio-comp.png (1648x2187, 445K)

Incomes are shown for a 500K portfolio.

>just pick 10 dividend bluchips with durable moats diversified accross appropriate sectors. If you can pick correctly
>IF
like telling people to buy when prices are low, that's only useful advice if you have a time machine. even for people who think they can get enough diversification from hand picked stocks pick a minimum of 30, not 10. you're taking on a non insignificant amount of risk for no reason.
half of those companies didn't exist 50 years ago. why would you think that portfolio is going to stay relevant for the next 20?
now that's just manipulative. you're comparing a portfolio that's 10% bonds to two that are 70% and 40% bonds. let alone any attempt to compare apples to apples.

Attached: DiversificationMyth1.gif (543x253, 22K)

Not manipulative, it's just comparison various income portfolios. Bond % is of least concern. If you can find better income portfolio composition to compare that's fine.

I'm not dictating anything. All these 10 picks can be swapped with companies having similar characteristics. Just tabled a portfolio to make a weak case against blind index worship. That's all.

BTW, given the durability many of those companies many will be survive over 20-30 years. What matters is the forward durability of moats, not past. Sure that makes backtesting difficult.

Ausfag here enjoying my 100% franked dividends. The ATO unironically pays me a refund.

Changed the Bond % of Portfolio #2 to comparable terms. Deleted portfolio #3 for clarity.

Look at Sharpe and Sortino ratio for comparing risk-adjusted returns. Also alpha and beta.

Attached: portfolio-comp.png (1776x1469, 268K)

Annual returns. Ideally, I would like to backtest this via 70x and 90s, but some index funds being compared with were not available.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 8.20.47 pm.png (865x437, 34K)

>Bond % is of least concern
everything you said is bullshit but I can't get past this. you're essentially comparing your $500,000 portfolio to a $200,000 one, and then blaming the lack of performance to the passive approach. you could have made the same argument with a single equities ETF, so I can't even comprehend why you would so blatantly sabotage your own straw man.
are you so new to this you don't understand asset classes? are you a shill for one of those stocks? I seriously don't get what you're trying to do

holy crap, I'm just going to assume you're incredibly dumb for whoever else reads this thread. to be clear:
YOU CAN NOT USE BACK TESTING TO PICK STOCKS.

no shit you can beat an index with a back tested portfolio, "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results" is an investing mantra for a reason. you're tricking yourself with a method that's usually the domain of mutual fund shills; flipping through losers until you find a "winning combination" to show off. when in reality that method doesn't work better than chance. if you don't believe me then instead of testing from 2004-2018, try 1980-2004 and see if you come up with the same answers.

fuck, I should have just googled this shit and pasted it from the beginning:
investopedia.com/terms/b/backtesting.asp
>For backtesting to provide meaningful results, traders must develop their strategies and test them in good faith, avoiding bias as much as possible. That means the strategy should be developed without relying on the data used in backtesting. That’s harder than it seems. Traders generally build strategies based on historical data. They must be strict about testing with different data sets from those they train their models on. Otherwise, the backtest will produce glowing results that mean nothing.
>Similarly, traders must also avoid data dredging, in which they test a wide range of hypothetical strategies against the same set of data with will also produce successes that fail in real-time markets, because there are many invalid strategies that would beat the market over a specific time period by chance.
>One way to compensate for the tendency to data dredge or cherry pick is to use a strategy that succeeds in the relevant, or in-sample, time period and backtest it with data from a different, or out-of-sample, time period. If in-sample and out-of-sample backtests yield similar results, then they are likely generally valid.

Buffet made most of his money from insurance. From when it was a new industry to government enforced monopoly.