7Mo·

Strategy adjustment Growth & dividends

I am 42 years old and have an investment horizon of 20 years. I would like to combine some growth with dividends as a retirement provision.

Even though the portfolio is currently quite red, I am generally satisfied with the stocks. $RKLB (-7,38 %) was once a gift and $MSFT (+0,29 %) would be a bonus, so they are not self-selected.

I would like to invest a total of 6,000 euros per year for the time being, i.e. an average of 500 euros per month.

I have now changed the distribution as follows:

150 euros go into the $VWRL (+0,14 %)

75 euros to the $ZPRG (+1,51 %)

45 Euro to the $QYLE (-0,5 %)

30 Euro in the $EUDF (-3,44 %)

Would you weight differently here?

Up to now, I have saved 10 euros a month in the individual shares represented, but I will be making a quarterly one-off purchase of 500 euros. In this way, I can take advantage of opportunities and gradually build up the stocks or say goodbye to one or the other or add something new.

400 euros remain free each year, which I would like to use flexibly for $BTC (+1,06 %) for example.

I like the mix of regular long-term passive investment and the opportunity to be more active on a quarterly basis.

17Positions

9,83 %

18 Commentaires

Chris@Multibagger

7Mo

For ETFs, there are much more competent opinions here than mine, but as far as savings plans are concerned, I would stick to monthly for cost average reasons, reduce the number and increase the amount per share saved.

•

Uvilo@Uvilo

7Mo

@Multibagger Yes, that's why I like savings plans so much! However, I would also like to be able to be somewhat active. Maybe I'll take half of the quarterly 500 euros in savings plans on the most important individual stocks and then only actively invest the other 250 euros. Thank you!

••

Melly@melly-m

7Mo

Nice portfolio. With a 20-year investment period, I would look to add a few more dividend growth stocks to the portfolio at good purchase prices.
(Possibilities are e.g. Zoetis, S&P Global, SNAP-on, CME, JPM, Fastenal, Watsco, ... - if the valuation is right, of course).
I think with such stocks you will have a good dividend yield in 20 years and will be happy not to have to get into them in the first place.

•

Uvilo@Uvilo

7Mo

Thanks for the feedback 👍! That's actually a point I would try to take into account when making quarterly purchases. Do you have a dividend favorite?

••

Gomerdoc@Gomerdoc

7Mo

Not quite from my point of view. Dividends are a differentiated topic: with ETFs, you can look at it the same way as @Madhatter5566, but not when investing in individual stocks.
There are usually reasons for stocks that don't pay any dividends at all. Here, too, there are exceptions that have high quality and pay out almost nothing ( $MSFT $GOOGL ), but as a rule, high-quality stocks have been returning a portion to their shareholders every year for decades. And many of these stocks have been increasing this payout rate as a percentage every year, some of them for over 100 years: this shows what quality they have: $BNS, for example, has been increasing its dividend every single year since 1833, and the underlying base price continues to rise.

When investing in shares, you can of course generate "dividends" yourself at some point by selling part of your previous price gains: however, this leads to a loss of substance, is time-consuming, each trade costs fees, etc.

Quality dividend shares: pay dividends without any loss of value. You can bequeath the number of shares to your grandchildren and the dividend will still increase from year to year. In particular, your personal dividend yield (i.e. how much money did I pay for a share at what time, and how much dividend do I receive today in relation to the purchase price at that time) is the measure of all things. If you want to replicate this by selling shares at some point, then good night Marie, say goodbye to your investments.
After 20 or 25 years, this personal dividend yield can rise to 70 or 80 % for many quality stocks: per year! In other words, based on the *former* purchase price, you will receive 70% of your purchase price each year, without any loss of substance: next year again and so on.

•

Utilisateur supprimé

7Mo

Le commentaire a été supprimé

Gomerdoc@Gomerdoc

7Mo

@Madhatter5566 That's right, you can see it that way. Only the number of shares held remains the same with the dividend model; if I want to make withdrawals without dividends, I have to sell.
The number of shares held decreases. And if what you outlined above happens next year (profit goes down for some reason), and the number of shares has decreased, that's like a lever on the personal return. return.
So I have to trade more, act more. But you're right: in the end it's a matter of opinion and depends on personal needs. A young person who is building up assets doesn't necessarily have to pay attention to dividends.

But: the idea that shares that don't pay dividends make more price gains than those that do is obviously not statistically true (I've been told this, but I can't check it, so I don't know if it's true).

•

Utilisateur supprimé

7Mo

Le commentaire a été supprimé

Gomerdoc@Gomerdoc

7Mo

@Madhatter5566 "Leverage" meant symbolically and of course not in the correct stock market sense: Number of shares x dividend increase rate x price gain vs. decreasing number of shares x price gain of the securities.
In your model, wealth will definitely fall at some point or will *theoretically* be reduced to 1 single share over many years: after that, it's over.
Not in mine.
I'm talking about a phase of pure withdrawal without new purchases, e.g. at retirement age.
Which, admittedly, doesn't play a role in the average lifespan of a person.
D

And: good dividend-paying stocks are not 1-euro stocks with moderate price performance vs. non-paying stocks = 1000-euro stocks, but have roughly the same price performance as non-dividend-paying companies: the latter, however, usually simply do not have the same quality, which is why they cannot pay out anything to the owners at this stage of their business model. However, these stocks can of course also have exploding share price gains: Stock market prices usually reflect an expected or hoped-for future.

Distributing ETFs are a different matter: I agree that they should be scrutinized in terms of asset accumulation.
Accumulating or distributing: the shares behind them are the same, the risk is the same, only the share growth is slower.

••

Voir une réponse de plus

Utilisateur supprimé

7Mo

Le commentaire a été supprimé

Uvilo@Uvilo

7Mo

@Madhatter5566 Good thoughts! I'm unfortunately not that disciplined and have realized that the monthly return somehow does motivate me a lot. Positive growth but also 😄.

But the CC ETF is actually the one I'm most critical of myself. Maybe it really does still have to go. Thank you!

•

Max@Divident_e

7Mo

@Uvilo Dividends are very good. Don't let them unsettle you. They are part of the return.

•

Utilisateur supprimé

7Mo

Le commentaire a été supprimé

Uvilo@Uvilo

7Mo

@bullish999 Thanks for the feedback! I've already learned that a dividend strategy is polarizing 🤗! Do you have a dividend favorite?

•

Pleni70@Pleni70

6Mo

@Madhatter5566 Mathematically, that's true. But you're always spoiled for choice as to what to sell and if you make the wrong decision, you regret it. I think dividends are a good thing for the head. But for 20 years I would add at least 50 % growth.

••

Utilisateur supprimé

6Mo

Le commentaire a été supprimé

Pleni70@Pleni70

6Mo

@Madhatter5566 can now be discussed back and forth. Who always sells at the right time. It's also a personal matter where you feel more comfortable. But you're probably right in terms of the figures.

••