Investing in income stocks for dividends - worth it?
After looking at your profile, I see your age...28.  Still a baby.  At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income.  You are still working and should be working for many years.  If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income.   Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases.  If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices.  If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison.  This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio.  You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth. "To answer your question: yes, it's often ""worth it"" to have investments that produce income. Do a Google search for ""income vs growth investing"" and you'll get a sense for two different approaches to investing in equities. In a nutshell: ""growth"" stocks (think Netflix, etc) don't pay dividends but are poised to appreciate in price more than ""income"" stocks (think banks, utilities, etc) that tend to have less volatile prices but pay a consistent dividend. In the long run (decades), growth stocks tend to outperform income stocks. That's why younger investors tend to pick growth stocks while those closer to retirement tend to stick with more stable income-producing portfolio. But there's nothing wrong with a mixed approach, either. I agree with Pete's answer, too." As a general rule of thumb, age and resiliency of your profession (in terms of high and stable wages) in most cases imply that you have the ABILITY to accept higher than average level of risk by investing in stocks (rather than bonds) in search for capital appreciation (rather than income), simply because you have more time to offset any losses, should you have any, and make capital gains. Dividend yield is mostly sough after by people at or near retirement who need to have some cash inflows but cannot accept high risk of equity investments (hence low risk dividend stocks and greater allocation to bonds). Since you accept passive investment approach, you could consider investing in Target Date Funds (TDFs), which re-allocate assets (roughly, from higher- to lower-risk) gradually as the fund approaches it target, which for you could be your retirement age, or even beyond. Also, why are you so hesitant to consider taking professional advice from a financial adviser? "is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index.  Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them.  Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these ""duds"". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now.  But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month.  No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate.  Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion.  Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income.  If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years.  The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers.  (Amongst many other possible measures.)  They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years.  Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example.  There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old.  Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses.   Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better.  I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments.  Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former.  In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns.  Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio.  Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though."
"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company.  A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by ""dividend yield traps.""  If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay.  There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare.  Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future.  If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends.  These companies may have ""unusually"" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure.    Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty.  Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis.  So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the ""unusually"" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders." "I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need.  People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend.  You are correct though Pfizer might be considered ""more growth."" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon.  Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products.  Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend.  Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible.   The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company.  Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income.  You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well." "I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically.  The keyword to search is ""socially responsible ETFs"".  There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income.  You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now.  Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money.  I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out.  Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable.  Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad.  If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer.  There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency.  There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit.  Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500." The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk.  The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire! "The key is to look at total return, that is dividend yields plus capital growth. Some stocks have yields of 5%-7%, and no growth. In that case, you get the dividends, and not a whole lot more. These are called dividend stocks. Other stocks pay no dividends. But if they can grow at 15%-20% a year or more, you're fine.These are called growth stocks. The safest way is to get a ""balanced"" combination of dividends and growth, say a yield of 3% growing at 8%-10% a year, for a total return of 11%-13%. meaning that you get the best of both worlds.These are called dividend growth stocks." You should not buy soley for the dividend. The price of BHP is going down for a reason. If you hold until the full years dividend is paid you will make 11% (which is $110 if you bought $1000 worth of shares), but if the share price keeps dropping, you might lose 50% on the stock. So you make $110 on dividends but lose $500 on stock price drop. A perfect way to lose money. I have read in many personal finance books that stocks are a great investment for the long term, because on average they go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index, but is there reason to believe this trend will continue indefinitely into the future? It has also been wrong for 20+ year time periods during those last 100 years. It's an average, and you can live your whole career at a loss. There are many things to support the retention of the average, over the next 100 years. I think the quip is out of scope of your actual investment philosophy. But basically there are many ways to lower your cost basis, by reinvesting dividends, selling options, or contributing to your position at any price from a portion of your income, and by inflation, and by the growth of the world economy. With a low enough cost basis then a smaller percentage gain in the index gives you a magnified profit. "RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that ""you believe these will continue"" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market.  In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this).  Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits.  Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous."