Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • GW Pharmaceuticals: Best Cannabis Play And A Renewed Buy After Q4 Results  [View article]
    And it is unclear whether CBD oil from a dispensary will be as consistent a product.
    Feb 25, 2016. 12:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Timing Seems Right For GW Pharmaceuticals  [View article]
    "If preliminary studies are correct most if not all of the anti-epileptic applications for GWPH show significant seizure reductions without combining with other drugs."

    Can you provide a source for this? Epidiolex studies are underway with DS and LGS patients, and it is very hard to imagine that any of them have tried Epidiolex independent of one or more other anti-seizure medications. It is not at all clear whether -- even if Epidiolex is effective -- that patients will be able to remove all other medications. (Though my fingers are crossed!)
    Feb 25, 2016. 12:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • If Switching From A Total Return Strategy To A DGI Strategy Was So Simple, Then Why Isn't Everyone Doing It?  [View article]
    Seems to me that the main thing that commenter was missing is not the difficulty in converting portfolio B so that it matches portfolio A on the day of retirement. The difference in the two paths is the difficulty of the terrain along the way. To pull numbers out of the air, portfolio A (DGI) probably used $400,000 of earned income to build the portfolio, with DG doing the rest of the lifting to get to $1 million at retirement. Portfolio B probably used $1,200,000 to get to the magic $1 million mark at retirement.

    Yes, I'm being a little silly with that. But I've always maintained that one of the biggest advantages that DGI has over growth or total return focus is that it is far easier to implement and far more forgiving. That makes it much more suitable for the majority of us with day jobs. I've said many times that growth or total return investing will trounce DGI every time -- IF you can choose the right stocks consistently. Most people can't. So until my crystal ball is out of the shop, I'm sticking with DGI.
    Feb 10, 2016. 03:20 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • McDonald's turns positive comp in all segments  [View news story]
    Hate to say "I told you so," but I told you so:
    Jan 25, 2016. 10:30 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Scrap The 4% Retirement Rule, Buy Dividend Stocks With 4% Yields Instead  [View article]
    David -- You are one of my favorite writers here and I've got a great deal of respect for you -- thank you for all of your excellent contributions. But your statement here is a bit off, I think. You said:

    "That is not true. It is simple math: If your portfolio naturally yields 4%, that amount of money is equal to withdrawing 4% each year. It is a myth that you need more money to live off of organic income than if you sell off assets."

    Yes, it is true that a $100,000 portfolio yielding 4 percent will give you $4000 to spend, and that withdrawing 4 percent of a $100,000 portfolio will also give you $4000 to spend. But where both portfolios yield the same amount, I can meet my goals with less capital if I am willing to liquidate. This is as intuitively true as it is mathematically.

    Imagine that my goal is to spend $4000 every year for the next 25 years. Following the author's advice to spend only the dividends, I have to amass $100,000 yielding 4 percent. But if I am comfortable liquidating my assets, I can spend $4000 per year every year for the next 25 years starting with a starting portfolio of only about $63,000 that yields the same 4 percent. This is a huge difference.

    Which approach to meeting your goals you take depends on a lot of factors, including whether you can possibly save the full $100,000 and how much you want to leave to your heirs. But you cannot blithely say, as the author suggests here, that 4 percent is 4 percent, so just live off of your dividends. It is way more complicated than that.

    For simplicity I am ignoring inflation, taxes, and dividend growth. If I am overlooking something basic, I'd be glad to be corrected. Thanks!
    Jan 20, 2016. 12:57 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Scrap The 4% Retirement Rule, Buy Dividend Stocks With 4% Yields Instead  [View article]
    Edited to Add: Here is a great thread over at DGF that goes into this topic in much more detail: It includes some simple examples demonstrating the point.
    Jan 19, 2016. 02:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Scrap The 4% Retirement Rule, Buy Dividend Stocks With 4% Yields Instead  [View article]
    Michael -- The point is not the specific numbers. The point is that if you want to live off of dividends only, you're going to need a lot more than if you are also open to careful liquidation. Living off of dividends only may not be an option for many, and for those that do have the option, it is not necessarily the superior choice, as the author suggests.
    Jan 19, 2016. 02:33 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Scrap The 4% Retirement Rule, Buy Dividend Stocks With 4% Yields Instead  [View article]
    Oh man, this article is so simplistic that it could really be misleading if you do not already have a good grasp of the math involved. OF COURSE we'd all prefer to fund our retirements entirely through dividends rather than having to liquidate assets. But from that premise, you cannot simply say "ok, so do that instead"! You are not simply comparing a $2 million portfolio of dividend stocks versus a $2 million portfolio of non-dividend stocks. To live only off of the income throughout retirement will require a MUCH larger sum than if you plan to systematically liquidate your assets to cover some of your retirement.

    Just pulling numbers out of the air to illustrate my point, if you plan to fund retirement through a combination of dividends and careful liquidation of your portfolio, you might only need to save $1.5 million by retirement age. But to fully fund your retirement from dividends only, you might need to save $3 million by retirement age. Many people will struggle to accomplish either, but building up a large enough portfolio to live only off of the income it produces is -- for most people -- hugely difficult.

    Another point to consider, and tied closely to the previous point, is that being open to liquidation during retirement may allow you to retire earlier than saving enough to live off of dividends only. Many may prefer to retire 8 years earlier, even though it means leaving little to their heirs than to work 8 years more, live off of dividends only, and leave the entire savings to their heirs. There is a cost, in life enjoyment, to over-saving.
    Jan 19, 2016. 02:09 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford Motor Declares Supplemental Cash Dividend and First Quarter Dividend  [View news story]
    Sure, a short-term ka-ching, but feels like a vote of no confidence in future earnings. Good place to discuss whether F should be considered a dividend growth name:
    Jan 12, 2016. 09:42 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Visa Checkout adds heavyweight new merchants  [View news story]
    Visa may be a great growth play, but am ambivalent about whether it is a solid choice for long-term, dividend growth / income investors. Discussion here:
    Jan 12, 2016. 02:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Financial Fridays: The Stock Market Is Lying  [View article]
    I used to love James Altucher's stuff. He really was a unique voice of reason. But over time he seems to be morphing into a caricature of himself, doing whatever it takes to build his brand and sell more books and subscriptions. It reminds me a lot of what happened to the Motley Fool. Started out as an oasis of great information to help the little guy navigate the confusing world of personal finance, then morphed into little more than an aggressive sales pitch to get individuals to pay for hot stock tips. Unfortunate.
    Jan 8, 2016. 09:11 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Diageo At The 3% Dividend Sweet Spot  [View article]
    Wow, Silverbug2, you really don't understand how yield and yield on cost work.
    Jan 7, 2016. 01:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 2016 Will Be Apple's Biggest Year  [View article]
    "However, 2016 could also be a big disaster if they regurgitate another iphone with only marginal improvements."

    Yeah, they've really done TERRIBLY with that strategy so far! (Eye roll.)
    Nov 16, 2015. 03:45 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Great Was McDonald's Earnings Report?  [View article]
    I've said a bunch of times, MCD was not in any real long-term danger. ( There will always be years-long ups and downs with big companies like McDonalds. The doom and gloom, short-term focused, media hysteria is perhaps a fun amusement, but I feel badly for the people that got shaken out of their shares.
    Oct 23, 2015. 01:12 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Deutsche throws in the towel on Franklin Resources  [View news story]
    I love these analyst moves -- instead of predicting the price, they just follow it around. BEN is a great company, and happens to be on sale. Silly to downgrade just because the price drops. That is when the stock represents a better value than usual. BEN has been paying investors a growing stream of dividends for 35 years. They've weathered all sorts of hiccups in the economy, and they'll weather this one too. Good discussion of BEN as a dividend growth prospect here:
    Oct 9, 2015. 10:14 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment