This isn't a great time anyway to be looking at REITs anyway. Better sectors to look into right now for high dividends are energy and emerging markets debt. Much more pain to come in commercial and residential real estate. I'm avoiding for now.
The Best Trades Could Be the Ones Not Entered [View article]
Good article at a critical juncture in the market. Depending on how next week goes, this is either another great time to buy, or time to sell your losers and take some profits.
Actually, the volume on this sell-off was pathetically low, a sign that this rally still has legs. Sorry, your shorts will have to wait a little longer.
10 Stocks Ramping Up Their Dividends [View article]
I'm glad to see NRGY on your list. This is one of my core IRA holdings. Their history is that they have raised their dividend with each and every announcement. I have very few "I'll hold 'til I die" stocks in my portfolio, and this is one of them.
Yep, lots of great dividend buys right at support now. I believe we will see another trend up, the volume was pathetically low Friday. Good buying opportunities abound.
3 Telecom Stocks with High Yield Dividends [View article]
There are opportunities in smaller telecom companies. I recently bought PTNR, an Israeli company, on a dip. It has a decent P/FCF ratio, manageable debt, and currently offers a 7.67% dividend. Wait to buy, it's coming off resistance and heading towards a support line.
What do we have in this market but the "short term"? And if one who presents themselves as making "accurate" predictions is wrong for the short term, how does it help anyone in this trader's market?
Mr. Savoldi is off my follower's list. Good thing I didn't go whole hog on his "predictions".
On Oct 14 03:07 AM jeremiah74 wrote:
> JG SAvoldi > > I've been following you on twitter for the last few days, just before > it went 'off the air'. I dont disagree with your conclusions. On > the methods I cant comment. > > I also think that just because you were wrong on these short term > calls doesnt mean your model cant work. I personally would only bury > it after following it for a longer time frame. Which I cant anymore > because its been discontinued > > We are at a turning point in the markets, I believe (may be wrong) > in times like these it becomes very difficult to forecast anything > because each buyer/seller's motivation start to diverge and what > the eventual vector of all the transactions will be is more unpredictable > than usual. > > I give you the benefit of the doubt, because if you have indeed > invested as much energy into your model as you claim, there ought > to be some results. > > Nevertheless, I would have been more impressed if a higher percentage > of your calls had worked recently. You sure caught the wheat move, > and its not just a mirror of the usual dollar selling + gold melt > up. Wheat moved more. But EURSEK is really pretty much at the lows, > maybe 1.5% off the lows. Thos dont make up for the missed call > you had on the dollar and equities. But again.. time will tell.
Dow at 6,617 by October 25th. Hmmmm. Another bear wrong.
On Oct 20 11:26 AM David Van Knapp wrote:
> Let's talk straight. If someone says X is going to happen by Y (a > date), and it doesn't happen, that prediction was "wrong." That's > the English word for that: "Wrong." > > So if someone is now saying that their prediction was correct but > premature, they are wrong again. They are not acknowledging that > their prediction was wrong in the first place. If they are being > honest with themselves and the rest of us, they would say, "OK, I > was wrong, but now I'm making a new prediction." > > I assume the first prediction--which turned out to be wrong--was > based on data and reasoning and comparisons just as compelling as > this one, maybe even stronger. I see no reason to think that the > person is any more likely to be right this time than last time. In > fact, given their track record (0 for 1, or 0% accuracy), I'd be > inclined to pay less attention the second time around.
You said - "...we need to face reality...a higher standard of living makes a lot of people lazy, they spend more time at McDonalds than working out and what we get is a society that is increasingly living an unhealthy life. We need to get moving again...I think that's where the problems are today..."
Agreed. This is the problem with health care in our country, 60% of us are overweight, and 1/2 of those are obese.
What is your suggestion to fix the ills of human laziness? If people just don't care how fat they get (and I swear, most people do not), what can be done? Especially since the whole system of insurance is set up so that the healthy person foots the bill for the ill?
Investing in High-Yield Dividend Stocks [View article]
I don't think either Dividend Growth Investor or myself are employing dividend capture techniques (I know I'm not). It's just we are mindful of capital appreciation or depreciation of our holdings. It is a mixed strategy, and although you have a problem understanding it (is it because you can't, or won't, understand?), it works for me.
I am hoping you will get off the band wagon of "you can't do that" when persons mix strategies. At the end of the day, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to invest. There is only what works for you. Your way is not the only way.
On Oct 14 10:01 AM David Van Knapp wrote:
> Good article. > > The combination of "trading" with "income investor" seems oxymoronic. > "Trading" implies high frequency capture of capital gains (and hightailing > it out of there when the position is a loser). "Income investor" > implies someone who views the major value of their holdings as residing > in their ability to churn out ever-increasing levels of income...with > less interest in current price levels. > > I am aware there is a strategy called "dividend capture" that attempts > to buy stocks just in time to get the dividend and sell them as soon > as possible thereafter, hopefully without their price having dropped > as much as (or more than) the dividend that was received. I'm sure > some people are successful at that. > > But after several years of dividend investing, I have become convinced > that the best way to maximize returns is to have a strategy specifically > focused on long-term holding-and-collecting of dividends. (Depending > on the phase of life one is in, one can either re-invest those dividends > or take them as current income.) Hopefully over long periods of time, > there will be capital gains too, but the main focus is on the ever-increasing > dividend stream.
Investing in High-Yield Dividend Stocks [View article]
I suppose what makes a stock "high yield" is in the eye of the beholder. In my portfolio, the stock recommendations above would be considered in the median. "High" for me is above 10%.
"Sustainability" is also individualized for each stock. There are MLPs and CEFs whose sole purpose and objective is to provide a high amount of income. Therefore, there is not a problem with high dividend yield, because that is the goal from the outset.
"High risk" is also in the eye of the beholder, or rather, in the ability of the portfolio manager to manage the risk. If you wish to invest in these "riskier" equities, one should be prepared to keep a watchful eye on one's portfolio. If one can do that, it can be worth the risk.
As for me, I work from home, and I have the ability to keep my Scottrade accounts visible on my computer at all times. I have been able to successfully manage risk because of my personal availability. As a result, my portfolio since March has increased over 90%. When the market fluctuates downward, I have also been able to "beat the market" by minimizing losses.
If one does not have the luxury that I do have having visibility to my portfolio at all times, then I would agree that it may not be best to invest in "riskier" equities.
Feldstein: Empower Patients to Make Health Care Cost Decisions [View article]
As a daughter of a mother who had a debilitating stroke which has left her partially disabled, I find this comment chilling. That a doctor would find more palatable on a cost basis for a patient to have a stroke than to take the medication to prevent the stroke is very disturbing.
Preventative care, at the end of the day, is not about nickles and dimes. It should always be about maintaining health. Period.
In fact, if we promoted HEALTH - instead of health care - this would solve many of our health care problems, would it not? Wouldn't we have LESS worries about the cost of health care if 60% of our population were not overweight or obese? If we had eliminated smoking? Drug use? How about the costs of promiscuity - VD, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy? The list of unhealthy or risky behaviors Americans engage in, the results of which are paid for on SOMEONE ELSE's dime through their insurance policy, is endless.
No wonder our system is out of control.
If the American populace were more educated, motivated and proactive regarding their health, the result will be we will need less health care. But in our current system, Americans have no skin in the game to create a healthier society. Why eat a healthy diet, when Americans can eat like pigs and just take pills to combat the negative effects - and IT'S PAID FOR BY INSURANCE.
So again, I question the motives of doctors who dismiss outright preventative care in reducing costs. As long as America remains FAT, smoking, stressed out and irresponsible, doctors will stay in business.
Emotional Investing: Pessimism Porn Takes a Hit [View article]
Anyone on SA that stupid, please let Wade know so he can preach to you...
No, Wade. Wrong forum, wrong crowd. Sorry. Try again.
On Oct 08 12:00 PM Wade Slome wrote:
> YoYoMama, you're probably right, but glad I'm preaching to the choir. > The intent is to reach the broader audience that puked their savings > in March and are waiting to pile back in at higher prices.
Ten (Out of 290) Stocks that Pay Monthly Dividends [View article]
I very much appreciate your list of 10, there are some choices I had not considered, and plan on looking into your list of 290.
Excellent post!
Resource Capital's Dividend Dilemma [View article]
The Best Trades Could Be the Ones Not Entered [View article]
More Weakness, More Volatility [View article]
On Oct 31 07:47 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:
> Two days to Meltdown Monday.
10 Stocks Ramping Up Their Dividends [View article]
Dividend Buys: 3 Stocks to Watch [View article]
3 Telecom Stocks with High Yield Dividends [View article]
"Stretching the Tape" [View instapost]
Mr. Savoldi is off my follower's list. Good thing I didn't go whole hog on his "predictions".
On Oct 14 03:07 AM jeremiah74 wrote:
> JG SAvoldi
>
> I've been following you on twitter for the last few days, just before
> it went 'off the air'. I dont disagree with your conclusions. On
> the methods I cant comment.
>
> I also think that just because you were wrong on these short term
> calls doesnt mean your model cant work. I personally would only bury
> it after following it for a longer time frame. Which I cant anymore
> because its been discontinued
>
> We are at a turning point in the markets, I believe (may be wrong)
> in times like these it becomes very difficult to forecast anything
> because each buyer/seller's motivation start to diverge and what
> the eventual vector of all the transactions will be is more unpredictable
> than usual.
>
> I give you the benefit of the doubt, because if you have indeed
> invested as much energy into your model as you claim, there ought
> to be some results.
>
> Nevertheless, I would have been more impressed if a higher percentage
> of your calls had worked recently. You sure caught the wheat move,
> and its not just a mirror of the usual dollar selling + gold melt
> up. Wheat moved more. But EURSEK is really pretty much at the lows,
> maybe 1.5% off the lows. Thos dont make up for the missed call
> you had on the dollar and equities. But again.. time will tell.
Correction Still Coming, Just Later than Expected - Bartels [View article]
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Dow at 6,617 by October 25th. Hmmmm. Another bear wrong.
On Oct 20 11:26 AM David Van Knapp wrote:
> Let's talk straight. If someone says X is going to happen by Y (a
> date), and it doesn't happen, that prediction was "wrong." That's
> the English word for that: "Wrong."
>
> So if someone is now saying that their prediction was correct but
> premature, they are wrong again. They are not acknowledging that
> their prediction was wrong in the first place. If they are being
> honest with themselves and the rest of us, they would say, "OK, I
> was wrong, but now I'm making a new prediction."
>
> I assume the first prediction--which turned out to be wrong--was
> based on data and reasoning and comparisons just as compelling as
> this one, maybe even stronger. I see no reason to think that the
> person is any more likely to be right this time than last time. In
> fact, given their track record (0 for 1, or 0% accuracy), I'd be
> inclined to pay less attention the second time around.
Dow 10K: Celebrating Ten Years of 0% Return [View article]
Lower Consumption, Lower Economic Growth, Improved Healthcare? [View article]
You said - "...we need to face reality...a higher standard of living makes a lot of people lazy, they spend more time at McDonalds than working out and what we get is a society that is increasingly living an unhealthy life. We need to get moving again...I think that's where the problems are today..."
Agreed. This is the problem with health care in our country, 60% of us are overweight, and 1/2 of those are obese.
What is your suggestion to fix the ills of human laziness? If people just don't care how fat they get (and I swear, most people do not), what can be done? Especially since the whole system of insurance is set up so that the healthy person foots the bill for the ill?
Investing in High-Yield Dividend Stocks [View article]
I am hoping you will get off the band wagon of "you can't do that" when persons mix strategies. At the end of the day, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to invest. There is only what works for you. Your way is not the only way.
On Oct 14 10:01 AM David Van Knapp wrote:
> Good article.
>
> The combination of "trading" with "income investor" seems oxymoronic.
> "Trading" implies high frequency capture of capital gains (and hightailing
> it out of there when the position is a loser). "Income investor"
> implies someone who views the major value of their holdings as residing
> in their ability to churn out ever-increasing levels of income...with
> less interest in current price levels.
>
> I am aware there is a strategy called "dividend capture" that attempts
> to buy stocks just in time to get the dividend and sell them as soon
> as possible thereafter, hopefully without their price having dropped
> as much as (or more than) the dividend that was received. I'm sure
> some people are successful at that.
>
> But after several years of dividend investing, I have become convinced
> that the best way to maximize returns is to have a strategy specifically
> focused on long-term holding-and-collecting of dividends. (Depending
> on the phase of life one is in, one can either re-invest those dividends
> or take them as current income.) Hopefully over long periods of time,
> there will be capital gains too, but the main focus is on the ever-increasing
> dividend stream.
Investing in High-Yield Dividend Stocks [View article]
"Sustainability" is also individualized for each stock. There are MLPs and CEFs whose sole purpose and objective is to provide a high amount of income. Therefore, there is not a problem with high dividend yield, because that is the goal from the outset.
"High risk" is also in the eye of the beholder, or rather, in the ability of the portfolio manager to manage the risk. If you wish to invest in these "riskier" equities, one should be prepared to keep a watchful eye on one's portfolio. If one can do that, it can be worth the risk.
As for me, I work from home, and I have the ability to keep my Scottrade accounts visible on my computer at all times. I have been able to successfully manage risk because of my personal availability. As a result, my portfolio since March has increased over 90%. When the market fluctuates downward, I have also been able to "beat the market" by minimizing losses.
If one does not have the luxury that I do have having visibility to my portfolio at all times, then I would agree that it may not be best to invest in "riskier" equities.
Feldstein: Empower Patients to Make Health Care Cost Decisions [View article]
Preventative care, at the end of the day, is not about nickles and dimes. It should always be about maintaining health. Period.
In fact, if we promoted HEALTH - instead of health care - this would solve many of our health care problems, would it not? Wouldn't we have LESS worries about the cost of health care if 60% of our population were not overweight or obese? If we had eliminated smoking? Drug use? How about the costs of promiscuity - VD, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy? The list of unhealthy or risky behaviors Americans engage in, the results of which are paid for on SOMEONE ELSE's dime through their insurance policy, is endless.
No wonder our system is out of control.
If the American populace were more educated, motivated and proactive regarding their health, the result will be we will need less health care. But in our current system, Americans have no skin in the game to create a healthier society. Why eat a healthy diet, when Americans can eat like pigs and just take pills to combat the negative effects - and IT'S PAID FOR BY INSURANCE.
So again, I question the motives of doctors who dismiss outright preventative care in reducing costs. As long as America remains FAT, smoking, stressed out and irresponsible, doctors will stay in business.
Emotional Investing: Pessimism Porn Takes a Hit [View article]
No, Wade. Wrong forum, wrong crowd. Sorry. Try again.
On Oct 08 12:00 PM Wade Slome wrote:
> YoYoMama, you're probably right, but glad I'm preaching to the choir.
> The intent is to reach the broader audience that puked their savings
> in March and are waiting to pile back in at higher prices.