Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have the same situation with several titles.
Taxation is always based on the payment date, which makes sense because the cash only appears in the account at that time.
But I don't really see what difference it makes in the end, you'll have to pay tax one year or another anyway.
Unless, as you say, you want to sell before the dividend, to keep the capital gain and not be taxed on the distributions (a strategy that is only valid if you are Swiss, therefore not taxed on the capital gain). But in this case you don't care about the year, since you are selling before the ex-date anyway. And in the long term I don't think selling to avoid being taxed on a dividend is productive.
Note that on IB you can configure your reports and you can indicate each position separately on your tax return.Hi
Clinton or Trump are certainly not brilliant, but their influence on the market should not be overestimated.
On the other hand, it is true, and I have been saying it for a long time, that the stock market is overvalued: http://www.dividendes.ch/evaluation-du-marche/
This is also why I started the Trading Auto Signal.
As for your question, I only started this dividend portfolio in 2010, so I don't have any examples to show you for years like 2000-2003 or 2008-2009.
On the other hand, if I adopted this strategy of increasing dividends, it is precisely because I experienced these two periods as an investor. And I even experienced them badly, like many others.
Dividend-growing stocks are known to hold up well in bear markets. The following articles will give you examples and explanations:
No, I think this functionality is no longer possible because it was linked to the partnership they had with BCV, unless I'm mistaken.
It wouldn't like much anyway either.There is no rule on this subject. There are stocks that beat the market for several decades and that actually do not seem to want to come back down to its height. There are others on the contrary that beat the market for a long time and that have fallen from very high, or even gone bankrupt.
History is full of examples of companies that were thought to be above the fray and that collapsed. Think for example of Eastman Kodak which missed the technological turn of digital devices.
Generally speaking, all technologies are subject to this problem. They ridicule the market for several years, then they collapse. This was once the case for Apple, which recovered when Steve Jobs returned and the iPods and iPhones were launched. And now we can perhaps imagine that this company will collapse again in the future. For now, it still has enormous resources, but it only needs to miss a technological turn, and boom.
This could even be the case for Google, which we believe today to be unbeatable with its quasi-monopolistic position among search engines. All it takes is for a new way of surfing the net to come along and for Google to miss this turn and boom... Ok it seems impossible today, but it also seemed impossible at the time for Kodak (which was on the Dow Jones, let me remind you!).
There is an incredible company on this subject, it is IBM:
It has already had to reinvent itself three times during its long history, and it is still here!In general, I generally avoid technos today because of this. Even if they are very tempting, it can backfire very quickly and it can hurt a lot.
Pharmas are a bit of a "techno" apart. Of course, they can also miss a technological turn, but they are also in health goods, basic necessities and this is therefore an advantage in the long term because it is a defensive sector.
In the end, a stock is not expensive or not because it beats the market or not, but in relation to its fundamentals. It can thus be very cheap even though it has been outperforming the market for ages.
Hi Lemij
Congratulations, that's a nice portfolio you've built up there.
Great values, with good sector diversification and a Swiss-American mix. These are also my favorite markets.I see with amusement that you have ATLN. This brings back memories because I started investing in the stock market with this stock about fifteen years ago. At the time it was a highly speculative stock, it was not yet at the SMI. I was not yet following a dividend strategy at that time, I was only "dabbling" and I had suffered a big loss with ATLN and so I sold it. If I had done buy&hold I would have made a nice capital gain, since the stock has risen well during all this time 🙂
In short, ATLN now becomes a stock that pays increasing dividends and the circle is complete!
Good morning
and thank you for your compliments.Here are my answers:
1 – What is the difference between buying a security (from company x which is American) from Postfinance (Swiss trader) or from a foreign trader?
– Lower brokerage fees can be expected from some foreign traders, such as Interactive Brokers
– there will be no Swiss withholding tax on dividends. For example, with a US account, there will only be the US withholding tax of 15%. But since automatic exchanges of information are just around the corner, you have an interest in declaring your account. So this advantage is no longer really one.
2 – At the tax level (for a person domiciled in Switzerland) does that change anything?
See above.
3 – Is it possible to buy a stock of an American company x on the American or Swiss stock exchange, that is, a company that is listed on 2 stock exchanges?
Yes. Big caps are often listed on multiple markets. Personally I prefer to buy them on their home market, but ultimately it doesn't change much.4 – If yes, what is the difference between buying this stock on the NY stock exchange or on the Swiss stock exchange? As mentioned above, it doesn't change much. It's more a question of habit. Since I trade almost exclusively US stocks, I place my orders most of the time on the NYSE. So I don't ask myself the question of whether the stocks are tradable or not on SWX.
https://www.postfinance.ch/fr/priv/prod/eserv/etrade/detail/price.html
It's a bit of a shame that they are introducing a fixed deposit fee of 90.- per year, even if it can be converted into a bonus that can be used during transactions (I still don't really understand the mechanism).
However, it is true that it remains entirely reasonable overall.I am not going to transfer my positions that I have with them. On the other hand, for some time now I have been working a little more with them Interactive Brokers which has prices that defy all competition.
all REITs are struggling unfortunately at the moment, not just SNH
It is clear that the tightening of US monetary policy is not helpingHi Jean-Louis
Glad to see you're getting back into dividend-paying stocks. There are some "ballsy" picks in your portfolio, but interesting ones.
Regarding these securities that are being palmed off with the shares, I must say that I have a lot of trouble with this policy. These are often second-rate positions, which will represent small values in the portfolio and which are either not technically transigable or cost too much proportionally in sales costs. In short, it is a poisoned chalice.
Even if by some great stroke of luck they were to double in value, it would still be too expensive...
Anyway, now I've decided that I won't take care of them anymore and I'll leave them as an inheritance on my deathbed to my children 😉I don't have any information on the new conditions of postfinance with swissquote... I think that the transaction fees will remain close, and I don't really care about that... on the other hand I just hope that the deposit fees will remain free because that's mainly why I chose Postfinance.
Hi Florent
This is the eternal question between supporters of diversification and those of concentration.
In theory, the more you diversify, the less risk you have, but the more likely you are to match the market's performance. Some people therefore prefer to bet on only a few good horses, hoping to substantially beat the market.
I don't really agree with this approach. The most important thing is the performance/risk ratio.
There is no point in beating the market if you are going to take reckless risks.
In my portfolio I have 39 positions today. The largest represents less than 6% of the value of the whole. The securities are chosen in particular for their low volatility. My algorithm has a winners ratio of 75%. There are therefore a few losing positions, including one of nearly 50%, but in the end this only represents 1.3% of the value of the portfolio.
If I had focused on just a few stocks, even if the algorithm is efficient, I would have taken the risk of falling into a losing position that would have had much more impact on the entire portfolio.
And in the end, you can still beat the market, even with a well-stocked portfolio. You just need the strategy to be right.
8 positions / 6 sectors is already becoming interesting, it limits the risks a little, but you can also aim for more.
Regarding US securities, yes, it is also necessary to do so, in particular to reduce the exchange rate risk. See:it's nonsense... happy to live in Switzerland
I think I pay too much tax because of the income from my gainful activity, but fortunately for the rest it is reasonable
Sorry but the new strategy will not solve your problem since, reading your last message, you are also heavily taxed on capital gains...Hi William
It's always a pleasure to read Belgian friends.
Well I see that we started investing at almost the same time and that we are about the same age.
I don't know the Belgian tax system regarding US dividends. In Switzerland it's 30%, half of which is recoverable via annual taxation.
If you actually lose all 42% that seems like a lot to me. To be checked.
I will soon be proposing a new investment strategy that will allow you to free yourself somewhat from this problem.
More info soon.
And know that it's never too late to start... you just have to be a little more patient.Good scholarship.
Hi Julien
Thank you for your comment and compliments.
It's a pleasure to read you because you have the right vision of things: you start early enough, you don't rush, you save enough (without depriving yourself of everything).
You remind me of myself quite a few years ago. Stay the course, you'll see it's worth it.
For your broker's fees: Swissquote is a good intermediary. In an investment approach such as the one focused on dividends, transaction fees are not the most important. Be especially wary of deposit fees... in the long run when your portfolio grows, it can hurt, especially since you can become captive to a bank/broker because of excessively high securities transfer fees. Postfinance is currently not bad (no deposit fees, many free services, reasonable transaction fees)... but they will soon partner with Swissquote, so I don't know if things will remain the same in the future...
For more information on brokers/banks, read this post
Otherwise, if you really want to keep your costs to a minimum, you still have Interactive Brokers
It is a reliable broker and really very cheap (1$ per order on US stocks up to 200 shares, 0.1% of the transaction value on Swiss and European stocks).
all positions together, with company name :)
You must be logged in as a member to access it.
