I have 300 shares of GE and feel bad to see it dropping. Should I sell all stocks or hold tthem for the time being? Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

After a several days of discomfort and deliberation, I pulled the trigger today to sell most of my dividend-stocks and buy a broad dividend ETF with the proceeds.
 
The list includes PG, PFE, KO, DUK and XOM. All were bought this year and have collectively gained more than I anticipated (over 12%). Ironically, some of these outsized gains caused my discomfort. I wouldn't have bought some of these stocks at the current price (except XOM which ended up even). I also realized that I'm not really an own-individual-stock-for-long-term person. I do like researching and trading stocks, but only through options (I sell deep OTM puts) that gives a margin of safety. My core investments are through low-cost ETFs. The only reason I went into these individual stocks is that, I needed more sustainable dividend income from my portfolio. Based on my budget, my required yield had to be close to 4% that none of the quality dividend ETFs offered. As an alternative, I picked one "value" stock from most of the sectors to get a meaningful yield. Given that I got lucky with most of these, I'd be more comfortable to switch to an ETF that spreads my investment into a larger number of companies and reduces the "single-company" risk. It's as if I got the ETF at 12% discount. Also the ETF contains all of the stocks that I sold today (25% of the ETF is in these 5 stocks) - so I will have some exposure to them, as well as similar companies in the same sector, plus several other companies.
 
I still have a few other individual dividend-paying stocks that I can wait until they shine (T, IVZ, ING). They don't overlap with the ETF. Also their yield is on the high-side. As long as the dividend is maintained, I'm fine holding them (unless I find some quality-related reason to sell). If they move up beyond my comfort level, I will do the same with those. It's quite strange that I can stay calm with declining stocks and also ready to take losses if needed, but I get uneasy with unexpected price gains.
 
The particular ETF I chose was HDV.  I liked the methodology and the weightage. It has a relatively smaller number of holdings compared to other similar ones. I'm familiar with most holdings and don't mind holding those except a few like IBM. There are a few other candidates too that I liked VYM, but I prefer dividend weighting rather than market-cap weighting. Anyways, I'm not married to HDV and if I find a better fit, will switch to that.

 

What do you think? Was it a reasonable move given my objective and style?

 
PS: I considered other sustainable-yield alternatives, including CEFs. End of the day, I decided not to compromise on my "low-cost" criteria.

Wondering what people have done.
1) I opened up a Fidelity Charitable Giving Fund, and donated highly appreciated mutual fund shares that also had a high expense ratio (GABAX), as I was also looking to reduce my investment in this high expense ratio fund.
2)  I switched my cost-basis tracking in mutual funds from "average cost per share" to  "actual cost-basis", so i can sell or donate more specific lots
3)  I'm thinking of selling mutual fund shares (GABAX again) that currently are at a loss and pair it with shares at a gain, so I can reduce my overall position in this high expense ratio position.  I would then invest in an index fund that tracks the larger market (S&P 500 or extended market) with a much lower expense ratio.
4) i have also maxed out my 401K to the federal limit ($54K) plus the $6K catch-up provision
5) also contribute to an HSA
 
Just wondering what other people have done.  I would value your ideas or comments

I really need guidance from the experts here, especially the ones that have invested continuously in the markets here for the last 20+ years. Here are my thoughts as a novice investor. Please correct me if my ideas are flawed.
 
I am kind of new to this market. Have been reading on markets some, but have a lot more to learn. For the long haul, I have come up with the following strategy:
 
Some ETFs that give me a decent dividend yield like PFF, HDV, FDRR, IDV, FREL, FUTY- invest a portion of $$ in this religiously regardless of market trends. even if the market goes down, you will still have a good dividend yield.
 
Sector ETFs like FNCL- with banks going up in a rising interest rate environment, I get appreciation of capital more than dividends.
 
With a combination of capital appreciation and dividend yield, do I have to fear anything else in this kind of strategy if I don’t need the money for the next 20+ years?

I have heard that some people can manage this (living off only dividends in retirement and not touching principal).  How comfortable is everyone with this approach? 
 
I know dividends can be cut and, consequently, to implement without undue risk this you would need 1) a large basket of stocks (maybe 100?), 2) to get more in expected dividend than you expect to need (by what percentage?) and 3) a cash buffer (how much?).
 
What kind of numbers would you target for 1, 2 and 3 above if you were to try this?  What are the less-than-obvious risks (e.g., an increase in the tax rate for dividends, a sharp increase in inflation)?  Other thoughts?

What do you guys think about this?
 
Please let me know your opinions?

I am watching a video from Morningstar (presenter Christine Benz) on bucket approach for building a retirement portfolio.
The simple theory is keep your 1 to 2 years expense need in Cash or cash equivalents; year 3 to 10 in high quality bonds; year 11 and beyond in stock and high yield bonds.
Wanted to reach out to this community to see how this approach has been adopted by some members and the outcome/usefulness in real life.
 
Thanks in advance for sharing your experience and feedback.

Wow, the action on short term CD's through Fidelity is phenomenal.
I am due for a rollover of my 6 month CD's and followed the fixed income path to renew since I do not sign up for auto rollover.
I initially settled for some 1.55% CD's but as I tracked them through just today, they changed significantly.
The next set a few hours later showed a 5 month duration for 1.6%.
Another hour and a half brought another offer for 1.65% with a full 6 month duration.
I initially thought this was too good to be true as it matched the 9 month duration.
When I discovered this offer, it was thousands of CD's @ $1000 per CD.
I checked just before closing and there were #6 remaining.
I think that page was more active than today's market, just kidding.
 

I'm in that position; believe we have 2X what we might need to see us through, and maybe still leave a good deal to heirs. Currently 7% cash, 25% bonds/funds. the balance in equities. Contemplating cashing out more equities, into cash. Have some equities up 600-1300%, in deferred accounts (IRAs). Anyone in a similar situation? Not a bad place to be, just looking to be prudent. Next year, RMD's start. Feel like I should draw down IRA. Any opinions?

To all who are already receiving Social Security benefits, or who will be in the near future, we need to do something to get Congress to address something they have overlooked for many years in talking about tax reform: namely, how Social Security benefits are taxed.
 
You are (or will become) aware that up to 85% of your Social Security benefits may be subject to federal income tax.  The actual percentage depends on how much in other income items you have on your tax return, including otherwise tax-favored items such as tax-exempt interest, qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, as well as other ordinary income items such as wages.
 
The latest tax law reform kept being touted as something to help "working families" (or something like that).  Congress completely left out any relief for people receiving Social Security benefits, the large majority of whom are retired (not working), elderly (however you want to define that), or disabled, or any combination thereof. 
 
Why do I say that there was no relief for those of us on Social Security?  The way that the tax on SS benefits is computed, there are certain dollar thresholds that determine how much of your SS benefits are taxed.  Those dollar thresholds were established in the early 1980s, and have never been indexed for inflation.
 
Those dollar thresholds were originally intended to tax only the wealthiest recipients of Social Security ("wealth" in the sense of other income, not assets).  However, over 30 years of inflation (and that includes some fairly significant inflation in the early 1980s -- I was there!), this tax has come to hit many people who are not "wealthy" and who have limited means of increasing their income (such as, not being able to go back to work).  Even the regular income tax brackets eventually were indexed for inflation; why not the tax "brackets" for taxation of SS benefits?
 
I've written in the past to my Senators and Representative, with no response.  Many of the people whose comments I've read in these discussion groups talk about their taxes being higher than expected in retirement when they have to start taking RMDs from their IRAs or 401(k)s, and this, I think, is due to the Social Security tax effect.  It just isn't right. 
 
Can we, as a group, try to do something?  Maybe a "letter-writing" (probably really email) campaign?  How do we mobilize a large number of Social Security recipients to get something done by Congress?
 
Thoughts?