Dividends Show Differences Between Financials [View article]
I agree with jimsep and Menachem Ben Yakov. When purchasing a stock, look for the reasonable payout of -- what 25% or 50%, ballpark figure -- profits to the stockholder in the form of dividends (not so much buybacks, which I suspect may be to makeup for all the stock thrown at the executives of the company to cover their raiding the profit cookie jar.) It's old fashioned fiscal responsibility at running the business the company says it's in. Buying other companies should be judiciously done, not in a greedy way to spend the shareholders' money, as if the shareholder doesn't know what to do with it. He or she should use the dividends to buy more of the same stock. If the company is that good, the shareholder probably would. Of course, companies with high dividends and high debt--well the debt washes out the benefit of the current dividend, I would say. Yes, if we went back to the traditional high dividends--even after a 15 (or 20% taxation in the future?), it would be one way to know the executives of the company are really working for us. What a novel thought. Dividends, dividends, dividends. The proof is in the pudding.
Best and Worst Dow, S&P 500 Performers YTD [View article]
Although I hold Wal-Mart stock, I feel Kranky has comments of worth. In a free forum, each of us has the write to express our thoughts. It may not have numbers, but the article does show some thoughts influencing the numbers of Wal-Mart, perhaps in a more significant way than one would consider. I have friends who wouldn't buy anything in Wal-Mart as long as there is a mom and pop shop around where they can make their purchases. I respect that, although I will go to Wal-Mart to purchase goods. I sincerely try to avoid the products from China, precisely because of the comment Kranky makes about the people in China being virtual (or in some cases actual) slaves. The negative comments about WMT will affect bottom lines and do have merit in being expressed. It's America, not China, where a point of view that may seem a digression to some should be tolerated for the benefit of knowing that we are all free to express our thoughts civilly, because they will be different than someone elses. So, I guess those who don't like the content have to practice skimming, as probably many people did with this post.
Dividends Show Differences Between Financials [View article]
When purchasing a stock, look for the reasonable payout of -- what 25% or 50%, ballpark figure -- profits to the stockholder in the form of dividends (not so much buybacks, which I suspect may be to makeup for all the stock thrown at the executives of the company to cover their raiding the profit cookie jar.)
It's old fashioned fiscal responsibility at running the business the company says it's in. Buying other companies should be judiciously done, not in a greedy way to spend the shareholders' money, as if the shareholder doesn't know what to do with it. He or she should use the dividends to buy more of the same stock. If the company is that good, the shareholder probably would.
Of course, companies with high dividends and high debt--well the debt washes out the benefit of the current dividend, I would say.
Yes, if we went back to the traditional high dividends--even after a 15 (or 20% taxation in the future?), it would be one way to know the executives of the company are really working for us. What a novel thought.
Dividends, dividends, dividends. The proof is in the pudding.
Best and Worst Dow, S&P 500 Performers YTD [View article]