When discussing the long-term efficacy of investing in dividend-paying stocks versus those companies that choose to retain all earnings, it is important to be aware of the confirmation biases of both schools. Proponents of dividend
Fund managers who eschew dividend payers point out that in the past few decades dividends have been less of a factor in total return. This is true. There is a marketing aspect to this: The riskier and more glamorous the asset, the more a fund company can charge in fees in general. In bull markets, especially ones financed by artificially low interest rates, riskier assets do well and short-term performance sells funds.
Before the secular bull market that started in 1982, dividends were a far more vital component than capital gains. This makes sense, intuitively. A company makes money for its shareholders. Current and growing dividends should be important. Future company growth is important, but a dollar today is worth more than a potential capital gain in the future. Not all stocks that do not pay dividends are the next Facebook.
I believe we have entered a more historically normal period that will be marked by higher interest rates. Avoid recency bias. The era of cheap capital costs and malinvestment is over. Dividends will be far more important than in the past. Giant, mature companies with lower growth potential should start returning more capital to investors in the form of dividends, in part because alternatives such as bonds will have more competitive yields.
대한민국 최근 뉴스, 대한민국 헤드 라인
Similar News:다른 뉴스 소스에서 수집한 이와 유사한 뉴스 기사를 읽을 수도 있습니다.
출처: YahooFinanceCA - 🏆 47. / 63 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »
출처: YahooFinanceCA - 🏆 47. / 63 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »