What's on the table for Stocks and Other Asset Classes 2022

It, of course, is not exactly like either one of those, but imo, is closer to an interest payment in the 2 examples.

It is not close to an interest payment. As I have mentioned the price of the stock is adjusted downwards by the amount of the payout, so the investor does not end-up with more money after the payout. Whereas with an interest payment the investor does have more money.

Yes, you mentioned it. The stock price isn’t “adjusted” by any amount - a number of investors will bid less directly after ex dividend, but you certainly can’t count on the stock to be down the same amount at opening the next day as the dividend as you claim. If you could, you could short the fuck out of everything with a decent dividend right before ex dividend and come out a winner every time and be a seriously rich mofo in no time, right? Right. You do that? Right.

That’s not what I’ve read. Here is one reference and I’ve seen it mentioned elsewhere:
“Stock market specialists will mark down the price of a stock on its ex-dividend date by the amount of the dividend. For example, if a stock trades at $50 per share and pays out a $0.25 quarterly dividend, the stock will be marked down to open at $49.75 per share.”

Of course the price can go anywhere from there.

Anyways, the main point still stands… dividend payments are not like interest payments in that one is not receiving an increase in their investment.

Edited to add:
Also, short-sellers are responsible for the dividend.

It sure is when it goes up and I sell.

Haha… yes, but as mentioned it would have been the same if there was no dividend and you never sold shares, because the prices were never adjusted to reflect the payouts.

Do you think someone is setting a price on stocks like at a supermarket or something? They’re just talking about buy and sell orders.

Stocks will often take a temporary hit at ex dividend, but it generally quickly readjusts to perceived value - movement around ex dividend, without knowing the date, generally looks like noise in the chart. Talking about losing x value with x dividends requires some very strong faith in how well the market functions.

And since you believe it so strongly, tell us how much of what stocks you short at dividend time?

You missed my subsequent edit. Short sellers are responsible for the dividend. So again, no net gain or loss (excluding transaction costs).

And the rest of your post is refuted by a link I posted up above.

Imma go with you’re oversimplifying. Either way it’s over my head, and completely not my experience.

You’re funny. So you think Vanguard is misleading investors? The Vanguard link clearly states what I said. It’s not an oversimplification. Dividends are not free money… it’s that simple.

But keep on believing.

I think you’re a smarter guy than I am and if you really wanted to work through this link: https://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-dividend-growth-demystified?nopaging=1 you would see the light, but I get it. It probably doesn’t make much difference to you at this point since you’ve made a boatload off MO. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

1 Like

You can be short on a stock without the dividend hit (options). And an article saying something does not a refutation make.

If it’s as simple and direct as you make it out to be, you should probably be able to tell me the ex div date from this, right? And as a bonus, the amount of the dividend (in units of vertical grid lines)?

Well, not just MO.

Straight from Fidelity: “If you short a stock that pays a dividend, you’ll also have to pay back any dividends that were paid out during the period when you shorted the stock. That could add another few percent annually to the cost of shorting the stock.”

Now that kind of display a refutation does not make. Of course prices normally fluctuate after the opening, so of course one could not tell. Likewise one could not tell when the dividend was paid.

The link I provided above does look at price fluctuations and looks at all the factors involved:
https://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-dividend-growth-demystified?nopaging=1

There is simply no significant difference in total return between dividend and non-dividend paying stocks (everything else being equal). (And you’re not getting any extra money when you receive a dividend.)

Braggart. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I don’t disagree with that part. It’s just about everything else. :smiley:

Uh… The bars is the price range of a given day, opening price is horizontal line on left of bar, closing price on right, so you have opening and closing prices, separate from variation after opening.

I don’t believe anyone has claimed it’s “extra.”

Not at all. We share investment strategies here. I prefer dividend investing, long term and short term run ups as the price catches up with the NAV and an increasing dividend.

APTS is one of these. Dividend is now under 4%. I bought when it was over 9%. I’m up 85% or so now. I’m selling soon and you’re telling me I’m not making money? :laughing:

I know you’re just promoting economic theory. And that’s fine really. But I can still throw a guy out at second without knowing squat about gravity. Lol Cheers!

Yep. I know. What I said still stands.

But more importantly…

By extra, I was referring to them being similar to a payment of interest where one’s total investment has increased and thus total return is immediately higher as a result of the payout. This is not the same with dividend paying stocks. With a dividend you have no more money than you did the day before.

I was just teasing about being a braggart.

I know. It’s all good.

This article, btw, is pretty fucking dumb in it’s lack of understanding about the attractiveness of dividend stocks (and especially ‘dividend aristocrats’) to some.