What are the risks of Dividend-yielding stocks?
Yep, there just is no free lunch.  So called high dividend stocks are usually from companies that have stable cash flows but relatively little or moderate growth potential. Utility companies come to mind, let's take telecommunications as an example.  Such stocks, usually, indeed are considered more conservative. In a bull market, they won't make high jumps, and in a bear market they shouldn't experience deep falls. I mean, just because the stock market fell by 10%, you're not going to stop using your phone. The stock might suffer a bit but the divided is still yielding you the same. However, fundamental data can have a significant impact. Let's say a recession hits the country of the telco. People might not get the newest iPhone and lock in to an expensive contract anymore, they might use cheaper forms of communication, they might stop paying bills, go bankrupt etc. This will have a severe impact on the company's cash flow and thus hit the stock in a double whammy: One, the dividend is gone. Two, the price will fall even further.  There are basically two scenarios after that. Either the recession is temporary and your stock became a regular growth stock that at some point might bounce back and re-establish at the previous levels. Or the economy has contracted permanently but regained stability in which case you will again have a stock with a high dividend yield but based on a lower price. In conclusion: High dividend stocks make sense in a portfolio. But never consider their income to be safe. Reduce your risk by diversifying. Dividend Stocks like any stock carry risk and go both up and down.  It is important to choose a stock based on the company's potential and performance.  And, if they pay a dividend it does help. -RobF The risk in a divident paying stock can come from 2 sources. The business of the company, or the valuation of the stock at the time you buy.  The business of the company relates to how they are running things, the risks they are taking with the company, innovations in their pipeline, and their competitive landscape. You can find all sorts of examples of companies that paid nice dividends but didn't end so well... Eastman Kodak, Enron, Lehman brothers, all used to pay very nice dividends at some point...  On the other hand you have the valuation. The company is running great, but the market has unrealistic expectations about it. Think Amazon and Yahoo back in 2001... the price was way too high for the company's worth. As the price of a stock goes up, the return that you get from its future cash flows (dividends) goes down (and viceversa).  If you want to go deep into the subject, check out this course from Chicago U they spend a lot of time talking about dividends, future returns from stocks and the risk rewards of finding stocks by methods such as these. Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria: "No stock is risk-free. Some of the biggest companies in the country, that seemed incredibly stable and secure, have suffered severe downturns or gone out of business. Twenty or thirty years ago Kodak ruled the camera film market. But they didn't react quickly enough when digital cameras came along and today they're a shadow of their former self. Forty years ago IBM owned like 90% of the computer market -- many people used ""IBM"" as another word for computer. Sears used to dominate the retail department store market. Etc." One strategy to consider is a well-diversified index fund of equities. These have historically averaged 7-8% real growth. So withdrawing 3% or 4% yearly under that growth should allow you to withdraw 30+ years with little risk of drawing down all your capital. As a bonus you're savings target would come down from $10 million to $2.5 million to a little under $3.5 million.
A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question. "Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender ""such as a broker""  , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk  such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals." "Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an ""adjusted close"" to include the dividend effect." "Random question: are there any companies with ""physical,"" ""real,"" or ""in-kind"" dividends?   For clarification, suppose a winery offers a security with a dividend of X bottles of wine deliverable annually for every Y amount of shares owned.   Does such a company or practice exist?" Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons:  return on principal, or return of principal.  The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise.  The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless.  Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds). "You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called ""meager return"" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios.  In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk.  You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals.  For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A  Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain   Investment option B  Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain" 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! "Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have ""distributions"" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case." To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay.  Volitility relative to loan term effectively. Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding:   However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns.  Most of the return is due to the more variant price:  So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable.  This is the ideal circumstance for retirement. "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." "Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too.  There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year.  You can trade with no fees at two ""windows"" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas.  Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash.  There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account." From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most   recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend,   multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per   year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter. 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. Your friend is investing time & money in a business that does not list an address or phone number on its website, not even in its 'press kit'. Even when they make a press release about moving into a new building, it does not list the address or even the street! C'mon, this is obviously a scam.  No real business acts like this.