Agregador de canales de noticias

A Japanese botanist thinks the answer is “yes”

They will save on volunteers, and be cheaper

Or perhaps the first cranium of one already known

A lack of vaccines means it will not be the last

In punishing the ex-president, South Africa’s Constitutional Court proves its mettle

Their victory may reshape Ethiopia—and the region

The policy will stay in governments’ toolkits. A growing body of research will guide its use

Fed officials debate whether and when to taper support

People have spent a year glued to screens, but now the attention boom is turning to bust

As economies reopen employers face tough choices

What will happen to technology companies’ pricey digs?

Some 5m EU citizens want to stay in the UK

Originalmente publicado en: La ilusión de los dividendos – Roma no se hizo en un día

La estrategia de los dividendos parece tentadora ya que permitiría generar ingresos y librarse de la volatilidad. Pero esto es falso. Solo es una ilusión ya que en realidad hay que pagar más impuestos que con una estrategia de capitalización (por lo tanto, ésta es la que debería ser elegida).

Imaginemos 2 carteras («teóricas») de 100K

Caso 1) Cartera DGI/de dividendos con un 5% de dividendo sin crecimiento de la acción.

Caso 2) Cartera de acciones de crecimiento con un aumento del 5% de las acciones cada año.

El objetivo es conseguir unos ingresos anuales de 4000€ netos.

En el caso 1, es sencillo, los dividendos del 5% = 5K, gravados al 20%, es decir 4000€ netos. La cartera 1 se mantiene en 100 000 euros todo el tiempo.

En el caso 2, el valor de la cartera y los retiros son los siguientes (considerando el 20% de impuestos sobre la plusvalía):

La retirada aumenta con el tiempo porque la parte de plusvalía aumenta también con el tiempo. Por lo que al cabo de 20 años, la plusvalía representa más porcentaje del valor restante que al principio (5%).

La cartera gana alrededor de un 0,9% al año, mientras que el importe total de las retiradas netas es ligeramente superior (81k€ frente a 80k€ en 20 años).

Es decir que no hay que favorecer las acciones de dividendos debido a la segura y mayor fiscalidad. Además, debido a las elevadas retenciones, se eliminan las acciones de dividendos de algunos países (Alemania y Francia, en particular).

Invertir en un fondo no elimina el problema de las retenciones, ya que los fondos también tributan.

No hay que olvidar que el dividendo no es un compromiso cierto de la empresa, y una disminución o incluso un cese del dividendo puede provocar una fuerte caída de la cotización, lo que sería una especie de doble pérdida para el accionista.

Un argumento en contra de la capitalización sería considerar que ciertos sectores distribuyen necesariamente dividendos y, por lo tanto, serían inaccesibles, y también que los sectores que pagan dividendos se comportan mejor que los que no lo hacen.

La cuestión no es particularmente clara, pero estoy de acuerdo en que una estrategia 100% de renta variable es complicada.

Espero que te haya gustado este artículo y te haya hecho reflexionar.

Me encantaría conocer tu opinión sobre este tema y estaré encantado de discutirlo contigo.

Un saludo,

Thibaut

17 publicaciones - 13 participantes

Leer todo el tema

 Leer

 Leer

 Leer

Ya estamos de nuevo a mitad de año, con el aire acondicionado a tope, el precio de la luz disparado y con otra actualización más de cartera. Antes de nada, quiero mandar un saludo especial a los que, como yo, les ha tocado pagar hoy a Hacienda (por la declaración de la renta). También quiero … Sigue leyendo Actualización de cartera 2021 – Primer semestre →

The key thing about evolution is that everything dies. Ninety-nine percent of species are already extinct; the rest will be eventually.

There is no perfect species, one adapted to everything at all times. The best any species can do is to be good at some things until the things it’s not good at suddenly matter more. And then it dies.

A century ago a Russian biologist named Ivan Schmalhausen described how this works. A species that evolves to become very good at one thing tends to become vulnerable at another. A bigger lion can kill more prey, but it’s also a larger target for hunters to shoot at. A taller tree captures more sunlight but becomes vulnerable to wind damage. There is always some inefficiency.

So species rarely evolve to become perfect at anything, because perfecting one skill comes at the expense of another skill that will eventually be critical to survival. The lion could be bigger; the tree could be taller. But they’re not, because it would backfire.

So they’re all a little imperfect.

Nature’s answer is a lot of good enough, below-potential traits across all species. Biologist Anthony Bradshaw says that evolution’s successes get all the attention, but its failures are equally important. And that’s how it should be: Not maximizing your potential is actually the sweet spot in a world where perfecting one skill compromises another.

Evolution has spent 3.5 billion years testing and proving the idea that some inefficiency is good. We know it’s right.

So maybe the rest of us should pay more attention to it.

So many people strive for efficient lives, where no hour is wasted. But an overlooked skill that doesn’t get enough attention is the idea that wasting time can be a great thing.

Psychologist Amos Tversky once said “the secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.”

A successful person purposely leaving gaps of free time on their schedule to do nothing in particular can feel inefficient. And it is, so not many people do it.

But Tversky’s point is that if your job is to be creative and think through a tough problem, then time spent wandering around a park or aimlessly lounging on a couch might be your most valuable hours. A little inefficiency is wonderful.

The New York Times once wrote of former Secretary of State George Shultz:

His hour of solitude was the only way he could find time to think about the strategic aspects of his job. Otherwise, he would be constantly pulled into moment-to-moment tactical issues, never able to focus on larger questions of the national interest.

Albert Einstein put it this way:

I take time to go for long walks on the beach so that I can listen to what is going on inside my head. If my work isn’t going well, I lie down in the middle of a workday and gaze at the ceiling while I listen and visualize what goes on in my imagination.

Mozart felt the same way:

When I am traveling in a carriage or walking after a good meal or during the night when I cannot sleep–it is on such occasions that my ideas flow best and most abundantly.

Someone once asked Charlie Munger what Warren Buffett’s secret was. “I would say half of all the time he spends is sitting on his ass and reading. He has a lot of time to think.”

This is the opposite of “hustle porn,” where people want to look busy at all times because they think it’s noble.

Nassim Taleb says, “My only measure of success is how much time you have to kill.” More than a measure of success, I think it’s a key ingredient. The most efficient calendar in the world – one where every minute is packed with productivity – comes at the expense of curious wandering and uninterrupted thinking, which eventually become the biggest contributors of success.

Another form of helpful inefficiency is a business whose operations have some slack built in.

Just-in-time manufacturing – where companies don’t stock the parts they need to build products, relying instead on last-minute shipments of components – was the epitome of efficient operations over the last 20 years. Then Covid hit, and virtually every manufacturer found itself dreadfully short of what it needs.

Super-efficient supply chains increase vulnerability to any disruption. And history is just a constant chain of disruptions. So you can imagine that we’ll hear stories of companies who increased their earnings by, say, 5% by maximizing supply efficiencies only to see earnings fall 20% or more due to having no slack when trouble hit. We are in the biggest post-WW2 consumer boom and car companies are shutting down production because they’re out of chips. A little inefficiency across the whole supply chain would have been the sweet spot.

Same in investing. Cash is an inefficient drag during bull markets and as valuable as oxygen during bear markets, either because you need it to survive a recession or because it’s the raw material of opportunity. Leverage is the most efficient way to maximize your balance sheet, and the easiest way to lose everything. Concentration is the best way to maximize returns, but diversification is the best way to increase the odds of owning a company capable of delivering returns. On and on, if you’re honest with yourself you’ll see that a little inefficiency is the ideal spot to be in.

Just like evolution, the key is realizing that the more perfect you try to become the more vulnerable you generally are.

Episode #325: Bhu Srinivasan, Author, Americana, “Is The Entrepreneur More Important Or Is The Movement And Moment More Important?”                 Guest: Bhu Srinivasan is the first-time author of Americana: A 400-Year History of American Capitalism. He’s currently the founder and CEO of SCORETRADE, which is developing the fastest and […]

The post Episode #325: Bhu Srinivasan, Author, Americana, “Is The Entrepreneur More Important Or Is The Movement And Moment More Important?” appeared first on Meb Faber Research - Stock Market and Investing Blog.

La tecnológica leridana, que cotiza en el BME Growth, compra el 100% de la empresa valenciana de firma electrónica, facturación electrónica y automatización de procesos. Leer