- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dividend stocks and DRIPs as a long term investment vehicle
Posted on 6/24/13 at 10:05 am to ThaBigFella
Posted on 6/24/13 at 10:05 am to ThaBigFella
:facepalm:
So from one ad homimem to another. Before it was a professional attack, now it's one of age. With a tinge of arrogance that because of my youth my views are dismissable due to a lack of experience.
I don't presume to know it all. I have made a dedicated effort to learn more about finances in the past few years and have deferred to the wisdom of multiple posters here when they corrected me and backed it up.
But some of your statements aren't even supported by the basic statistical information that YOU brought up.
Yes, I'm aware of how math works.
A small percentage applied to a big number can also result in a big number.
I get your point.
You are missing mine:
What do you do over time as the fund's composition changes due to new up and comers? As some holdings are diminished and new ones emerge.
And how do you avoid paying even more in commissions during those rebalances?
One does need to pay close attention to fees and loads. It's why I like Vanguard with almost a zealot fervor.
But they are not inherently an anathema to a good portfolio.
There are some good low cost but still actively managed funds that more than offset the feed incurred.
So from one ad homimem to another. Before it was a professional attack, now it's one of age. With a tinge of arrogance that because of my youth my views are dismissable due to a lack of experience.
I don't presume to know it all. I have made a dedicated effort to learn more about finances in the past few years and have deferred to the wisdom of multiple posters here when they corrected me and backed it up.
But some of your statements aren't even supported by the basic statistical information that YOU brought up.
Yes, I'm aware of how math works.
A small percentage applied to a big number can also result in a big number.
I get your point.
You are missing mine:
What do you do over time as the fund's composition changes due to new up and comers? As some holdings are diminished and new ones emerge.
And how do you avoid paying even more in commissions during those rebalances?
One does need to pay close attention to fees and loads. It's why I like Vanguard with almost a zealot fervor.
But they are not inherently an anathema to a good portfolio.
There are some good low cost but still actively managed funds that more than offset the feed incurred.
1
Posted on 6/24/13 at 10:11 am to Volvagia
new consumer staples don't emerge overnight man
When was the last time a serious competitor to coke or pepsi emerged?
When was the last time someone threatened to knock charmin off its toilet paper throne?
Marlboro has been king of the smoking world forever
that's the beauty of consumer staples, new ones don't emerge! That's why they've been such a fantastic, headache free investment over all these years. This isn't technology, in the 90's when I was a teen, it was a big deal when we had
MS-Dos then a few years later we had a $3,000 PC, then sony was king and their products were thousands of dollars, then apple came along, today computers are $400.... and the technology shift is all over the map.
In that same time: coke,marlboro, and charmin are still kings of their industry
That's the point im trying to make, people over think their investments way too much. Investing is really not that hard, the population is growing, buy the stuff they need and collect dividends and re-invest
Im watching fox news and they're talking about alaska airlines right now as good investment. That may be, but they pay no dividend and I know damn well that 99% of the world won't ever use Alaska Air. Sure tons of great investments exist, but I like to be headache free and go with the big 800 lb gorilla in the room and own it for many many years.
When was the last time a serious competitor to coke or pepsi emerged?
When was the last time someone threatened to knock charmin off its toilet paper throne?
Marlboro has been king of the smoking world forever
that's the beauty of consumer staples, new ones don't emerge! That's why they've been such a fantastic, headache free investment over all these years. This isn't technology, in the 90's when I was a teen, it was a big deal when we had
MS-Dos then a few years later we had a $3,000 PC, then sony was king and their products were thousands of dollars, then apple came along, today computers are $400.... and the technology shift is all over the map.
In that same time: coke,marlboro, and charmin are still kings of their industry
That's the point im trying to make, people over think their investments way too much. Investing is really not that hard, the population is growing, buy the stuff they need and collect dividends and re-invest
Im watching fox news and they're talking about alaska airlines right now as good investment. That may be, but they pay no dividend and I know damn well that 99% of the world won't ever use Alaska Air. Sure tons of great investments exist, but I like to be headache free and go with the big 800 lb gorilla in the room and own it for many many years.
This post was edited on 6/24/13 at 10:13 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News