How do I know if a dividend stock is “safe” and not a “dividend yield trap”?
"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.  A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT.  And I wouldn't bet on it holding up.  Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different ""standards"" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow.  Look at the company's financial statements.  Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend?  Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation?  How are earnings holding up?  Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price.  A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise.  Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like?  Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years?  Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so." Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck! "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."
"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a ""safe"" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities." There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more. "value slip below vs ""equal a bank savings account’s safety"" There is no conflict.  The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk.  The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account.  Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that ""a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe"" because the United States ""cannot default"" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return.  Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500.  Back to Money Market Funds.  A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0.  A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements.  If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account.  1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks).  Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly).  The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates.  The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns.  The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact.  Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US." "Invest in a high quality dividend paying group of stocks.  Look up ""stock  aristocrats"" to find longterm quality stocks that have regularly increased their dividends for over 20'years. 10'years is a safe period of time to invest in stocks.  If you had bought stocks at their hight in 2007 and kept them through the 40% decline thru 2008 and 2009 and held on to them for 10 years until 2017, you would have earned a 40 % increase from when you purchased them.  That is pretty much a worst case scenerio.  If you had invested in dividend paying stocks and had earned an additional 2.5% per year, you would have exceeded your 5% goal. The lifetime yearly return of the stock market is 10%.  Time is the only downside, but with ten years, you are almost certainly immune." "&gt;  If the stock price goes down it wouldn't make sense that ABC had a higher dividend yield, so my argument was you have to make assume the stock price went down because it could have cost less for other reasons, but you don't have to assume the dividend yield which would make it a good investment.   I'm not sure I understand your argument. The wording doesn't seem clear to me (""you have to make assume""? make assume? ""but you don't have to assume the dividend yield"" assume it what?)  Dividend yield has a negative correlation with stock price. If price goes down, all else being equal, yield rises." How do you find good quality dividend stocks? That is an easy one. Past performance has always been my key to this answer. also remember why you are investing in the first place. Do you want cash flow, security or capital growth. Also let's not forget... how much time do you want to devote to this venture. There is going to be a balance in your investing and your returns. More time in... the higher returns you get.  As for finding good dividend stocks, look to the Dividend Aristocrats or the Dividend Contenders. These companies have consistently increased their payouts to their investors for years. There is a trading strategy that could escalate your returns. Dividend Capturing, simply put... You buy the stock before the ex-date and sell after date of record. Thus collecting a dividend and moving on to the next one. Warning: though this is a profitable strategy, it only works with certain stocks so do your research or find a good source. Check out the NASDAQ and NYSE websites(the exchange in which the stock is listed) for detailed information. Most of the websites which collate dividend payments generally have cash payments history only e.g. Dividata. And because a company has given stock dividends in the past doesn't guarantee such in the future, I believe you already know that. I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover.  Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier.  Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment. Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question.  Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products. Is it safe to invest in a portfolio of dividend stocks yielding 7-9% with the money borrowed at 3-4% from one of these brokerages? Yes and no. It depends on your risk profile! Any investment has its risks of losing your capital, but not investing is a guaranteed risk, as you will be guaranteed to fall behind the rate of inflation. Regarding investing on margin, this can increase your gains but can also increase your loses. Regarding the stock market - when investing in stocks you should not only look at the dividend rate but also the capital gain or loss potential. Remember in regards to investing on margin, if the share price drop too much you can get a margin call no matter how much dividend you are getting. It is no use gaining 9% in dividend yield per year if you are losing 15% or more in capital each year. Also, what is the risk of the dividend rate being cut back or dividends not being paid at all in the future? These are some of the risks you should consider before investing and derive a risk management plan as part of your investment plan before you invest. No investment is totally safe or risk free, but it is less risky than not investing at all, as long as you understand the risks involved and have a risk management plan in place as part of your overall investment plan. "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." Don't be too scared of investing in the market.  It has ups and downs, but over the long haul you make money in it.  You can't jump in and out, just consistently add money to investments that you 1) understand and 2) trust. When I say understand, what I mean is you can follow how the money is generated, either because a company sells products, a government promises to pay back the bond, or compounding interest makes sense.  You don't need to worry about the day to day details, but if you don't understand how the money is made, it isn't transparent enough and a danger could be afoot. Here are some basic rules I try (!) to follow The biggest trick is to invest what you can, and do so consistently.  You can build wealth by earning more and spending less.  I personally find spending less a lot easier, but earning more is pretty easy with some simple investment tools. "My gut is to say that any time there seems to be easy money to be made, the opportunity would fade as everyone jumped on it. Let me ask you - why do you think these stocks are priced to yield 7-9%? The DVY yields 3.41% as of Aug 30,'12.  The high yielding stocks you discovered may very well be hidden gems. Or they may need to reduce their dividends and subsequently drop in price.  No, it's not 'safe.' If the stocks you choose drop by 20%, you'd lose 40% of your money, if you made the purchase on 50% margin. There's risk with any stock purchase, one can claim no stock is safe. Either way, your proposal juices the effect to creating twice the risk.  Edit - After the conversation with Victor, let me add these thoughts. The ""Risk-Free"" rate is generally defined to be the 1yr tbill (and of course the risk of Gov default is not zero). There's the S&P 500 index which has a beta of 1 and is generally viewed as a decent index for comparison. You propose to use margin, so your risk, if done with an S&P index is twice that of the 1X S&P investor. However, you won't buy S&P but stocks with such a high yield I question their safety. You don't mention the stocks, so I can't quantify my answer, but it's tbill, S&P, 2X S&P, then you." The yield on Div Data is showing 20% ((3.77/Current Price)*100)) because that only accounts for last years dividend. If you look at the left column, the 52 week dividend yield is the same as google(1.6%). This is calculated taking an average of n number of years. The data is slightly off as one of those sites would have used an extra year. With the disclaimer that I am not a technician, I'd answer yes, it does. SPY (for clarification, an ETF that reflects the S&P 500 index) has dividends, and earnings, therefore a P/E and dividend yield. It would follow that the tools technicians use, such as moving averages, support and resistance levels also apply.  Keep in mind, each and every year, one can take the S&P stocks and break them up, into quintiles or deciles based on return and show that not all stock move in unison. You can break up by industry as well which is what the SPDRs aim to do, and observe the movement of those sub-groups.  But, no, not all the stocks will perform the way the index is predicted to.  (Note - If a technician wishes to correct any key points here, you are welcome to add a note, hopefully, my answer was not biased)