By Brad Thomason, CPA
Dividends? Like ‘em. But you gotta be a little careful.
As you no doubt know, dividends are periodic payments made by some companies to their shareholders. They, along with interest payments, are the most common types of investment income. For many retirees, they go a long way towards covering the portion of the household budget not paid for by Social Security.
But I don’t quite trust them. Not completely. Not as a long-term means to secure income.
I like them when they come, and I think that in general they are based on stable enough stuff that we shouldn’t just think of them as a bonus that we’re a little surprised to actually get. But neither are they necessarily a permanent, enduring solution to the question of funding the monthly bills for decades to come.
There are three key things you must keep in mind when it comes to dividends. If you do, it will emerge as obvious to you too that thinking of dividends as a bulletproof income tool is a bit of a bridge too far.
The first point is that dividends are optional. As a general proposition, every single dividend payment has to be proactively and explicitly approved by the company’s board of directors. While they may have a long track record of doing so, and attendant pride at the length of the unbroken run, they don’t have to pay one next quarter just because they have the last 100 quarters. There is no legal requirement to pay a dividend, which is one of the chief reasons that companies use stock as a financing route instead of debt, on which they would be required to pay interest.
Point two, even if they do pay a dividend, the dollar amount may change radically from what the last one was. It is true that under normal circumstances they are not prone to fluctuate from quarter to quarter; and when they do it is more typical for them to go up a little each time, rather than bouncing around all over the place. But the fact that they are both optional and decided upon one quarter at a time means that if the board is feeling a little nervous about the company’s financial position, near-term profitability prospects, or really any other concern, they may decide that preserving cash is more important than paying the dividend. Even if they don’t vote to end it, they may vote to cut it.
Frankly, we could stop right there. Basing your income on something that may change from period to period and may not even be paid at all, is plenty to call the whole thing into question.
But like I said, there’s a third matter.
Being a dividend recipient means being a shareholder. Even if the dividend keeps getting paid out, and even if it stays the same amount as when you bought the stock, there’s no guarantee that the shares themselves will hold the same value you paid for them.
Now you might take the position that as long as the dividend stays where it was, a drop in price is really not your problem. And it may not be, not for many years. But should the day ever come (because of inflation, because of medical expenses, etc) that your old level of income doesn’t quite do it anymore, you may have to sell some stock to pay the bills. On that day, the fact that it fell from $40 a share to $20 during your holding period is going to matter. All of the sudden, those dividends will start looking less like actual income and more like a consolation prize for the losses you were taking (but not feeling).
Taken together, that’s enough to prompt a bit of caution. A need for some moderation.
If you have a good set of holdings which is currently producing enough dividend income for the current needs, so be it. But just understand that even though it works today, it may not work forever. It bears thinking about what your next plan needs to look like, before the day comes that you need it. Simultaneously, make sure that your attention on the payments themselves doesn’t distract you from the potentially more substantive matter, the resale value of your shares.
In practice, this set of concerns argues for basing some of the income on interest; and making sure that some of your money is invested in assets which remain at the same valuation levels all throughout the holding period. Bonds, annuities and even CDs, all have some potential for involvement on those fronts.
There’s plenty of room for customization, from one person to the next, as to which instruments and how much of each. But as a general proposition, an approach to income that’s based 100% on dividends is a plan that I think you ought to be nervous about. Nervous enough to change it, or at least nervous enough to spend some time thinking about how to change it should the need ever arise.
By Brad Thomason, CPA
It is a truism the world over that we do not want the kiddos playing with matches. This is not in service of the fact that the little cherubs are malevolent and destructive creatures who need to be walled off from the means of carrying out dastardly intent. Quite the opposite, they simply don’t have the necessary perspective to see the true scope of the risk. They do not have a solid grasp of just how badly things can get out of hand, just how much real and awful damage can accrue from tiny little portions of carelessness. What they don’t know can absolutely hurt them… and then go zipping right on past to hurt or even kill everyone else in the vicinity.
Today I want to talk about Youtube videos that discuss financial topics. That intro was not intended to be an act of subtlety. If you are running short on time, in fact, you can probably bail now. It’s pretty likely you know what I’m going to say, and why.
For those of you who are still here, I want to make it clear that I do not wish to paint every producer of such content with the same brush. Nor am I going to brand any of them as bad actors. Benefit of the doubt, and all that.
But I will tell you there’s some real garbage on there. So you need to be careful.
I’ve been in the advice-giving business for thirty years, more or less. Almost from day one, I guess, I adopted a rigid position that if you are going to hold yourself out as an advisor on a particular topic, you have an obligation to know something about it. Radical, I know. But that’s just the kind of guy I am.
My position hasn’t moved. Hasn’t even budged. Adherence to this principal has lead to many instances over the years when I told a would-be client, “I’m not the guy you need to talk for that,” where ‘that’ was a topic I did not think I knew enough about to have any business giving advice on. That business walked right out the door to another firm, and I have never regretted it even once.
The old (ancient) principle of being careful who you listen to has not changed. Legitimate credibility springs forth from all the same places that Aristotle described. Here’s a hint: number of followers and number of likes, were not on the list.
There is nothing inherent to Youtube as a platform which somehow diminishes the quality of quality content. Good people do put good work on there. It’s just that there are no barriers in place to make sure that content posted is quality content. If ever there was a place where let-the-user-beware was more applicable, I’m not sure where it would have been.
A common red flag is someone telling you that everyone else on a topic is wrong, and that they alone have the secret knowledge that no one else in the entire financial industry has ever managed to figure out. Which makes the whole notion sound really silly when I say it that way, doesn’t it?
I have something of a bum shoulder that’s been giving me trouble again over the last few months. Recently I have been looking at various content (mostly from physical therapists, orthopedic surgeons, etc) about rehabbing tendon damage. Of course, when you look at one video on a topic, the algorithm sends you more; which I admit can at times be helpful. The other day, while scrolling through the suggestions, I clicked on something which looked fairly innocuous and professionally produced. But I turned it off at about the two minute mark, because in the span of one hundred short seconds the guy said, four times, “your doctor won’t tell you this, because he doesn’t know it.”
This quick story demonstrates both how easy it is to get sucked into one of these things; as well as what to do about it.
I do believe that you can find some worthwhile information on Youtube. Just expect to have to wade through a good bit of slop to find it. People who do actual client work are not always the best performers, and folks who look great on camera sometimes say ridiculous things which can lead to great harm if you follow their suggestions. Then again, sometimes the opposite is true, in both cases.
As such, looks, good or bad, may not tell you anything important. Instead, substance is the name of the game. You know, pretty much like it has always been. If it is not obvious why the person doing the speaking would have any special knowledge on the topic, especially if what is being proposed strikes you as radical or just plain goofy, you probably have enough information to know what you should click next.
Followed by promptly forgetting whatever the video said. If you can. I mean, sometimes this stuff is just so zany that it’s hard to unhear. I remember this one knucklehead…
Older blogs (2015-2017)