> You only want your investments to increase in price if you intend to sell or collateralize them. As investments proper, you want to earn dividends.
uh... no my dude. Whether a company buys back the shares, or issues a cash dividend, warrants, or someone else is willing to pay you more for the same shares, you've obtained what's called a "total return."
What any investor is looking for is a total return, and it doesn't matter in what form. Inflation only sets the benchmark rate for total return.
When a company issues a dividend its stock price drops by the decrease in net asset value of the company once the dividend is issued. It's actually a no-op to issue a dividend from a total return perspective. Whether the money comes from a different shareholder as a result of disposition, from the company as the result of a buyback, or as a dividend, is utterly irrelevant.
The difference between an unrealized gain and a dividend is the difference between a "realized" and a "mark-to-market" gain. They have different profiles, and different benefits. For instance, a mark-to-market gain can be rolled forward into different tax years where as a realized gain must be attributed to the current tax year.
Please, for the love of stocks, take an ECON class. I'm not a complementary tutor, and you're so far off the reservation it's hard to even know how to reign you in.
> uh... no my dude. Whether a company buys back the shares, or issues a cash dividend, warrants, or someone else is willing to pay you more for the same shares, you've obtained what's called a "total return."
You seem to be unaware that different investors have different investment goals.
> What any investor is looking for is a total return, and it doesn't matter in what form.
Yeah, no. Some investors want dividends, some want gains, some are more concerned with security of principle, some optimize for total return. This is taught in finance 101.
> Inflation only sets the benchmark rate for total return.
Inflation creates a margin rate of profit that must be met or a business loses money.
> When a company issues a dividend its stock price drops by the decrease in net asset value of the company once the dividend is issued.
It depends. Sometimes the price goes up because they have shown that they are in a position for the owners to take profit. Sometimes it goes down because shareholders want to reinvest their capital elsewhere and its timely to do this immediately after dividend receipt (because you’re not waiting for the next dividend).
> The difference between an unrealized gain and a dividend is the difference between a "realized" and a "mark-to-market" gain. They have different profiles, and different benefits. For instance, a mark-to-market gain can be rolled forward into different tax years where as a realized gain must be attributed to the current tax year.
I’m glad you understand this. Now based on this, can you see why some investors would prefer dividends and some would prefer capital gains?
> Please, for the love of stocks, take an ECON class. I'm not a complementary tutor, and you're so far off the reservation it's hard to even know how to reign you in.
Really now, this is rich. If you think my perspective is that outlandish then you truly have not studied this to any great extent.
Absolute value of assets doesn't matter. What matters is future appreciation potential of those assets. That's my point. You can infinitely subdivide them and see the same appreciation potential recognized over a greater number of units.
Yes people who got in before you may have done better than you. They may not have. But the absolute price isn't relevant since owning AAPL shares isn't a necessity for life. On the other hand the absolute affordability of elements of the CPI basket does matter, which is why the CPI basket includes actual apples and not AAPL shares.
Remember when you invest in something what you want is for it to become less affordable. That decrease in affordability is called an "ROI" or return on investment.
> Absolute value of assets doesn't matter. What matters is future appreciation potential of those assets. That's my point.
Someones ability to buy in to those assets is relevant for their ability to realize that appreciation.
> You can infinitely subdivide them and see the same appreciation potential recognized over a greater number of units.
So? The units here don’t matter. The fact that the central bank policy resulted in real wage decrease and nominal asset price increase means that central bank policy benefitted the asset seller at the expense of the asset buyer. Playing fast and loose with units doesn’t change this.
> Remember when you invest in something what you want is for it to become less affordable. That decrease in affordability is called an "ROI" or return on investment.
This is a revealing statement and is actually good example of how central bank policy has distorted even the way people think about assets. You only want your investments to increase in price if you intend to sell or collateralize them. As investments proper, you want to earn dividends. But inflation has driven the prices of assets far out of proportion to their returns, so now people think of r.o.i. as something that happens when you sell.
> Someones ability to buy in to those assets is relevant for their ability to realize that appreciation.
With fractional shares all that matters is how much cash they bring to the table now how many individual units of stock they can purchase and that cash can then track the return of the underlying equity.
> You seem to be unaware that different investors have different investment goals.
No, investors only have one goal: total returns. Anything else makes no sense. After all a stock that issues a $5 dividend and goes down $10 ain't worth investing in, is it?
> Yeah, no. Some investors want dividends, some want gains, some are more concerned with security of principle, some optimize for total return. This is taught in finance 101.
All are gains. At the end the day there's one bucket of money. you're saying it matters how you apportion it, and I'm telling you it does not.
If you hold 100 shares and a company that doesn't issue a dividend, but went up 1%, you can sell 1 share to obtain a 1% dividend. Or you can wait for them to issue a 1% divided and be left with 99% the value. It's a no-op. Same thing. You've failed at basic math here. There's one bucket of money. Dividends don't appear out of thin air.
> It depends. Sometimes the price goes up because they have shown that they are in a position for the owners to take profit. Sometimes it goes down because shareholders want to reinvest their capital elsewhere and its timely to do this immediately after dividend receipt (because you’re not waiting for the next dividend).
No. You are strictly wrong. When a dividend is issued the stock goes down by that amount. [1]
After a stock goes ex-dividend, the share price typically drops by the amount of the dividend paid to reflect the fact that new shareholders are not entitled to that payment.
> I’m glad you understand this. Now based on this, can you see why some investors would prefer dividends and some would prefer capital gains?
Yes, but you have it wrong. Dividends are less valuable because they offer no flexibility in recognition date. Either way they are both treated as capital gains. In fact, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, dividends are treated as ordinary income. On the other hand if you sell something you've held for 1 year in lieu you'll get long-term capital gains treatment.
> Really now, this is rich. If you think my perspective is that outlandish then you truly have not studied this to any great extent.
> No, investors only have one goal: total returns.
You’re misinformed. There are 3 considerations: dividend yield, capital gain, and security of principle.
> Both are gains. If you hold 100 shares and a company doesn't issue a dividend you can sell 1 share to obtain a 1% dividend. Or you can wait for them to issue a 1% divided and be left with 99% the value. It's a no-op. Same thing. You've failed at basic math here.
Owning cash isn’t the same as owning a business and almost everyone understands that. I’m not sure if you’re really this clueless or you’re trying to gaslight me, either way you’re wrong.
> No. You are strictly wrong. When a dividend is issued the stock goes down by that amount. [1]
> After a stock goes ex-dividend, the share price typically drops by the amount of the dividend paid to reflect the fact that new shareholders are not entitled to that payment.
> strictly
> typically
You don’t seem to understand the subject based on this exchange. Do you realize that’s not a rebuttal to what I said?
> No dividends are less valuable because they offer no flexibility in recognition date.
So if they are less valuable then you understand that some investors would prefer them less, and this is not the same as only caring about total returns?
> In fact, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, dividends are treated as ordinary income. On the other hand if you sell something you've held for 1 year in lieu you'll get long-term capital gains treatment.
So you do understand that they are different, and investors care about more than total return?
You really must be confused if you think thats a rebuttal.