Slow and steady wins the race.
Check my post about OCA reaching $2 by 2040 and how wealthy that would make me depending on how long it stays sub $1 for.
Printable View
i dont understand your maths
if you invested 10000 in oca at 80c and its paying a lets say .026 cps / annum div ( based on current div of .013 ) that is a div return of $260 gross / annum
so does that mean your going to get a 100% return from your div in approx 30 + yrs ? lol i must be seeing something wrong with this ? surely .. that be without re-investing the div
oh ok so if you re-invest the div it be just under 5yrs ... correct ... you can tell me if my maths is close
More positive signs. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/aucklands-biggest-real-estate-agency-reports-big-may-sales-jump/73KMB4NCCJB3JIMMQEP5DZS7OE/
yep , but you would make more wouldnt you if stock rises over time + dividends than if stock stays under 1 dollar
( dont really get your thinking about wanting a stock to stay low fore ever , but i get that your get more share's in drp by stock price staying low for a greater lenght of time than zooming away straight away but to me the math's in the long term you want the price to eventually rise dont you )
Yeah, you answered it really but the effects of each scenario need to be seen to be believed. You want to rise eventually but the lower for the longer the better.
Posted this a while back but it explains the math.
From here to $2 over the next 18 years, the share price would produce a compounded 4.1% return. If dividends kept in lockstep (so the yield remained the same and the dividend also grew at 4.1%) and you paid 25% tax on the dividend and then reinvested into the company at the prevailing share price you would compound your investment at 7.92%.
Now if the share price stayed at 97c for the first 10 years and then grew steadily to $2 by the 18th year, you'd compound at 8.75%, but if the share price stayed at 97c for 17 years before jumping to $2, then you'd compound at a phenomenal 9.5%. This would turn a million into 5.5 million. At the original 7.92% it would be 4.41 million.
Obviously the share price staying static while dividends grow is unlikley, but this shows the effect of having a share price go nowhere. The longer it stays lower the better and you can of course commit external capital.
Given the choice 999 of 1000 investors would want and pray for only $3.46 million and reject the $5.5 million, throwing away 2 million dollars as they prey for the share price to go up NOW which would mean only getting a compound 6.92% return.