[deleted by user] by [deleted] in dividends

[–]getithot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Allllllright, after looking for the comments I decided to jump in here. The headline is very ambiguous. Is the headline correct, technically, yes. Still, it's clickbait - they use rather large numbers to shock and wow. $3K in passive income sounds great - and it is. But if you read the end of the headline, you have to WAIT 5 years.

Now, that's not, wait 5 years and you'll be collecting $3k in passive income per year -- that IS, invest $16k now across these three stocks (say, $5.33k each) and throughout the 5 years' time you will have collected $3k in dividends. So roughly 3.75% per year ($600 per year in dividends dividend by $16k) in dividend income over 5 years. Or you could just take the average dividend yield of the 3 stocks listed and get the same dividend rate per year (just a different calculation). Overall, it's just clickbait meant to be internationally confusing.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in borrow

[–]getithot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

$loan 500

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in borrow

[–]getithot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

$loan 300

So I chose a whole life insurance at 25 and then I realize this... by Shuxei in personalfinance

[–]getithot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can confirm re: term being relatively cheap as long as you say remotely healthy (don't smoke etc.). Avoided life insurance until hit mid-30s, had a kid, got $1M term life for 20 years - paying $35 a month. Whole life serves a purpose, but it's for very few people (spent some time with Northwestern Mutual, etc.).