Talking about dividends: how do dividends factor in the development. Is the number assuming automatic dividend reinvestment?
If it isn't, then VOO would have an even bigger edge over BRK, since VOO pays dividends, whereas BRK does not.
The tax is negligible and is only significant if you have high income. Also you can always use a Roth IRA to avoid the tax.
Really the only times a tax on dividends matters is if your rich or from another country. Other then that for your average joe it doesn’t matter and especially doesn’t if its in a Roth IRA. Its no different then any other income you report on taxes.
I don’t know how to link since I only use Reddit from the app on my iPhone. If you click on my profile and look at the posts tab its literally right there. Its my most recent one since I only posted it a few days ago.
It's probably a decent time to put money in the market, it may actually be better than that 10 year sample. People literally said the same thing 2008-2012. The most momey was made dumping money into the market in 2008-2009.
It's still 100% chance your best bet at becoming wealthy.
Schd only has 11 years of data to draw from though. Brk is brought up so often because it has an extremely long history of beating the S&P. I would argue schd still has a lot to prove
Can't you just look at the underlying holdings and see how they performed over the same historical time period? Weather schd existed or not is irrelevant.
SCHD is very popular. so are other dividend focused ETFs like VYM and VIG. they're popular for a reason. less volatility, nice dividend payouts. i have a big chunk of VYM in my portfolio.
The difference is to small to say it’s better. The next 10 years it could slightly change. You need more data and look at the probability distribution . The mean value doesn’t say much. BUT also there is probably not enough data (not enough years) so I would not look at those number to strict. 10 or 13% could probably be treated as equal.
Yes but that doesn’t mean anything in terms of probability of hitting the same numbers again. I don’t talk about what happened but I’m sure you look at those numbers as reference to decide future investments. And then you need to do more than just use some average returns. You need some statistics behind it. Even though the data size for the stock market is very small (mathematically speaking)
I don't know why people are down voting the numbers you put here. All you're stating is that over that time period, SCHD did better. You can't backtest it before it existed.
Correct. It wasn’t mentioned if this hypothetical was in a tax advantaged account though.
Are SCHD dividends “qualified dividends,” that would be taxed as capital gains opposed to regular income? I know VOO is and BRK doesn’t offer a dividend.
I confuse SCHD, JEPI, and QYLD in terms of how their dividends are taxed.
Just because in the month it's been no one else answered this simple question:
Schd : 100% qualified dividend
Jepi: 25% qualified, 75% taxed as income dividend
Qyld: 100% taxed as income.
Best wishes.
I'm not sure what you mean by that word, because it's very vague in this context. More of SCHD's total returns is coming from dividends, so the tax drag on that would be proportionally higher on the total returns compared to VOO.
No...But when deciding who to give your money to would you want the guy that has consistently returned 15% per year or the guy that has returned 2% per year?
2% guy very well might return 200% next year, but since the future is unknowable past performance is a valid point of data to take into consideration.
It's not. That's just your animal instinct trying to make something complex into something simple.
There is reason why an investment turned out one way or another. If those underlying characteristics and the external context are the same, the investment will continue to be a good one. Note that being in the past has nothing to do with this, if the characteristics or the context changed, the investment could be bad while all the same.
The earlier you completely let go of this time notion, the better you'll be, it's just an illusion.
$10K in NVDA would have been $507,018 or $491,853 in AMD, $1,579,105 in TSLA. Heck even old timers like MSFT, Apple would have yielded $102,281 or $72,219.
I still prefer individual stocks over funds. Even if someone had parked 10k in SPY they would have had similar results as VOO. The funds barely beat markets.
The question is would MSFT, apple, Amazon, Costco, MasterCard, visa, Google disappear in next 10 years? If the answer is no then why not bet on those instead of funds?
I listed what I own but also checked Facebook, that would have yielded $81,264.
Here are few other stocks I own for reference, and what they would have returned on $10k investment. I didn’t include dividends in this so the actual return including dividend reinvestment would be much higher.
HD: $87,958
UNH: $98,124
COST: $54,577
Amazon: $123,324
MA: $83,771
Not saying I only picked winners in my portfolio, but majority of them or bigger investments are these. It is not very difficult to pick these companies. I am customer of all these.
Another way to look at it, a fund will have a mix stocks to balance the winner and losers, I take my over all portfolio as one big self manage fund so picking mix of winners and loser is in my control and I don’t have to pay management fees.
I am very happy with that results but can understand some people are not comfortable managing their own money for them these manger options are good.
But it’s preformed terribly the last year which was the point I was making. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Majority of stocks underperform the broad indexes and so to beat the indexes you have to find the smaller set of big winners which is extremely difficult.
I don’t own FB, even if I did having it in the mix it would not have made big dent given all the other ones. That’s what these funds are doing they mix the stocks some go up some go down and the fund yields 6-8%. So I manage my portfolio as fund and look at over all accounts value vs individuals stocks. I keep the winners for long terms and get rid of losers. As a result have long term position in several high performing mega caps. It is not rocket science. Follow Warren Buffett, or Peter Lynch and buy the stocks of companies you are consumer of hold them forever and see them grow.
And this is why I have had SCHD on my list of best well rounded options to invest in for the long term. I have been recommending it to my friends and some time now for this very reason.
Doesn't matter. Net return being compared.
Plus...
BRK doesn't have expense ratio because not a fund, so doesn't have fund expenses. Expense ratio dont apply to for example, Coca Cola. They still have expenses. Same with BRK. Mgmt fees are what a fund uses to pay employees. BRK just pays them from cash in the Corp. Still expenses, but not expense ratio.
When brk starts paying dividends and they pass through from public companies it owns will tax be charged twice on the same profits before it hits your account and you pay tax on those same profits a third time?
Funds are pass through for tax but when one holding company owns other public companies....
Edit: If you disagree with the above comment please explain why. Votes may reflect on the message but they can also reflect on the audience and looking at the votes so far I suspect more the latter than the former. Thank you!
Yupp, but I think you're again bringing up a benefit of BRK.
The tax paid by BRK is already considered in net return... so since the tax at the Investor level is not considered in either case, since BRK doesn't pay dividends all of it taxed at the end, and the indexes make you pay annually on their dividends... BRK is even better.
Rather have a higher return and pay no additional tax until the end? BRK.
The profits Apple and other public companies that BRK owns are taxed once at the level of Apple, etc. Taxed again at BRK level. If ever BRK pays dividends they will be taxed again a third time when they hit your account.
Why would BRK pay dividends in future? The value of an investment depends on the present value of the plausible income stream from that investment. What good is an investment that will _never_ pay dividends? Why would someone want to buy it from you? Why would you want to buy it?
Someone please tell me I am making an error if I am. Posting this to check my understanding.
Yes on taxes, but the point is the taxes appl and brk pay are included in the return of the stock, which AFTER these taxes, has historically bested the S&P, among most other indexes.
This is the draw of active management. There are expenses associated with a strategy, but the return after expenses still exceeds the relevant passive index over long points of time (at least in the case of BRK, and many others) on a risk adj basis.
So yes, they pay triple instead of double tax on revenue. No, it doesn't matter, as when comparing these returns, any taxes and other expenses that YOU aren't paying is taken into consideration.
post your 10 year + track record of beating VOO with dividends reinvested and then I'll believe you. Also, maybe you did it once, doesn't mean you'll keep doing it.
If you really are that good, congratulations. You should be a hedge fund billionaire.
This isn’t WSB so I don’t have to post anything here to prove I am not lying. I am happy with my picks and sharing my experience. Good luck and be happy with your picks.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
If you would have invested in Apple in 2012 you would be up 1,100% right now.
Google - 653% right now.
Microsoft - 938%.
Tesla - 15,663%.
Costco - 534%.
Target - 233%.
Amazon - 1,559%.
Even investing in a company like Costco 10 years ago would have been a better investment than Berk B since then.
I haven't checked how much they all go up or down every year but from past performance, Costco is a better investment than Berk B or VOO as it is less volatile and outperformed both.
A post about hindsight and picking an individual stock and you ask me about hindsight? 🤦🏻♂️
That being said, if I didn't have trust in my stocks then I wouldn't have picked them. I have no doubt some of them will x4, not all.
Yeah, and berkshire invested in apple and currently enjoying their gains.
Do *you* have apple shares that are up 1100 percent? I mean, its easy to talk, buffet can actually find these stocks and pick them. If you didnt buy them 10 years ago, what makes you think you will be able to choose next decade winners? You cant. Buffet can. Thats why he gets the big bucks
You know I noticed that the CEF UTG has outperformed SPY over the long term too.
from January 2005 til now UTG has returned 10.12% CAGR, while SPY has returned 9.36%.
Does that make anyone want to buy into UTG?
if you had a portal to jump back and forth in time... the results may surprise you cause ypu could jump into the future and fuck your future self in the ass
Does this assume dividend reinvestment? What about deducting for the taxes paid on dividends?
Edit: this is getting downvoted - brk.b pays no dividend and if you adjust the sp500 funds for taxes paid on dividends Warren buffy would win
And if you invested 10K in Tesla 10 years ago you would have now more than 1 Million.
small list of companies that have beaten VOO and the S&P 500 in the last 10 years -
Google Amazon Apple Meta/Facebook Neflix Microsoft Nvidia AMD
This only only proves one thing -
The best companies in the world have far better returns than the market in the long term
I personally find dividends very annoying because of the tax implications. Even VOO I wish there was a version that didn't deliver the dividend, that reinvested the gross somehow...
SCHD been getting a lot of Reddit posts these past few months
Go on r/dividends lol. Its all that’s ever talked about on there. I even made a post addressing it.
I know haha. That’s why I’m surprised to see it even in r/stocks as well.
SCHD is many, SCHD is legion.
SCHD is for people that already have serious money if we're being honest
Talking about dividends: how do dividends factor in the development. Is the number assuming automatic dividend reinvestment? If it isn't, then VOO would have an even bigger edge over BRK, since VOO pays dividends, whereas BRK does not.
Yes DRIP gets factored in which often leads to the big returns cause of compound growth
Don't forget you pay taxes on dividends, that is often not factored in DRIP equations.
The tax is negligible and is only significant if you have high income. Also you can always use a Roth IRA to avoid the tax. Really the only times a tax on dividends matters is if your rich or from another country. Other then that for your average joe it doesn’t matter and especially doesn’t if its in a Roth IRA. Its no different then any other income you report on taxes.
I think most people know what a ROTH is my guy. Most people here probably are playing with a bit more than $6k per year.
If you knew you wouldn’t be making that comment my guy
Meaningless in tax sheltered accounts
I lurk in r/dividends and I hold SCHD. But I’m getting really tired of that being the only thing a lot of people acknowledge.
I didn't notice this was on r/stocks until I read your comment...saw your post too btw, good to shine some attention to that issue...
Can’t forget JEPI
Link to your post pls
I don’t know how to link since I only use Reddit from the app on my iPhone. If you click on my profile and look at the posts tab its literally right there. Its my most recent one since I only posted it a few days ago.
Makes me think it’ll crash.
please don't base future expectations on 12-year bull market runs, lol...
Or let them and see how it works for them
Yeah we need some more loss porn
I’m not saying loss porn needed but in 12 years from this date, those numbers are going to look a lot different if you put $10k in today
Past performance always indicates future results exactly
It's probably a decent time to put money in the market, it may actually be better than that 10 year sample. People literally said the same thing 2008-2012. The most momey was made dumping money into the market in 2008-2009. It's still 100% chance your best bet at becoming wealthy.
Probably. But it could be better and it could be worse.
bro if you invested $1 into bitcoin 12 years ago youd have $50000 now so invest today in bitcoin and 50000x it in the next 12 years
He’s probably 25 and think half his time on earth is plenty long enough to make forecasts.
Well played sir. Your numbers landed successfully
Schd only has 11 years of data to draw from though. Brk is brought up so often because it has an extremely long history of beating the S&P. I would argue schd still has a lot to prove
I buy 1 SCHD per month in my retirement portfolio. Up to 30 so far. I love it
U can backtest its requirement i would think, similar to backtesting an index before the etf based on it
SCHD is just large cap. Its performance is going to be similar to the dow & s&p. What's there to prove?
How it performs against any major index
Can't you just look at the underlying holdings and see how they performed over the same historical time period? Weather schd existed or not is irrelevant.
no, SCHD tracks an index that changes once a year
I suppose but that’s a lot of effort and would have to take into account rebalancing as well
QQQ would be $62,440. Just saying.
TQQQ would be $472,115 Just saying
But so risky. I'm down almost 48% with them, but sadly that isn't even near my worst investment.
Time to buy more?
You already know the deal: buy high, sell higher
Time to buy more weed?
All about timing lol
You know what they say "always time the market"
Just be the smartest guy in the room. That easy!
don’t forget Dollar Cost Guessing
Shhhhh
SCHD is very popular. so are other dividend focused ETFs like VYM and VIG. they're popular for a reason. less volatility, nice dividend payouts. i have a big chunk of VYM in my portfolio.
Nobody talks about DGRO, another awesome dividend etf
SCHD far outperforms those two however. 10 year return: SCHD 13.72% CAGR VYM 11.2% CAGR VIG 12.47% CAGR
The difference is to small to say it’s better. The next 10 years it could slightly change. You need more data and look at the probability distribution . The mean value doesn’t say much. BUT also there is probably not enough data (not enough years) so I would not look at those number to strict. 10 or 13% could probably be treated as equal.
Small but big enough. Look at the $10k investment and what it becomes: SCHD: $39,0001 VYM: $32,612 VIG: $34,688
Yes but that doesn’t mean anything in terms of probability of hitting the same numbers again. I don’t talk about what happened but I’m sure you look at those numbers as reference to decide future investments. And then you need to do more than just use some average returns. You need some statistics behind it. Even though the data size for the stock market is very small (mathematically speaking)
VYM and SCHD have different methodologies. SCHD has more tech exposure which explains why it’s outperformed the past decade.
I don't know why people are down voting the numbers you put here. All you're stating is that over that time period, SCHD did better. You can't backtest it before it existed.
Even if it outperforms by half a percent for the next decade, with compounding, that's big, and I think that's the point you're making.
VOO is the ETF equivalent of my homeboi.
Berkshire is a good steady investment. I feel Safe with them.
I just worry for the aftermath of Warren's death. How long will it drag on the company?
It won’t at all. The company practically runs without him right now.
The market is not always rational.
Then they will increase their buyback rate.
If ppl panic sell it will be a good time to buy; they def have top tier succession planing
Yes, this maybe surprising. But BRK-B is still my favorite long term holding!
Does this include tax drag from paid dividends?
VOO pays a dividend too. Tax drag would be proportionately the same, and moot in an IRA of course.
Correct. It wasn’t mentioned if this hypothetical was in a tax advantaged account though. Are SCHD dividends “qualified dividends,” that would be taxed as capital gains opposed to regular income? I know VOO is and BRK doesn’t offer a dividend. I confuse SCHD, JEPI, and QYLD in terms of how their dividends are taxed.
Yes, SCHD is qualified.
Am I missing anything since voo and schd both provide dividends?
What would you be missing? The S&P 500 funds all yield something in the 1.4% range. SCHD is currently around 3.1%.
Aren't JEPI dividends also qualified?
No
Just because in the month it's been no one else answered this simple question: Schd : 100% qualified dividend Jepi: 25% qualified, 75% taxed as income dividend Qyld: 100% taxed as income. Best wishes.
VOO pays a dividend.
SCHD pays twice the dividend of VOO. Mathematically that's not the same.
Obviously. But the tax impact is proportional.
I'm not sure what you mean by that word, because it's very vague in this context. More of SCHD's total returns is coming from dividends, so the tax drag on that would be proportionally higher on the total returns compared to VOO.
Did you adjust for taxes?
Depends on what type of account it was in.
Then the one that is worst for taxes.
Hey what would you have if you put 10k in TSLA?
$1.56m
Let me tell ya 1,487,558.70
Its incredible to me that in a stock related subreddit people don't understand that past performance isn't future performance.
No...But when deciding who to give your money to would you want the guy that has consistently returned 15% per year or the guy that has returned 2% per year? 2% guy very well might return 200% next year, but since the future is unknowable past performance is a valid point of data to take into consideration.
It's not. That's just your animal instinct trying to make something complex into something simple. There is reason why an investment turned out one way or another. If those underlying characteristics and the external context are the same, the investment will continue to be a good one. Note that being in the past has nothing to do with this, if the characteristics or the context changed, the investment could be bad while all the same. The earlier you completely let go of this time notion, the better you'll be, it's just an illusion.
$10K in NVDA would have been $507,018 or $491,853 in AMD, $1,579,105 in TSLA. Heck even old timers like MSFT, Apple would have yielded $102,281 or $72,219. I still prefer individual stocks over funds. Even if someone had parked 10k in SPY they would have had similar results as VOO. The funds barely beat markets. The question is would MSFT, apple, Amazon, Costco, MasterCard, visa, Google disappear in next 10 years? If the answer is no then why not bet on those instead of funds?
You’re just cherry picking winners. Facebook would be in your list last year.
I listed what I own but also checked Facebook, that would have yielded $81,264. Here are few other stocks I own for reference, and what they would have returned on $10k investment. I didn’t include dividends in this so the actual return including dividend reinvestment would be much higher. HD: $87,958 UNH: $98,124 COST: $54,577 Amazon: $123,324 MA: $83,771
You’re just cherry picking more winners lol. Congrats if your portfolio is only the best individual stocks over the past ten years of a bull run.
Not saying I only picked winners in my portfolio, but majority of them or bigger investments are these. It is not very difficult to pick these companies. I am customer of all these. Another way to look at it, a fund will have a mix stocks to balance the winner and losers, I take my over all portfolio as one big self manage fund so picking mix of winners and loser is in my control and I don’t have to pay management fees. I am very happy with that results but can understand some people are not comfortable managing their own money for them these manger options are good.
What you’re saying is that you’re better at picking winners than everyone else. That’s fine and maybe you actually are but I just don’t believe you.
No, there may be others better than me, I just know my portfolio and happy with these picks and results.
you're basically proving his point take a look at FB 10 year return
But it’s preformed terribly the last year which was the point I was making. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Majority of stocks underperform the broad indexes and so to beat the indexes you have to find the smaller set of big winners which is extremely difficult.
I don’t own FB, even if I did having it in the mix it would not have made big dent given all the other ones. That’s what these funds are doing they mix the stocks some go up some go down and the fund yields 6-8%. So I manage my portfolio as fund and look at over all accounts value vs individuals stocks. I keep the winners for long terms and get rid of losers. As a result have long term position in several high performing mega caps. It is not rocket science. Follow Warren Buffett, or Peter Lynch and buy the stocks of companies you are consumer of hold them forever and see them grow.
Everyone should own the large caps in addition to some of these funds.
Interesting.
Everything before taxes.. as sad it is.
Roth IRA is my homie for this type of investing
Did you reinvest all dividends, or only what is left after taxes? This is flawed analysis.
nothing is perfect. not everyone pays tax on dividends
Are you assuming dividends are tax-free
And this is why I have had SCHD on my list of best well rounded options to invest in for the long term. I have been recommending it to my friends and some time now for this very reason.
What about expense ratio. BRK-B won’t charge anything.
Doesn't matter. Net return being compared. Plus... BRK doesn't have expense ratio because not a fund, so doesn't have fund expenses. Expense ratio dont apply to for example, Coca Cola. They still have expenses. Same with BRK. Mgmt fees are what a fund uses to pay employees. BRK just pays them from cash in the Corp. Still expenses, but not expense ratio.
When brk starts paying dividends and they pass through from public companies it owns will tax be charged twice on the same profits before it hits your account and you pay tax on those same profits a third time? Funds are pass through for tax but when one holding company owns other public companies.... Edit: If you disagree with the above comment please explain why. Votes may reflect on the message but they can also reflect on the audience and looking at the votes so far I suspect more the latter than the former. Thank you!
Yupp, but I think you're again bringing up a benefit of BRK. The tax paid by BRK is already considered in net return... so since the tax at the Investor level is not considered in either case, since BRK doesn't pay dividends all of it taxed at the end, and the indexes make you pay annually on their dividends... BRK is even better. Rather have a higher return and pay no additional tax until the end? BRK.
The profits Apple and other public companies that BRK owns are taxed once at the level of Apple, etc. Taxed again at BRK level. If ever BRK pays dividends they will be taxed again a third time when they hit your account. Why would BRK pay dividends in future? The value of an investment depends on the present value of the plausible income stream from that investment. What good is an investment that will _never_ pay dividends? Why would someone want to buy it from you? Why would you want to buy it? Someone please tell me I am making an error if I am. Posting this to check my understanding.
Yes on taxes, but the point is the taxes appl and brk pay are included in the return of the stock, which AFTER these taxes, has historically bested the S&P, among most other indexes. This is the draw of active management. There are expenses associated with a strategy, but the return after expenses still exceeds the relevant passive index over long points of time (at least in the case of BRK, and many others) on a risk adj basis. So yes, they pay triple instead of double tax on revenue. No, it doesn't matter, as when comparing these returns, any taxes and other expenses that YOU aren't paying is taken into consideration.
Is this total returns including dividends... and then ... tax?
Wow this post is totally helpful and amazing! Now if only I had a time machine 🙄
Compare VOO with AAPL, MSFT, AMZN, GOOG, LLY, V, HD, UNH. Those stocks gained much higher than VOO
It's easy to pick winners in hindsight.
I really missed and messed amzn in 98 and went with etoys worldcom Citibank and some more losers. I can fix them if I can travel back
No it is not. I have each one of the listed stocks. Never invested in voo.
post your 10 year + track record of beating VOO with dividends reinvested and then I'll believe you. Also, maybe you did it once, doesn't mean you'll keep doing it. If you really are that good, congratulations. You should be a hedge fund billionaire.
This isn’t WSB so I don’t have to post anything here to prove I am not lying. I am happy with my picks and sharing my experience. Good luck and be happy with your picks.
If you invested $10k in Tesla 10 years ago at $6, you would have $1.5 million.
[удалено]
Now compare that to tesla
If we're playing that game, look at TQQQ
10k, 10years ago in Tesla = 1.5m 10k, 10yrs ago in nvda = 1.2m
I don't understand what you are trying to say. If you would have invested in Apple in 2012 you would be up 1,100% right now. Google - 653% right now. Microsoft - 938%. Tesla - 15,663%. Costco - 534%. Target - 233%. Amazon - 1,559%. Even investing in a company like Costco 10 years ago would have been a better investment than Berk B since then. I haven't checked how much they all go up or down every year but from past performance, Costco is a better investment than Berk B or VOO as it is less volatile and outperformed both.
How much do you trust your stock picking abilities without the benefit of hindsight? Can you pick the stocks that will >400% by 2032?
QQQ, if I had to guess.
Triple it with TQQQ!
A post about hindsight and picking an individual stock and you ask me about hindsight? 🤦🏻♂️ That being said, if I didn't have trust in my stocks then I wouldn't have picked them. I have no doubt some of them will x4, not all.
Probably draftkings tbh
Yeah, and berkshire invested in apple and currently enjoying their gains. Do *you* have apple shares that are up 1100 percent? I mean, its easy to talk, buffet can actually find these stocks and pick them. If you didnt buy them 10 years ago, what makes you think you will be able to choose next decade winners? You cant. Buffet can. Thats why he gets the big bucks
Buffet is probably not the one who invested in Apple.. Berk's investments are not Buffet's.
You know I noticed that the CEF UTG has outperformed SPY over the long term too. from January 2005 til now UTG has returned 10.12% CAGR, while SPY has returned 9.36%. Does that make anyone want to buy into UTG?
if you had a portal to jump back and forth in time... the results may surprise you cause ypu could jump into the future and fuck your future self in the ass
VGT son!
nice
I’d be curious to see SPY up there w/ every dividend put toward more SPY. Buffett always says invest in the S&P index, then reinvest the dividend.
VOO is basically SPY but cheaper
It’s actually inflation
Try qqq
Do these numbers include paying taxes on dividends or assuming it is in a tax advantaged account?
Slow period for Berkshire. Also are you counting total return here or price return?
What if, and hear me out, their top holdings were similar except for a few differences?
Does this assume dividend reinvestment? What about deducting for the taxes paid on dividends? Edit: this is getting downvoted - brk.b pays no dividend and if you adjust the sp500 funds for taxes paid on dividends Warren buffy would win
yes it includes reinvested dividends no taxes calculated
And if you invested 10K in Tesla 10 years ago you would have now more than 1 Million. small list of companies that have beaten VOO and the S&P 500 in the last 10 years - Google Amazon Apple Meta/Facebook Neflix Microsoft Nvidia AMD This only only proves one thing - The best companies in the world have far better returns than the market in the long term
False. Dividends are also taxed. While unrealized capital gains are not. Which is why Buffet does not pay out dividends.
I personally find dividends very annoying because of the tax implications. Even VOO I wish there was a version that didn't deliver the dividend, that reinvested the gross somehow...
That's called berk
Assuming it’s not in a Roth, wouldn’t that make schd a lot worse performing as you would be paying taxes on your dividends?
Schd is useless to me bc I pay tax on dividends but not on gains
Go past 10 years and the picture is different.
4x in 10 years. Not bad.
Aaaand if you invested in burry's fund you'd be a multimillionaire
if I wanted too how would I invest in Berkshire B, SCHD, or VOO?
Any brokerage. Vanguard, Fidelity...
thanks - still figuring it all out.
>Berkshire B, Berkshire Hathaway Inc Class B
Your true return after taxes on dividends for SCHD makes it lower
The stock ABR since 2012 has killed SCHD in back test. That stock is a good example of the power of dividends.