08-29-2013, 11:00 AM
(08-28-2013, 11:34 AM)Horace Cugle Wrote: For a young investor holding stocks like T, SO long term doesn't do what TGT, WAG type stocks will do. Why would a young investor pass on a chance for massive future income for high current income, when he can't use high current income because it's in an IRA?
By the same token, a retired guy who wants max income today wouldn't be especially interested in WAG or TGT type stocks. If he is satisfied with a 5% yield and 3% DG to cover inflation, stocks like T and SO do that. And they can probably do it forever; cruise control.
(08-28-2013, 07:51 PM)Horace Cugle Wrote: I must really have it out for T and I own the stock. When I look at the expected dividend performance and what it'll do over the years I can't figure out why I own it. Maybe because it's a sure thing. Even YUM at 1.8% yield crushes T if you've got 15 years before you need the money. Same with LEG. I've been buying a little of that and now I'm wondering why because it's worse than T!!
As a long term holder of MO all I can say is similar DG to KO and twice the yield. Who doesn't want to do that?
Really great posts in this thread, Horace -- thanks! All I can add is that over a portfolio of 20 to 40 stocks, even if you have a long way to retirement, there is plenty of room for a few high-yield but slow dividend growers in addition to the strong growers. Maybe we could call it "yield diversity" or something.
That is, after you've exhausted the great stocks that have solid starting yields AND good dividend growth -- like MO, PM, and LMT.