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."
I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains.  (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance).   However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens.  But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks.  (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway).   Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners.  As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can.  However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners).   Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business.  As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable.   It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends.  This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile. The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds.  I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest.  Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild. "In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a ""loss harvesting"" strategy.  So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax ""benefits"" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends.  You have precise control of the realization of gains.    However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch.  One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses.   Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly.  While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule.  If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?" Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly performing rental investments you should consider selling or switching up rental usage/how you rent them (moving to shorter term, higher yield lets, ditching any agents/handymen that are taking up capital/try and refinance to lower mortgage rates etc etc). Trying to use leveraged stock returns to pay for poorly performing housing investments is like spraying gasoline all over a fire. Fixing the actual issue in hand first is virtually always the best course of action in these scenarios. A lot of people use dividend stocks as a regular income, which is why dividend stocks are often associated with retirement. If your goal is growth and you're reinvesting capital gains and dividends then investing growth stocks or dividend stocks should have the same effect. The only difference would be if you are manually reinvesting dividends, which could incur extra trading fees. Although the market  discussion by other answers is correct, the  tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy.  However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way.  If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction. In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities.  While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than  interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns.  Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns.  So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage.  Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification.  The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing. It depends on your investment profile but basically, dividends increase your taxable income. Anyone making an income will effectively get 'lower returns' on their investments due to this effect. If you had the choice between identical shares that either give a dividend or don't, you'll find that stock that pays a dividend has a lower price, and increases in value more slowly than stock that doesn't. (all other things being equal)  There's a whole bunch of economic theory behind this but in short, the current stock price is a measure of how much the company is worth combined with an estimation of how much it will be worth in the future (NPV of all future dividends is the basic model). When the company makes profit, it can keep those profits, and invest in new projects or distribute a portion of those profits to shareholders (aka dividends). Distributing the value to shareholders reduces the value of the company somewhat, but the shareholders get the money now. If the company doesn't give dividends, it has a higher value which will be reflected in a higher stock price.  So basically, all other things being equal (which they rarely are, but I digress) the price and growth difference reflects the fact that dividends are paying out now. (In other words, if you wanted non-dividend shares you could get them by buying dividend shares and re-investing the dividend as new shares every time there was a payout, and you could get dividend-share like properties by selling a percentage of non-dividend shares periodically). Dividend income is taxable as part of your income right away, however taxes on capital gains only happen when you sell the asset in question, and also has a lower tax rate. If you buy and hold Berkshire Hatheway, you will not have to pay taxes on the gains you get until you decide to sell the shares, and even then the tax rate will be lower. If you are investing for retirement, this is great, since your income from other sources will be lower, so you can afford to be taxed then. In many jurisdictions, income from capital gains is subject to a different tax rate than the rest of your income, for example in the US for most people with money to invest it's either 15% or 20%, which will be lower than normal income tax would be (since most people with money to invest would be making enough to be in a higher bracket). Say, for example, your income now is within the 25% bracket. Any dividend you get will be taxed at that rate, so let's say that the dividend is about 2% and the growth of the stock is about 4%. So, your effective growth rate after taxation is 5.5% -- you lose 0.5% from the 25% tax on the dividend. If, instead, you had stock with the same growth but no dividend it would grow at a rate of 6%. If you never withdrew the money, after 20 years, $1 in the dividend stock would be worth ~$2.92 (1.055^20), whereas $1 in the non-dividend stock would be worth ~$3.21 (1.06^20). You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment.  So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter.  Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale).  There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life. "Dividend paying stocks are not ""better""  In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations.  The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares.   Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field.  IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money." "Of course CDs are worth it compared to the stock market. In fact, most institutional investors are envious of the CDs you have access to as an individual investor that are unavailable to them. You just need to be competent enough to shop around for the best rates and understand your time horizon. There are several concepts to understand here: Banks give out CDs with competitive rates projecting future interest rates. So while the Federal funds rate is currently extremely low, banks know that in order to get any takers on their CDs they have to factor in the public expectation that rates will rise, so if you lock in a longer term CD you get a competitive rate. Institutional investors do not have access to FDIC insured CDs and the closest analog they participate in are the auctions and secondary markets of US Treasuries. These two types of assets have equivalent default (non-)risk if held to maturity: backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Here are the current rates (as of question's date) taken from Vanguard that I can get on CDs versus Treasuries (as an individual investor). Notice that CDs outperform Treasuries across any maturity timescale! For fixed-income and bond allocations, institutional investors are lining up for buying treasuries. And yet here you are saying ""CDs are not worth it."" Might want to rethink that. Now going into the stock market as an investor with expectations of those high returns you quote, means you're willing to stay there for the long-term (at least a decade) and stay the course during volatility to actually have any hope of coming up with the average rate of return. Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income. Also keep in mind that while personal emergencies requiring quick access to cash can happen at any time, the most common scenario is during the sudden change from a bull market into a recession -- the time when stocks plummet. If you need money right away, selling your stocks at these times would lock in severe losses, whereas with CDs you still won't lose principal with an early exit and the only penalty is usually a sacrifice of a few months of potential interest. It's easy to think of the high yields during a protracted bull market (such as now), but personal finance has a huge behavioral component to it that is largely ignored until it's too late. One risk that isn't taken care of by either CDs or Treasuries is inflation risk. All the rates here and in the original question are nominal rates, and the real return will depend on inflation (or deflation). There are other options here besides CDs, Treasuries, and the stock market to outpace inflation if you'd like to hedge that risk with inflation protection: Series I Savings Bonds and TIPS." In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia.  I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock.  The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States.  Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance. In a money market fund, one share is worth $1. For your fund, you'll earn $0.0010 a year per share, or 0.10%.  That is all that you will earn. The APY is just another number to represent this interest rate, not a separate income stream. If you were expecting extra money from a separately credited dividend, you were mistaken. (Usually the APY is a slightly different number than the interest rate, to reflect the way that the interest is compounded over the course of the year. In this case the compounding is too slight to notice with just 2 decimal places.) If you were investing in a regular savings account, you would see the rate you are paid expressed as an APY also, but not as a dividend (as no shares are involved) and use that number to compare the two. If you were buying a bond fund or stock fund that did not have a fixed price, you could calculate the dividend yield based on the current stock price, but you would not probably see an APY listed. Money market funds are kind of an odd hybrid of 'fund' and 'savings', so they list both. Tesla has been pushing for mass market EV adoption since the beginning and they have clearly communicated their strategy as such.  Being a niche company in an ICE dominated automotive market is not a desirable position for Tesla. They want the market to move towards EVs as having even a small chunk of a market like that is worth a ton of revenue.