Gewinnerbranchen der Jahre 2006 bis 2040 (Seite 8160)
eröffnet am 10.12.06 16:57:17 von
neuester Beitrag 16.02.24 09:33:08 von
neuester Beitrag 16.02.24 09:33:08 von
Beiträge: 94.068
ID: 1.099.361
ID: 1.099.361
Aufrufe heute: 10
Gesamt: 3.535.852
Gesamt: 3.535.852
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| vor 24 Minuten | 6177 | |
| heute 18:05 | 4548 | |
| vor 24 Minuten | 4249 | |
| heute 18:00 | 3146 | |
| vor 8 Minuten | 2543 | |
| vor 23 Minuten | 2331 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 1984 | |
| vor 11 Minuten | 1573 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1. | 17.694,95 | -0,33 | 197 | |||
| 2. | 2. | 147,24 | -1,79 | 93 | |||
| 3. | 7. | 6,6480 | -1,19 | 72 | |||
| 4. | 8. | 3,7650 | +0,67 | 67 | |||
| 5. | 5. | 0,1770 | -4,07 | 66 | |||
| 6. | 17. | 7,2300 | -1,03 | 46 | |||
| 7. | 4. | 2.392,03 | +0,53 | 41 | |||
| 8. | Neu! | 724,41 | -21,98 | 40 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
ICA finde ich auch sehr langfristig interessant. Würde mich auch nicht wundern, wenn sie morgen einen Satz nach oben macht.
RDY ist weiterhin sehr gefragt. 
und CMGI hat ein riesiges W im monthly RSI
und CMGI hat ein riesiges W im monthly RSI
Ich habe diesen thread erst Ende Dezember 2007 entdeckt.
kommt mir wesentlich länger vor. hätte so auf oktober getippt
LIFC hatte ich vor Jahren gekauft zu etwas über 2 USD und leider zu ca. 3,50 wieder verkauft.
war auch nicht so gemeint das du durch den thred auf lifc aufmerksam wurdest sondern eben dadurch das du über deine bereits bekannte lifc hier gelesen hast und dann hier hängen bliebst
Wenn die Zahlen bei SATC noch nicht gut sind, kann sich das durchaus noch ändern
wobei die betonung auf "kann" liegt. gute gründe etwas objektiv schlechtes zu kaufen das evtl mal positiv wird?
kommt mir wesentlich länger vor. hätte so auf oktober getippt
LIFC hatte ich vor Jahren gekauft zu etwas über 2 USD und leider zu ca. 3,50 wieder verkauft.
war auch nicht so gemeint das du durch den thred auf lifc aufmerksam wurdest sondern eben dadurch das du über deine bereits bekannte lifc hier gelesen hast und dann hier hängen bliebst
Wenn die Zahlen bei SATC noch nicht gut sind, kann sich das durchaus noch ändern
wobei die betonung auf "kann" liegt. gute gründe etwas objektiv schlechtes zu kaufen das evtl mal positiv wird?
Bitte wägen Sie ab
Guten Tag liebe Leserinnen und Leser,
ich bin überzeugt davon, dass wir nach wie vor langfristig ausgelegte Aktien-Investments aufsammeln sollten. Ob es noch einmal zu einer Verkaufswelle kommt, spielt dafür keine Rolle. Wägen wir ab:
Die Unternehmensgewinne sind hoch und die Gewinntrends intakt. Dabei sind Aktien aus historischer Sicht stark unterbewertet. Für den Dax errechnet sich momentan ein KGV von 11/12. In der 2000er Euphorie wurden Dax-Titel mit dem 25-fachen der Gewinne bewertet und im historischen Mittel sind es 17. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass das KGV in den nächsten Jahren wieder ansteigen wird.
Die Dividenden-Renditen sind hoch. Mehr als die Hälfte der Dax-Werte kommen auf Ausschüttungs-Renditen von über 3%. Unsere E.ON hat den jüngsten Dividendenabschlag schon wieder aufgeholt und rentiert mit 3,4%. Bei BASF kommen wir auf 4% und Index-Schwergewichte wie Allianz oder Dt. Bank - die wir Ihnen natürlich nicht zur Langfrist-Anlage empfehlen – haben Dividenden-Renditen von mehr als 5%. Dadurch erfahren die Indizes nach unten eine solide Absicherung. Zumal:
Die Zinsen sind niedrig und Anleihen eigentlich keine Anlagealternative. Die Renditen liegen aktuell im Bereich von 4,5%, während die EZB 2,0% Inflationsrate anstrebt, die geschätzte Inflationsrate aber 3,6% beträgt (Mai-Zahlen lt. EU-Statistikbehörde Eurostat). Werden auch noch die Steuern berücksichtigt (die ja von der Brutto-Ausschüttung abgehen), können momentan also keine Netto-Renditen erwirtschaftet werden. In der Fundamental-Analyse wird das gerechtfertigte KGV (das es natürlich nicht gibt) übrigens aus dem Umkehrwert der Anleiherenditen errechnet, so dass die akt. 4,5% ein Dax-KGV von 22 erlauben würden.
Die Subprime-Krise ist zwar noch nicht beendet, aber die Börsen-Panik liegt hinter uns. Dabei muss berücksichtigt werden, mit welch ungewöhnlich heftigen Trendbewegungen die Aktienbörsen konfrontiert waren. Der Euro kostete im August noch 1,35, im Mai aber 1,60 Dollar. Und der Rohölpreis ist von 88 Dollar im Februar um 52% bis 133 im Mai explodiert. Sobald aus diesem Hype die Luft rausgeht, bekommen die Märkte eine erhebliche psychologische Unterstützung. Für Sie gaaaanz entscheidend:
Sie müssen Ihre Langfristinvestments in 2008 komplettieren, damit Ihre Kursgewinne lebenslang steuerfrei bleiben. Die Bedeutung dieses Aspekts wiederhole ich gebetsmühlenartig und ich würde mich sehr wundern, wenn in Deutschland keine Steuer-Rallye einsetzen würde. Warten Sie nicht darauf, sondern greifen Sie dieser vor. Mein Ratschlag:
Wenn die Indizes ihre 200-Tage-Linien zurückerobert haben, sollten Sie komplett investiert sein. Dazu fehlen dem Dow Jones nur 3% Kursgewinn und im Dax sind es 4%. Danach können sehr heftige Rallyes einsetzen, zumal der Wall Street dann nur noch 9% und dem Dax 11% für neue All-Time-Highs fehlen. Auch aus zyklischer Sicht sollten die Kurse nach diesen Durchbrüchen durch die Decke gehen. Also wägen Sie jetzt bitte ab...
Guten Tag liebe Leserinnen und Leser,
ich bin überzeugt davon, dass wir nach wie vor langfristig ausgelegte Aktien-Investments aufsammeln sollten. Ob es noch einmal zu einer Verkaufswelle kommt, spielt dafür keine Rolle. Wägen wir ab:
Die Unternehmensgewinne sind hoch und die Gewinntrends intakt. Dabei sind Aktien aus historischer Sicht stark unterbewertet. Für den Dax errechnet sich momentan ein KGV von 11/12. In der 2000er Euphorie wurden Dax-Titel mit dem 25-fachen der Gewinne bewertet und im historischen Mittel sind es 17. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass das KGV in den nächsten Jahren wieder ansteigen wird.
Die Dividenden-Renditen sind hoch. Mehr als die Hälfte der Dax-Werte kommen auf Ausschüttungs-Renditen von über 3%. Unsere E.ON hat den jüngsten Dividendenabschlag schon wieder aufgeholt und rentiert mit 3,4%. Bei BASF kommen wir auf 4% und Index-Schwergewichte wie Allianz oder Dt. Bank - die wir Ihnen natürlich nicht zur Langfrist-Anlage empfehlen – haben Dividenden-Renditen von mehr als 5%. Dadurch erfahren die Indizes nach unten eine solide Absicherung. Zumal:
Die Zinsen sind niedrig und Anleihen eigentlich keine Anlagealternative. Die Renditen liegen aktuell im Bereich von 4,5%, während die EZB 2,0% Inflationsrate anstrebt, die geschätzte Inflationsrate aber 3,6% beträgt (Mai-Zahlen lt. EU-Statistikbehörde Eurostat). Werden auch noch die Steuern berücksichtigt (die ja von der Brutto-Ausschüttung abgehen), können momentan also keine Netto-Renditen erwirtschaftet werden. In der Fundamental-Analyse wird das gerechtfertigte KGV (das es natürlich nicht gibt) übrigens aus dem Umkehrwert der Anleiherenditen errechnet, so dass die akt. 4,5% ein Dax-KGV von 22 erlauben würden.
Die Subprime-Krise ist zwar noch nicht beendet, aber die Börsen-Panik liegt hinter uns. Dabei muss berücksichtigt werden, mit welch ungewöhnlich heftigen Trendbewegungen die Aktienbörsen konfrontiert waren. Der Euro kostete im August noch 1,35, im Mai aber 1,60 Dollar. Und der Rohölpreis ist von 88 Dollar im Februar um 52% bis 133 im Mai explodiert. Sobald aus diesem Hype die Luft rausgeht, bekommen die Märkte eine erhebliche psychologische Unterstützung. Für Sie gaaaanz entscheidend:
Sie müssen Ihre Langfristinvestments in 2008 komplettieren, damit Ihre Kursgewinne lebenslang steuerfrei bleiben. Die Bedeutung dieses Aspekts wiederhole ich gebetsmühlenartig und ich würde mich sehr wundern, wenn in Deutschland keine Steuer-Rallye einsetzen würde. Warten Sie nicht darauf, sondern greifen Sie dieser vor. Mein Ratschlag:
Wenn die Indizes ihre 200-Tage-Linien zurückerobert haben, sollten Sie komplett investiert sein. Dazu fehlen dem Dow Jones nur 3% Kursgewinn und im Dax sind es 4%. Danach können sehr heftige Rallyes einsetzen, zumal der Wall Street dann nur noch 9% und dem Dax 11% für neue All-Time-Highs fehlen. Auch aus zyklischer Sicht sollten die Kurse nach diesen Durchbrüchen durch die Decke gehen. Also wägen Sie jetzt bitte ab...
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 34.246.168 von Pontiuspilatus am 05.06.08 16:07:51ich vermute sogar fast das bakri durch meine erwähnung von lifc von vor ca 1 jahr in den thread gezogen wurde
Ich habe diesen thread erst Ende Dezember 2007 entdeckt.
LIFC hatte ich vor Jahren gekauft zu etwas über 2 USD und leider zu ca. 3,50 wieder verkauft.
Übrigens: VVUS, SQNM und SATC sehen phantastisch aus !
Wenn die Zahlen bei SATC noch nicht gut sind, kann sich das durchaus noch ändern
Plambeck läuft, ASIA auch und nächste Woche sind m.E. GIGM und ICA dran. IO sieht auch gut aus und WAB natürlich. Das sind für mich alles langfristig interessante Sachen.
Ich habe diesen thread erst Ende Dezember 2007 entdeckt.
LIFC hatte ich vor Jahren gekauft zu etwas über 2 USD und leider zu ca. 3,50 wieder verkauft.
Übrigens: VVUS, SQNM und SATC sehen phantastisch aus !
Wenn die Zahlen bei SATC noch nicht gut sind, kann sich das durchaus noch ändern
Plambeck läuft, ASIA auch und nächste Woche sind m.E. GIGM und ICA dran. IO sieht auch gut aus und WAB natürlich. Das sind für mich alles langfristig interessante Sachen.
Trading Spotlight
JNJ ist aber teilweise bereits ein Markenartikler während PFE immer noch ein reinrassiger Pillendreher ist.
Schon mal JNJ ins Auge gefasst, äh besser gedrückt od. eingelegt
Deren Kontaktlinsen sind z.b. ein High tech Massen-Consumerprodukt.
Schon mal JNJ ins Auge gefasst, äh besser gedrückt od. eingelegt
Deren Kontaktlinsen sind z.b. ein High tech Massen-Consumerprodukt.
Die Schere zwischen JNJ und PFE hat sich bisher immer wieder mal aufgetan, dann aber auch wieder geschlossen.
So hier noch Lesestoff für die Sommerpause:
http://aussiemba.blogspot.com/2005/05/siegels-constant.html
About Siegel :
Wharton Business School Professor Jeremy Siegel is one of the world's most important scholars on stock ownership and investing. His 1994 book "Stocks for the Long Run" became an instant classic. His extensive original research found that over periods of 20 or more years, stocks are not only the best investment for your money, but the safest as well, returning 6.5 -7% after inflation (now popularly called "Siegel's constant") while bonds and other investment vehicles fared considerably less well.
The Interview :
The growth trap is falling into a pattern of just buying companies with what you think are the fastest growing earnings, and ignoring the price. It is so important to realize that when you're paying a higher than usual price, you're already putting up for those higher earnings. In fact, I find that the faster growing companies often give poorer returns for investors; those investors that chase after those fast growing companies actually suffer worse returns than those that buy slower growing companies at reasonable prices.
This surprised me. Even though IBM won, hands-down, on all the growth parameters that Wall Street looks at -- earnings per share growth, market value growth, sales -- it fell behind Standard Oil of New Jersey in terms of return for investor. And the two reasons for that: IBM sold at more than twice the price-earnings ratio of Standard Oil and had less the half the dividend rate. So when you put those two together, over the next 53 years, Standard Oil of New Jersey -- and this is even before the very latest run-up in oil prices, because I ended my first data set in 2003 -- out-performed IBM even though IBM was one of the fastest growing companies in the world.
[If you have been following Warren Buffet or reading his letters to Investors then this would be old news to you]
Absolutely. It surprised me. From 1957, when the S & P was founded, to the present, the best performing company is Philip Morris, which is now the Altria Group. It won hands-down against all the others. The returns were three percent per year more than the next best-performing stock and almost doubled the S & P over the last half century, which is really remarkable when you consider the record.
And a major reason for that performance is that no one wanted to buy it. The price stayed low. First off, there are those who object morally to cigarettes so they don't buy it. And, more importantly, those that said, oh, the government's going to put them out of business; these liability payments -- Philip Morris has already paid over $150 billion! And, as a result, the price fell so low. They were still pumping out cash and the dividend yield got to be extremely high. And, once you had reinvested dividends, the returns on that company just soared above everything else.
[In fact Phillip Morris is one company which also featured in the "Built to Last" list of Jim Collins. It is amazing that this company is in many ways one of the best managed in the US. In fact, ITC Limited in India
, a tobacco company, is a similar example. I guess there is something with these cigaratte's?]
The best solution of the aging problem is what I call the 'global solution.' I think that we have to think of ourselves very much like Florida, which is an aging state. In a younger country, we don't talk about an aging crisis in the state of Florida. Their retirees sell their assets in the US to the rest of the US market that absorbs them. They import goods. They're enjoying a good retirement.
In 50 years the United States will be more aged than all of Florida is today, but we will be, existing in a younger world. So, what I see is exactly the same pattern. We will be selling assets into the world market. They will be buying, they will be absorbing, they will be saving, and they will be producing the goods that we will be importing to satisfy our retirement needs. And, I think that is the only way that we could have an ever-increasing retirement period with the shrinkage of workers and the extension of life expectancy.
Certainly India is very young country. The rest of Asia is a very young. Indonesia is very young. And even China -- I know that because of its one-child policy it is aging, but they have a huge supply of surplus labor with state-owned enterprises that they can absorb into the private sector. I expect, and I hope, that this development not only sweeps through Asia, which looks extremely promising, but also Latin America, the Middle East, and even Africa, which has been the so-called basket case. But there are a billion people in Africa -- very young ages -- and they have not yet started their growth.
India and China, by the middle of the century, will together be, in my opinion, more than four times the size of the United States.
[Since I come from India, I see that the energy levels and the sense of optimism of the future and what needs to be done is so high compared to say Australia...atleast that's the experience till now]
Technology is critical for progress. For increases in standard of living, what we call growth, it is so very important; but that doesn't mean that technology stocks are the best stocks to buy. Just like not always the best horse on paper is what you should bet on at the race track. The horse could be over-bet and as a result the odds are way too low. You've got to look at the price, as well. Too many people just look at one, without looking at the other. Technology is an unbelievable force -- the communications and Internet revolution is one of the most exciting things to ever happen. Do I want to go into those stocks? Maybe, maybe not. I want to see what people are paying for them. If everyone else is excited about something, I tend not to want it.
[Very important to understand. Systems Thinking would help in looking at the whole rather than the parts. And of course Buffet has been talking about this for some 30 years now.]
http://aussiemba.blogspot.com/2005/05/siegels-constant.html
About Siegel :
Wharton Business School Professor Jeremy Siegel is one of the world's most important scholars on stock ownership and investing. His 1994 book "Stocks for the Long Run" became an instant classic. His extensive original research found that over periods of 20 or more years, stocks are not only the best investment for your money, but the safest as well, returning 6.5 -7% after inflation (now popularly called "Siegel's constant") while bonds and other investment vehicles fared considerably less well.
The Interview :
The growth trap is falling into a pattern of just buying companies with what you think are the fastest growing earnings, and ignoring the price. It is so important to realize that when you're paying a higher than usual price, you're already putting up for those higher earnings. In fact, I find that the faster growing companies often give poorer returns for investors; those investors that chase after those fast growing companies actually suffer worse returns than those that buy slower growing companies at reasonable prices.
This surprised me. Even though IBM won, hands-down, on all the growth parameters that Wall Street looks at -- earnings per share growth, market value growth, sales -- it fell behind Standard Oil of New Jersey in terms of return for investor. And the two reasons for that: IBM sold at more than twice the price-earnings ratio of Standard Oil and had less the half the dividend rate. So when you put those two together, over the next 53 years, Standard Oil of New Jersey -- and this is even before the very latest run-up in oil prices, because I ended my first data set in 2003 -- out-performed IBM even though IBM was one of the fastest growing companies in the world.
[If you have been following Warren Buffet or reading his letters to Investors then this would be old news to you]
Absolutely. It surprised me. From 1957, when the S & P was founded, to the present, the best performing company is Philip Morris, which is now the Altria Group. It won hands-down against all the others. The returns were three percent per year more than the next best-performing stock and almost doubled the S & P over the last half century, which is really remarkable when you consider the record.
And a major reason for that performance is that no one wanted to buy it. The price stayed low. First off, there are those who object morally to cigarettes so they don't buy it. And, more importantly, those that said, oh, the government's going to put them out of business; these liability payments -- Philip Morris has already paid over $150 billion! And, as a result, the price fell so low. They were still pumping out cash and the dividend yield got to be extremely high. And, once you had reinvested dividends, the returns on that company just soared above everything else.
[In fact Phillip Morris is one company which also featured in the "Built to Last" list of Jim Collins. It is amazing that this company is in many ways one of the best managed in the US. In fact, ITC Limited in India
, a tobacco company, is a similar example. I guess there is something with these cigaratte's?]The best solution of the aging problem is what I call the 'global solution.' I think that we have to think of ourselves very much like Florida, which is an aging state. In a younger country, we don't talk about an aging crisis in the state of Florida. Their retirees sell their assets in the US to the rest of the US market that absorbs them. They import goods. They're enjoying a good retirement.
In 50 years the United States will be more aged than all of Florida is today, but we will be, existing in a younger world. So, what I see is exactly the same pattern. We will be selling assets into the world market. They will be buying, they will be absorbing, they will be saving, and they will be producing the goods that we will be importing to satisfy our retirement needs. And, I think that is the only way that we could have an ever-increasing retirement period with the shrinkage of workers and the extension of life expectancy.
Certainly India is very young country. The rest of Asia is a very young. Indonesia is very young. And even China -- I know that because of its one-child policy it is aging, but they have a huge supply of surplus labor with state-owned enterprises that they can absorb into the private sector. I expect, and I hope, that this development not only sweeps through Asia, which looks extremely promising, but also Latin America, the Middle East, and even Africa, which has been the so-called basket case. But there are a billion people in Africa -- very young ages -- and they have not yet started their growth.
India and China, by the middle of the century, will together be, in my opinion, more than four times the size of the United States.
[Since I come from India, I see that the energy levels and the sense of optimism of the future and what needs to be done is so high compared to say Australia...atleast that's the experience till now]
Technology is critical for progress. For increases in standard of living, what we call growth, it is so very important; but that doesn't mean that technology stocks are the best stocks to buy. Just like not always the best horse on paper is what you should bet on at the race track. The horse could be over-bet and as a result the odds are way too low. You've got to look at the price, as well. Too many people just look at one, without looking at the other. Technology is an unbelievable force -- the communications and Internet revolution is one of the most exciting things to ever happen. Do I want to go into those stocks? Maybe, maybe not. I want to see what people are paying for them. If everyone else is excited about something, I tend not to want it.
[Very important to understand. Systems Thinking would help in looking at the whole rather than the parts. And of course Buffet has been talking about this for some 30 years now.]
Good Stocks to Buy Now
Put $100,000 into undervalued, dividend-paying stocks today. Through a combination of capital gains and reinvested yields, the market could turn that single lump sum into a $1 million fortune over the next 15 to 20 years.
While that's solid advice for any new investor, it can be hard advice to follow. First, $100,000 is not the kind of money most folks just have lying around. I know I don't. Second, which stocks would you put it in if you did? There are more than 3,000 dividend payers trading on the U.S. markets alone, and there's no way to tell at a glance which are good buys.
The good news is that we can work around these limitations.
Invest more
There are fewer barriers to investing today than ever before. Opinions on stocks are a dime a dozen online, and discount brokerages make it possible to buy and sell shares for as little as a few dollars from the comfort of our own homes.
Those are wonderful developments for individuals who seek to build a secure financial future. You don't need $100,000 to start investing. You can start with as little as $350 -- the amount needed to keep commissions at 2% on a $7 trade. What kind of returns can you expect from such a small investment?
Good ones.
Constant consistency
Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel has demonstrated that it's reasonable to expect a real return of approximately 6.5%. That's what's known as Siegel's constant -- and as he told the Fool last year, he's pretty proud to have a constant named after him. Add inflation to that 6.5%, and you're looking at a nominal return of approximately 9%. Using the nominal rate, the stock market could deliver you a tidy $400,000 nest egg after 25 years of investing $350 each month. Not bad for only $105,000 of principal.
High yields and low prices
The key to earning that return -- as Siegel points out in his research -- is reinvesting dividends. And the power of those dividends can be profound.
According to Siegel, the best-performing stock of the original S&P 500, which began in 1957, is Altria and its incredible 19.8% annualized return. Why has it done so well? Reinvested dividends.
Investor distaste for tobacco and fear of lawsuits has kept Altria's price depressed while the company continued to pay out huge amounts of cash -- the yield today is 4.1%. That meant investors could reinvest their dividends at lower prices, thereby supercharging returns.
And the rest of Siegel's S&P best is a Who's Who of dividend growers:
Company
Annual Return,
1957-2003*
Current
Yield
Altria
19.8%
4.1%
Abbott Labs (NYSE: ABT)
16.5%
2.6%
Bristol-Myers (NYSE: BMY)
16.4%
5.4%
Tootsie Roll (NYSE: TR)
16.1%
1.3%
Pfizer (NYSE: PFE)
16%
5.7%
Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO)
16%
2.6%
Merck (NYSE: MRK)
16%
3.3%
*Source: The Future for Investors, by Jeremy Siegel.
Today, all of these companies continue to boast solid yields, yet they're not without uncertainty. Former Motley Fool Income Investor recommendation Merck, for example, has a heightened risk profile, given the threat of Vioxx litigation. Of course, for long-term investors, that could be great news. If the price drops again, it means they can buy more shares with their reinvested dividends at a great price and, according to Siegel, supercharge returns.
Put $100,000 into undervalued, dividend-paying stocks today. Through a combination of capital gains and reinvested yields, the market could turn that single lump sum into a $1 million fortune over the next 15 to 20 years.
While that's solid advice for any new investor, it can be hard advice to follow. First, $100,000 is not the kind of money most folks just have lying around. I know I don't. Second, which stocks would you put it in if you did? There are more than 3,000 dividend payers trading on the U.S. markets alone, and there's no way to tell at a glance which are good buys.
The good news is that we can work around these limitations.
Invest more
There are fewer barriers to investing today than ever before. Opinions on stocks are a dime a dozen online, and discount brokerages make it possible to buy and sell shares for as little as a few dollars from the comfort of our own homes.
Those are wonderful developments for individuals who seek to build a secure financial future. You don't need $100,000 to start investing. You can start with as little as $350 -- the amount needed to keep commissions at 2% on a $7 trade. What kind of returns can you expect from such a small investment?
Good ones.
Constant consistency
Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel has demonstrated that it's reasonable to expect a real return of approximately 6.5%. That's what's known as Siegel's constant -- and as he told the Fool last year, he's pretty proud to have a constant named after him. Add inflation to that 6.5%, and you're looking at a nominal return of approximately 9%. Using the nominal rate, the stock market could deliver you a tidy $400,000 nest egg after 25 years of investing $350 each month. Not bad for only $105,000 of principal.
High yields and low prices
The key to earning that return -- as Siegel points out in his research -- is reinvesting dividends. And the power of those dividends can be profound.
According to Siegel, the best-performing stock of the original S&P 500, which began in 1957, is Altria and its incredible 19.8% annualized return. Why has it done so well? Reinvested dividends.
Investor distaste for tobacco and fear of lawsuits has kept Altria's price depressed while the company continued to pay out huge amounts of cash -- the yield today is 4.1%. That meant investors could reinvest their dividends at lower prices, thereby supercharging returns.
And the rest of Siegel's S&P best is a Who's Who of dividend growers:
Company
Annual Return,
1957-2003*
Current
Yield
Altria
19.8%
4.1%
Abbott Labs (NYSE: ABT)
16.5%
2.6%
Bristol-Myers (NYSE: BMY)
16.4%
5.4%
Tootsie Roll (NYSE: TR)
16.1%
1.3%
Pfizer (NYSE: PFE)
16%
5.7%
Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO)
16%
2.6%
Merck (NYSE: MRK)
16%
3.3%
*Source: The Future for Investors, by Jeremy Siegel.
Today, all of these companies continue to boast solid yields, yet they're not without uncertainty. Former Motley Fool Income Investor recommendation Merck, for example, has a heightened risk profile, given the threat of Vioxx litigation. Of course, for long-term investors, that could be great news. If the price drops again, it means they can buy more shares with their reinvested dividends at a great price and, according to Siegel, supercharge returns.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 34.246.329 von Simonswald am 05.06.08 16:19:38Nochmals hervorgehoben, weil wichtig.
less than one- third of the return is explained by growth. The rest is the price you pay and the dividend you receive.
@ponti:
Haben wir bei PFE was übersehen? Wird da obama eingepreist? Spinnt der Markt?
Bei 10$ stock ich auf!
PFE
Weshalb sich JNJ im Vergleich so gut hält, versteh ich nicht. Deren Pharmasparte sollte ähnliche 'Probleme' haben wie bei allen BigPharmas. Kann doch nicht nur deren Medtec-Sparte sein die alles kompensiert.
less than one- third of the return is explained by growth. The rest is the price you pay and the dividend you receive.
@ponti:
Haben wir bei PFE was übersehen? Wird da obama eingepreist? Spinnt der Markt?
Bei 10$ stock ich auf!
PFE
Weshalb sich JNJ im Vergleich so gut hält, versteh ich nicht. Deren Pharmasparte sollte ähnliche 'Probleme' haben wie bei allen BigPharmas. Kann doch nicht nur deren Medtec-Sparte sein die alles kompensiert.
Durchsuchen
