undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmarvin9y ago0 comments

But even if a company doesn't pay dividends, it will often make a profit that ends up on the company's books. A part of this profit, proportional to your ownership, belongs to you who own the stock.

In an index fund, the stocks contained in the index will on average pay out a certain dividend and turn a certain profit that isn't squandered on worthless projects.

This last part is what makes stocks increase in market value long-term, and which also makes it reasonable to sell a small proportion of your shares every year as a passive income.

If the dividends and your sales constitute less than 3-4% of your funds' total market value each year, you can expect your portfolio not to decrease in value long-term.

0 comments

wfunction9y ago

> But even if a company doesn't pay dividends, it will often make a profit that ends up on the company's books. A part of this profit, proportional to your ownership, belongs to you who own the stock.

You're totally missing my point. I'm saying, even if your stock is "worth" $1 trillion, if you don't actually ever sell it, you haven't earned a single penny from it. It's only money when it's actually money. So my question was whether the OP was ever selling the stock or not.

dgacmu9y ago

This part of your statement is incorrect: "It's only money when it's actually money."

Stocks in major corporations are generally considered a liquid asset - i.e., they can be easily converted to cash. [1]

Don't confuse liquidity and risk exposure. The money is still subject to the risk of the market when it's still being held in stocks, but it's approximately as good as money.

[1] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidasset.asp

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse