Would you buy bank dividend stocks right now? | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

High Interest Savings Best Tips: $100 prize each week for the most useful forum post!
 

 
Current User: Guest Login Register
Please consider registering


Register? | Lost Your Password?

Search Forums:


 






Minimum search word length is 4 characters – Maximum search word length is 84 characters
Wildcard Usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Would you buy bank dividend stocks right now?  

Reply to Post Add a New Topic
UserPost

5:00 pm
December 23, 2009


mike

Member

posts 159

Looking to move some money out of the .8% HSBC account and into some bank dividend stocks, suggestions and opinions most welcome.

Thanks in advance.

Mike

Have a great day

11:31 pm
December 23, 2009


Doug

Guest

I'd wait for a bit of a pullback, personally. They've had quite a run. I bought the bulk of my Canadian bank stocks in the January 2009 market low (though, not quite the bottom of the market reached in March 2009) and the rest in September 2008.

TD has easily been my best performing bank stock this year, I purchased it less than a year ago at $36/share and it's around $65/share as of recent trading. CIBC would be next best performing bank stock and Scotiabank is only yielding about an 8% return year-to-date. I also own some HSBC Group options in an employee stock option purchase program.

This being said. If your time horizon is very long term, say more than five years, then bank stocks at any price are usually a good buy.

Cheers,
Doug

1:58 am
December 26, 2009


Stan

Toronto

Member

posts 43

When banks aren't paying customers squat for bank accounts and GIC's; that's often an indication to take a look at investing in stocks at the other end of the chain.

Since we are almost 70 years of age, banks stocks tend to be a safe boring option for protecting capital, while collecting a reasonably good rate of return for a low risk investment. As one of our lawyers once, observed: If the Canadian banks ever fail, then our stock holdings will probably be the least of our concerns!!

With tech stocks doing so badly these days, our stock market investments are now pretty much a spread of Candian bank stocks!

12:13 pm
December 28, 2009


mike

Member

posts 159

Thanks so much for your help! :)

Much appreciated.

Have a great day

11:52 pm
February 19, 2010


Stan

Toronto

Member

posts 43

Just going over my year-end stock market performance for Canadian Bank Stocks.

Bank Stock Holdings Dec 31, 2008 = $139,000

Bank Stock Holdings Dec 31, 2009 = 221,000

Bank Stock Capital Gain for the year = $83,000

Bank Stock Dividends for the year = $7,800

Total gain on an investment of $139,000 = $90,000 :lol:

The same $$$ in a Peoples Savings Account @ 2.1% would have yielded $2900.00 :frown: Not that we are not topped up the the full CDIC limit +; but there are better options out there.

The way things are going these days, with low interest rates getting even lower, we have been giving serious consideration to dumping another $100,000 — $200,000 or so into the market. 2% interest rates are starting to become tedious.

Since banks are not paying out anything to their depositors, the only other logical alternative is to reap the benefits of the system as a stock holder; and Canadian banks tend to pay quite well on a consistent basis.

1:23 am
February 23, 2010


Observer

Guest

so stan, are you saying that you first entered the market with your 139K in December 2008? if so, then yeah you made 90K (which seems about right) and hey, bully for you. or is it just that you were already in the market in december 2008 and the value of your bank holdings at that time was 139K? in that case, it's misleading to say that you gained 90K since your true gain (or loss) is the difference between the market value of your stocks when you first buy them and their current value. if you invested 139K in canadian bank stocks in May 2007, your current values would be about $120K for a loss of about $19K.

2:33 pm
February 23, 2010


Stan

Toronto

Member

posts 43

My oldest and largest bank stock holdings are with Royal, which I've held since 1999:

2500 units:

1999 = $ 15,675
2009 = $141,500
gain = $125,825 (900%)

So that's a 90% capital gain per year over 10 years; not to mention attractive dividends, which as I recall was somewhere around 4% even this past year. :lol:

3:46 pm
February 23, 2010


Observer

Guest

your numbers don't work out stan. first off, you say you invested in royal (which i assume is royal bank of canada), but you say you own 2500 "units". you don't own "units" if you invest in royal, you own shares. i would understand if you were referring to some kind of mutual fund or etf that held bank stocks, but you specifically refered to royal so i can only assume you meant royal shares. i checked out the historical prices for royal (ry.tsx) on my brokerage site and found that the lowest price for ry in 1999 was $15.86 per share on 10/01/1999. if you owned 2500 ry shares on that date, they would have been worth $39,650, not the $15,675 you quoted. forgetting that for a moment, if the value of your royal shares in 1999 is assumed to be $15,675 as you say, then you would have owned $15,675/$15.86 = 988 ry shares as of 10/01/1999. now fast forwarding to yesterday's ry close of $56.60, the current value of those shares would be $56.60 x 988 = $55,920. that's an impressive 350% capital gain over about 10 years, but it's nowhere near the 900% gain you're claiming above. what's up?

6:30 pm
February 23, 2010


Stan

Toronto

Member

posts 43

Of course the your numbers don't work out! Because you fabricated imaginary numbers instead of using the the numbers I provided. Let's see if you can figure out where you went wrong.

1. I did not say that I had 2500 units of Royal Bank stock in 1999.

2. I said I have 2500 shares now; and I didn't buy any new stock over that time, other than an isolated 100 shares that was rolled back into Royal, purchased from dividend income.

3. The current value of my stock is $56.60 per share.

4. The ACB for these holdings is $6.27 per share, which makes for a 900% capital gain over 10 years.

How do you figure that happened? :???:

8:24 pm
February 23, 2010


Observer

Guest

ok, so if you have 2500 ry shares now, then you would have had 2500/2/2 = 625 ry shares back in 1999 taking into account the 2:1 stock splits that happened in 2000 and 2006 and assuming that you didn't buy more ry shares between 1999 and 2010 (ignoring dividend reinvestment purchases). you say the value of your ry holdings in 1999 was $15,675, so the average share price you bought-in at would have been $15,675/625 shares = $25.08 per share. but here's the problem; the lowest price that ry stock traded for in 1999 was $15.86*2*2 = $63.44 per share (again taking into account the two 2:1 stock splits). the obvious question is, how were you able to buy into ry stock in 1999 at an average price of $25.08 per share when the stock never traded lower than $63.44 per share that entire year??? sorry, your numbers are definitely suspect… and if you think i'm "fabricating" these numbers, here's the ry chart on the tsx:

http://cxa.marketwatch.com/TSX…..sid=103521

and here's the info on the ry stock splits:

http://www.rbc.com/investorrel…..&a.pdf

10:07 pm
February 23, 2010


Stan

Toronto

Member

posts 43

Observer said:

ok, so if you have 2500 ry shares now, then you would have had 2500/2/2 = 625 ry shares back in 1999 taking into account the 2:1 stock splits that happened in 2000 and 2006 and assuming that you didn't buy more ry shares between 1999 and 2010 (ignoring dividend reinvestment purchases). you say the value of your ry holdings in 1999 was $15,675, so the average share price you bought-in at would have been $15,675/625 shares = $25.08 per share.


Kudos! Although you intially came across as a mere heckler, you actually DO know something about the stock market; and found the missing millions! :lol:

The $15675 figure sort of skews everything out of perspective, since The 100 additional 100 shares were obtained at @ $4753 in 2008, which drags the overall gain figure down to a mere 900%.

If I exclude the recent 100 share purchase which in actual fact cost nothing, and deal only with the initial 600 share purchase, it would look more like this:

1999 ACB 600 @ 18.19 = 10,914

2009 2400 @ 56.40 = 135,360

10 year gain = $124,446

i.e. an 1140% gain on the initial investment.

And the point in all of this: in changing times when we are all venturing into new uncharted territory with a mere 2% interest rate begging for a better option. At one time, my wife and I agreed upon confining our stock market entertainment to the initial $50,000 investment; and have fun playing the system more for entertainment purposes, than for any realistic expectation of significant gain. And if nothing else: win, loose or draw; we have certainly received $50,000 worth of entertainment from the system over the past decade.

But with the current mere 2% interest rates, we are engaged in serious discussions of abandoning our initial agreement to restrict our stock market holdings to the initial $50,000 which has now grown to over $200,000 over the past ten years. There is just no way we could have ever come even close to realizing that kind of gain on any high interest savings account.

2:34 am
February 24, 2010


Observer

Guest

i won't argue that investing in dividend payers is better than a 2% savings account (i've got several dividend payers myself, including royal by the way), but your numbers are still flat-out wrong. you're multiplying your split-unadjusted 600 shares you bought in 1999 by the split-adjusted 1999 share price of $18.19. that's apples and oranges old-timer, you'd better crack open your investing 101 textbook before it's too late. the split adjusted price of $18.19 in 1999 works out to a split-unadjusted price of $139.05. don't believe me? here's the historical data for ry:

http://ca.moneycentral.msn.com…..ol=CA%3ary

the 2:1 stock split dates are April 6, 2006 and october 5, 2000. when you crack open your investing 101 text and look under "two for one stock splits", you'll see that on the day after a split, there are twice as many outstanding shares, and each share is worth about half the price. the corollary of this statement is that on the day before a stock split, there are half the shares trading at about twice the price. so on april 7, 2006, ry shares closed at $48.93, and on april 6, 2006, the day before the split, ry shares closed at, you guessed it, $48.93 x 2 = $97.86. i hope you can still use deductive reasoning to take it from there. to check your work, here's the answer:

600 pre-split shares bought in 1999 @ $139.05 (split unadjusted) = $84,430

2500 post-split shares owned at todays close of $56.05 = $140,125

10 year capital gain = $140,125 — $84,430 = $55,695

10 year percent capital gain = $55,695/$84,430 x 100 = 66%

not bad, but a little shy of 900%…

3:00 pm
February 24, 2010


Stan

Toronto

Member

posts 43

I have no idea what you are talking about. Your figures make no sense to me.

I acquired a block of stocks for $10,914. That same block of stock now has a value of $135,360. According to my mathematics, that's a gain of $124,446. What could be simpler than that.

I initially acquired 600 shares @ $18.19 = $10,908
After the split I have 1200 shares @ 9.09 = $10,908
After split #2 I have 2400 shares @ 4.545 = $10,908

No matter how many shares I now have, that block of stock cost $10,908; and that same block of stock is now worth $135,360. And that's a gain of a whole lot more than 66%!! :cool:

3:52 pm
February 24, 2010


Bart

Guest

I just called up a stock chart for Royal Bank of Canada using my discount broker (RBC Direct if it matters) and used the charting feature to draw a trendline on the stock from 1999 to 2010. According to the trendline the stock increased in value by about 270% over that time period, so doesn't that mean that an investment of $10,908 in 1999 would be worth 270% more in 2010, which would be $29,451? I mean, I don't know much about stock splits and dividends and whatnot, but it doesn't seem realistic to me for a $10,000 investment in a bank to increase to $125,000 in 10 years. Wouldn't eveyone be investing in the banks if that were the case?:???:

6:30 pm
February 24, 2010


Stan

Toronto

Member

posts 43

Oops!! I screwed up big time. Bart's figures are correct. :???:

Although I acquired those stocks in 1999, they were actually purchased long before that and held in a trust. When they were transferred to me in 1999, the ACB was listed at $10,000 which works out to $18 a share. To add to the confusion, the RY 10 year performance chart confirmed that $18 a share would be accurate.

Then I got looking at the stock chart, which showed the stock being $48 a few days before the 2 for 1 split; and also $48 a few days after the split. So something was wrong with my interpretation of the chart. Although the charts show the current value of a stock, as you go back over the years passed 2 stock splits, the have adjusted the older numbers to indicate performance rather than the actual value of a stock 10 years ago. So I went back through my old records, and that on the date the stocks were transferred to me at $18, the same amount as indicated on the stock chart; those RY stocks were actually selling for $61 per share. So . . .

1999: 600 shares @ 61 = $36,600

2009: 2400 shares @ $56 = $134,000

Gain = $97,400 or 270% :???:

It's been a learning experience for me; and I eventually ended up with the right answer.

12:07 am
March 16, 2010


another guest

Guest

Haha Stan, UR so busted.
LOL.

2:08 am
March 16, 2010


Stan

Toronto

Member

posts 43

Yeh, but it's been a good year so far, with my $134,000 now up 7000 to 141,000 at the end of the first quarter. :lol: . An acceptable rate of return + dividends. All of my bank stocks have done well this year.

Reply to Post

Reply to Topic:
Would you buy bank dividend stocks right now?

Guest Name (Required):

Guest Email (Required):

HTML Editor
Post New Reply

Guest URL (required)

Math Required!
What is the sum of:
6 + 3