Dividendos
comentada em 25/01/2019 11:39

é uma reserva sua, caso, quando precisar faça a venda!( quase) igual dinheiro na carteira. Se quiser usar é só vender

Você compra um lote por 5 mil reais. (Exemplo).
Depois de alguns anos esse lote passa a valer 50 mil reais. (Suposição)
Simples assim.

Simplificadamente existem duas coisas que uma empresa pode fazer com o lucro:
1- Distribuir aos acionistas (dividendos);
2- Reinvestir na empresa e gerar mais lucro.

Em tese, se a empresa é bem gerida, o reinvestimento do lucro nela mesma é muito mais interessante ao acionista, pois ela vai gerar mais lucro. Quanto mais lucro, mais retorno você tem, seja na forma de dividendos (ainda mais), seja na forma de reinvestimento. Pois você é dono de uma parte da empresa, e em virtude do reinvestimento do lucro a sua cota parte terá um valor intrínseco maior.

Se a empresa não distribuir dividendos mas traz retorno ao acionista e a cotação acompanha, não há problema algum em vender. O que o pessoal aqui critica e condena é vender uma ação pra comprar outra ou investir em tesouro, etc. Mas vender pra fazer uma viagem, trocar de carro (se quiser/precisar), comprar um apartamento pra família e tal, são vendas até bem vindas pois você pode (até deve talvez) se dar ao luxo de gozar do seu patrimônio.

Se voce tem 100 ações que valem 10 reais = 1.000

SARD3 pagou 1 real de dividendos, agora você tem 100 ações valendo 9 reais cada (900 reais) + 100 reais em dinheiro

BAST3 não paga dividendo, se você vender 10 ações vai ficar com 900 reais em ações ( 90 x 10 ) + 100 reais em dinheiro

Um exemplo prático: Se você tivesse comprado 100 dólares da Amazon nos primeiros anos em que ela entrou na bolsa, hoje você teria 120.000 dólares. A Amazon distribui pouco dividendo, mas com o crescimento dela, o preço das ações subiu já que a empresa vale mais e trouxe muito retorno ao acionista. Daí poderia vender 10% de suas ações e desfrutar de 12000 dólares pra fazer o que quiser.

Agora imagine quem, além de ter comprado 100 dólares no inicio, continuou comprando ao longo do tempo... hoje está milionário e pode vender uma parte das ações para usufruir que vai continuar rico.

O investidor se beneficia com o eventual ganho de capital (cotação segue lucro) e com eventual recompra de ações (que gera valor ao acionista ao aumentar sua participação societária). Mas, a não ser que você invista em stocks, receberá dividendo normalmente, porque praticamente todas as boas empresas brasileiras pagam dividendo. De qualquer maneira, o que importa no final das contas é a empresa ser lucrativa. Você ganhará de um modo ou doutro. 

Siga o plano que o tempo lhe ensina.

DIVIDENDS

 A number of Berkshire shareholders – including some of my good friends – would like Berkshire to pay a cash dividend. It puzzles them that we relish the dividends we receive from most of the stocks that Berkshire owns, but pay out nothing ourselves. So let’s examine when dividends do and don’t make sense for shareholders. A profitable company can allocate its earnings in various ways (which are not mutually exclusive). A company’s management should first examine reinvestment possibilities offered by its current business – projects to become more efficient, expand territorially, extend and improve product lines or to otherwise widen the economic moat separating the company from its competitors.
...
And that brings us to dividends. Here we have to make a few assumptions and use some math. The numbers will require careful reading, but they are essential to understanding the case for and against dividends. So bear with me. We’ll start by assuming that you and I are the equal owners of a business with $2 million of net worth. The business earns 12% on tangible net worth – $240,000 – and can reasonably expect to earn the same 12% on reinvested earnings. Furthermore, there are outsiders who always wish to buy into our business at 125% of net worth. Therefore, the value of what we each own is now $1.25 million. You would like to have the two of us shareholders receive one-third of our company’s annual earnings and have two-thirds be reinvested. That plan, you feel, will nicely balance your needs for both current income and capital growth. So you suggest that we pay out $80,000 of current earnings and retain $160,000 to increase the future earnings of the business. In the first year, your dividend would be $40,000, and as earnings grew and the onethird payout was maintained, so too would your dividend. In total, dividends and stock value would increase 8% each year (12% earned on net worth less 4% of net worth paid out). After ten years our company would have a net worth of $4,317,850 (the original $2 million compounded at 8%) and your dividend in the upcoming year would be $86,357. Each of us would have shares worth $2,698,656 (125% of our half of the company’s net worth). And we would live happily ever after – with dividends and the value of our stock continuing to grow at 8% annually. There is an alternative approach, however, that would leave us even happier. Under this scenario, we would leave all earnings in the company and each sell 3.2% of our shares annually. Since the shares would be sold at 125% of book value, this approach would produce the same $40,000 of cash initially, a sum that would grow annually. Call this option the “sell-off” approach. Under this “sell-off” scenario, the net worth of our company increases to $6,211,696 after ten years ($2 million compounded at 12%). Because we would be selling shares each year, our percentage ownership would have declined, and, after ten years, we would each own 36.12% of the business. Even so, your share of the net worth of the company at that time would be $2,243,540. And, remember, every dollar of net worth attributable to each of us can be sold for $1.25. Therefore, the market value of your remaining shares would be $2,804,425, about 4% greater than the value of your shares if we had followed the dividend approach. Moreover, your annual cash receipts from the sell-off policy would now be running 4% more than you would have received under the dividend scenario. Voila! – you would have both more cash to spend annually and more capital value. This calculation, of course, assumes that our hypothetical company can earn an average of 12% annually on net worth and that its shareholders can sell their shares for an average of 125% of book value. To that point, the S&P 500 earns considerably more than 12% on net worth and sells at a price far above 125% of that net worth. Both assumptions also seem reasonable for Berkshire, though certainly not assured.
...
The sell-off alternative, on the other hand, lets each shareholder make his own choice between cash receipts and capital build-up. One shareholder can elect to cash out, say, 60% of annual earnings while other shareholders elect 20% or nothing at all. Of course, a shareholder in our dividend-paying scenario could turn around and use his dividends to purchase more shares. But he would take a beating in doing so: He would both incur taxes and also pay a 25% premium to get his dividend reinvested. (Keep remembering, open-market purchases of the stock take place at 125% of book value.) The second disadvantage of the dividend approach is of equal importance: The tax consequences for all taxpaying shareholders are inferior – usually far inferior – to those under the sell-off program. Under the dividend program, all of the cash received by shareholders each year is taxed whereas the sell-off program results in tax on only the gain portion of the cash receipts. Let me end this math exercise – and I can hear you cheering as I put away the dentist drill – by using my own case to illustrate how a shareholder’s regular disposals of shares can be accompanied by an increased investment in his or her business. For the last seven years, I have annually given away about 41⁄4% of my Berkshire shares. Through this process, my original position of 712,497,000 B-equivalent shares (split-adjusted) has decreased to 528,525,623 shares. Clearly my ownership percentage of the company has significantly decreased. Yet my investment in the business has actually increased: The book value of my current interest in Berkshire considerably exceeds the book value attributable to my holdings of seven years ago. (The actual figures are $28.2 billion for 2005 and $40.2 billion for 2012.) In other words, I now have far more money working for me at Berkshire even though my ownership of the company has materially decreased. It’s also true that my share of both Berkshire’s intrinsic business value and the company’s normal earning power is far greater than it was in 2005. Over time, I expect this accretion of value to continue – albeit in a decidedly irregular fashion – even as I now annually give away more than 41⁄2% of my shares (the increase having occurred because I’ve recently doubled my lifetime pledges to certain foundations).

March 1, 2013

Warren E. Buffett

Chairman of the Board

Alguém resume esse texto do buffet pf

tem este tópico que esclarece bastante coisa, é longo mas vale a pena:
Bastter.com - Crescimento e Dividendos

Quem ler e, principalmente, entender essa carta do Buffet vai conseguir finalmente desencanar de dividendos. Mas tem que ler, processar e assimilar, se eu fizer um resumo não vai adiantar.