Hahaha this. I remember watching a video where an art critic tries to explain this work without saying "it's early erotica".
Was it sister Wendy Beckett? Drawing a blank, this was in middle school art history class.
When everyone is expecting a recession, one does not come.
Expecting higher inflation and flat to slightly reduced growth (aka stagflation). Find dividend paying stocks that actually keep up with inflation (10-20%). They exist and have track records of maintaining this pay out, you just need to find them.
There are plenty of high yield investments that pay 10%+ right now.
PDO paid out ~20% last year, including special dividends. And likely will perform similarly this year, though somewhat lower due to cost of leverage increasing.
AFCG has senior, real estate secured loans and pays 14.5% with no debt (though recently opened a line of credit). Even in event of default, they get to assume ownership of valuable properties.
PBR yields 50%+ on TTM basis. Though will be lower going forward and has a fair amount of political risk
High yielding stocks tend to be lenders, and the risk profile of the loans is up to you to assess. But you can find many apparent great deals right now, assuming we don't enter a new depression with mass defaults.
Even in the GFC, high yield debt only reached a 15% default rate. Which still leaves you sitting pretty with a lot of these lenders, after factoring in yields and discounts to NAV. You can expect price to become depressed for a period of time in an event like this, though. e.g. See ARCC performance during 2008
I'm sorry, none of them have a track record of paying 15%+ yield. The yield looks high right now because they're in distress and the asset prices have gone down, with earnings heading lower and higher borrow cost I doubt those yields will even make a dent to capital losses in owning those assets.
PDO and AFCG were not even listed 5 years ago. PBR is very much a distressed asset in a state pursuing nationalization of oil profits.
You’re simply wrong, these positions are not distressed.
PDO is a bond fund, not a company. They earn interest on bonds they hold. All bonds have lost value as risk free rate has risen. The interest payments on those bonds has remained the same, and they don’t hold non-performing loans.
There is no distress in the portfolio.
If rates drop again in the future, the capital losses revert back to capital gains. If you think the Fed will hike substantially more from here, then these arent the place to be. I for one think they dont have much further to go
These are managed by PIMCO which is a famous fixed income firm, not some nobody. You can look at PTY for a longer track record public fund. Which performed very well through the GFC by the way
AFCG has 0 debt and real estate secured loans. Not distressed, even if they experience defaults in a severe recession. Lenders go bust when they are overindebted and cant service debt due to defaults. Lenders without debt don’t
PBR has a PE of less than 2 and is not distressed at all. Its price is down due to political fears that the new government will mismanage the company. Fears which are likely to be overblown.
ARCC and CSWC are two other high yield lenders that are doing better than ever. CSWC sports close to a 15% yield including specials, and they’ve raised the dividend consistently every year.
ABR pays 13% and raises the dividend double digits every year. Multifamily secured loans. Has performed better than most hype growth tech stocks while paying double digits
There are plenty of deep value and high yield plays out there. Too bad that most don’t care to look for them
> PBR has a PE of less than 2 and is not distressed at all. Its price is down due to political fears that the new government will mismanage the company. Fears which are likely to be overblown.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about and are underplaying material risks like the govt. withholding most or all profits of the nationalized oil firm.
And like I said, the other stocks you had mentioned didn’t exist 3 years ago - that’s not a track record to judge by - issuing leveraged loans in free money environment which is no more.
Anything less than 20% is what you're looking for. If you expand to foreign markets like the UK, they're entire stock market is set up to prefer dividend payments over share price.
I avoid miners and commodity stocks like rio tinto though I did time the commodity boom correctly to get their fat dividend they had not that long ago.
Dividend paying stocks will be pulling from the value of the stock. The 4% you get will immediately drop the value of the stock by 4%ish.
Dividend paying stocks may not be a great option for most US people (and maybe others) unless they are in tax-advantaged accounts. You will be taxed on that as income and not capital gains, which would have occurred if you had a stock that held value and then sold it when you needed to.
In other words, ignoring taxes, in a long-term holding strategy, one would expect reinvesting dividends from a stock to perform as well as if that stock just didn't pay dividends (all else being equal, which it never is).
Though, taking into account taxes, the tax on dividends is effectively compounding annually while capital gains taxes are a simple rate. As long as the dividend tax rate for stocks held long-term is equal to the long-term capital gains tax rate, it's more tax-efficient for investors if a company buys back its own stock instead of paying dividends.
This is also the logic behind end-of-year loss harvesting: compounding interest on tax savings in capital gains losses.
If you want to ban me, fine, but if someone suggests that vaccines (proven to help people and save lives) is a hoax, I'm not going to just stand around.
I'll try to be less rude, but I'm not cursing the guy out or something.
Sometimes, I think, if this was the context of WW2 you'd rather we just ignore the Nazis.
The rules don't change based on how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Several of your comments in this thread (though not all) were snarky, unsubstantive, and even crossed into personal attack. You can't do those things here. Fortunately, it isn't hard to avoid them!
I have read the guidelines several times, Dan! I think they are almost impossible to follow.
I ask you sincerely: Please read through my comments, like the last 50, if you think I'm not a fit for HN, please ban me - because I struggle to fit your mold, I think. I can TRY HARDER (haha, caps - oops! I used "haha!") but I'm never going to be the guy you want me to be, I don't think.
I'm not going to argue with you about this, but people are snarky. They aren't always substantiative, even when they try to be. I definitely never try to personally attack people and would apologize for making that mistake (and I do apologize for making that mistake) I don't personally think saying "bro, check yourself" is a personal attack, but again, lots of this stuff is up for interpretation.
You use the term "community" but what I think you want is a world where people act how you want them to act. That's cool. You guys pay for the site.
Honestly, you have made me feel really bad about HN since our interactions. I have been muted, and the entire thing made me feel worse and worse about the site. The only times I've "personally attacked" people is when they have been really rude to me. And it isn't like I'm saying "GO KILL YOURSELF" I'm saying "you're being ridiculous" - if you put these on the same level, man. That's a tough one.
Dividend paying stocks are from cash cow companies that attract investors not with growth but with a dividend. Many of them are heavily leveraged to take advantage of tax reduction from the payment of debt with their predictable cash. However, if they have a lot of debt, the current interest rate increases are possibly putting a dent in their calculations. Not sure a highly indebted company is a good place to store money in an increasing interest rate situation. Apple and microsoft offer dividends but they are not high.
Maybe, just maybe instead of liveable wages we should be asking why the hell are our fixed costs so high?
How about instead of jacking up wages, we lower the costs that make those untenable wages tenable.
Start b eliminating real estate investors and forcing landlords OUT of residential real estate entirely.
Gasp I know, denying monopoly cash to the parasite class.
You're ignoring that, it's entirely possible allow Y people to live there, without increasing numeric margins on rents. Instead, landlords/investors often look to maximize their profit margin as much as demand allows.
Which shows, that investors can be a factor to the problem, by either choosing to maximize profits for selfish gain, or keep rents minimized despite excess demand.
Land is owned almost everywhere in the US. The point is if regulations on density are relaxed then denser housing will be built. You don’t need to take anybody’s land. Invisible hand of the market and all that.
This is bolshevism.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-remote-work-is-killi...
There are plenty of empty sky scrapers in midtown NYC.
Want to know why they aren't turning them into apartments?
> Building codes
I'm sorry but if we want affordable housing then it's time to accept that some apartments won't have windows.
Ok, so I'll have chatgpt write my 15 page research paper with citations. I'll then spend 1.5 hours rewriting and proofing it as opposed to the multiday researching, outlining, and writing I used to have to do.
And with all of that extra time, I'll study for your "exams".
Just replace chatgpt with Wikipedia, did this for 4 years of uni and another 2 at an ivy n school. No one was the wiser and now I have a cushy MBB job to show for it.
Look at Paris Hilton. Do you think she cares about subjects she doesn't know whilenshe gets chauffered around on her rolls Royce, eating meals made by a personal chef, in her Beverly hills home?
The answer is no. A life of material richness vs being poor and highly educated. Ask a postdoc this question and I bet the majority would take lifetime wealth to having to slave away in a lab.
I went through college using Wikipedia to not only make my outline but also provide citations. I'd then rewrite the articles in my own word.
This greatly reduced the amount of preparation needed prior to writing.
No shame, the majority of research papers done in unis are silly and regurgitation.
Really technology is just getting good at eliminating busy work which will be the death kneel of liberal arts.
Double rant: college is largely a waste of time for liberal arts classes.
Wonderful, let's make new homes even more expensive!
And to those who are downvoting this, every building code requirement like this jacks up the price further. Not everyone is a SWE with a TC of $250k+ you over privileged ninnies.
UK house prices in no way reflect the build cost. The developers do the least they can get away with, which generally means the shittiest fabric with some polish that lasts until the end of the warranty period, just about satisfying the building regs (which are not really checked properly), then they flog the result at whatever the market will bear and pocket the difference. What the market will bear is entirely dictated by where the identikit houses have been built and little else.
Everything you say is correct apart from "house prices in no way reflect the build cost". The build cost is expensive as there aren't many skilled trades people nowadays and there is a market of lemons. The few high quality building contractors that are trusted can charge huge amounts of money -- all of the others charge as much as they can get away with and just hope that you don't check their work...
Maybe, but around me, house demand hugely outstrips supply, so everyone buys at the limit of what they can afford. For sure, proper dumps that need significant renovation go for less, but they are super rare. Everything else goes for a price set by the size of the home and increasingly, the size of garden. New builds command a slight premium, but that's mostly a marketing premium, which doesn't hold for resale. It's hugely complicated by the location aspect of course - older houses tend to be in better locations. Basically, my point is that trying to attribute regulatory costs to house prices is essentially impossible, and is very much in the noise.
Not to argue, but rather to add my experience as it is fairly unique, I did a renovation to a property that cost a low six-figure amount of money (£).
Few have done this so whenever this conversation happens everybody talks about house prices as if there is nothing driving them other than "planning permission is an expensive, time-costly and risky endeavour" -- that's not all as the cost of doing building work is very high! While there were a range of build costs given to us by building contractors, they were all eye-wateringly expensive and at the lower end you have to carefully consider the risk of fraud.
Overall we had a very painful experience and the project was beset with poorly executed work and fraud until we realised what was happening half-way through the project and diverted a large amount of our resources into sorting everything out [0]. As a professional software engineer, I'm used to being able to trust that people will do what they say, but this market is a whole different game and much more cutthroat. We specified exactly the work that should be done and the materials that should be used with an architect's help but this isn't enough: you have to carefully evaluate every single piece of work to ensure compliance and be ready for gamesmanship/fraud or even financial/legal conflict from contractors.
My point is that house prices must reflect the the costs/risks of building and these are numerous:
- Designing, quantifying and specifying work
- Navigating bureaucracy and failure to get sign-off
causing costly re-designs
- On-site supervision of workers completion of jobs and
assessment of materials used
- Evaluations of work completed by independent surveyors
- Organisational and project management skill
- Understanding of construction and contract law with its
many peculiarities (e.g. were you aware that you must pay
*any* amount that a building contractor specifies in a
validly constructed payment notice unless you have sent
a pay less notice with calculations showing otherwise?
This is often used in "Smash and Grab" abjudications to
force clients to pay money as "if the paying party does
not serve the right notice against your application then
they must pay first and argue later." [1])
There aren't as many skilled tradespeople as there used to be and quality building work is labour/skill intensive, complex and risky. My experiences leads me to believe that the lack of competition between contractors is just as likely to be driving high house prices as overall planning risks/costs. (It's just that the former is opaque and invisible to most people even if they work in research/policy.)
[0] Our contractor went as far as attempting to extort money from us by getting a subcontractor to send threats to us and finally slinked away unscathed once we involved a quantity surveyor and lawyer.
[1] https://helix-law.co.uk/smash-and-grab-adjudication-overview/
We went through a similarly priced renovation. We had a different objective to many doing similar to us, which was to improve the energy efficiency of the house. It was interesting to see how incompetent the tradespeople were when the requirements deviated slightly from the norm. We had the usual shenanigans of course: the electricians gave us a bill that included a huge amount for materials, so we asked for a breakdown and found that they'd charged for hundreds of meters of cable that I could prove were not installed (impedance measurements gave me a good upper bound on the total installed length). I simply refused to pay more than a nominal amount until I was given an accurate bill with evidence, which never came (I suspect it wasn't malicious, it was just each electrician buying a reel of cable and chucking the remainder in their van for future use).
I also got into quite a heated argument with a plumber about static vs dynamic pressure and flow rates (it turns out fluid dynamics is not really part of a plumber's training).
