Numbers for a 9+ year...

[redduck]

DIVIDEND PORFOLIO

I came across some numbers (actually, I’ve been looking at them for several years) to do with Dividend Stock Investing. The numbers below are from the monthly publication of Morningstar’s (M*) Dividend Stock Investor July 2018 edition. The numbers start from the inception (Nov. 17, 2008) of M*’s Dividend Select Portfolio and run through May 31, 2018. I’m pretty sure my subscription has run out, so this will probably be the last date I will have numbers regarding this portfolio. These are the dates that I have and hopefully they won’t be considered as being “cherry-picked” or at least not consciously “cherry-picked.”

Now, I know that some of the FIRE Forum members are doing just fine with their dividend stocks. They are obviously much[-] luckier [/-]better at this than I am. But, I’ve have the idea that maybe, just maybe, the price is too high to garner whatever dividend stocks benefits are for even the slightly above average hoi polloi (such as I like to see myself) of the dividend investing community (which would not include several FIRE Forum superior dividend stock investors).

M* Dividend Select Portfolio (actively-managed portfolio)

x Year to date: -7.6. (thru May 31, 2018)
xxxx One Year: -4.6
xxx Three Year: 3.8
xxxx Five Year: 6.5
xSince Incept: 11.4 (start date Nov. 17, 2008)

S&P 500

xxxx Year to date: 2.0 (thru May 31, 2018)
xxxxxx One Year: 14.4
xxxxx Three Year: 11.0
xxxxxx Five Year: 13.0
xSince 11/17/08: 15.3

DJ US Select Dividend

xxxx Year to date: 0.0 (thru May 31, 2018
xxxxxx: One Year: 9.7
xxxxx Three Year: 11.6
xxxxxx Five Year: 12.6
Since 11/17/08: 13.9

Comments welcomed (and possibly appreciated).

 

[OldShooter]

Sorry, the only thing that matters is total return. If you are just looking at dividend yield you are missing half or more of the picture.

 

[Crabby Mike]

Sorry, the only thing that matters is total return. If you are just looking at dividend yield you are missing half or more of the picture.

Surely this must be total return ... since it's hard to have a negative dividend return.

 

[OldShooter]

Surely this must be total return ... since it's hard to have a negative dividend return.

Good point. I was reacting more to the OP's focus on dividends, not looking at the numbers.

 

[mrfeh]

Sorry, the only thing that matters is total return.

+1

I've been reading these threads on "dividend portfolios" for years. Math clearly indicates the total return approach is better, but investors let their emotions guide them.

 

[ncbill]

And you have no choice but to realize the dividend income.

Qualified or not the above might push you over the limit for ACA subsidies or into a higher marginal tax bracket if doing traditional IRA->Roth conversions.

 

[ERD50]

.... Math clearly indicates the total return approach is better, ...

I'll go further, and say the "Math clearly indicates the total return approach just is."

There really isn't any 'better' about it, it just is the measure. Nothing else matters, anything else is just a distraction.

-ERD50

 

[redduck]

I'll go further, and say the "Math clearly indicates the total return approach just is."

There really isn't any 'better' about it, it just is the measure. Nothing else matters, anything else is just a distraction.

-ERD50

Looking at the numbers of the three portfolios, I gotta' agree. The S&P 500 definitely outgained the Managed Dividend Portfolio and also outgained the Indexed Dividend Portfolio. I obviously need to be less distracted. Is Adderall still only legally obtained via prescription?

 

[HI Bill]

I've been reading these threads on "dividend portfolios" for years. Math clearly indicates the total return approach is better, but investors let their emotions guide them.

Dividends suck when, like in 2008, the net value of a taxable equity/fund decreases, and you're paying taxes on dividends, when the asset value decreased! The only upside is that you own more shares at a lower price.