The No.1 Strategy For Retirement Income...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- 👉🏻 Looking for help with Financial Planning?
I am a Chartered Wealth Manager and Partner in a financial planning practice based in the UK. If you would like to find out more about working with us, please follow this link: go.novawm.com/...
Dividend Investing seems like it's a perfect strategy for retirees. High sustainable passive income, what's not to love!
But all is not as it seems...
Sources from this video:
The Dividend Disconnect
onlinelibrary....
A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model (Fama & French)
papers.ssrn.co...
The Decumulation Paradox
investmentsand...
DISCLAIMER:
This channel is for education purposes only and does not constitute financial advice - James is not responsible for investment actions taken by viewers. Please seek out a regulated advisor if you require assistance (whilst James is a financial adviser, he does not provide advice through this TH-cam Channel, which is not affiliated with his employer).
James Shack™ property of James Shackell
Copyright © James Shackell 2022. All rights reserved.
The author asserts their moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this channel and any video published on it.
Correction: For some brokers, not all, W8-BEN forms can reduce witholding taxes to 0% if the shares are held within a SIPP.
I had a feeling that if bought as part of an etf there in a Isa the tax was not as high?
@@ciaoatutti11111111 ISA's are 0% tax for all instruments...
@@radialb1894 I taught it was more conex since dividend generated in other countries could be subje to different country taxation.. I taught it was more an etf thing
Excellent, I did not know this. Thanks James!
Do I also need that form for dividend king etfs?
To manage investment risk, consider maintaining a broad diversification of your investments that reflects your personal risk tolerance, time horizon, and the nature of your financial goal. Remember, diversification is an approach to help manage investment risk. It does not eliminate the risk of loss if security prices decline. Because investing can be complicated, consider working with a financial professional to help guide you on your wealth-building journey.
Who would you endorse? I've been in the shadows for too long
@@carlosjohnson5457 My consultant is 'BRIDGET MARY TUROW", look her up online if you care for supervision.
The best thing that has happened in my life is working with BRIDGET MARY TUROW. I haven't just attained financial freedom, I have gained a lot of power in the knowledge I have acquired from her. She is highly recommended.
@@christinaryan9554 Thanks, I just googled her, and I'm really impressed with her credentials. I left a message for her and hope she replies to me soon.
Bridget Mary Turow changed my life for the best. I recommend her too.
Dividends do not make a lot of sense until you factor in one thing. What is the long term price of every stock? It is 0. Sooner or later the company will disappear. So getting some of your money back is a hedge. Also most good companies will continue to pay a dividend when times are bad. You do not want to sell your stocks when they are down. Picking good dividend stocks is not being lazy. It takes work and you need to stay on top of it.
James, first of all it's great that you take the time to answer so many of the comments on this video, so you should be applauded for that and some great content. What is also clear is the wide range of opinions on the subject which just shows that everyone's circumstances, experience and objectives vary greatly. There is no right answer - it just depends on the asking the right questions.
Your central premise is that reinvesting dividends and benefitting from compounded growth will lead generally to better overall returns than if dividends are taken and when buying a stock, you buy a quality company first and foremost based on fundamentals, with dividends being a secondary factor. After all, dividends can be cut or stopped, there may be insufficient dividend cover and there is usually a good reason why there's a high yield or low P/E (eg, it's a lower quality company or has less scope for growth) . And you are absolutely right in this respect to buy quality first and dividends second, if at all, and mathematically, reinvesting gives the best total returns. I think this is the message you were trying to convey but was perhaps misunderstood by some.
Taking dividends tends to be psychologically comforting - I watched another video shortly after yours by a US based CFA who was extolling the virtues of taking dividends so even the experts can't agree. So the decision comes down to one's personal view, experience and circumstances. Personally I like dividends from quality companies as it suits my investment, cashflow and tax planning where, outside my SIPP and ISA, I can offset the income actually received and taken against my personal tax allowances. I can also generate sufficient income to still allow my employment earnings to be invested into my SIPP and get tax relief on the contributions, I can create tax efficient income to generate excess income over expenditure, gift this to my kids, save 40% on IHT immediately in addition to some capital gifts ( I don't need to accrue more capital as I'm well into IHT already), they can reinvest into pensions and get tax relief on their contributions that they otherwise couldn't afford and I can also decide whether to spend any spare cash, reinvest or replenish my cash pot. And yes, I will sell at appropriate times to also use my CGT allowance, whatever that may be in the future.
If I was much younger, yes, I would reinvest my dividends to compound the growth. Share buybacks can help by reducing the shares in circulation and thus increasing the price, but one needs to understand why companies do this. Some CEOs are rewarded on increases in the share price, not profits or earnings, and often companies have leveraged their debt in times of low interest rates to buy back shares but place a huge burden on future profitability, especially when debt has to be renegotiated. Reinvested dividends are subject to bid / offer spreads and dealing charges as well as future gains and losses. A dividend received is cash in hand, not a number going up and down on a screen. It's definitely not straightforward as some like to think and one needs to do the right research before investing.
Diversification is also important. One commenter stated that he had been tracking the FTSE 100 index. If he invested in August 1999, the index was about the same as Oct 2022 (circa 6800) so only by reinvesting his dividends would he have been able to make money, otherwise his clever low cost strategy, investing in both good and bad companies alike ( however one defines this), would have been pretty abysmal and failed to keep pace with inflation - so for him dividends had to be reinvested and he was only saved by the rise in his one other investment, the S&P500 tracker. Not sure that the future will be quite so kind and further diversification may well be beneficial but that is for him to decide.
Do keep up the good work. This video has certainly promoted much debate, which is healthy as it means folk are thinking about investments and their financial strategy at a time when every penny counts.
Thank you for this interesting contribution! I'm focusing on Dividend Investing avoiding those dividend traps that looks so tempting in the market, like some builders companies for example.
For me Dividend investing means Expanding: within the 20k limit of ISA being able to generate extra money to buy more share, expand and diversify my portfolio is the keystone of my strategy at the moment
Really like your vids. As a cautious investor i love dividends, gives me peace of mind. Do not have to worry about sequence of returns, not fretting about Re balancing portfolio. Seems to compliment my final salary benefits.
Think you somewhat missed the point of the video!
I agree. James's thinking is sound but also it is never as transparent as that, there are rarely 2 businesses that are the same. Dividends for a growth phase is a good solid strategy, so using it to reinvest 100%. Also it is important to do 2 things - understand the business you are investing in and its growth prospects and secondly have a strategy. Just saying dividends doesnt work is simplistic and could be good advice but not always.
Great video as always, but gotta love those lazy dividends though😃. At retirement, in a few years time, my wife and I are planning on having a big part of our pensions in the iShares UK Dividend ETF (IUKD). Appreciate that we'd be able to better returns by not doing that but our outgoings are going to be low and the dividends will help us sleep at night, while the other part of our pension makes stonks in growth ETF's (hopefully🤣).
The biggest challenge you'll face as an investor is you. If you'd like to learn more about how our biases affect our investment decisions and how to overcome them give this video a watch: th-cam.com/video/EEpQqQhAU3U/w-d-xo.html
As the statisticians like to say "Correlation does not equal Causation". Dividends correlate with quality companies.
They do. And quality companies correlate with outperformance (or have done in the past!).
@@JamesShack Why not find the best companies, then get a subset of them that pay dividends that go up every year over time? In other words, find the fast cars first, then pick the red one after that?
@@SmashTheNumbers You'll end up with too concentrated a portfolio. Why limit yourself to red cars when there are lots of other cars that are just as fast.
I am sorry, but it seems to me, you ignore a few things and also some mindsets:
As a retired person, you are kind of a *short-term* investor, you *need* X$ per *year*.
Stock prices perform well *in the long term*. This is good for the wealth accumulation phase.
Dividends are more stable, especially so in certain companies ('aristocrats'). Low volatility=>short term plans.
Tradeoff: worse performance, as always with low volat. investments.
Also, stock prices are not rational in the short term, while dividend payment decisions result decision of the management and will not ruin the company - if it is a good company.
I see a crucial difference between the two strategies easiest understood via thinking of Monte Carlo simulations ie. modelling many (we hope) realistic alterntive scenarios. Lets take it to the extreme for easier understanding - total loss:
A dividend strategy will never kill the portfolio of well managed companies (unless total bankrupcy occurs), they may lower dividends during huge crisis.
However, a "sell X$ regularly " strategy *can* damage or destroy the portfolio value when a sufficiently bad/long bear market of stock prices occurs - even without the companies suffering greatly, as stock prices are not really linked to that on the short term.
Regarding buying red cars....
No, I do not want to buy companies *because of dividends* - I want to buy *good* companies, sometimes only dividend paying ones!
Indeed, the tradeoff for low volatility is lower performance and lower diversification (risk) - at least the latter may be offset if you have some free cash to buy non-dividend companies.
As a solid dividend investor, I believe that the dividends paid out by the company, allow me to decide as a shareholder where to invest the capital returned (dividends) in the best manner possible. Great companies have made bad mistakes, Colgate Lasagna or New Coke as past history examples.
AVGO is a great example of a company who pays a solid dividend and is growing over the past 10 years. Without dividends, retiring on the 4% rule does not hold up in a bear market as well as dividends.
The strategy that affords you the highest, most sustainable withdrawal rate is the one that gives you the best total return.
If you want to reallocate your capital, why wait for a dividend to be paid? Just sell shares and get to the right allocation exactly when you want to.
@@JamesShack Except using the 4% rule in a bear market is not sustainable. I do agree that most years are bull markets and non dividend investors would get better overall returns but it's impossible to predict when bear and bull markets happen.
@@glennshoemake4200 the 4% rule was developed because it WAS sustainable in even the worst market events.
Although I personally don’t think it’s very useful.
It's worth mentioning what price you pay for that dividend share that will make a difference to the yield. Also, the compounding of re investing over time. Dividend shares brought at a good price and re invested over time can produce growth and income. I retired recently as a dividend investor as well as growth mixed in. A lot of people have retired successfully with dividend paying companies when they buy at a good price.
@Craig yes that's what i was doing 👍
Out of interest how is your retirement portfolio positioned in percentage terms of income, factor(growth/value etc), and capital preservation (bonds/multi-asset) ?
@@boombustinvest around 65% income 25% growth 10% cash. No bonds. 👍
@@dubsdolby9437 looks like bonds have bottomed out... if they continue up will you rotate/allocate into some bonds?
The way I always thought about it is that you're missing out on 'compound interest'. If Company A pays you the dividend, then that 5% isn't reinvested to make another 10% the next year so your return in Year 2 is only £10.50, meanwhile Company B reinvests the money and makes you $11 in Year 2 and so on... obviously you can minimise this by reinvesting your dividends, but why not just leave them within the companies in the first place rather than have them paid out and then buy more shares with them.
The point of owning dividend companies is for cashflow. I think its a fundamental difference between people who realise cashflow is king vs people who just want to speculate in markets.
Dividend investing is one of my investment strategies in my ISA. My other one is in my pension mixed between Index & Mutual funds. With my dividend investing I have some REITs and property. Some in energy and so on. I seem to be making a nice return in dividends so far. :-)
TBF I think the biggest case study that has both the fors and againsts of your argument can be found in just one company. Berkshire Hathaway/ Warren Buffett.
Their investment holdings are heavily weighted to companies that pay a growing dividend and shareholder yield (granted also with focus on buybacks), majority of his picks over the years have a growing dividend and revolve around a longterm hold.
So much so that his Coca Cola now yields over 50% YOC purely from the dividend, he gets his initial investment back in under 2 years. Now KO wouldn't be a stock that you'd have highlighted, it's mature and little growth yet hugely valuable to Buffett due to the dividend? Same can be said for multitudes of his longterm holds over the years, even getting preferential higher dividend yields for his investment ( the banks in 08) so again tell me how dividends mean nothing?
BH is also an example of not paying a dividend and instead focusing purely on buybacks, growth and mergers and acquisitions along the way for shareholder yield, believing they offer greater value than paying you a dividend which again appears true.
So both arguments in a single company right there.
Also are you impacted by recency bias? A decade plus long bull run fueled purely by high growth tech companies. You've said dividends have had less impact since the 70s which is true but look at the low growth and multiple recessions in the 00's any gain at all was purely from dividend stocks as per your chart. Those dividends are often the only returns an investor gets in a sideways or bear market (as long as companies financials/debt load is healthy). But long bull runs in growth have possibly blinded us to this.
What use was holding high growth high valuation companies in 2000 many went bust and many are only now recovering to those values, if that's the case id feel more comfy being paid a dividend to wait.
yes, in theory 5% from a div or 5% from sales is the same on a day when mr market is placid. But it's very much not the same on a day when mr market decides to drop your stock by 10% in addition to your required sale.
@@bartz4439 who knows, but dividends are stickier than stock prices.
I'm just thrilled I got a question right
In the video you say that those in the poll who selected Company A are wrong. But in fact those who selected Company B are also wrong as the video sort of suggests.
As a retiree who needs/wants the $5 income from the $110, I'd much rather received the dividend than hope that the stock price didn't drop 20% due to god knows what just before I was going to sell.
Yea like many things out of our control like ohhh let’s say Putin decides to nuke Ukraine. I’m sure your stocks will plummet 40 percent at market open the next day but hey, if you have dividend payers, sure some will be cut but you’ll still be getting paid. Seems like James assumes we live in this perfect world.
If you actually wanted $5 of income, and the company just so happened to pay out $5 it would be a big coincidence. This will rarely ever happen.
A rational investor will prefer to control their own cashflows to support their income. Home grown dividends also give you control of tax, and ensure you don't take out more than you need.
Most people do not reinvest dividends, or they keep them there to accumulate for several month before re-investing.
It's almost like James times the video drop perfectly...I'm logging off for work at 17:00 and there it is!
Great video. I personally don't care for dividend stocks because where I live dividends are heavily taxed. And also because I don't want to deal with more forms to fill out in my tax return
I think one thing that is powerful about dividends is they can be reinvested. Which adds demand on the stock. (This might be bad if held in a taxable account, but really good in a Roth or equivalent)
Thank you for another great video James. I am always fascinated by the psychological aspects of investing that you point out. There's a chimp in my mirror for sure!
The problem with growth stocks is that we have no idea when to cash out. Look at how Tesla has lost value overnight.
I'm not suggesting you buy growth stocks. Just that you ignore dividends.
@@JamesShack so what are you saying. Buy shares with reasonable dividends 3-5%. So confused.
@@g0801215 He means you should not factor dividends into your stock buying and selling decisions at all. Instead, you should let other (better) indicators inform your decisions.
Growth stocks are for the long term you cash out when you target to cash out, you can never time the market, dividend stocks can grow and lose value but at a lesser degree because they are huge long standing firms but you get the sustainable dividend return, I would prefer growth stocks over dividend stocks unless you are like 60 plus
@g0801215
Buy a low cost broad market index and you don't have to pick individual stocks. You will outperform 85% of fund managers over 20 years.
It's been proven many times that dividend paying companies outperform non dividend paying companies in the long run. In a long downturn , say 5 years , the A option continues to give you 5% ( all being well ) even if the stock price goes down , whereas the B option becomes less and less valuable and if you need to sell shares for income you could eventually sell the total holding and run out of options. Company A then recovers in price giving you 5%. Company B is now worthless as you`ve sold the lot.
He covers this point at 11:00
This would be true is the market were to be perfect. Well, it isn't. What you have in the stock market is the price of a stock. What he talked about was about value. Rarely one equals the other. For example, on an ex-dividend date the price should be equal to the price from the previous day plus the dividend. Well, not always. Usually it's different.
It never will be exactly the same, because there are other factors that effect the price. But it is discounted.
Another example:
I currently own a stock worth $100 and if you buy this off me now, you'll get a $5 dividend in a few weeks time. If you buy the stock tomorrow you won't get the dividend, I will. Are you suggesting you'd still pay $100 for the stock tomorrow?
@@JamesShack in a perfect market I would have to pay 95$. In the real market I could pay 100, 95 or 105. It really depends on much other factors other than the dividend. In the short term, the stock market is a voting machine, in the long term is a weighting machine.
Hi James, Hargreaves Lansdown apply 0% tax rate on US dividends held in a SIPP. ISA will attract a 15% tax.
From their website:
"A W-8BEN form means we can claim a US tax reduction for you on your dividends and interest from US shares. Withholding tax rates can be reduced from 30% to 15%, or to 0% if your shares are held in a SIPP."
Thanks Paul. That is correct. I've pinned a comment with a correction.
How are HL able to do this for US stocks held within a SIPP?
@@milkman1991 there is no withholding tax on US dividends held in any sipp, not just HL. It is an agreement the U.K. and US have.
Unfortunately not. The platform needs to be large enough to be independently registered with the IRS to receive dividends gross. Otherwise it’s taxed 15%. HL, AJBell, interactive are all registered.
@@JamesShack good to know, thanks.
Hi James. Don’t disagree that people should focus on total returns however your chart showing the decreasing significance of the income portion of the total return pie could look very different in 10 years time.
Firstly we are at the end of 14 years of central bank constrained interest rates and minimal inflation which have worked in favour of a small number of US growth stocks. I’m sure you know that the FANGS alone have accounted for a hugely disproportionate percentage of gains in US equities.
Secondly if you go back and look at the 1970’s on your chart you will see that Diividends accounted for 40% of returns. The 2020’s are shaping up much like the 1970’s with higher inflation and rising interest rates traditionally much better for dividends than capital growth ( net of inflation) .
Finally. Many service sector companies ( eg Software) throw off more cash than they can effectively reinvest. If they don’t pay dividends they often resort to expensive acquisitions very few of which work out well for shareholders.
So whilst I agree with the central point re Total return the argument around dividends is far more nuanced than you suggest.
If you agree with investing for total return, why would you restrict yourself to dividend stocks?
@@JamesShack I wouldn’t and I don’t but I think it would be easy to get the impression from your chart that dividends are inevitably going to be an ever declining part of total returns whereas in fact conditions now have a distinctly seventies feel when dividends were a very significant component of total returns. I’m not arguing with your central point that people should look at total return just saying that I’m equally happy to have a five percent real return from dividends as from capital growth. In reality companies that grow dividends on a sustained basis are also growing FCF and EPS and the share price will reflect that over a reasonable time frame.
None of which should be taken as a criticism of your channel which I think communicates a lot of very important messages.
You can't count on capital gains can you whereas companies that pay dividends have been doing so for years and at a % that you can actually count on for retirement. Either way I wouldn't be too invested in the stock market if I were approaching retirement or already retired.
I loved the Venn diagrams at the end. They really help to support the argument.
Here's an analogy. Dividends is like sheering sheep, selling off your shares is like killing your sheep. Wool grows back, You can't bring your sheep back from the dead unless you buy a new one. You own sheep and you sell the wool. You sell the sheep, you are no longer owner of the sheep.
First of all I want to say that this is great video and nice starting point for dividend topic discussion. I would like to point out one huge missed point in this video (and one smaller one). With dividend investing you are still holding your shares. Therefore you don't need to sell them, at bear market, or (worse case scenario) Covid bottom to sustain your living. That's not regret issue, rather security and sleep well one. And if you want to, you can still sell them to compensate your lifestyle, just like with not-dividend stocks (in let's say 2020-2021 recovery with great "growth"). You can even use those dividends to buy more shares in that scenario, which selling stock won't provide (cuz obviously you are selling them). There is also another point, smaller one - not all investors want to drown down their 'nest egg' to zero, at the end of excel life (or whatever age you put border for living). Some see this as opportunity for stable life, for future generations, so they are not selling and still accumulating.
PS. All red cars are faster - that's common knowledge! (joke)
Thanks for the comment.
A dividend being paid in a bear market will reduce your share price by just as much as selling shares for income. In a way you’re being forced to sell at that point, of course you could reinvest again straight away but then you’d be in the same situation as if the company had never paid a dividend in the first place.
Some people are lucky enough to have large enough portfolios that they can survive on 3-4%, even so it’s not as efficient as factor investing.
@@JamesShack I don't see how it is "same situation" after reinvesting. Of course it is same in terms of your value of your shares in that moment, but it is not in long run, as you accumulate more shares therefore stock price movement provide more gains/losses.
3-4% is starting yield in terms of yield of cost, this of course changes over time with every dividend reinvested
@@Defomir why would it be different?
With company A, after reinvesting the dividend you would have $110 invested. With company B you would have $110 invested. It’s the same (less any taxes you pay on the dividend, and the lag for reinvesting).
@@Defomir How do you accumulate more equity than with company B if your equity drops by the amount of the dividend everytime?
Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than capital gains inside registered retirement accounts. If it is unregistered savings or if it is inside a Roth or TFSA then it is better to have cap gains instead of dividends.
Plan A for this year was to sell part of my S&P 500 index fund and look at dividend investing with FTSE 100 companies. This has made me question it and now I need to watch the next video. Bet I end up back at square one!
Is that because you need the income or think dividend investing can produce a higher return?
@@JamesShack it was for the higher returns with them then being re-invested. My Index fund in my S&S ISA hasn't provided any dividend return. In contrast, the two individual companies in my SIPP (Rio Tinto and British Land) have increased by 17% and 15% plus dividends alongside my Artemis high-income fund which is up 6% and provided dividends. I only started investing this time last year so still working it all out! Also trying to learn to control my inner chimp.
See my reply to this video
@@JamesShack turns out I needed to come back and rewatch the video again followed by the one on factor investing. I will definitely look into that for my SIPP and keep my current index funds. I will have a small amount invested in dividend stocks in my ISA to reinvest.
Looking at Ben Felix too. That's him and Pensioncraft thanks to you!
When I saw the poll, I knew that the answer would be it doesn't matter but as that wasn't one of the options and the way the question was worded I put dividend. I had a feeling there would be a video explaining why that wasn't the case
I love how your videos begin by selling me on an idea then debunking the crap out of it because I know it the debunking never came I would’ve just gone for it.
Hi James, great video as usual.
However, although I agree that everything you say about company A and B, I disagree about how I select my choice of income, and I would assume this the case of many people of my age group. It is not because of being lazy, but because I like the idea of certainty.
I know dividends can go up and down, but I also know that stocks go up and down. If I sell my stock when it is down, it is gone and I have realised a loss, and potentially a very long term loss that I may not be young enough to recover from. Dividends however give me the peace of mind that if the stock drops it will not affect my income, hopefully.
What I would say is that as I have got older I place peace of mind far higher than I do the potential to gain more capital or stress about market volatility. Additionally, I would like to leave something to my family, which also gives me peace of mind knowing that even after I am gone they will have something to rely on.
Blowing all my savings on a good time is just not for me. Been there, done that. Time to put my feet up.
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the comment!
What you say is true, dividends give us more peace of mind but it’s not rational to think like that.
If your stock is down and it pays a dividend, it goes down further. It’s exactly the same as if you’d sold shares when it’s down.
But we suffer from loss aversion that makes the selling of shares seem worse than receiving a dividend. When it’s not.
You are thinking about this from the right angle. I like James and his content but he is dead wrong on this one. Dividends are a peace of mind that you don’t have to sell in a down market. Sure, dividends are not guaranteed and can be cut but that’s why I only advise quality dividend ETFs. For James, this way of thinking about dividends is his opinion. It’s completely subjective. This strategy works for him on his journey to financial peace and stability. I get asked all the time, what is the “best” stocks to buy. What is the best strategy? The answer to that question is it doesn’t exist. My strategy can be completely different from your strategy. There is no “what’s the best way to invest”. James should ask what Warren Buffet thinks about dividends. Id pay big money to see that interview. I don’t want to make assumptions but basing this video off of what James said about dividends, I assume he is far younger than you and I. I have lived through many market crashes and corrections. Most genZ and millennials have not lived through a serious recession or downturn. They were too young during the 08 crises. James is assuming we will be on another bull run for a long time and probably basis his averages on the S&P 500 historical retune of over 10 percent since inception. We also have a lot of pundits calling for the next lost decade as we will trade sideways for another 10 years until 2030. If your a long term investor 15-20 years out than take his advise but if you are 5-7 years out from retirement and living off your portfolio, start rotating into income and dividends. I also would recommend covered call ETFs for some option premium but don’t go crazy with those. I have been dividend investing for probably as long as James has been alive (not being rude) and I can tell you, dividends have served me well and I sleep like a baby.
Well said. I was thinking that James has a completely opposite view to an American finance guy who made a point about pensioners living beyond their means and blowing their entire pension pot in ten years.
I honestly wonder if he will have the same opinion when his hair is white and he has lived through a few downturns.
Slightly off topic James, but what are your opinions of the worrying articles I have read recently regarding the possibility of looking at the state pension being unsustainable in its current form and therefore looking at an individuals total assets and only having a state pension for those with no or low pension/ ISA provision.
If something like this were to come about it would turn my plans on its head and would be unfair to those who have done the responsible thing and saved throughout their lives..
What are yours and your viewers thoughts. Thanks
Hi John, I don't have any views on this other than the fact that unless we have a lot of very high inflation, above govt borrowing rates, which will inflate away govt debt, we're going to have to increase taxes on the diminishing workforce and reduce costs. State pension changes could be one area of that, but i imagine it would be means tested to the degree that it would only affect those with very large asset bases.
@@JamesShack And I hope that asset base includes property too
You cannot have someone sat in a million pound home in the south east, but has not made any pension provision, getting full state pension,and someone in the north with a £300,000 house but has saved into pensions and isa with £700,000 not getting anything..
I’m a sucker for control…
I want income when I want it, not when it happens to pop out.
Very nice explanation, James ! One thing worth mentioning : dividends and capital gains are taxed in very different ways. For those who have maxed out their SIPPs and ISAs and are forced to hold stocks in a taxable account, it can be rational to hold divi-paying stocks purely to use up the annual income allowance. I appreciate this won't be relevant for most people, but it's a valid reason why certain investors might want to choose a high yielding stock over a low yielding one.
Don't let the tail wag the dog. As in don't let the tax dictate where you invest. Your asset allocation is the most important thing and if you have to deviate from that too much you'll sacrifice total return. You do make a good point that you can make use of dividen tax allowances but I would just let that happen naturally. £100k in a GIA can be managed with your CGT allowance and dividend allowance (assuming natural yield of 2%). Although of course they are reducing both allowances ...
Mind blown. 🤯 You just earned yourself a subscriber, congrats. 🎉
Thanks!
My reasoning for preferring the dividend yielding company is that I can receive income from it without changing my share count, i.e. I can increase my share count if I have excess income and the company will still rise and fall at the rhythm of the market just like the non-paying company. Except for the non-paying company I need to sell shares to gain income, so when I sell when the market is down, I will have less shares when the market rises again.
The share price will fall when a dividend is paid out. This will occur whether the market is up or down.
It’s no different from selling shares when the market is down.
Also: Da red'uns go fasta
Every Orc knows this.
I assume James doesn’t understand dividend growth stocks or investing. Yes the price drops when the Div is paid out but that’s why you enter at low P/E ratios and hunt for value. Don’t buy stocks or ETFs at all time high. Enter in at attractive valuations so your get both upsides. It’s called dividend growth investing. He should ask buffet for a few tips about how dividend growth works. I’ve been paid dividends for over 3 decades and guess what? My overall portfolio valuation has moved with the rhythm of the markets. Why? Because I’m invested in value blue chip dividend kings and aristocrats.
@@theflightsimulationexperie6894 I think James knows very well how dividends work.
And to a certain extend I agree with him that dividends don't matter in regards to share price. I simply don't really agree that the strategy to invest for dividends for income is faulty.
Dividends are irrelevant thus it's not better or worse to invest in a good stock for dividend income aside from indeed the taxes you pay on the dividend. Tax is also the reason I invest in accumulating ETFs rather than distributing ETFs. In my country I pay 30% tax on dividends, plus whatever local tax is charged on the dividend before it even reaches me. I don't pay capital gains tax, instead I pay a negligible transaction tax anytime I buy or sell a stock. This makes accumulating ETFs much more interesting in my situation.
@@Aenion11 That’s terrible your taxed at 30%. In the US, if you have fully qualified dividends, you pay O tax up to 84k married filing jointly and half that if single file. I don’t disagree with James point necessarily but I disagree when he says dividends are lazy.
I added a dividend ETF and Bond ETF to my portfolio as I understood that the dividend usually continues to be paid out in a downturn in the market. Which could be any time. The dividend will cover maybe 20% of our retirement requirements. The rest will mostly be covered by pensions or selling shares. Are these ETFs an inefficient approach?
Regarding the point that companies that give higher dividends tend to outperform the general market: doesn't that mean that the dividend is an indicator of a better run company that in the long run will outperform the general index?
My biggest issue with dividend stocks is tax. I don't know how to offset that in Luxembourg. For Americans, it sounds easy.
Interesting stuff although is 4-6% achievable now. Vanguard are saying cautions at 4% over this decade, and Labour govt in two years will be increasing taxes
I think you missed an important point, companies give high dividends because reinvesting the money won’t provide growth for the company. They are usually well established companies that won’t increase income even with more investment. These stocks are usually more stable and more bond like, with less volatility than growth stocks that reinvest everything. For example oil companies generally provide a consistent 5% dividend, drilling more wells with that money instead will take effect 5 years in the future and may not provide more income. With a similar global demand for energy, in fact it may reduce profits with over supply and a reduced oil price. Other examples may be a toothpaste company, increasing production with the profits will not lead to greater demand, so why not reward your investors.
Hi Peter,
What is the point you're making? Most companies return capital to investors through share buy backs not dividends. If you're only focused on dividends paying companies you''ll miss the worlds largest cash generators.
Buybacks benefit company executives and insiders more than ordinary shareholders because of artificially increasing EPS. This is skewed to benefit whoever is entitled to stock options and bonuses tied to the share price. There was a reason they were illegal in the uk an US until about 40 yrs ago.
@@JamesShack share buybacks do not provide capital gain in the long term for investors, the company will still have the same earnings and thus fundamentally will fall back to the same valuation without reinvestment to increase profits. There are only two options, reward your investors with dividends or reinvest to increase earnings. For some well established companies there is no value in reinvestment, it won’t lead to higher earnings and thus they choose to pay dividends.
@@peterellwood2103 why would the valuation fall back? There are less shares so the EPS increases.
Why do you only have 71k subscribers? Your content is amazing
Haha thank you, we'll get there!
I do see what you're saying about these dividend companies ... and you also say ( 10:21 ) that an income from an income company is decided by a policy set by some company exec who doesn't care about our objectives. I would agree with this last point, and wonder if *any* exec cares about this.
As an investor, I can decide to re-invest my dividends back into the company by simply buying extra shares/units from the same stock. So it turns the dividend company into something more like a growth company. The point is that I can choose to 'bleed off' income as required with the remainder being re-invested (maybe even elsewhere to diversify the total portfolio). Growth stocks/funds cannot give that choice. The use of this idea can support another form of diversification (into growth vs income, or into other companies) within the portfolio and can provide inbuilt ability to alter the income a particular portfolio can generate (eg to accommodate changing income requirements with age).
Hi William, why can't you do that with a non-dividend paying company? Just sell shares when you need them.
Therefor you get income exactly when you need it and can diversify exactly when you want to rather than having to wait for a dividend to be paid.
We've not talking about growth stocks vs value stocks here. We're talking about dividend vs low or non-dividend payers.
@@JamesShack My point was that a dividend-paying company can be made to look like a non-divi company simply by re-investing the divi payments back into the same company. This completely meets the comparison example you gave. As a secondary effect, it will grow my holding in the company paying dividends - for good or ill.
All that said, I'm not sure I'd personally choose to invest using a 'divi vs growth' strategy - just my investment style, I suppose.
My favorite part was how you just assumed that company B reinvested that unpaid dividend back into the company...instead of the company B owner paying themselves to buy a bigger yacht, while company A paid you 5% instead. Then company A is the obvious answer!! Perhaps if you had made that clearer in your question, then you may have got a different result.
You are the owner of company B.
Good video and you’re right that dividends aren’t the be all and end all. A good company is a good company, and market, economic, or global forces will come and go. It’s about long term thinking, smart decision making, shifting mindsets, and a bit of luck.
However as you pointed out the dividend aristocrats beat the market by a large margin in the long run, obviously returning capital to shareholders didn’t impede them or their investors.
If it’s lazy, it’s lazy but smart people invest to replace the need to give time and energy for money with time, smart decisions, and the power of the market.
Great video James. Exceptionaly explained. I wonder how UK based investor can get exposure to these factors mentioned. Vanguard has closed their factor funds some time ago becuase they were unpopular. What a shame. Maybe this could be good material for next episode?
This episode kind of covers with what I was thinking when I decided to alocate 10% of my protfolio to high yeld dividend fund. It was not about dividends(I reinvest them into the same fund anyway) but about getting exposure to value factor. But I did not knew about tax implications that you have mentioned because (as you have also said) it's an ISA right? I am now full of doubt wether my allocation was a correct decision. On one end exposure to value is good, on another tax implications are bad, which one wins 🤷♂
Blackrock (iShares) has a suite of factor funds available to UK investors. So does SSGA. I believe the latter is slightly cheaper. I particularly like the SSGA small-cap value ETFs (USSC and ZPRX).
SPDR MSCI USA Small Cap Value Weighted and SPDR MSCI Europe Small Cap Value Weighted are the only true small cap value ETFs available in Europe. They great as well.
@@minasmina2700 thanks. Wish there was one 'all world' in this category.
@@pistopit7142 Me too 😭
But of course many companies are hopeless at using any surplus cash they have. UK is full of companies that prefer to pay dividends than to accrue the 'profits" . Plus you pay to sell shares but getting dividends is free to you. No tax in ISAs . US taxes I thought were free in a SIPP if W*-BEN has been signed.
Interesting and thought provoking - makes even more sense when considering preference for buy-backs vis a vis dividends in the US.
Indeed, buybacks return 3X as much capital to shareholders than dividends.
It's an easy one for me. Whilst I'd have to pay income tax on dividends, long term capital gain is tax free.
But surely if most people are as irrational as me, they would buy company A more than B due to the dividend fallacy, thereby improving its share price and paradoxically, making it a better investment...
Interesting video and different perspective. What is your view to external factors that could impact performance of non dividend paying company. It's share price isn't just based on its performance and outlook. At least dividend is guaranteed income (at that point in time). Too many external factors drive share prices.
Money from selling shares is also guarenteed once it's sold. Dividends reduce share prices the moment you recieave it, it's exactly the same as if you'd sold shares for the same amount at that exact same time.
"What is your view to external factors that could impact performance of non dividend paying company." People realising that the companies USP is no longer a USP and growth falling off. To give one example I read (maybe before the price cuts) that Tesla would have to sell twice as many cars as Toyota while maintaining their existing profit margins to justify their share price.
Albert Einstein described compounding interest (or dividends) as the 8th wonder of the world. While many of your points are valid, I don't think it is fair to say never to take dividends as an investment strategy. Everyone has different financial circumstances and needs, but the traditional thought process has often been a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Growth stocks, in an inflationary and rising interest rate environment, will usually struggle to perform, espcially if they've funded share buy backs by raising corporate debt liabilities while dividend paying stocks tend to be more resilient in such times.
The better approach is to strike a balance between income and capital growth, retaining sufficient flexibility to benefit from both strategies rather than putting your money all on red for it only to come up black. Tax wrappers are also important so ISAs and SIPPs, dividends ( and fixed interest bonds) are ultimately tax efficient, while unwrapped investments are better for capital growth non dividend stocks where CGT allowances can be used and to an extent some dividend stocks to use the dividend allowances available. This maximises the tax efficiency of your portfolio (This assumes you've maxed out subs into ISAs etc each tax year already but you do need to get the balance right.) You need to do the research though, whichever route you take but a blanket approach for everyone as you suggest I think is misleading and far too simplified.
I’m not saying don’t invest in dividend stocks.
I’m saying you should be blind to them, just invest in whatever is going to give you the best total return.
Your strategy of mixing growth and income stocks to the correct blend is just waffle though.
The only reason you are investing at all is because invested capital performs better than cash.
If someone gives you dividend, you immediately have a cash problem and you'll need to re-invest it (whether into the same company that paid the dividend or a different one).
If you need cash to live on, you really need a multi year expenditure pot as cash so you can sleep at night.
That cash pot is topped up periodically by selling shares, at your convenience.
@@ChrisShawUK I'm not saying that I would necessarily want the dividends purely as an income but they do give options - spend the income, reinvest it or build up the cash pot that has been depleted by stock sales as you suggest. The point is that markets and shares do not always rise and there is no telling how long it takes for them to recover - not good when you need to replenish the cash pot and become a forced seller. At least with dividends you have an income stream to get you through a period of flat or falling markets until times improve. Dividend paying stocks also have less volatility than outright growth stocks and can provide a smoother investment journey. Having a balance between income and growth is a sensible approach given the current outlook so it's not waffle . Do you remember the dire times and stockmarkets in the 1970s and 1980s for example with high inflation and high interest rates? Have you experienced a proper multi year recession yet ? Ah, forgot you have a reliable crystal ball....
@@caldean782 none of that makes any sense. If you want a 5% cash dividend, you can sell 5% of your holdings of company B.
It's much better to be in control of your own cash flow. I like to keep 4 years of expenses in cash. That helps me sleep at night.
I top it up every now and then when I feel the multiple is getting too low (I'm currently on 2.7 so at some point this year I need to sell stock to top up the 1.3.
Cashflow management has got jack all to do with investment strategy.
@@ChrisShawUK Fair enough, everyone has their own approach and mine makes sense to me. Hope you find a good time to sell in tricky markets before the cash pot runs out. I'd rather have the option to either buy more shares when the price is down or spend the accumulated cash pot when it suits me. Cash management and investment strategy are interlinked, but like you, I do tend to only hold 3 to 4 years of expenses in the cash pot and otherwise reinvest unless there's a very good reason to hold more, which is rare. I just like to keep my options open, that's all.
Great video
I like to receive some dividend so that it covers broker fees etc but invest for growth at this time mainly.
I would be interested to see this video again but three ways
Company a and b the same however company c say half the dividend and half share buy back just for comparison
Great info James. Happy New Year to you
Can you refer me to a financial planner in the US that uses the Nova system?
Great video as always James, just wanted to pick your brain on something. I'm aware of the Fama and French five factor model, in which "investment" forms part of 4 of 5. (Conservative minus Aggressive) is a factor that states that the more aggressive a company is with re-investing, the lower returns are vs a business that is more conservative with re-investments.
I presume I'm overthinking your example that you've mentioned and the CMA is more useful when combined with other factors rather than stand-alone? Would love to know (if you know) how much of an effect CMA in your example (based on the Fama and French) has on future expected returns (although not sure if it's possible to run a regression on two identical hypothetical businesses).
Hi Daniel, I'm not sure. They found that factors are more potent when found together. Small cap as an example, has been a weak factor on it's own but is so heavily discussed because the other factors appear to be more potent within smaller companies. You can read their paper here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2287202
@@JamesShack Thanks for the reply to my overly wordy question :)
Interesting video James, I liked the red car analogy a lot - but what if you automatically reinvest your dividends? Don’t you benefit from as much from that as you would from a company that does not pay dividends? Does it not also smooth out the highs and lows a share price can have over time?
Yep, it would make no difference. Hence the "irrelevance" of dividends. If you have £100 worth of shares in a company and that company pays you a dividend of £5, the value of your shares falls to £95. By using that £5 to buy more shares of the same company, you're simply returning the value of your holdings to their pre-dividend value (notwithstanding any fluctuations in the share price between your receipt of the dividend and the moment you reinvest it, which may or may not go in your favour in the short term, but will probably be irrelevant in the long term).
Yes, makes no difference. The takeaway from this video however is just not to select stocks because of the dividend they pay. All portfolios will have some dividend income that either needs to be reinvested or you just own a ACC fund to make it easier.
I don't think Value as an investment concept can exist through fund management. The whole point of value is you pick up high quality at a low price - but when the price recovers, it no longer qualifies as value so you're endlessly buying falling stocks and cutting winners. Diageo at £36 isn't value, but at £23 it was - but if I buy into a value fund that bought in at £23 and still owns it, it's not really a value fund anymore.
Therefore I stock pick my own value positions. Not at all to be taken as financial advice but I like BASF, Black and Decker, Scotts Miracle, Continental AG, Bayer, Porsche, Sanofi, GSK, Asos in this area - however, they pay dividends, and the withholding tax of my German positions is such a bugbear of mine. All that happens is BASF will pay me £600, the German Govt will keep £200 and I'll spend the £400 on shares of BASF through dividend reinvestment
@@ba8898 I think that from a company performance point of view it does make a difference. A company paying dividends is likely to be well established and have been making the same product for years. A start up company, of the type favoured by Neil Woodford might burn through all their cash before even making anything (BritishVolt ?) Which would you chose to fund you retirement ?
You are missing the point, (maybe in an intentional way to trigger the comment section?) dividend investing work better for investor not because of the math behind it but because of the behavioral science aspect
Brilliant video as always!
Company B is likely to pay it's executives a fatter salary! Company A, paying a dividend, isn't playing that game..
Interesting video. Is there any difference between investing in Company A vs Company B if the dividend is immediately reinvested, as in an accumulation fund or wrapper?
Only and tax and trading costs you pay to re-invest.
Quick question, if you could answer great and if you feel it might be worthwhile video even better.
When investing for the long term and picking a diversified fund.
What happens to that fund, will it always be still around or do they typically come to an end at some point?
Ie if you look at a lot of vanguard funds they only started 2012 - 2016.
Most passive funds stick around, but even if they did close you could just switch from the Vanagurd S&P 500 tracker to the HSBC S&P 500 traker as an example.
@@JamesShack
Thanks for the reply.
If the funds does end, do you just get the money of what the shares were worth at the closing date.
Or does announcement of the fund closing drive the price down?
Basically what I’m getting at is do you need to take this into account when picking funds or is there no risk to investment when it comes to if a fund ends or not
@@LoyalTech1 You just get your money back. The only problem is if the fund has illiquid holdings that can't be sold. This is what happened with Neil woodfords funds.
Thanks for top content as always!
Hi Richard, thank you so much for the donation! It's very much appreciated!
Perhaps some people want to keep their pension pots large so that they can let their family inherit the pension after they die.
No. There are proven ways to use di idends as part of a retirement portfolio. I use these strategies asbI near retirement.
Fascinating!
This just shows over simplifying something can give you a completely false impression.
Historically dividends being paid consistently is more about an indicator of the company's stability and gradual but consistent growth. Companies that pay a reliable dividend have outperformed the VAST majority of the companies that don't.
Oversimplification to say there are only two companies, perfectly valued and the market price drops exactly when the dividend is paid with nothing reinvested (when a large percentage of the dividend paid is immediately reinvested in the same company the same day especially by people at the start of their investing journey) and that a dividend is far more connected to how a company performs, operates and is viewed (all of which impact stock price) than how the paint colour of a car is connected to its horsepower.
Not to say that dividend traps don't exist and growth companies won't continue to outperform dividend companies, but this is as equally faulty a principle as entirely investing based on whomever has the lowest PE score or such...
Usually you are great James but I think you are way wide of the mark on this one. I get there's a pressure to always keep creating content and keep releases regular, but forcing yourself to always try to have new takes is bound to lead to a few bad ideas, and rushing videos out to meet TH-cam's relentless content churn will lead to short production times and simple mistakes slipping through, such as you mistake regarding SIPP tax implications.
Sorry but a bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush. I really like your content but this video seemed to highlight how good divided stocks are not the other way around. The company that doesn't give you any dividend is as likely to spunk the cash on rubbish than it is to reinvest and increase share price etc.
How do you calculate how much money you can ‘safely’ take out of your portfolio in a particular year? Is there a rule of thumb that takes into account inflation and future needs?
This will give you some ideas: th-cam.com/video/LCYINIELH2w/w-d-xo.html
Paging Sven Carlin lol 😆
Dividend investing is fine and dandy but you need to to realize that it takes a rather large investment to be able to withdraw $1,000 a month.
I wonder if similar arguments apply to INC funds v ACC funds, e.g. Vanguard Lifestrategy?
Only if you forget to reinvest the dividends.
Retirees are behaving like that because you’re all frightening heebee geebee’s out of us and and say we should only take 2% so your money can last till you’re 115 years old…😂
Just stick to S&P500
And avoid the other 6650 stocks that are present in the Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund because?
@@cooper8t can't go wrong with both long term
@@deltzy depends when you need your money out of the S&P 500 as it has had two 10 year periods when it has stood still or been negative, if you had 10 years of cash to cover you in retirement then you are fine. If you a fan of the S&P 500 Paul Merriman Podcast is worth listening to
@@simonkemp1030 thanks will take a listen!
OMG I'm first again lol.
Dividends are like a personal pension, if invested in good companies it provides income and inflation protection as good companies increase dividends on a regular bases. I have been retired 13 years taken 400K out to spend and have increased my capital by 500K. We take the money we need and the one issue that needs discussion is cash flow. We keep a year of cash on hand at all times. We also tax plan and get the maximum government benefits every year. I know we will retire millionaires but who cares as long as we have the money and comfort it brings. Most people get too emotional and sell when markets go down. Holding good dividend paying companies we know our income is quite secure and just ride out the market fluctuations. cheers
I don't think this is correct. It is misleading to talk about a 5% dividend, since companies don't pay dividends in percentages. They pay them in pounds. That's what is so great about them. You get a stable income that doesn't fluctuate with market movements. To achieve that from capital, you have to sell more shares when the share price is low. That means you are doing a negative version of dollar-averaging and you'll lose out as a result. What you say is probably true in a perfectly efficient market, but in one that regresses to the mean (as the real-world market does) it isn't true. Mean regression means you get a bonus by dollar-averaging when investing and pay a penalty by dollar-averaging when disinvesting. Using passive income like dividends avoids that.
As in you don't think the share price would fall by the amount of the dividend?
@@JamesShack No, that's not it. The dividend is generally pretty fixed in £-terms, so you get a stable income automatically. To generate a stable income from non-dividend stocks, you have to vary the number of shares you sell to compensate for the fluctuating share price. That means you sell more when the price is low and less when the price is high, which is the opposite of what you want to be doing.
This comment is trying to use words to disprove a mathematical proved theory. Moreover, mean reversion applies to PE Multiples. The broad indexes are not mean reversing.
@@franciscoacastro What theory are you referring to?
Whether the markets are mean reverting is a much debated question and depends heavily on the time horizon you look at. There is decent evidence for mean reversion at at least some time horizons.
Not a retiree yet, but agree, it's the chance of a stable income that would be attractive. Appreciate dividends can vary as well, but much easier to get say £20k in dividends and know that's what you've got to spend for the next year than to try and work out a sustainable withdrawal rate without knowing how many years it has to be sustainable for and then try and adjust each year based on inflation but with guides based on how your returns are doing.
You'll only ever know what approach was right the day you die but surely once you get to the deccumulation phase stability and security are more important than shooting for the moon
Great video as always. Nothing gets people more excited than the perennial dividend debate 😁🍿
Always revs up the comments section.
I remember studying corporate finance at uni and the lecturer saying a company paying high dividends is actually a bad thing bc that means they no longer have any projects to invest in and the company has plateaued
Uhm.. Not convinced here.. No mature investor will ever buy scam Ltd because is paying 12% dividend, it would be as unwise as buying micro cap stock just because size is sold as a factor (small being better). Dividend money should come fromt big stable and boring Companies with less margin to grow that prefer to pay this money out to be still actractive (as per example you provided a downselection of sp500 for example). So yes there is for me room for div investing, my strategy is 50% global div and 50% multifactor etf.. Let's see...
Isnt this a symptom of a very risky economy? Capital gains over a short time are likely to be because of some kind of hype, but if theres a company which grows 5% for 30 years (i.e. sustainably) may as well get a dividend stock?
Dividend companies are surely incentivised to keep dividend good, and will therefore do stuff like fire employees, sell assets etc to make the dividend every year.
Id rather be invested mostly in a company which good at long term survival rather then growth and collapse / buy out.
I beg to differ, I love my dividends, no messing about having to keep selling all the time.
And yet stocks from Best Dividends Aristocrats outperform S&P index. This renders rest of the video bit pointless. Also, one of the reasons was passive and yet later you talk about "dynamic" approach which is exactly opposite
Did you watch the end of the video?
Dynamic approach to a drawdown strategy, as in how much you draw each year.
@@JamesShack Admittedly I wrote comment just before 10:58 mark when suddenly took step back as you probably realised same problem, but then made things even worse by cocky suggestion to just "buy better stocks" How easy is that? Why aren't we all immensely rich by just buying better stocks all the time, right?
@@anthavio did you watch the video after that ?
@@JamesShack Of course. I assumed that "when suddenly took step back as you probably realised same problem" clearly described that
As in the video that explains what factors investing is, and how it’s an extension of the theory behind passive investing ?
I had trouble with this at 1st. How to get income in retirement. Natural Income ?, no NAV on funds is important and we draw our income from our SIPP. Just like a salary every month no capital reduction.
If you own shares, you are an owner of the company. As an owner of a business it’s a basic expectation that you would get some income from it without reducing your share of ownership. That’s not irrational. If one can accumulate enough of a portfolio that they can live a comfortable retirement at the budget they’ve determined is need for that, why sell down?
Solid video, the name of the game for 2023 will be dividend and value investing, but the question becomes when... We are about to get hit with market news that could rock us into a recession (FED rate hikes).. invest cautiously and I am eager for more deals to present themselves, but I will be dollar cost averaging
Your assuming company b is going to reinvest its profits sensibly to add value to the company and not blow it on bonuses, pay rises and yacht's. Backtested data indicates that all investors should focus on investing in dividend-paying equities to maximize their portfolio’s growth for the long term. Furthermore, equities with long records of consecutive annual dividend hikes tend to deliver large long-term returns with minimal volatility.
As I discuss at the end of the video, dividend investing is a very inefficient way to get exposure to the factors that drive outperformance.
Hi James. New to the channel and investing in general. Appreciate this isn't the topic of this video, but just want to say a big thanks. I have traditionaly saved in cash ISAs, but want to build a pot of money to retire as early as possible. Learning about index funds and the life strategy funds is a game changer, rather than clinging onto the intrest earned from saving in cash alone. I have downloaded your income calculator to understand what I need to put away for a given income in retirement etc, and I glad to say that at 26 years of age, I am in a position to do so. Big thanks again, subscriber for life!
Hi James, great video and lots of truth told. But I do have a question. Do people prefer dividends because it’s real cashflow paid out compared to capital gains which is often a function of demand and supply and market sentiment? Ie could there be a great company doing really well but the market price doesn’t reflect it? If you need income now? Is it actually rational to sell asset at a lower price and “wait” for it to bounce back? When a client comes on board and has an income requirement as part of their mandate, selecting a dividend paying fund combined with fixed income products and income producing investment trusts is common. I’m not sure dividend investing is purely in the mind but actually suits a persons objectives, time horizon and risk appetite and mandate.
That might happen if the market was inefficient, but that happens rarely and it's almost impossible to tell when it is.
I hear that a lot from investment mangers. Client's come in asking for income so they give them income, even if it means the client is likely to end up with a worse total return. Instead you need to spend time with the client to help them understand why total return is the only thing they should care about. Unless of course there is some tax based reason for them to prefer income.
@@JamesShack that’s brilliant, thanks James. And great content as always.
@@JamesShack At least dividends are a million times better than bonds as dividends grow over time and there is typically capital appreciation. With bonds, your yield will likely go down over time and not keep pace with inflation. I agree that bonds are a lousy investment just to get income while leading to lower total return.
A tricky subject but well explained James 👍🏻
There isn't a share holder out there who doesn't like receiving money via a dividend note but at the same time growth companies can give you a return over time!!
For me having a well diversified portfolio that has growth / value companies within it makes sense as you want a bit of everything really. Yes I do actively manage my portfolio and am not a buy and hold investor / passive.
Out of interest how is your retirement portfolio positioned in terms of income, factor(growth/value etc), and capital preservation (bonds/multi-asset) ?
@@boombustinvest I have around 20% in bonds / fixed income but am thinking about increasing that slightly. Roughly 75% of the remaining 80% is in value stocks with 25% in growth / non dividend paying US listed shares.
@@mattsennett ah ok, so apart from the growth stocks, you're a dividend investor by 'proxy' as it were then? (Dividend stocks also tend to be Value stocks)
@@boombustinvest Yeah an active dividend investor for the most part would be the best way to describe me.
I think one of the reasons why people prefer dividend stocks is that they dont understand that they are less efficient. You just explained it in the video and I still dont understand it.
What if I re-invest my dividends?
I like investing in dividend ETFs because they have the tilt toward the outperforming factors of value and robust profitability. There are other studies that point to non-dividend paying stocks as having the lowest returns long term, so I don't think it's a big deal to trade lower diversification for potentially higher returns. Plus you get the added psychological benefits of dividends, even if they are irrelevant to the value of the business. Long term dividend ETFs will do great. Whether they outperform the market, who knows. But at that point one is splitting hairs. A vast majority of the benefits of equity investing will be captured.
Both capital growth and dividends have their place. The key omission from this ok video is first you need to identify your time horizon and your end state. For example - a SIIP is currently a very tax efficient way of transferring wealth to the next generation - so capital preservation is important is this regards. However, if this is not your priority a mix of capital drawdown and dividend income could be the way forward. But…like any good journey - you need to plan fIrst!
In the uk, it’s worth noting that the gov is reducing tax free limits on dividends outside of ISAs and pensions over the next few years making it more unattractive