Tim McAleenan Jr. (The Conservative Income Investor)

1 Like
1 Like

Soy accionista de $KDP. Es muy buena. Flying under the radar.

“Investors were “happier” during the dotcom boom in 1997-1999, but it was the investors in 2002 during the sobering deflating of the tech bubble that reaped the outperformance. Investors were “happier” during the housing boom of 2006 and 2007, but it was the Great Financial Crisis that was the time to buy. The crypto-NFT-nonsense wave of 2021-early 2022 created a “happier” investing climate, but I suspect the next chapter will be written that the investors of today will be the ones who reap the better returns”

2 Likes

Aunque tocho, creo merece poner aquí el comentario de David Crosetti en S.A.

"I came across a comment here the other day and someone mentioned that had you bought AAPL stock and held it for 30 years, you’d have been better off than buying some DG stock.
Well, people use that kind of logic all the time and it’s flawed logic. On a different thread, someone made a similar comment about Disney (DIS) in response to someone saying that (DIS) stock should have been sold when they eliminated the dividend.
But, no. The purists have to suggest selling is a mistake. Even when it’s not.
People use arguments like this all the time and they are absolute nonsense. The comment suggested that a $10k investment in DIS would have been a spectacular investment and would have made someone rich. The response? Here it is.
Here’s why it’s nonsense.

  1. $10,000 in 1947 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $133,637.67 today, an increase of $123,637.67 over 75 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.52% per year between 1947 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 1,236.38%.
  2. Who would have even had $10k to invest in Disney back then and how many people today would have $123,637 dollars to invest in a single stock, much less a brand new company like Disney?
  3. Although Disney issued over-the-counter stock (as Walt Disney Productions) in 1940, it was not until November 12, 1957 that Goldman Sachs co-led the Disney IPO at a share price of US$13.88 on the New York Stock Exchange.
  4. The actual history of Disney stock plays out more like this: Walt and his brother Roy wanted to avoid taking Walt Disney Productions public but they had become increasingly in debt to The Bank of America who had financed not only all of their Motion Pictures but the building of the new studio in Burbank, CA USA.
    They were insolvent and could not pay the loans back so in order to save the company Walt Disney reluctantly decided to issue stock on the open market. The IPO was in 1940.
    Walt would later go on to found another private company, WED Enterprises, which went on to finance and build Disneyland.
    Later WED and Walt Disney Productions would be merged to become The Walt Disney Company.
  5. It’s crazy to think that 88% of the Fortune 500 firms that existed in 1955 are gone. These companies have either gone bankrupt, merged, or still exist but have fallen from the top Fortune 500 companies. Most of the companies on the list in 1955 are unrecognizable, forgotten companies today.
  6. For every new company like Disney (with all of their success) there are companies like Blockbuster, Polaroid, ToysRUs, PanAm, Borders, Pets.com, Tower Records, Compaq, Woolworth, Howard Johnson, American Motors, Studebaker, to name a few.
  7. Let’s talk about “brands” that no longer exist. Can you purchase a new Pontiac or Oldsmobile today? How about a Plymouth? Can you get a new Mercury car today? Find me a Fotomat kiosks. How about a Circuit City store? Remember “Pudding Pops?” KB Toys? What happened to Kinney Shoes? Pier 1 Imports? Ask Jeeves? Excite? Hollywood Video? Levitz Furniture?
    Stop already. There is no such thing as a buy and hold stock. There are buy and monitor stocks and for a DGI, the elimination, reduction, or freezing of the dividend is a sign that perhaps you need to look deeper into that company and whether or not to take profits and move along.
    Nothing is forever. Things change. You adapt or die as a business."
18 Likes

Muchas gracias por compartir @luisg me ha encantado la reflexión del texto.

Salvo las aristócratas y alguna más es así. Una cartera aristocrática puede valer para estar más tranquilo aunque también pueden fallar, pero en este sentido la cartera debería ser más tranquila
Gracias por compartir

:thinking:

Por mucho que Tim insista Altria no ha subido un 8% el dividendo (si incluyes el efecto de reinvertir el 8% de dividendo).

No puedo comerme un chuletón y seguir ordeñando la vaca

Altria no es un Dividend Aristocrat

Porque el que lleva la lista no entiende lo que es un spin off

Con Abbvie sí que lo entendió :kissing_heart:

4 Likes
4 Likes
2 Likes
1 Like
2 Likes