It's a well executed website, but there is no good reason for it to exist. You shouldn't be on a quest to find high yield dividend stocks in the first place.
Whether a stock pays dividends really shouldn't factor in to your decision as to whether to buy it. Any dividend a company pays out makes the company worth that much less. Whatever you stand to gain from the dividend, you stand to lose in the value of the stock you own.
When buying a stock the only thing that matters are its fundamentals. Ie. is the company's assets and future earning potential worth more than the current price of the stock to you? Unless you have information that the market doesn't, this is not a question whose answer you will reliably get right.
Good points, especially for value investing. It also seems likely that this logic holds whenever analyzing a traditional company. Once again, I'd ask whether the same logic holds for the ETFs and leveraged funds that encompass most of the stocks on this site?
There may be other reasons not to invest in such a stock, but I seem to keep seeing value investors trying to compare apples to oranges.
Because companies want to return profits to shareholders. Share buybacks are more common now but achieve the same thing. If the company is still growing it should be reinvesting in the business rather than throwing off cash but some stable (or declining) businesses have no good way to do so. That’s why dividends can be a red flag.
No, the stock value accounts for the market's expectation of the aggregate value of returns by dividend, dissolution, buyback, or sale of the whole corporation with an infinite time horizon.
This is, in part, a product of the actual pattern of returns combined with the expectation of change: even if you are profitable, if the market thinks you won’t return any profits until the corporation eventually succumbs to gambler's ruin and dissolves with no residual value, your stock price will be in the toilet.
The reason we don't want companies to gain market power (the feared result of mega-conglomeration) is because it allows companies to charge more for the same or a worse product.
If this person believes that Blizzard being acquired by microsoft will result in a better product, then they expect the net benefits to outweigh the negatives of Microsoft's increased market power over the video games market.
Acquisitions that produce a consumer-surplus should be most welcome!
Very sad about this decision. Blizzard has shown itself to be entirely incompetent, and seeing how well Microsoft managed the Minecraft IP I was looking forward to seeing what they could have done with the excellent blizzard IP.
Minecraft is a great example of what could have been, for sure. We're nearing the 10 year anniversary of the Mojang acquisition (wow) and Minecraft is still flourishing and as popular as it's ever been. It's kind of amazing how relevant Minecraft has remained all of these years instead of fading into the background as a 2010s fad game. It's also stayed aggressively cross platform, available on basically every device known to man, including a Linux port that's still developed, which throws a bit of water on the fears that Microsoft would turn Call of Duty exclusive.
> which throws a bit of water on the fears that Microsoft would turn Call of Duty exclusive.
No it doesn’t since Microsoft is doing just that with Bethesda. The Minecraft acquisition was at a time when MS had no good will and needed to earn some, plus it’s a lot of children playing that who can’t be bullied into buying another platform. This is not the case with future releases on games that basically every adult who plays games takes part in.
Used to have huge three screen set up, arch linux, all sorts of complicated nonsense.
These days I have a 14 inch macbook, which I put on top of a few books and control with a keyboard + magic trackpad. Can't say it's made me any more or less productive.
The biggest improvement i've made was acquiring a desk treadmill, hasn't affected my productivity but now I'm getting 10-20k steps a day without really thinking much about it.
I sincerely think that if you lived your father's at life your age for a few months, you would come to the conclusion that your life is better.
I hate that there's no easy way to run the experiment, but when I talk to my parents about their life at my age, I'm often astounded at how much wealthier my life feels at $27k a year (though I am fortunate to rent a room for free, so my living standard is effectively ~10k higher than it would be for others at the same wage as me).
For what it's worth I'm from Denmark, so maybe its totally different in the US.
That may be the case but if entitlement is based on actual working conditions, then we’ve got far less entitlement.
Even today tradespeople get paid $50k more per year than I do and they have far better conditions. They strike all the time and refuse to do work they aren’t paid for.
> For what it's worth I'm from Denmark, so maybe its totally different in the US.
To weigh in a bit on some of the differences between employment in Denmark and the US.
- In the US there are no mandated (paid or unpaid) vacation days/time off (with the exception of 3-4 of the 50 states).
- There are no mandated paid sick days.
- You are granted at most 12 weeks of unpaid sick leave per year by the FMLA however if you actually take advantage of this, most companies will simply let you go for another, unspecified reason (as you are not required to document or explain why you have let go or fire an employee).
- There is no mandated paternity leave, paid or unpaid. Maternity leave falls under unpaid sick leave.
- On average (but not required), employees get 10-20 days of paid time off (combined between vacation and sick time).
- The US obviously has atrocious health care costs that unless you are very lucky end up eating non-negligible portions of your paycheck. (just insurance before any actual received care is on average is ~450USD/month)
- US Universities cost a lot of money and if you aren't going into the trades, you will be dedicating a large, non-negligible portion of your paycheck towards paying loans (avg: ~40k USD loans, ~150-300USD/month).
- In almost any part of the US outside of a small selection of major cities, you cannot work or live without a car. (avg car insurance ~150USD/month, avg cost of fuel ~150-200USD/month, maintenance, etc can be assumed to be another 25-100USD/month).
----
That works out to on average around ~900-1200USD/month or ~10.8k-14.4k USD/year in costs (if you aren't going to university you can subtract 450USD/month or 5400USD/year from this) that are essentially unavoidable for the overwhelming majority of Americans which likely are avoidable in a country like Denmark as long as you don't live in an overly rural area.
Realistically this means that for the average American (~31k/year), anywhere from 17-46% of their income goes to expenses that aren't necessarily applicable to people in a decent chunk of western Europe (particularly the urban/suburban parts). And on top of this, for many Americans, any life complication or sickness that prevents them from working causes that percentage to rise (both from increased costs and decreased income).
I don’t know why you’d spend so long typing out such a long piece of what is just patently misinformation. It border line reads like you just harbor animus towards the US and wanted to seize on an opportunity to malign it.
While there is no federal law for sick leave, many states have them, and even for states that don’t, local municipalities do which means a large portion of US workers do receive mandated sick time.
https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/paid-sick-le...
The car insurance part is also wrong. As is the part about being fired for taking sick time; it costs the average employer 7 figures to fight a wrongful termination suit. So even if they win, it’d have been cheaper to keep you on even if you did nothing. Employers in at will states can fire you for any reason but if you’ve had fine performance reviews leading up to your medical leave, only the stupidest employers would expose themselves to massive legal liability by firing you. I’m guessing you’re pretty naive to running a business because most employers and entrepreneurs I’ve talked to are quite aware of this and truthfully do have good will towards their employees anyway.
There’s more to pick apart here but tl;dr - no one in the US making 31k/yr is spending half their income on health insurance and car insurance. At the income level, your effective tax rate is 0% too cause of tax credits.
> Employers in at will states can fire you for any reason
Which is an employer in every state except Montana. And let's not pretend that employees who are wrongly fired are willing/able to fight a long legal battle to prove their termination was illegal, so no matter how much it costs an employer it's still on the terminated employee to start proceedings. Unless it's a "slam dunk" case that a lawyer will take pro-bono and take money from the settlement or win, that person will need to pay out of pocket, which is out of reach for almost everyone.
I also would like to see the "7 figures to fight a wrongful termination suit" citation.
> While there is no federal law for sick leave, many states have them, and even for states that don’t, local municipalities do which means a large portion of US workers do receive mandated sick time.
Sure, but not everyone lives in the states that have paid sick leave, and only 14 states plus DC, plus a handful of other cities, actually do offer it. The majority of them additionally have a cap of 40 hours, after which it's going to be unpaid, so if you're unfortunately sick for longer than a week, you're kind of out of luck.
On top of this, the parent most likely meant mandated as in federally mandated, which is true, there is no federally mandated sick leave.
While the US isn't as bad as some people like to make it seem to be, it's also not that good for a lot of people, so please don't pretend it is.
Yeah you live in a world where you don’t have the crushing weight of potentially having to go into life ruining debt to pay for healthcare. Where a decent college won’t put you into 200K of debt. Or not having any useful social safety net. Or not being able to retire because the government programs that support senior citizens are going to be bankrupted by the time you’re that old. I find surviving in America to be incredibly stressful, and by all measures I’m doing “well”.
Huge development for the legitimacy of prediction markets. As a regular user of manifold, I'm really looking forward to the day this becomes available in Europe.
Prediction markets have incredible potential and I really hope that we one day will look back on this launch as we look back on the launch of the New York stock exchange.
That said the whole predictit thing strikes me as really shady. I hope it was a necessary evil to gain the authorization of this market and not just a move to secure a monopoly position.
While I was pretty sympathetic to the EU law, I am very strongly against this for India.
The reason many of the lowest end phones don't have USB-C is because switching to usb-c would make the phones more expensive to produce. Forcing producers to switch will drive up the cost of low-margin smartphones, hurting many Indians for whom affording any smartphone is an issue.
It is simply insane to make a regulation that drives up the price of the cheapest phones, such that the richest people of India get a slight convenience.
I was very unhappy until the day I dedicated my life to helping others.
Now I am the founder of a non-profit and despite taking a much lower salary, working many more hours and feeling much more stress, I have become a very happy and fulfilled person.
Once the center of your life revolves around helping others, rather than yourself, it becomes a lot easier to endure all the crap life throws at you.
Whether a stock pays dividends really shouldn't factor in to your decision as to whether to buy it. Any dividend a company pays out makes the company worth that much less. Whatever you stand to gain from the dividend, you stand to lose in the value of the stock you own.
When buying a stock the only thing that matters are its fundamentals. Ie. is the company's assets and future earning potential worth more than the current price of the stock to you? Unless you have information that the market doesn't, this is not a question whose answer you will reliably get right.