It's funny that I keep reading the same crap about dividend strategies in an unqualified generalization. Incidentally, you are in the best of company with "experts" such as Aktienmasseur.
I really don't understand why people who have 1 million stocks in their portfolio have a problem with dividend strategies and want to talk about homo oeconomicus - do you realize how contradictory that is?
Let me look at this from my point of view and I'll try to do something that these acrobats here somehow never do: to align the whole thing with examples, that would mean that they have thought about it themselves - but we just hear parrots.
Now let's assume the total amount is 120k, the payout is monthly for 1 euro/payout and the payout is 919.32/month. The growth is 2% over the next 10 years, (source https://www.finanzfluss.de/rechner/entnahmeplan/)
Let's take the example of Heinz. Based in Germany, saves ONE thesaurus ETF that costs 1 cent per share. As a side assumption, let's say that he is already making full use of his saver's allowance elsewhere. His withdrawal amount would be net 918.32 (one cent per share because I'm lazy).
Absolutely exemplary, the strategy and implementation harmonize perfectly. I really can't complain!
Now the dear forum members: I'm assuming the same financial data as above. However, they have 33 stocks and I am so bold as to go into the extrme and say that they have Berskhire A and Lindt, among others, and each individual stock in the portfolio accounts for exactly 3.33%. Prize question: what does the ideal payout plan look like and which share is now being de-risked and how? Berkshire cannot be de-saved monthly with 919.32 - fractions can only be de-saved in total (with the brokers I know). But the stupid thing now is that the portfolio is now unbalanced and theoretically a rebalance would have to happen. This means that each sale would now cost 34 euros (assuming that each trade costs 1 euro).
You could also start with a cheap share, but the portfolio would still be unbalanced and you cannot actually rebalance Berkshire. Another way would be to not rebalance, but that would unbalance the total return of the portfolio. As you can see, the whole thing is becoming very tedious and that's why, due to my laziness, I've only touched on the problem here and not really backed it up with figures.
It's funny that, of all people, those who have built a portfolio that is unsuitable for saving want to talk about dividend strategies and their usefulness.
Just to make it very clear:
- I am not criticizing a portfolio with 30+ stocks.
- I am criticizing people who do not have a rationally explainable portfolio but want to explain to me that my dividend stocks are supposedly irrational
But what I find most hilarious is when someone like that claims: "People with dividend stocks can't do math". Without ever having calculated an example and without knowing what the respective costs are. In my case, for example, I have absolutely the same costs for dividend and accumulation ETFs (assuming the same ETF as a basis). In other words, it makes ZERO financial difference to me which variant I choose.
PS: yes, I made a few particularly negative assumptions with the 30+ portfolio, a simplification with the 1 ETF portfolio. But I didn't want to go too far with the details, I think it was far enough
I really don't understand why people who have 1 million stocks in their portfolio have a problem with dividend strategies and want to talk about homo oeconomicus - do you realize how contradictory that is?
Let me look at this from my point of view and I'll try to do something that these acrobats here somehow never do: to align the whole thing with examples, that would mean that they have thought about it themselves - but we just hear parrots.
Now let's assume the total amount is 120k, the payout is monthly for 1 euro/payout and the payout is 919.32/month. The growth is 2% over the next 10 years, (source https://www.finanzfluss.de/rechner/entnahmeplan/)
Let's take the example of Heinz. Based in Germany, saves ONE thesaurus ETF that costs 1 cent per share. As a side assumption, let's say that he is already making full use of his saver's allowance elsewhere. His withdrawal amount would be net 918.32 (one cent per share because I'm lazy).
Absolutely exemplary, the strategy and implementation harmonize perfectly. I really can't complain!
Now the dear forum members: I'm assuming the same financial data as above. However, they have 33 stocks and I am so bold as to go into the extrme and say that they have Berskhire A and Lindt, among others, and each individual stock in the portfolio accounts for exactly 3.33%. Prize question: what does the ideal payout plan look like and which share is now being de-risked and how? Berkshire cannot be de-saved monthly with 919.32 - fractions can only be de-saved in total (with the brokers I know). But the stupid thing now is that the portfolio is now unbalanced and theoretically a rebalance would have to happen. This means that each sale would now cost 34 euros (assuming that each trade costs 1 euro).
You could also start with a cheap share, but the portfolio would still be unbalanced and you cannot actually rebalance Berkshire. Another way would be to not rebalance, but that would unbalance the total return of the portfolio. As you can see, the whole thing is becoming very tedious and that's why, due to my laziness, I've only touched on the problem here and not really backed it up with figures.
It's funny that, of all people, those who have built a portfolio that is unsuitable for saving want to talk about dividend strategies and their usefulness.
Just to make it very clear:
- I am not criticizing a portfolio with 30+ stocks.
- I am criticizing people who do not have a rationally explainable portfolio but want to explain to me that my dividend stocks are supposedly irrational
But what I find most hilarious is when someone like that claims: "People with dividend stocks can't do math". Without ever having calculated an example and without knowing what the respective costs are. In my case, for example, I have absolutely the same costs for dividend and accumulation ETFs (assuming the same ETF as a basis). In other words, it makes ZERO financial difference to me which variant I choose.
PS: yes, I made a few particularly negative assumptions with the 30+ portfolio, a simplification with the 1 ETF portfolio. But I didn't want to go too far with the details, I think it was far enough
•
22
•@Eggplant Confusing. Very confused.
•
11
•
@Eggplant Not everyone likes the truth. You don't seem to be good at logic or math. Look at your own nose before you give unqualified answers to fact-based statements.
•
11
•@Aktienmasseur yawn, I have already shown you why I
definitely don't think much of your statements on financial matters.
What intellectual contribution have you made to the discussion?
definitely don't think much of your statements on financial matters.
What intellectual contribution have you made to the discussion?
••
@Eggplant I mean, could your text have been understood at all? But I'm still not sure what you wanted with 30 shares and what you actually wanted to point out. In my opinion, I take a critical view of anything over a few positions... which is because you lose the overview too quickly. Having a single position is not the best either.
Saving is possible no matter how many you have. You don't need dividends for that.
Saving is possible no matter how many you have. You don't need dividends for that.
••
@Madhatter5566 Of course you can save an x amount in a custody account. But sit down and think seriously about how you want to do this.
I don't know your securities account structure and you may have a securities account that allows you to save in a sensible way. However, I don't think it's particularly easy for many people here in the forum. That certainly includes me.
I just arbitrarily set the number of stocks to 30. With a certain degree of diversification, this is not unrealistic.
I don't know your securities account structure and you may have a securities account that allows you to save in a sensible way. However, I don't think it's particularly easy for many people here in the forum. That certainly includes me.
I just arbitrarily set the number of stocks to 30. With a certain degree of diversification, this is not unrealistic.
••
@Eggplant And what does that have to do with the topic? Do you think dividends make saving easier? So always looking for companies that pay out dividends throughout the year so that enough is always withdrawn is not easy, but the selection afterwards is simply counterproductive. The balancing of always withdrawing enough in the end leads to an accumulation of good stocks in certain months and a lull in others. What's more, you build this up gradually, so you have to constantly reinvest along the way. With all the costs involved and a new spread.
Instead of simply selling part of it when it suits you. I think it's more complicated with dividends than without.
Instead of simply selling part of it when it suits you. I think it's more complicated with dividends than without.
••
@Madhatter5566 ok, you don't want to get involved mentally - that's ok.
I don't want to get involved in moving targets and whataboutism. So let's leave it alone at this point.
I don't want to get involved in moving targets and whataboutism. So let's leave it alone at this point.
••
@Eggplant To what? That it would be easier with dividends? It is not.
•
11
•