Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View woppenhe's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Washington REIT - Continued Stagnation [View article]
    WRE annual report:
    Apr 9 12:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Siemens: Safe Dividend Boosted By $5.5 Billion Share Buyback Program [View article]
    Was about 110 a year ago, and is 135 now. What is everyone talking about. A year is not very long.
    Apr 2 01:22 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Washington REIT - Continued Stagnation [View article]
    This is now seven months later, and we are coming out of the recession, job wise anyway, with renewed government spending on the horizon. So Barron's is touting DC REITS today, including WRE which has a new CEO pretty much proceeding along the lines suggested here. Along with noting that these REITs have relatively dropped in value over the past few years, and that CBO anticipates a renewal of government spending in the near future. Has anyone changed thus their minds on WRE. FPO and BDN were also mentioned, but they are not as dependent on a Washington DC renaissance.
    Mar 30 11:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tech giants enjoy tax-free interest on offshore Treasury holdings [View news story]
    Fact is the US is tax unfriendly to corporations. Levin ought be looking at that.
    Mar 13 09:09 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Verizon's Stock Is No Longer A 'Bond Substitute' [View article]
    Stocks are not bond substitutes. Where did you get that idea.
    Mar 12 12:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Whirlpool: A Long-Term Buying Opportunity In A Dividend Stock [View article]
    Good review of WHR. Stockdox, how do you know when it is at a peak, and at a trough. I remember how relieved my mother was when she was able to buy her first dishwasher in the 1950s. In the new emerging economies, there are now a lot of mothers like mine out there. Sayno in China, good move. The homebuilding has been suppressed these past few years in the US. I bought last April at 113. There would seem to be no time like the present. The homebuilding cycle has not really gotten going, let alone peaked. Stocks that continually go up, always are in a peak condition and to worriers seem overbought. But it is exactly those stocks that frequently have a lot to offer. Why would you want to buy *after* they have peaked. Calling the top is never an exact science. If you look at the one year chart, you should have bought in early 2014 when it dipped as Stockbox did; now has resumed its gentle upward trend. In the used home market, everyone now a days seems to get an insurance policy that covers appliances for a year. Many of them are old, and the new buyers demand it. The exiting buyer certainly does not want to replace them. Unless they are having trouble selling. Then, they simply update the appliances to make the places seem fresher as a cheap way to get them sold. The point is that appliances are a focal point for sellers and buyers. Either way seems bullish to me. And every kitchen remodel depends on new appliances to make them really shine. There has to be a lot of pent up demand. They make every major brand it seems. Amana, Whirlpool, Maytag, kitchen Aid, etc. etc. Almost a little like competing against themselves, but consumers think they have a choice and they take it. For a long term buy, and some income, you could do worse. The new new smart appliances will give them a spate of new product upgrades as well. I just wish their refrigerator's ice makers would not pump out the ice chunks on the floor so often. If they fix that, what is not to like.
    Mar 8 07:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Dividend Income Growth Do You Need? [View article]
    JCCIII that is very true and I agree with you. I reasoned thusly. I would not spend the money, but reinvest it, so the 8% per year penalty is not really 8%, just the difference between my investment returns and the 8%. Further the premium taken at age 66 is adjusted for inflation each year ( a lot less than 8%, but something nevertheless), and that narrows the advantage of delaying starting as well.
    But let's ignore compounding and COLAs, and say for argument sake you get 25 K for 4 years (most people will not get this much, but this is just an illustration) and the return on that 100 K is 5%, or 5K.
    If you get an extra 32% for delaying, at age 70 you are getting 33K a year going forward (1.32 x 25K), or 7K more a year. How long will it take to make up for the 100K you forsook from age 66 to age 70. 100/7 = ~14 years. If you consider that the 100K you have in the bank produces say 5K a year, then the cash flow 'penalty' is 3K per year (33-(25+5)).

    So, if you delay to 70 from 66, you will come out ahead if you live at least an additional 14 years to age84. If you die before 70, you get nothing, and there is nothing in the 'kitty' for your survivors, though they can get their own SS benefits or survivor benefits. In summary it is a crapshoot based on knowing when you will die. No one really knows that unless they are planning some terminal event or have a terminal illness, so no one can really say what is right or wrong. It is a preference. Taxes play through as well complicating things. the advantage of waiting till 66 is that you do not incur any give back for simply continuing working. If you are going to stop working and need the stipend to live on, this exercise has been a waste of your time. And if you are married, there are many more possible permutations to consider. What is clear is that The Social Security system was not designed for longer life expectancies, nor for supporting a lot of retirees while the working population is shrinking. That is why it is in trouble and why age adjustments are necessary and encouraged by the government. At least we still have some choices.
    Mar 3 11:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Dividend Income Growth Do You Need? [View article]
    I certainly cannot and did not claim, any ability either to predict or project 25 years of returns based on past performance.

    Thanks to RA Swartz for answering the question about which companies cut their dividends. Refresh our memories as to amount of DG over how many consecutive years in order to land on these lists.
    Mar 3 10:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Dividend Income Growth Do You Need? [View article]
    Do you own all 325? That definitely is one way.
    Mar 3 10:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Dividend Income Growth Do You Need? [View article]
    No the dividends do not just keep rolling in. People tighten their belts, stop spending, and corporate earnings go way down. Some go out of business. Or are absorbed at a cut rate by others. It is easy to make a list of aristocrats in arrears. It is more difficult to predict who they will be going forward. Some companies do raise their dividends by a token amount just to stay on the aristocrats list for bragging rights, but more adjust to the economy at hand. If you have cash, this is would be the ideal time to invest, but again, only in retrospect. In practice most just keep investing thru the ups and downs and they average out. Depending on the risks you took, you may do a little better than average, at least till the next market break .
    Feb 28 06:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Dividend Income Growth Do You Need? [View article]
    I do not disagree with you. But most models show that as you approach either retirement, or perhaps a specific monetary goal, e.g college financing, then you really cannot afford to lose just before the bill is due. Eventually time runs out. So most take less risk as they age, when time is not available to smooth out the inevitable ups and downs of investing. That hardly means you can invest with reckless abandon at age 25, and ought to take no risk at age 65. In fact, if a person who risks it all and loses it at age 25, and then stops investing, he may be both wiser and better off for the experience. For those who lose it all, and do not learn from the experience, they may well be doomed to repeat. But I still think there is a concept, if not a specific number, for age appropriate risk, and you can afford more of that when you are younger, and less as you get older. Ironically, you are perhaps wiser as you age and more battle tested, so you might be a better investor with experience. Perhaps capable of more risk. Still, time eventually runs on ones investing. Successful folks seem to know when enough is enough, and rein in their risk to the tolerance they can afford. Since many will retire with 30 years ahead of them, the concept of simply selling everything and putting it under the mattress just won't wash. Inflation rages on. So we will all need to continue to invest. It is the risk / reward that needs to be reigned in when we stop working. I guess the idea would be to have as much as possible at that point, so you can proceed with as little risk as necessary.

    For many planners, the real risk is that you do well in the market for 30 years, and then, just before retirement, the market tanks 50% and you are stuck with a reduced nest egg after all that saving and skimping. This has happened twice in my lifetime, and undoubtedly, it will happen again. So I will continue to invest but at a reduced level of risk, when the time comes. That means less exposure to the market, and less beta in the stocks that I do hold.
    Feb 24 05:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Dividend Income Growth Do You Need? [View article]
    First, this was a good article. I am not really criticizing, because a good deal of though went into it, and it is relatively clearly written and illustrated. Well done.

    While DGI (dividend growth investing) is well established at this point,, it is not the main event. The dividend junkie guys will point out quite rightly that you cannot eat, shelter, go the movies, buy a car, pay tuition, or otherwise generally live on *potential* capital appreciation, so it is a prerequisite that you have some basic income coming in. Most of us work for our current income, but we are talking retirement here. Once retired, dividends themselves, in my way of thinking, will not generally be enough to keep you up with inflation, even dividend growers, and of course, their growth is not guaranteed, projected CAGRs or not. If there are no earnings, then eventually there will be no reinvestments in the business, and no ability to make capital purchases to grow the business, let alone raise the dividends. Furthermore, dividends are not written in stone; they can be cut, as recent experience shows. Whether the earnings are distributed as dividends or not, keep your eyes on the earnings first, then on the underlying earnings prospects of the company, and then perhaps the dividends. I have no objection to DGI, and in fact consider it for every stock I own, but the risk is that a list of the highest projected dividend stocks, or the longest paying stocks, or whatever dividend parameter you choose, emphasize just that one aspect of an investment. Most of us maintain flexibility by investing both for income and for capital appreciation, within the same security, or via a variety of securities thought suitable for one or the other goal. That used to be called diversification, but ridicule has made that a dirty word in some circles. The point is that earnings of the underlying entity, not a high dividend or a dividend growth projection per se, is the focus. I think this what Paul Wagner was getting at as well, and I agree with his comment that "It is the value of the business that produces the dividend, not the other way around." On a short term basis, the dividend may put a quasi floor under the price, but we are talking a longer time frame here during retirement. Projecting beyond next year is a risky business, and beyond two years pretty speculative given market volatility, and unforeseen crashes, which used to happen once in a lifetime, but in our future shock world seem to have increased in frequency lately.
    Feb 17 08:02 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Dividend Income Growth Do You Need? [View article]
    The trouble is that if you simply went with the highest stock CAGR, which would maximize your income and projections, and that single stock did not live up to expectations, it would not help to have those projections. The whole idea of a portfolio of stocks is to embrace varying CAGRs in order to control the risks. And perhaps even to forgo CAGR in selected cases to take advantage of capital appreciation opportunities.
    Feb 17 03:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Dividend Income Growth Do You Need? [View article]
    Are you really able to predict the future based on past experience? That is, can you predict what Disney will be paying 15 years from now. That is the real issue here. If you could, investing would be riskless. Over some period of time, a stock's return may be mostly dividends; and over other intervals, it may be largely price appreciation. What really matters is the total return of the portfolio over time, and that information is given on most brokerage statements. And most provide several indices to see how you are doing compared to an unmanaged situation. In essence you are measuring your ability to manage a total portfolio, or the ability of those you employ to do so. This seems easier than predicting / projecting CAGR over 15 years. Nothing is forever. You need to remain flexible, look at your own record, and when you become comfortable with that, you will feel and most likely be secure.

    As to age appropriate investing, it is well known that you can afford more risk as a younger person than as an older person. Usually stated as you have more time to recover from unplanned losses. If your interval returns suggest you are keeping up with inflation, supporting yourself, and growing overall, even without going to work everyday, then you are doing fine in retirement. If you are depleting your capital, then to know meaningfully whether it will outlast you, you will have to know your date of demise. Failing that, you will need to cut back on your lifestyle or return to work. Perhaps you should be doing it in reverse. Figuring out what current income you are comfortable on, then arranging for that income from whatever sources, and then using historic inflation numbers in planning to keep the total capital growing at a level to keep up with inflation.
    Feb 17 03:30 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can You Retire On Less Than $1 Million? [View article]
    Well sure, but life is life. Accidents, illness, financial setbacks, layoffs, market declines, divorce, and a host of other things can undermine both stellar educational and cultural attainment. Thus, holding a little extra capital in the bank to smooth these times when the kids are still emerging is prudent, even when you have all the tickets to potential financial security and success, and they have all the tools, but not yrt the trappings. Perhaps that is what insurance is all about.
    Jan 18 02:42 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment