Mulligan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,343
OK, and I think it is smart to for one to recognize their limitations and act accordingly - sure (Spock speaking), it is smarter to 'get over it', but we are humans.
I don't have any problem with someone admitting they might freak out and sell at the bottom, they should act accordingly. But I get the impression that some people here are saying dividend payers are just 'better' overall, and I'm just not seeing it. Again, I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with a diversified holding of dividend payers (hmmm, but sometimes the dividend payers are concentrated in a few market segments, so diversification might suffer?), I just don't see the overall attraction.
-ERD50
I personally am agnostic on which is TRULY better. But there certainly are people who believe dividends are better. This issue closely nudges up to the "total return" vs. "income investing" debate. Neither side has convinced the other on the Morningstar forums and the debate has been going on for years.
Just as an example, I talked to my dad last week and mentioned one of his bigger preferred stocks dropped a bit. He responded... "Is there something going on that may effect the dividend"
I told him no, and he said "I don't care what the price of the stock is as I am never going to sell it, I just want my 6% dividend on time".
Right or wrong there has to be many that believe that and will do fine in their parameters of investing they set. But once again I am not suggesting it is a superior or even as good of method as the other.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk