Ultimate Dividend Playbook; Dividend Harvest Portfolio

[FUEGO]

I just finished reading the Ultimate Dividend Playbook by Josh Peters. Overall I was unimpressed. But it could be a worthwhile read for some.

A big part of my disappointment stems from the fact that the book is geared towards individual security selection (focusing on dividends and dividend growth) instead of the bigger picture of dividend investing. I have a general policy to not invest in individual securities. Single stock risk is easily diversified away and one of the few "free lunches" on Wall Street.

I would have liked to read more of how a mutual fund investor could structure a dividend oriented portfolio (ie - what to expect, what history would have provided for me, realistic expectations of future dividends/growth, etc). Maybe discuss a few of the existing dividend oriented mutual funds and weigh pros/cons.

The book does hold some promise for those looking to pick individual securities and build a dividend rich portfolio. The book describes a way to look at stock fundamentals and how they impact dividends (dividend safety, payout ratio, dividend growth potential based on return on equity, etc). The author presents his own "Dividend Drill Return Method" of analyzing dividend paying stocks.

Overall, I thought the author was guilty of showing his winners and his past glories and came short on illustrating his many failures (which I assume he has had), and why he was wrong. To be fair, he does cover a fair number of wrong bets, but he does a good job of attributing successful bets to his clever analysis and attributing failures to bad luck or things just not going his way.

I really got the feeling from reading the book that the author makes individual security analysis a lot simpler than it really is. He even says it is simple! To quote from page 25: "Wall Street has an army of professionals determined to make investing seem like rocket science". And then he goes on to suggest that dividend investing isn't that difficult.

He disregards diversification as an irrelevant consideration, as far as I can tell. He doesn't go as far as saying "Diversification - ha! - more like Diworsification, am I right am I right", but I can imagine him saying it.

Around one third of the book is appendix material covering a number of topics. Of interest is an explanation of the fundamentals of banks, REITS, master limited partnerships, and utilities (all typically high-yielding dividend payers).

The author is apparently editor of the DividendInve$tor newsletter from Morning$tar. In the book, he shows his "Dividend Harvest Portfolio" that is intended to provide high current income (~5-7% if I recall correctly) and dividend growth around the rate of inflation. The portfolio is presumably actively managed and updates are provided in the dividendinvestor newsletter (that you pay for).

Just for kicks, I took his June 2007 portfolio from the book and looked at it today to see what it is worth and what it is yielding (spreadsheet is attached showing my analysis). He's down 32% in about 1 year (well, only down 26% if you include dividends). The June 2007 portfolio was worth $109,000. Today it is worth $74,000 plus about $6800 in dividends it paid out over the last year.

His dividend payout on his model portfolio is down from $6900 to 6700 this year (not only losing out after inflation, but also losing out before inflation). One of his holdings (out of only 13) is in the pink sheets, presumably close to bankruptcy (and has suspended its dividend). Another holding has stated that future dividends stand a good chance of being "revised". The payout ratio of all but 2 of the stocks exceed 100% of trailing twelve months earnings (he says that is a sign that dividends may be in trouble). The portfolio is highly concentrated (I think 12 out of 13 positions are in energy or financials).

One caveat is that I have no clue what additions/subtractions he has made in his dividendinvestor newsletter since June, 2007. Maybe he recommended selling all the losers and buying better stocks?? But I find it shocking that his picks would have done so poorly, even given the general downturn in the market. Looking at the 4-5 dividend-oriented funds at Vanguard, they are only down between 5-13% over the last 12 months versus 26% down in the Dividend Harvest portfolio. Admittedly, he was shooting for significantly higher yields than the 3-3.5% being paid out by Vanguard dividend funds.

Anyone follow his dividendinvestor newsletter ($149 per year )? Did the model portfolio actually do better than I'm suggesting here?

I'd also like to ask if anyone else has suggestions for any books on dividend investing for mutual fund investors like me? I like the idea of getting a 4% or so yield from dividends that I can rely on and that will keep pace with inflation.

 

[Nords]

I'd also like to ask if anyone else has suggestions for any books on dividend investing for mutual fund investors like me? I like the idea of getting a 4% or so yield from dividends that I can rely on and that will keep pace with inflation.

Have you looked at Value Line or Mergent's (library subscriptions) or the Dow Select Dividend ETF (DVY)?

Dividend payers tend to be financials & utilities, which are currently getting hammered from both ends. (One of my holdings is a parent company whose subsidiaries are a bank and a utility.) I'll bet that most of the "hot dividend stocks" these days are consumer durables...

 

[Leonidas]

From a sector allocation view I am very unimpressed with the man's stock picking.

 

[Hamlet]

He really seems to have chased yield off the cliff, doesn't he?

From a sector allocation view I am very unimpressed with the man's stock picking.

 

[Hamlet]

This is a fine general policy, but it isn't really a free lunch. By widely diversifying, you are unlikely to outperform the market to a large degree. That isn't necessarily bad, since you are also unlikely to underperform the market as well.

If you are interested in trying to outperform the market, diversification works against you. In order to outperform the market, you have to find stocks that the market has badly mispriced. In my experience, the market is usually pretty efficient. It only gets things wrong once in a while. So you might only find a few mistakes at a time. Diversification beyond these mistakes will reduce your potential outperformance.

Of course, that diversification will also prevent a couple disasterous mistakes from destroying your portfolio.

I have a general policy to not invest in individual securities. Single stock risk is easily diversified away and one of the few "free lunches" on Wall Street.

 

[haha]

This is a fine general policy, but it isn't really a free lunch. By widely diversifying, you are unlikely to outperform the market to a large degree. That isn't necessarily bad, since you are also unlikely to underperform the market as well.

If you are interested in trying to outperform the market, diversification works against you. In order to outperform the market, you have to find stocks that the market has badly mispriced. In my experience, the market is usually pretty efficient. It only gets things wrong once in a while. So you might only find a few mistakes at a time. Diversification beyond these mistakes will reduce your potential outperformance.

Of course, that diversification will also prevent a couple disasterous mistakes from destroying your portfolio.

My largest single holding is 7% or total invested assets. I think one can afford a greater concentration in larger stocks than very small ones. But very small ones can grow much faster, so ultimately the outcomes may be similar.

I feel that diversification is absolutely necessary. Even CEOs and CFOs make mistakes when they buy shares of their own companies, in timing at least. I always check for insider buying and ownership before I commit. How could I know more than they do? But have seen a CEO put $50,000,000 into the stock that he knows best, and have it decline 50%.

My motto is never say never; never say that something can't happen; and never say that something else will happen. Maybe is good word for an investor to understand.

Ha

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Ha - those ceo's and cfo's have a lot more money than we do, plus a lot of the time they're incented to buy the company stock for appearances. "Hey Bob, we know we're going to eat it this year, but how about you pick up $50M in shares, we PR the heck out of that, and we'll get you into a couple of bonuses next year for $60M and add some separation incentives to your contract?"


Fuego - You had me at 5-7% dividends. Most companies at that level are going to cut their dividend, have some serious problems or at a minimum give you a lot of heartburn.

About the only company I can think of off the top of my head that sustained dividends in that range for a long time was MO. I think they provided a little bit of heartburn from time to time though.

 

[Zathras]

Overall, I thought the author was guilty of showing his winners and his past glories and came short on illustrating his many failures (which I assume he has had), and why he was wrong. To be fair, he does cover a fair number of wrong bets, but he does a good job of attributing successful bets to his clever analysis and attributing failures to bad luck or things just not going his way.

I think you read a lot into that. However, it has been a while since I read the book and my opinion may be more colored by reading his newsletter.
However, in cases of areas he gets hit on, he reflects upon why that happened and why he missed in. I am curious why you used 'many' in your sentence since you mention you are making an assumption?
In at least one of his picks which turned out better than he could have imagined he also admits fully that while he was pleased, he wasn't expecting results quite that stellar. I feel he takes credit where it is due as well as blame.

He disregards diversification as an irrelevant consideration, as far as I can tell. He doesn't go as far as saying "Diversification - ha! - more like Diworsification, am I right am I right", but I can imagine him saying it.

Again, I think you have a vivid imagination. He specifically mentions that diversification is good. Now, the Harvest portfolio does demand pretty high yields and so little diversification is possible. It is not easy to get those types of dividends outside of finances or energy. I prefer his builder porfolio myself.

The author is apparently editor of the DividendInve$tor newsletter from Morning$tar. In the book, he shows his "Dividend Harvest Portfolio" that is intended to provide high current income (~5-7% if I recall correctly) and dividend growth around the rate of inflation. The portfolio is presumably actively managed and updates are provided in the dividendinvestor newsletter (that you pay for)....
Just for kicks, I took his June 2007 portfolio from the book and looked at it today to see what it is worth and what it is yielding (spreadsheet is attached showing my analysis). He's down 32% in about 1 year (well, only down 26% if you include dividends). The June 2007 portfolio was worth $109,000. Today it is worth $74,000 plus about $6800 in dividends it paid out over the last year.

His dividend payout on his model portfolio is down from $6900 to 6700 this year (not only losing out after inflation, but also losing out before inflation). One of his holdings (out of only 13) is in the pink sheets, presumably close to bankruptcy (and has suspended its dividend). Another holding has stated that future dividends stand a good chance of being "revised". The payout ratio of all but 2 of the stocks exceed 100% of trailing twelve months earnings (he says that is a sign that dividends may be in trouble). The portfolio is highly concentrated (I think 12 out of 13 positions are in energy or financials).

One caveat is that I have no clue what additions/subtractions he has made in his dividendinvestor newsletter since June, 2007. Maybe he recommended selling all the losers and buying better stocks?? But I find it shocking that his picks would have done so poorly, even given the general downturn in the market. Looking at the 4-5 dividend-oriented funds at Vanguard, they are only down between 5-13% over the last 12 months versus 26% down in the Dividend Harvest portfolio. Admittedly, he was shooting for significantly higher yields than the 3-3.5% being paid out by Vanguard dividend funds.

So if Vanguard targets 3-3.5% yields, perhaps a better comparison would have been with the Builder portfolio? I believe that was also listed in the book (unfortunately I don't have mine as it is on loan).

And yes, 5 stocks in the Harvest portfolio have been dropped and new ones added. And yes, it is down quite a bit, and the income stream is down about 3%. Again though, the portfolios are primarily concerned with dividend growth, not stock growth. So short term fluctuations (especially in a down market like this) is to be expected.

The big thing about his book (and newsletter) is that they show you HOW he goes about choosing the stocks. You can certainly do the legwork yourself. I agreed with some of his ideas, and the companies fit well into my stock allocation so after research, I have a few of his picks in my own portfolio. I also had a number in his Builder portfolio already when I read his book.
But as you said, take from it what you can. And if it doesn't fit your style, look elsewhere

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

This is a fine general policy, but it isn't really a free lunch. By widely diversifying, you are unlikely to outperform the market to a large degree. That isn't necessarily bad, since you are also unlikely to underperform the market as well.

If you are interested in trying to outperform the market, diversification works against you. In order to outperform the market, you have to find stocks that the market has badly mispriced. In my experience, the market is usually pretty efficient. It only gets things wrong once in a while. So you might only find a few mistakes at a time. Diversification beyond these mistakes will reduce your potential outperformance.

Of course, that diversification will also prevent a couple disasterous mistakes from destroying your portfolio.

This sounds very much like Warren Buffett's investment strategy. He has often sat on large amounts of cash waiting for a crucial mistake by Wall Street analysts. Based on what I've read, he often waits years for markets to crash and people to head for the exits before he goes "all in" on certain choice stocks.

 

[FUEGO]

So if Vanguard targets 3-3.5% yields, perhaps a better comparison would have been with the Builder portfolio? I believe that was also listed in the book (unfortunately I don't have mine as it is on loan).

And yes, 5 stocks in the Harvest portfolio have been dropped and new ones added. And yes, it is down quite a bit, and the income stream is down about 3%. Again though, the portfolios are primarily concerned with dividend growth, not stock growth. So short term fluctuations (especially in a down market like this) is to be expected.

Valid points. I inadvertently overlooked that he included his "Dividend Builder" portfolio in his book. I went back and took a look at it. It is down only 5% since June 30, 2007, so more or less on par with some of the vanguard dividend funds over a similar time period yielding the 3.x% yield.

I was just shocked that the Dividend Harvest Portfolio was down as much as it was. Presumably, the harvest portfolio is likely to be used by a retiree seeking stable income in retirement that grows around the rate of inflation. And to be fair, the current dividend yield is only about 8.5% down in real terms. So the goal of the portfolio of providing stable income in retirement is almost met.

But if I was a retiree, and I saw 32% of my portfolio disappear in a year, I'd be worried (I wouldn't be able to sleep at night). Imagine retiring with $2 million in June 2007 and all of a sudden today you only have $1.36 million left in nominal terms, or $1.29 million after inflation. Just a concern I have. Maybe the whole premise of the dividend harvest portfolio should be examined - maybe he was shooting the moon by overly concentrating assets in just two industries in order to get a high yield? Did he not view it as overly risky to concentrate assets like this just to get the high current yield? You claim he "specifically mentions that diversification is good", but how good? Is he just paying lip service? I'd rather stick grandma in a couple of other sectors besides just energy and banks if her financial future depended on it, even if it meant telling her that she'd have to take a point or two less dividend yield. But then again, no one pays me $149 a year for a newsletter!

So Zathras, I'm glad that you are more familiar with Josh Peters, because I really haven't followed him that much. It sounds like you are a subscriber to his dividendinvestor newsletter? Can you tell us how his Builder and Harvest portfolios are doing right now? My understanding is that they are real accounts that he actively manages and that they started with $100,000 each (of morningstar's money). I'm just curious if his buys/sells have helped/hurt the performance beyond the June 2007 portfolios shown in his book.

Also, what is he saying about the relatively poor performance of the Harvest Portfolio? Any fears that it won't turn around or won't be able to grow dividends at a sufficient rate to keep up w/ inflation?

 

[CitricAcid]

Chiming in with FUEGO on this issue, I feel he is chasing extremely high yields without entire (perhaps some) regard to the risk involved within. Utilities are more volatile than people give them credit for, especially considering the vast number of variables that go into their pricing and revenue streams. And, for banks, well I do not need to say anything. Dividend growth portfolios for many I feel is a very understandable portfolio idea. Loading up heavily in two sectors, however, is not understandable for financial security in retirement. Some diversification should be necessary, even at the cost of dropping the 7% yield to 4%. JMHO

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

And once you get down into that dividend range, there are a boatload of funds that will produce that with very good diversity, low cost and no need to spend your time doing securities selection.

 

[Zathras]

But if I was a retiree, and I saw 32% of my portfolio disappear in a year, I'd be worried (I wouldn't be able to sleep at night). Imagine retiring with $2 million in June 2007 and all of a sudden today you only have $1.36 million left in nominal terms, or $1.29 million after inflation. Just a concern I have.

I agree, I would have some level of concern as well at 20% or 32%. One of the reasons I don't like the Harvest portfolio is the lack of diversification. However, when the market as a whole takes a hit of 20% lead by financials, I can certainly understand why a financial heavy portfolio would get hit hard.

Maybe the whole premise of the dividend harvest portfolio should be examined - maybe he was shooting the moon by overly concentrating assets in just two industries in order to get a high yield? Did he not view it as overly risky to concentrate assets like this just to get the high current yield? You claim he "specifically mentions that diversification is good", but how good? Is he just paying lip service?

No, however, from reading his book and newsletters I get that Josh feels the most important thing is to find strong businesses with strong dividend outlook. Also watching their financial statements for indications that they can continue growing their dividend and have a history of growing their dividend. His biggest holding in each portfolio tend to be no more than about 12%. He is adding more companies to each portfolio to 'spread out' any risks (he started this late last year I believe).
So while diversification isn't number 1, it doesn't mean he doesn't consider it or feel it plays an important part.

So Zathras, I'm glad that you are more familiar with Josh Peters, because I really haven't followed him that much. It sounds like you are a subscriber to his dividendinvestor newsletter? Can you tell us how his Builder and Harvest portfolios are doing right now? My understanding is that they are real accounts that he actively manages and that they started with $100,000 each (of morningstar's money). I'm just curious if his buys/sells have helped/hurt the performance beyond the June 2007 portfolios shown in his book.

Yes, I am. The total values of the portfolio's are around -20% and -8% (Harvester and Builder) YTD. Adding in the dividends you get better numbers as you mentioned above.
Income, as you mentioned, for the Harvester has taken about a 3% hit. The Builder income stream has grown 10% since last year.
Trades are few although they do happen. Maybe a few a quarter. I don't follow the specific trades typically although I know there are winners and am sure there have been some loosers.
I'll be happy to discuss any specifics from his book if you can help me out with that part, or any generalities of his newsletter (since he charges I am not comfortable posting specifics).

Also, what is he saying about the relatively poor performance of the Harvest Portfolio? Any fears that it won't turn around or won't be able to grow dividends at a sufficient rate to keep up w/ inflation?

Not really.
1) I have very little stake in the Harvest portfolio
2) From the concepts and amount of research done, I would be surprised if the long term growth of the Harvest dividends didn't far surpass inflation. Once financials recover I expect the portfolio value to recover nicely although I would be prepared for this to take another 6-18 months.

For me, the dividends are far more important than what the portfolio value at any given time. And if I can get a 10% raise living off dividends in a market like this?? I'll take it

 

[unclemick]

And once you get down into that dividend range, there are a boatload of funds that will produce that with very good diversity, low cost and no need to spend your time doing securities selection.

If you promise not to read the book you can got to the library for the 4th edition Ben Graham's The Intelligent Investor and read appendix 4 and the Postscript.

Hormones - although the word doesn't pop up.

Then there is TWD(terminal wealth dispersion) or how many stocks to track an index academic curves floating around. Goggle up Bernstein's 15 Stock Diversification Myth.

And of course - Pssst Wellesley et al.

heh heh heh - Target Retirement 2015(SEC yield 3% or so) plus a few good stocks(for the hormones per Postscript above). Geaux Saint's. Never say die.

Pssst - Wellesley. And yes the Pats are a good football team even if my Sis deserted them last year.

 

[jIMOh]

I started a similar thread a few weeks ago. http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/dividend-investing-do-you-get-3-yield-37716.html

What I read was a 3.5% yield is about what I should plan for. 15-30 individual stocks is what I think would work well.

I would put about 90% of assets into 15 stocks (which provide most of the yield) then the other 10% would be spread among about 10-15 more stocks which might pay a small dividend or be sitting on a pile of cash.

ORCL strikes me as a company which is sitting on some cash, yet they do not pay a dividend (YET). I would allocate a portion of portfolio to companies like this as well. I would also tilt this other 10% towards some mid caps in hoping for more capital growth too.

I remember reading in prospectus of PRFDX during the tech bust of 2000-2002. The fund manager picked up MSFT and ORCL at the time because they exhibited all charactoristics of a dividend paying company except the dividend itself. MSFT started paying a dividend about a year later.

 

[clifp]

I am a big fan Josh newsletter and his book, my review is the long one on Amazon.

Two of the stocks he mentioned in the book CapitalSoure CSE and MuniMae MMA did take severe hits, CSE because of the credit crisis and MMA because of on going accounting problems. He did sell when their dividends looked in jeopardy described his mistakes in detail in his weekly email updates. I took his advice and sold MMA at a big loss, but I'm still keeping CSE (since it was in an IRA and Brewer still likes it)

Here is the performance from the latest newsletter note this was as of July 14th one day before the bottom of the financial market July 15.


DividendInvestor Performance
Data through July 14, 2008.

Year-to-Date 2008 Builder 110,740.79 -8.6
Harvest 80,995.68 -20.4
Combined 191,736.47 -14.0
Totals, Since Inception:
Builder 110,740.79 +10.7
Harvest 80,995.68 -19.0
Combined 191,736.47 -4.3

Most of the banks are up 50% since the portfolio valuation
BAC 20.15-33.88 BBT 20.88-31.72 WFC 21.57-31.61,

If you are interested I'll publish the portfolio performance when the new issue of the dividend newsletter gets published in a week or so. Baring a major bear market the number will be significantly higher (my portfolio is up 13% since July 15)

I own 23 of the stock in his portfolio (most because of his recommendations others I owned before he bought) as well as couple that were in his portfolio but I didn't sell cause I didn't want to pay taxes on the gains.

It is a fair criticism to say that his dividend focus valuation is to simplistic. I know that he in fact uses all of the analytical tools available to a Certified Financial Analyst (I made the mistake once of not giving this degree proper respect). However, as a somewhat lazy investors, I find the
simple rules regarding is the dividend safe and will grow to be very useful.

I am with Zarthas the important thing is income growth. My dividend income is up significantly this year despite one big dividend cut, knowing this makes it easier to to stomach the volatility.

 

[Zathras]

I am with Zarthas the important thing is income growth. My dividend income is up significantly this year despite one big dividend cut, knowing this makes it easier to to stomach the volatility.

This is an excellent point, I never really thought of it this way before.
The increasing income stream does make it much easier to deal with market volatility.

 

[FUEGO]

DividendInvestor Performance
Data through July 14, 2008.

Year-to-Date 2008 Builder 110,740.79 -8.6
Harvest 80,995.68 -20.4
Combined 191,736.47 -14.0
Totals, Since Inception:
Builder 110,740.79 +10.7
Harvest 80,995.68 -19.0
Combined 191,736.47 -4.3

Do these amounts include dividend reinvestment?

 

[Zathras]

I believe they do, not 100% positive of that though.
After adding up the current balance of the Builder (not including any dividends paid since July 14th) the total is $125,949.2.
As Clif mentioned, the banks have been recovering nicely. Sure, they could go down next week, as could other stocks. But the income growth continues, which is the whole goal

 

[clifp]

Thanks Zathras for the update, figures do include dividends. A couple of the reasons I am positive about the portfolio, despite the less than stellar performance is that it is a real money portfolio, so it includes trading costs (commissions+spreads) interest earned on cash and dividend which obviously important for this portfolio.

So often the performance data you see in ads for newsletter and broker recommendation (and even to a less extent mutual funds) aren't close to what is really achieved by real investors. A real money portfolio forces the advisor to make real trades offs it isn't enough to say these 6 stocks are strong buys these 3 are buys hold these 9 stocks and sell these 2. This month Peters sold 1/2 of Bank A to buy more Bank B and 1/2 of Pipeline X to buy Pipeline Y which he had been watching for a year but suddenly got cheap relative other stocks. He also will use accumulated dividends to make more purchases. The other reason I believe the newsletter is Josh Peters owns roughly 1/3 of the stocks in his portfolio in his personal account. Nothing annoys me more than when some guy is on touting a stock and neither he or is firm own it. If it is a good stock buy it!

Being retired I don't follow all of his trades, but do pay attention to any outright sells.
As a retiree income really matters and the purpose of his portfolio is to generate an a stream of income that keeps up with inflation. Every quarter I update my income projection to account for dividends and interest rates. (To be honest lately part of this is a distraction from watching the overall portfolio value drop )

Year over year my income in taxable portfolio increased 11%, and my current income is 4.1% of my portfolio. I don't bother to keep more than yearly records of my net worth, and this is from a guy who checks his portfolio most every day.

Now to be fair my portfolio Aug 08 is a riskier portfolio than Aug 07, my AA has gone from 70/30 equities to ~80/20 and I have a slightly more individual issues and less index mutual funds.

Still I feel far more comfortable spending that income than I do some arbitrary 4% of a portfolio when I happen to retire (in 99 right before the bubble burst). One of the problems I have with 4% SWR is the twins paradox twin brothers with identical portfolio have different withdrawal amounts depending on when they retired.

In contrast dividends are pretty reliable, Suburban Propane (SPH) is going to send me a $1200 dividend check tomorrow and I'm pretty sure they'll give me the same check (or maybe bigger) in 3 months regardless if the market is up 10% or down 20%. One of the gratifying things about dividend income is getting the steady stream of dividend hikes, I think Josh's portfolio has experienced a couple hundred total. Even during the last year with bad economy and very scary financial system most companies continue to increase their dividends albeit generally a token amount. One way of looking at this is to say big deal a 2 cent hike if you have 500 shares is only $10/quarter, the other way is say Costco raised their chicken prices from $4.99 to 5.99 the dividend hike counter balanced my weekly Costco chicken habit. Meanwhile SPH dividend hikes have more than paid for my higher gas prices!

 

[CitricAcid]

The other reason I believe the newsletter is Josh Peters owns roughly 1/3 of the stocks in his portfolio in his personal account. Nothing annoys me more than when some guy is on touting a stock and neither he or is firm own it. If it is a good stock buy it!

True, but there often is a conflict of interest. If you haven't noticed all the goldbugs going crazy over the collapse of the dollar, it is usually because they have some skin in the game in gold as well. Every heard of Jonathan Lebed? (pump and dump) If somebody has some of the stock they are suggesting, they could perhaps be trying to inflate the value above what he feels is fair and get rid of it for a great short term gain... it's why there are Chinese Walls in companies.

Jonathan Lebed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wcv56]

DVY DVM is just two of many ETF dividend funds.
I am not suggesting either but below website has many to ponder over.
ETFConnect - Home

NUV and MUA was a couple muni funds I held when my earnings were high.
Anyone with much money invested should never put most of your money
with any one manager/broker. Of course you knew that already, why would anyone
put all 2 mil of assets in one fund, not a real situation to compare a 30% loss
or whatever loss one fund may have.

 

[FUEGO]

Of course you knew that already, why would anyone
put all 2 mil of assets in one fund, not a real situation to compare a 30% loss
or whatever loss one fund may have.

If this is a response to my earlier post, then I'd have to disagree. Someone could conceivably be tricked into thinking Josh Peters has the secret to success and invest all of their money using his methods, if not his exact portfolio picks. If one is really trying to get 5-7% yield from their investments, I'd say it is risky, but you really do have to take risks to get that kind of yield from equities. I wouldn't personally put all of my eggs in one basket, but someone might. Which is why taking this much risk in a retirement income strategy could prove dangerous.