Stock Market seems volatile

[Davidson Deac II]

I bought AAL at around 10 a share and dumped it a few weeks later at 14.  Got back in at 21 or so.  I will probably end up getting rid of it around sep.

[OneBadCat]

Anyone else in CCIV (Lucid Motors)?

[PanthersATL]

23 hours ago, Squirrel said:

T paying off today with the spinoff of Warner media with Discovery. Hopefully this will be a good stock gain for investors. 

 

T is a good long-term hold, as long as their dividend continues to be funded at its current level of $0.50/share (or so) for a nice return. Spinning off Warner into a new company was the right choice, and DirecTV has been slowly dying on the vine.   They're positioning themselves into better financial shape.

There's a reason T (and VZ, for that matter) are in many 401K/income-earning portfolios.

[hepcat]

QNTA. All I gotta say.

[CRA]

On 5/18/2021 at 8:45 AM, PanthersATL said:

T is a good long-term hold, as long as their dividend continues to be funded at its current level of $0.50/share (or so) for a nice return. Spinning off Warner into a new company was the right choice, and DirecTV has been slowly dying on the vine.   They're positioning themselves into better financial shape.

There's a reason T (and VZ, for that matter) are in many 401K/income-earning portfolios.

T came out yesterday and announced they would be reducing their dividend. 

but yeah, they are focused on working on that debt.  Probably good for their long term health and growth as well to staying competitive with everything that will be coming in that area.    I think they are really focused on getting the stock price up more on par w/ their competitors.   But that will take time. 

But for anyone in short term.  My bad.  I bought some.  Should of told you.  The stock gods always like to come at me when I buy something to make me second guess myself.  Especially of late. 

[PanthersATL]

15 minutes ago, CRA said:

T came out yesterday and announced they would be reducing their dividend. 

 

What?  (checks notes)

Hadn't seen that news yet, thanks for sharing. A dividend cut due to spinning off a major part of their business makes sense. 

That it's a 50% cut is a bit dramatic, but also seems appropriate -- although the spinoff company could come with a dividend of its own (of some sort) to provide a bit of balance to T shareholders who hold through the event and receive shares in the new company.

I think maintaining that 7% div yield was not sustainable in the long run.... so if that 50% cut brings them back to a 4% yield range... that's in line with what VZ is offering, and by itself still isn't horrible compared to other long-term income-producing investments.

 

[PanthersATL]

Regarding buy-and-hold vs buy/sell strategies (I can't find the article to provide the link, but I'll paraphrase what I recall)

The story/article goes that there was a couple that was investing into their own individual portfolios.

SHE had a financial advisor that would tell her when to buy and sell stocks (for sake of this story, let's say that these transactions took place once a year)

HE did not have a financial advisor, but also bought the same stocks that HER advisor was suggesting. The difference is that HE didn't sell.  He only bought and held.

After a significant number of years passed, both portfolios had done well.

The difference was that HER portfolio didn't take advantage of big market moves, and was significantly smaller than HIS portfolio ended up being.  (I recall numbers similar to $700,000 vs $2.5m .... but am very likely wrong here)

The point of that particular story is that (sometimes) it's better to buy and hold for years rather than months, in order to ride out business/economic changes.

=-=-

Disclaimer: As always, your own investment experience and knowledge may contradict the above scenario. This is not financial advice. Please consult a physician if your investment lasts longer than four hours. Past results are no indication of future results. Do not bend, fold, or mutilate.

[Asurfaholic]

That disclaimer saved me some pain. 

[hepcat]

23 hours ago, PanthersATL said:

Regarding buy-and-hold vs buy/sell strategies (I can't find the article to provide the link, but I'll paraphrase what I recall)

The story/article goes that there was a couple that was investing into their own individual portfolios.

SHE had a financial advisor that would tell her when to buy and sell stocks (for sake of this story, let's say that these transactions took place once a year)

HE did not have a financial advisor, but also bought the same stocks that HER advisor was suggesting. The difference is that HE didn't sell.  He only bought and held.

After a significant number of years passed, both portfolios had done well.

The difference was that HER portfolio didn't take advantage of big market moves, and was significantly smaller than HIS portfolio ended up being.  (I recall numbers similar to $700,000 vs $2.5m .... but am very likely wrong here)

The point of that particular story is that (sometimes) it's better to buy and hold for years rather than months, in order to ride out business/economic changes.

=-=-

Disclaimer: As always, your own investment experience and knowledge may contradict the above scenario. This is not financial advice. Please consult a physician if your investment lasts longer than four hours. Past results are no indication of future results. Do not bend, fold, or mutilate.

Or you could trade OTC penny stocks and make more in 1 year than I've made in my 401k in 10 years.

[PanthersATL]

58 minutes ago, hepcat said:

Or you could trade OTC penny stocks and make more in 1 year than I've made in my 401k in 10 years.

sounds like your company has a lousy 401(k) plan. That's on them, not you.

[hepcat]

2 hours ago, PanthersATL said:

sounds like your company has a lousy 401(k) plan. That's on them, not you.

No it’s just easier and faster to make money on the OTC. A plodgety 15% year over year is FINE. But I can make 1000% in a year in pennies 

[PanthersATL]

1 hour ago, hepcat said:

A plodgety 15% year over year is FINE.

I keep reading the articles on MoneyWatch and CNBC about Fidelity or Schwab's annual "state of retirement in the US" reports, where they keep saying that the vast majority of people in certain age groups have little/no retirement savings at all.  For them especially, 15% would be incredible.
 

[PanthersATL]

Average retirement savings by age group

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-average-retirement-savings-by-age-is-it-enough-2020-11-16 

• Under 35: $30k
• 35-44: $132k
• 45-54: $255k
• 55-64: $408k
• 65-74: $426k

The median numbers are much much lower.  These figures are only those who reported having retirement savings. In 2019, only about half of families did. 

[CRA]

45 minutes ago, PanthersATL said:

Average retirement savings by age group

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-average-retirement-savings-by-age-is-it-enough-2020-11-16 

• Under 35: $30k
• 35-44: $132k
• 45-54: $255k
• 55-64: $408k
• 65-74: $426k

The median numbers are much much lower.  These figures are only those who reported having retirement savings. In 2019, only about half of families did. 

yeah, the actual numbers for society are nuts.  So are all those stats about the percentage of people that can't handle a random $400 emergency that gets thrown at them.