[quote]belligerent wrote:
My impression is that people who create passive income successfully are people who happen to own a particular niche. They don’t just set out to generate passive income without a clue as to what the hell they want to do. Instead, they start with an area of interest and find a way to make it profitable. If you don’t have a particular domain, you don’t have much of a shot at successful busines.
[/quote]
Well said. I think that’s exactly how it is.
[quote]tedro wrote:
It’s a comic book shop, isn’t it?[/quote]
lol, I wish.
[quote]orion wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Shares that pay dividends. You only got $1,000? buy that many shares that pay dividends. It can happen even at low levels. Again, a bit whacky at the moment. But there will be a time in a few years where there are great shares to buy that are devalued and will pay you back good passive income and growth.
Not so wacky. GE, Pfizer (PFE), and Altria (MO) all all are significantly devalued and have a dividend yield over 7%. Reinvest the quarterly dividends. At 7%, your money will double in 10.3 years. Can’t get more passive than that.
If you’ve never heard of the Rule of 72, I suggest you learn it. It tells you how long it takes to double your money given a fixed rate of annual interest.
I have alternatively mastered the skill of exponential equations and the use of a pocket calculator.
Bow to me.
[/quote]
You’re over qualified. For realistic rates of return and ballpark timeframes, the Rule can be calculated in your head. So, no bowing to you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Berserkergang wrote:
Making money without working is parasitism.
It’s that fucking twisted mindset “getting rich without working and producing anything” which is killing our economy.
Owning stock is not passive in the least.[/quote]
no management powers = absolutely passive.
instead of businessman use corporation, and put the period after capital and then your sentence is accurate. Otherwise your making a lot of assumptions.
Yes and no. Your share of the profits are dividends, the corp retains more than it pays out, and debt financing is much cheaper and more beneficial, so bond holders often get paid first and more per dollar invested.
The only loses shareholders suffer are the initial investment. The corp’s losses are so much more substantial, it’s not even remotely close to comparable enough to use the word share.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
orion wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Shares that pay dividends. You only got $1,000? buy that many shares that pay dividends. It can happen even at low levels. Again, a bit whacky at the moment. But there will be a time in a few years where there are great shares to buy that are devalued and will pay you back good passive income and growth.
Not so wacky. GE, Pfizer (PFE), and Altria (MO) all all are significantly devalued and have a dividend yield over 7%. Reinvest the quarterly dividends. At 7%, your money will double in 10.3 years. Can’t get more passive than that.
If you’ve never heard of the Rule of 72, I suggest you learn it. It tells you how long it takes to double your money given a fixed rate of annual interest.
I have alternatively mastered the skill of exponential equations and the use of a pocket calculator.
Bow to me.
You’re over qualified. For realistic rates of return and ballpark timeframes, the Rule can be calculated in your head. So, no bowing to you.[/quote]
Are you insinuating that I have not invested my time wisely ;-)?
I will tell you one I seriously would love to do, but its not entirely passive. Rent some time on a local cable network or something - and be a televangelist. Quote some scriptures, say a prayer, close your eyes and you see people being healed in a vision, make some promise and ask people to send in money.
[quote]Zack Nelson wrote:
I will tell you one I seriously would love to do, but its not entirely passive. Rent some time on a local cable network or something - and be a televangelist. Quote some scriptures, say a prayer, close your eyes and you see people being healed in a vision, make some promise and ask people to send in money.
[/quote]
Can’t believe that shit actually works.
[quote]orion wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
orion wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Shares that pay dividends. You only got $1,000? buy that many shares that pay dividends. It can happen even at low levels. Again, a bit whacky at the moment. But there will be a time in a few years where there are great shares to buy that are devalued and will pay you back good passive income and growth.
Not so wacky. GE, Pfizer (PFE), and Altria (MO) all all are significantly devalued and have a dividend yield over 7%. Reinvest the quarterly dividends. At 7%, your money will double in 10.3 years. Can’t get more passive than that.
If you’ve never heard of the Rule of 72, I suggest you learn it. It tells you how long it takes to double your money given a fixed rate of annual interest.
I have alternatively mastered the skill of exponential equations and the use of a pocket calculator.
Bow to me.
You’re over qualified. For realistic rates of return and ballpark timeframes, the Rule can be calculated in your head. So, no bowing to you.
Are you insinuating that I have not invested my time wisely ;-)?
[/quote]
Math skills are never a bad investment. But the rule of 72 – Ahhhh child’s play – but so useful.
[quote]Pluto wrote:
Buy oil!!! Some anlysts are saying it will hit 200-300 a barrell by 2012, and at 40 bucks a barrell now, you could probably turn $10,000 grand into at least $50,000 in three years… or start picking up change off the street, one of the two.
Cheers![/quote]
“some analysts”. Which ones exactly?
This is an example of how not to make money. You jump into something based on a rumor.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Berserkergang wrote:
Making money without working is parasitism.
It’s that fucking twisted mindset “getting rich without working and producing anything” which is killing our economy.
Owning stock is not passive in the least.
no management powers = absolutely passive. [/quote]
How does an investor decide which stocks to pick. Even choosing a fund manager requires activity.
[quote]
A Stockholder provides businessman with needed capital to produce goods.
instead of businessman use corporation, and put the period after capital and then your sentence is accurate. Otherwise your making a lot of assumptions.[/quote]
Well, what would a corporation do with out investors to provide them capital. I don’t care if the funds are used to make production more efficient. The end results is that we expect products and profit. We do not need to get tripped up over the specifics.
[quote]
He shares in on the profits of a successful company but he also suffers the losses too.
Yes and no. Your share of the profits are dividends, the corp retains more than it pays out, and debt financing is much cheaper and more beneficial, so bond holders often get paid first and more per dollar invested.
The only loses shareholders suffer are the initial investment. The corp’s losses are so much more substantial, it’s not even remotely close to comparable enough to use the word share.[/quote]
If his stock loses value does he not suffer? If the company goes bankrupt does he not suffer a total loss?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Berserkergang wrote:
Making money without working is parasitism.
It’s that fucking twisted mindset “getting rich without working and producing anything” which is killing our economy.
Owning stock is not passive in the least.
no management powers = absolutely passive.
How does an investor decide which stocks to pick. Even choosing a fund manager requires activity. [/quote]
You don’t get it, and we are looking two sides of the same coin.
The act of choosing and buying stock takes “activity” on your part yes, but owning stock is passive. You cannot collectively report earned income & interest and dividends anywhere. Not on financials, not on a 1040, not on a 1065, nowhere.
If you do not partake in management (actively participate) of a corporation of which you own, it is passive income by definition. (And even then earned income (salaries) are reported separately from investment income.)
[quote] A Stockholder provides businessman with needed capital to produce goods.
instead of businessman use corporation, and put the period after capital and then your sentence is accurate. Otherwise your making a lot of assumptions.
Well, what would a corporation do with out investors to provide them capital. [/quote]
There are quite a few alternatives to equity financing.
[quote]He shares in on the profits of a successful company but he also suffers the losses too.
Yes and no. Your share of the profits are dividends, the corp retains more than it pays out, and debt financing is much cheaper and more beneficial, so bond holders often get paid first and more per dollar invested.
The only loses shareholders suffer are the initial investment. The corp’s losses are so much more substantial, it’s not even remotely close to comparable enough to use the word share.
If his stock loses value does he not suffer? If the company goes bankrupt does he not suffer a total loss?
[/quote]
ALL the shareholder loses is the INITIAL investment. That is it. If you buy $1,000 of stock, at $10 a share today, and it is worth zero tomorrow what have you lost? If you said $1,000 you are correct. That is it. What has the corporation lost? Quite a bit more than $1,000. The word share doesn’t fit this situation.
I think “passive income” is rather incorrect phrase. What I think(hope) you’re talking about, is residual income.
Agreed?