This idea is so pernicious, that Mr. Market rewards steady dividend payers, esp. consistent dividend growers with a higher valuation, than non dividend paying companies with higher growth.

That sounds like it would be true, but I suspect if you dove into the mixing bowl there would be some 'tried and true' vs 'flash in the pan' in those numbers too. I don't really know, but you'd have to separate out those 'higher growth' companies who may not be around in 10 or 15 years, since my stock price is (supposedly) valued on my claim of future profits.

As I'm sure everyone on this board knows, there is a significant difference between a dividend and a stock buyback: I get my grubby hands on a dividend, and I only have a *chance* of getting it with a buyback. I've heard the argument 'well it's the same thing, if you want to own the company why not own more of it?' To which my reply is 'I have enough of that one, I don't want more. I prefer money, directly deposited, where neither the CEO nor flash traders can get their hands on it.' No muss, no fuss, no timing, play couch potato, period. ;)

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.