4 ms·
I take the factoid as not about the companies doing better, it was about investments in the companies. It has become incredibly common for stocks to not pay di
by taeric 3y ago
I take the factoid as not about the companies doing better, it was about investments in the companies. It has become incredibly common for stocks to not pay dividends nowadays, so that the only way you make money from investing in them is by exiting that investment. (Well, if you are ultra rich, you could leverage it.)
Edit: This also means that much of the money you would make from owning something like McDonald's can't be seen by just charting the growth in stock price. You have to also look at the money you could make by taking the dividends and putting that somewhere.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago>This also means that much of the money you would make from owning something like McDonald's can't be seen by just charting the growth in stock price. You have to also look at the money you could make by taking the dividends and putting that somewhere. What about the money you could lose by taking the dividends and putting that somewhere?
- taeric 3y agoThat is a bit of a diversion, as you could have picked a tech stock that went to zero, as well. That said, sibling post disputes if the factoid is even true. So, not clear what the full point is. I am personally sympathetic to the idea that dividends used to be one of the defining differences between profit and non-profits. You have to get into buybacks to fully see the differences today, I think. And that does feel like a very different thing. The argument doesn't get any favors from false factoids, though. :(
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]