This summer, something that is a classic holiday experience happened to me: a moment of inattention in an airport, motivated thieves and, hey presto, no more backpack (= computer, cash, keys, electronic accessories of all kinds and so on). An unpleasant moment if ever there was one, mitigated by the fact that luckily my passport was in my pocket and so the trip was not interrupted.
Once the 'shock', the inconvenience, the filing of a report with the airport police have passed, we take stock: there is a backup of the computer at home and at the office, the 'damage' is only financial, the keys, given the distance from Switzerland, will certainly not be used fraudulently, the credit card is reported stolen and we have others on us. In short, all this is only material and reimbursable by insurance. We can even argue that it's nice to have a new laptop!
However, there is always a slight unpleasant taste in the mouth after this kind of experience. There was no physical violence, thank God, of course the cash will not be refunded. But it is something else more intangible and intuitive: the backpack was a backpack that I cared about (even if it was nothing special). My computer bore the traces of its few falls and had become an appendage of my person, for better or worse. The headphones were a gift from my wife. I was attached to these objects, to greater or lesser degrees: they represented experiences, memories, sometimes even had a soul. However, in my case, there was not even a worthless object that could have touched me strongly emotionally (the key ring of the youngest that he tinkered for Father's Day...).
So I said to myself, I manage (I don't know about you) to get attached to perfectly replaceable, 'common' objects, even reimbursed by insurance in the case at hand because they have accompanied me for part of my life and as such, represent something in my eyes.
This reflection led me to draw a parallel with the often-started, but not really resolved, discussion about the timing of the opportune sale of stocks that have performed well (or poorly, for that matter!). Indeed, I must admit that my reflection on the theft of objects led me to recognize that I am attached to my securities and especially my stocks: is there anything more anonymous than a stock (no pun intended)? We do not receive them at home as was the case a few decades ago. They are one of the most virtual possessions we can imagine, they are the representation of something even more abstract: money. And yet every time I sell a stock I feel a pang in my heart, a feeling of betrayal to someone (me?), a lost 'little paradise', memories that come back to me: stock bought at that time (which evokes other memories), reflection made before the purchase, pleasure or frustration of seeing things evolve in the good or bad direction, dividends collected, perhaps even use of dividends: this new car was (partially) bought thanks to these dividends.
Maybe I'm a bit of a special case and deep down it doesn't bother me too much. On the other hand, I think a little introspection would be interesting the next time you get rid of a title and take a few minutes to analyze what's happening inside you: it's not neutral or harmless, and above all, it only makes the decision-making more complicated because it's based on a subjectivity itself dependent on what happens to you that day.
My little advice: objectify the analysis by involving other people you trust.
Discover more from dividendes
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Eh eh eh Armand, very nice parallel 😉
Yes, it's true that we get attached to these stocks, especially when they have accompanied us for many years and paid us many dividends every quarter. That's why we must base ourselves on very objective criteria to know whether to part with them, such as typically a stagnation (or worse a decrease) in dividends or an alarming increase in the distribution ratio (when all the profit must be squandered to pay dividends).
Thanks anyway for this excellent article!
It is much easier to get rid of a stock that has risen "too much" when you keep in mind the objective of buying it back when its price has become more "reasonable" ,,,, easy to say you might say, and it remains to define the adjectives too much and reasonable, for that you need to know the sector and the functioning of the company in its sector, a vast program ,,,, especially when you diversify, this proves the advantage over time of the systematic over the discretionary.
Jerome, regarding the payout ratio, what do you think of its behavior during a recession? (see the table in the link below) here again we must discern the recessionary impact on one side, and the operation of the company on the other.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dividend-payout-ratios-reach-15-201610159.html
Good day to all
That's a good question. Of course, a recessive period for a typical dividend-paying company will result in an increase in its payout ratio. It remains to be seen whether it has enough margin to continue paying its dividend and even continue to grow it during the recessive period. That's why it's important to focus on companies that are not very influenced by economic conditions (low beta), such as those in the food, consumer goods, health and tobacco sectors, for example. That's also why it's better to favor payouts that are low enough to benefit from a margin of safety when buying.
It is a mistake, in fact, to get attached to stocks – except in the special case of well-chosen growth stocks.
@Jérôme: I don't agree with this weak beta story. It's a sure way to have weak performances too.
I prefer stocks that are climbing, like BITAUTO HOLDINGS (+93% since the end of June).
It is easy to detect such stocks. They are the ones that are rising. A screener is enough.
Don't you agree?
You are a trader and you rely on technical analysis to make your moves. It is normal that you prefer stocks with high betas. You need movement to make capital gains. Investing in dividends is a long-term strategy where price movement is secondary. So it is even better that they do not move too much, at least in the short term.
What bothers me about dividends is situations like Orange. Its dividend has fallen (relatively), as has its share price.
There is no guarantee that a company will continue to pay a constant return.
If you have to analyze your accounts to know, then not everyone can do it.
But I remain in favor of dividends, but not high dividends. The safest dividends are the lowest: those of growth stocks.
I read in a book that Warren Buffett called this Stock Bonds.
I'm going to post a link to an article that explains this. You can remove it if you want...
“Why Low Dividends Are Better”
I hope this helps your readers.
Yes, and it is precisely growing dividends that we are talking about here, not high dividends.
I suggest you read the tutorial to see what kind of strategy is used here
Speaking of rating and ratios, in the link below there is a very interesting study on the reliability/performance of the different ratios,,, it is the P/B which holds the lead,,, fascinating subject I find,,, 😉
http://ratioratingranking.blogspot.fr/2014/07/quel-est-le-meilleur-des-ratios.html