1) 🖕🖕🖕 2) Do you increase your savings plans by the distributions, or do you invest fixed amount X every month, which is composed of the respective dividends + your income?
3) 🖕🍌🖕 4) What I just don't understand: why is it better not to reinvest dividends than to cut the savings plan? 5) If you're all about low volatility, why not a minimum volatility ETF? 6) There is something between growth and high dividend, after all. The question you should always ask yourself: Why does a company pay high dividends? And what can it not do more with the dividend that is paid out (e.g. invest wisely in the future)? Is it realistic that you reduce risk / volatility with such companies? 7) 🍌🖕🍌 8) You want to get the maximum out within your framework and yet deliberately forgo returns? How does that fit together? 9) If you really want to minimize volatility, why not a time deposit? 10) You're not feeding your ETF portfolio out of itself. You're just not investing anything more. What you call "feeding from itself" is called accumulating and is equivalent to "I invest in the accumulating version of my ETF, but suspend my savings plan." 11) 🍌🖕🍌 13) 🖕🖕🖕 14) Alternatively, your reduced savings rate would pay you your lease payment instead of the dividend. With the same effect. 15) The goal is actually not that individual. Actually, somewhat abstracted, it is the same for everyone: the maximum return that can be achieved with one's own risk profile, the effort that should be invested and taking into account personal preferences. 16) Ultimately, your approach is quite understandable. You invest according to feeling and not according to rational aspects. Or at least more by feeling than by rational aspects. I do that, too. But you should also admit it to yourself and not look for excuses why you invest the way you do. 17) There is a mistake in my comment. Who can find it? 18) 🖕🖕🖕
3) 🖕🍌🖕 4) What I just don't understand: why is it better not to reinvest dividends than to cut the savings plan? 5) If you're all about low volatility, why not a minimum volatility ETF? 6) There is something between growth and high dividend, after all. The question you should always ask yourself: Why does a company pay high dividends? And what can it not do more with the dividend that is paid out (e.g. invest wisely in the future)? Is it realistic that you reduce risk / volatility with such companies? 7) 🍌🖕🍌 8) You want to get the maximum out within your framework and yet deliberately forgo returns? How does that fit together? 9) If you really want to minimize volatility, why not a time deposit? 10) You're not feeding your ETF portfolio out of itself. You're just not investing anything more. What you call "feeding from itself" is called accumulating and is equivalent to "I invest in the accumulating version of my ETF, but suspend my savings plan." 11) 🍌🖕🍌 13) 🖕🖕🖕 14) Alternatively, your reduced savings rate would pay you your lease payment instead of the dividend. With the same effect. 15) The goal is actually not that individual. Actually, somewhat abstracted, it is the same for everyone: the maximum return that can be achieved with one's own risk profile, the effort that should be invested and taking into account personal preferences. 16) Ultimately, your approach is quite understandable. You invest according to feeling and not according to rational aspects. Or at least more by feeling than by rational aspects. I do that, too. But you should also admit it to yourself and not look for excuses why you invest the way you do. 17) There is a mistake in my comment. Who can find it? 18) 🖕🖕🖕
•
11
•
@DonkeyInvestor at point 12/2= 6) the point is missing after "bspw". So it should be "bspw.". Have I won?
••
@DonkeyInvestor
1) 🖕🖕🖕 (Simpsonfinger especially for you) 2) Either savings plans are increased or, as it is currently still, new savings plans are created. 3) 🖕🥕🖕 4) Your statement makes no sense. Dividends are reinvested and savings plans are not cut either. 5) Is the question serious? Why don't you buy $SOL? 6) It depends on the stock. For example, the company could already be so big and so widespread that growth would not be possible at all without further ado or would even be unhealthy because the market would be oversaturated. Of course, there's also something in between. But that's why dividend yield isn't the only decisive factor. 7) 🥕🖕🥕 8) It's right there. Within my framework. So as an example (without me having a specific value actually): If I had set myself a frame as volatility of max +/- 15%, then the stock could still grow steadily. Volatility stands for fluctuation, not for growth. You know? 9) Where does it say minimize? 10) Correct. But it also gives me the option to use the dividends differently if I have to, without selling shares 11) 🥕🖕🥕 12) I 13) 🖕🖕🖕 14) With the difference that the number of shares would be constant, so I would have deficits in the dividend yield later. 15) Yep. That's right. And yet it's individual because the type of risk profile, the effort, and thus the result is completely different. 16) Correct, that's what I'm saying. 19) 🖕🖕🖕
1) 🖕🖕🖕 (Simpsonfinger especially for you) 2) Either savings plans are increased or, as it is currently still, new savings plans are created. 3) 🖕🥕🖕 4) Your statement makes no sense. Dividends are reinvested and savings plans are not cut either. 5) Is the question serious? Why don't you buy $SOL? 6) It depends on the stock. For example, the company could already be so big and so widespread that growth would not be possible at all without further ado or would even be unhealthy because the market would be oversaturated. Of course, there's also something in between. But that's why dividend yield isn't the only decisive factor. 7) 🥕🖕🥕 8) It's right there. Within my framework. So as an example (without me having a specific value actually): If I had set myself a frame as volatility of max +/- 15%, then the stock could still grow steadily. Volatility stands for fluctuation, not for growth. You know? 9) Where does it say minimize? 10) Correct. But it also gives me the option to use the dividends differently if I have to, without selling shares 11) 🥕🖕🥕 12) I 13) 🖕🖕🖕 14) With the difference that the number of shares would be constant, so I would have deficits in the dividend yield later. 15) Yep. That's right. And yet it's individual because the type of risk profile, the effort, and thus the result is completely different. 16) Correct, that's what I'm saying. 19) 🖕🖕🖕
••
•
11
•
@DonkeyInvestor Item 12 is missing. Interesting that hidden lottery 😂
••
@DividendenWaschbaer
4) You do not make sense. If the worst comes to the worst, you don't want to reinvest your dividend and lease a car, for example. What is better than cutting the savings rate? 5) Yes. Because it sucks centrally. 6) I claim that every company that doesn't know what to do with its money will have a problem sooner or later. The companies you describe should be the exception than the rule. 8) And you are good at estimating the volatility of stocks like $MPW? 9) Everywhere. Maybe not literally but that's what your post suggests. 10) You could also just reduce your savings rate and not have to sell anything 14) No. 12) 19) You found my hidden mistake and won. Here is your prize: 🖕🏻🍌
4) You do not make sense. If the worst comes to the worst, you don't want to reinvest your dividend and lease a car, for example. What is better than cutting the savings rate? 5) Yes. Because it sucks centrally. 6) I claim that every company that doesn't know what to do with its money will have a problem sooner or later. The companies you describe should be the exception than the rule. 8) And you are good at estimating the volatility of stocks like $MPW? 9) Everywhere. Maybe not literally but that's what your post suggests. 10) You could also just reduce your savings rate and not have to sell anything 14) No. 12) 19) You found my hidden mistake and won. Here is your prize: 🖕🏻🍌
••
@GoDividend right. You have won a @Vanguard sweater. Send a screenshot and your dress size to kundenservice@vanguard.com.
•
22
•@GoDividend you should really do that and see what happens
•
22
•@DonkeyInvestor
4) Always the thought that the savings plan will continue. Purely mental. It doesn't make any difference. I like to assume the worst. So suppose I can't keep the savings plan going because the money is needed elsewhere. At the same time, my car breaks down. So I can lease the new car and still use the savings plan installment for something else. It's purely a thought experiment. Of course I could also sell shares for 200€ every month for a fee. But I don't want to. 5) Because the Low Votality ETF doesn't appeal to me at the moment. 6) You claim. May be. But maybe not. It is not about whether a company distributes 100% or 0% of the FCF. Of course there is always the share buyback. But not knowing where to put the money was more related to new investments like new branches or so. 8) Of course not. And I also wrote that I partly have a higher risk in the portfolio. But then again, this is balanced out by things like $MCD or $PG or so, which tend to run a little more smoothly. 9) Everyone has a certain "pain threshold" that can be endured in terms of volatility. One person doesn't care if the portfolio falls by 60%, the other gets heart palpitations at -10%. That is simply different. I could not necessarily sleep peacefully at -50%. But that is a dynamic process and different for everyone. 10) Psyche 14) But I also want a Vanguard sweater
4) Always the thought that the savings plan will continue. Purely mental. It doesn't make any difference. I like to assume the worst. So suppose I can't keep the savings plan going because the money is needed elsewhere. At the same time, my car breaks down. So I can lease the new car and still use the savings plan installment for something else. It's purely a thought experiment. Of course I could also sell shares for 200€ every month for a fee. But I don't want to. 5) Because the Low Votality ETF doesn't appeal to me at the moment. 6) You claim. May be. But maybe not. It is not about whether a company distributes 100% or 0% of the FCF. Of course there is always the share buyback. But not knowing where to put the money was more related to new investments like new branches or so. 8) Of course not. And I also wrote that I partly have a higher risk in the portfolio. But then again, this is balanced out by things like $MCD or $PG or so, which tend to run a little more smoothly. 9) Everyone has a certain "pain threshold" that can be endured in terms of volatility. One person doesn't care if the portfolio falls by 60%, the other gets heart palpitations at -10%. That is simply different. I could not necessarily sleep peacefully at -50%. But that is a dynamic process and different for everyone. 10) Psyche 14) But I also want a Vanguard sweater
••
@DonkeyInvestor Done. Waiting for feedback
•
33
•@DividendenWaschbaer
4) would rather get money paid out for a fee (tax) at any time, even though you don't need it at all 👍 5) Because you're in love with dividends. Just admit it 6) but maybe yes 8) and those are high dividend stocks for you? 14) Oohhh you get one when @GoDividend throws his in the trash
4) would rather get money paid out for a fee (tax) at any time, even though you don't need it at all 👍 5) Because you're in love with dividends. Just admit it 6) but maybe yes 8) and those are high dividend stocks for you? 14) Oohhh you get one when @GoDividend throws his in the trash
••