I was recently informed that most of the ETFs you mentioned are not dividend growth ETFs. Because the background is not about stocks whose dividends grow, but there are many more stocks on the Quality Index that pay dividends.
So $FGEQ, for example, is theoretically an MSCi World minus "no quality companies" minus "no dividend payers". This is why, for example, $NVDA is also included, as it only pays a minimal proportion of dividends.
There is also a good article on this by a user.
But to your question:
I myself have built my portfolio in such a way that the value of the dividends is around 2% and can grow over the years. I have combined a core-satellite strategy with $VWRL as the core, the strong dividend payer $TDIV and the combination $FGEQ as the satellite.
I am very happy with my decision so far.
So $FGEQ, for example, is theoretically an MSCi World minus "no quality companies" minus "no dividend payers". This is why, for example, $NVDA is also included, as it only pays a minimal proportion of dividends.
There is also a good article on this by a user.
But to your question:
I myself have built my portfolio in such a way that the value of the dividends is around 2% and can grow over the years. I have combined a core-satellite strategy with $VWRL as the core, the strong dividend payer $TDIV and the combination $FGEQ as the satellite.
I am very happy with my decision so far.
•
66
•
4Lun
@Kosmonaut I also like your portfolio structure. In your opinion, would $TDIV and $FGEQ be diversified enough as a core? I would also add an EM with 10-20%
••
•
11
•
@Kosmonaut So for me, any ETF with high dividend growth over several years is a dividend growth ETF.
The actual strategy pursued by an ETF or the criteria according to which it selects positions is completely irrelevant.
At the end of the day, it's all about what your personal goal is and whether the product in question fulfills it.
The actual strategy pursued by an ETF or the criteria according to which it selects positions is completely irrelevant.
At the end of the day, it's all about what your personal goal is and whether the product in question fulfills it.
••
@Banana_Millionaire
That's your definition, but an ETF pays out dividends and the issuer can theoretically change this at any time.
I myself am "actually" pursuing the same goal as @Rob314 and wanted to make sure that Rob knows that the ETFs (like the $FGEQ ) are not intended to increase dividends, but simply follow the quality index described above.
The fact that distributions are also increased in the event of a positive result is a side effect, but this could be reduced again if, for example, Fidelity says from one day to the next that less should be distributed. This has already happened with some ETFs, most recently with the well-known $GGRP
Also take a look at this article:
https://getqu.in/mrlaKN/
As I said, these are not bad ETFs, I just wanted to point out the "risk" :-)
That's your definition, but an ETF pays out dividends and the issuer can theoretically change this at any time.
I myself am "actually" pursuing the same goal as @Rob314 and wanted to make sure that Rob knows that the ETFs (like the $FGEQ ) are not intended to increase dividends, but simply follow the quality index described above.
The fact that distributions are also increased in the event of a positive result is a side effect, but this could be reduced again if, for example, Fidelity says from one day to the next that less should be distributed. This has already happened with some ETFs, most recently with the well-known $GGRP
Also take a look at this article:
https://getqu.in/mrlaKN/
As I said, these are not bad ETFs, I just wanted to point out the "risk" :-)
•
11
•@Kosmonaut I'm aware of everything, and I'm also familiar with the article.
I just think that you don't always have to go into too much theoretical detail.
In addition, there is never a right to a certain dividend yield or its growth rate.
It would simply be a shame if people didn't dare to invest in a product simply because of the definition, even though it corresponds exactly to their investment strategy.
I just think that you don't always have to go into too much theoretical detail.
In addition, there is never a right to a certain dividend yield or its growth rate.
It would simply be a shame if people didn't dare to invest in a product simply because of the definition, even though it corresponds exactly to their investment strategy.
••
@Banana_Millionaire On the other hand, you should only invest in what you understand. And with my contribution, I have perhaps closed the gap a little. It would be a shame to invest in a product without knowing the index behind it
••
@Kosmonaut all good, in theory you're right ;)
••
4Lun
@Kosmonaut hi, in what weighting to each other & do you keep it that way or do you just go by the savings rate instead of keeping the weighting the same?
••
@ciwe hey,
I have the $VWRL as the core and the $FGEQ with just under 20% each and the $TDIV with a little less than 20% each.
I will pull up the $TDIV a bit more so that it reaches 20% and then start saving according to the savings plan. There will come a time when I "need" fewer dividends (I'm currently studying part-time), so the focus will probably be on the core, but for now I'm planning to keep the two satellites at around 20%.
I have the $VWRL as the core and the $FGEQ with just under 20% each and the $TDIV with a little less than 20% each.
I will pull up the $TDIV a bit more so that it reaches 20% and then start saving according to the savings plan. There will come a time when I "need" fewer dividends (I'm currently studying part-time), so the focus will probably be on the core, but for now I'm planning to keep the two satellites at around 20%.
•
11
•@Kosmonaut but this applies to the ETF part of my portfolio. I also have 3 individual shares and shares in a company (family) that are not included in this calculation. However, the shares should not make up a large proportion of my portfolio (each share is always smaller than an ETF satellite)
••