Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 611

Does dividend investing make sense?

Investing for income – known as dividend investing when applied in the stock market – is a strategy that involves investing for yield while planning not to access the capital. Often it entails a preference for high income yields. But necessarily so. Dividend investing may also entail buying stocks that can grow the dividends they pay out over time. Either way, the underlying motivation is investing to capture an income stream.[1]

Income investing can be popular among wealthier individuals. It is often considered suitable for retirees, including parts of the super industry, on the basis that the aim during retirement is to generate ‘income’ to live on.

Does the strategy make sense? There are arguments on both sides, and no definitive answer. The discussion here focuses on dividend investing as a case study.

Arguments in support of dividend investing

  • When investing for long term, only the income matters – Holding a stock indefinitely means the entire ‘return’ comprises the dividend income received. Meanwhile, the share price in the interim may be viewed as largely irrelevant. Adopting this mindset can have behavioural benefits. Specifically, it supports the investor to look through market ‘noise’ and price volatility and encourages them to stay the course and not sell out in response to market declines.
  • Limiting the costs of investing – Holding stocks indefinitely to collect the dividends reduces the cost of investing through minimising transaction costs and potentially capital gains tax (CGT).
  • Capturing franking credits – Franking credits can provide a ‘return bonus’ to the extent that franking is not ‘priced’, i.e. embedded in share prices and hence lower dividend yields and expected returns. The consensus from the academic literature is that franking credits are partially priced at best.
  • Evidence that higher payout ratios are associated with higher earnings growthResearch finds that higher payout ratios (i.e. percentage of earnings paid out as dividends) have historically been associated with higher rather than lower earnings growth as might be expected. This implies that investing in stocks that pay generous dividends offers the potential to generate higher total returns[2].

Arguments that question dividend investing

  • The source of returns is secondary – Wealth generation depends on total return: whether this arises from dividends or capital gains is of limited consequence. Money for spending can be either taken as income or by selling some shares. One modest caveat is that the equivalence may be disrupted by differential tax rates on income versus capital and transaction costs. (Note: The tax impacts are complex.)
  • Dubious strategy for retirement – If the aim is to convert savings into retirement income support of spending during retirement, then dividend investing becomes quite dubious. Only spending the dividends received and not drawing down on the capital guarantees not fully utilising the savings. Worse still, if earnings and dividends rise over time then retirement income will grow. This pattern grates against the propensity for many retirees to decrease spending at older ages. (A caveat here is that retaining and growing capital may be appropriate if the aim is to leave a large bequest.)
  • ‘Never need to sell’ mentality not necessarily beneficial – Adopting a stance of focusing on income while intending to never sell only works if the rationale for holding a stock is enduring. It can work if a blue-chip or growth company can be found that survives and continues to prosper – although finding such stocks is easier said than done. A more important issue is that share price after purchase is not necessarily irrelevant. Dividend yields and expected returns constantly recalibrate as prices fluctuate. If the stock rises too high and the dividend yield decline, it may make sense to sell and redeploy the capital into better opportunities.
  • High dividends yields can be warning sign – High dividend yields may be a sign of unsustainability, i.e. a ‘dividend trap’. Dividends can also be generated by financial engineering, e.g. paying dividends out of capital rather than earnings. For example, a company could raise unneeded equity capital or borrowing to pay a higher dividend, but is essentially distributing capital not income.
  • The game may have changed for franking credits – Many Australian stocks appear highly valued versus their global counterparts (e.g. the banks). This might be a signal that franking credits may have become fully priced.

No substitute for investment fundamentals

What really matters for generating returns is investment fundamentals, rather than whether the returns come in the form of dividends or capital gains. For instance, a company paying out a large portion of their earnings as dividends may be a signal of either capital discipline or an absence of growth opportunities. Conversely, retaining a large portion of earnings could reflect attractive growth potential or reluctance to return capital to shareholder even though it cannot be invested productively. Distinguishing which of such possibilities might apply matters more than the dividend itself. In general, the capacity of a company to create, or at the very least maintain, shareholder value is likely to be the primary determinant of whether a stock can generate good long-term returns for investors. 

Also, a ‘never sell’ mindset can lead to ignoring signs of a fundamental change in a company’s capacity to create value. And it can also carry an investor all the way through into a bubble and out the other side, thus missing the opportunity to redeploy the capital elsewhere on more attractive terms. 

So … does dividend investing make sense?

There is no definitive answer to this question. Dividend investing might work for some investors, most notably wealth accumulators with very long horizons that may benefit from making investment income the focus. The main suggestion for such investors is to pay attention to investment fundamentals and the price paid for the income, and not just adopt a ‘never sell’ mindset. Meanwhile, dividend (i.e. income) investing seems a poor idea in retirement, unless the aim is to leave a large bequest. Basically, it all depends.

 

[1] Here are links to a few articles that pursue this line of thinking: Warren Buffett hates dividends: These charts and ASX 200 stocks make the case for dividend investing; https://www.firstlinks.com.au/an-alternative-asset-class-for-income-seeking-retirees; https://www.firstlinks.com.au/thornhill-living-investment-income-retirement
[2] The evidence on whether high returns are also generated is more mixed. Also, whether the rise of the magnificent seven US tech stocks may change the conclusions is an interesting question.

 

Geoff Warren is a Research Fellow with The Conexus Institute, and an Honorary Associate Professor at the Australian National University.

 

20 Comments
Dudley
May 16, 2025

Withdraw dividends or withdraw capital? Huh?

Cash dividends and other cash income instantly convert to cash capital when deposited in a bank account.

Sold equity instantly converts to cash capital when cash proceeds are deposited in a bank account.

Withdrawal is moving cash capital from one bank account (eg business or fund) to another (eg personal).

Typically, FIRST part of cash capital withdrawn is from cash capital already in bank.

If a required withdrawal is greater than cash capital in bank then SECOND part of cash capital withdrawal is selling equity and depositing the cash proceeds in a bank account from where extra cash capital can be withdrawn to satisfy the required withdrawal amount.

A cash capital withdrawal requirement greater than the cash capital available PRECIPITATES sale of equity to create more cash capital.

A cash capital withdrawal requirement less than the cash capital available, does not precipitate sale of equity.

Income in excess of withdrawals is called SAVING.
Generally good for those with long longevity, less necessary for those with short longevity.

ivan fisher
May 16, 2025

"Worse still, if earnings and dividends rise over time then retirement income will grow. This pattern grates against the propensity for many retirees to decrease spending at older ages. "

Huh ? that makes zero sense . There's many reasons a retiree may decrease spending , having extra income isn't one of them
If surplus income is such a problem then they can donate it to keep themselves frugal

Rob W
May 16, 2025

The following statement just does not make any sense, "If the aim is to convert savings into retirement income support of spending during retirement, then dividend investing becomes quite dubious. Only spending the dividends received and not drawing down on the capital guarantees not fully utilising the savings. Worse still, if earnings and dividends rise over time then retirement income will grow."
How is it that any of these events happening is a bad thing? Surely, the above outcome is exactly what every dividend investor aspires to? I know I do, dividend income of $220k pa means I don't NEED to sell any shares. How on earth is that a problem?

Geoff Warren
May 16, 2025

Rob - Good luck to if you have accumulated enough assets to have $220K in dividends! (Which must be something above $4m in shares at current gross yields, depending on the portfolio. Let alone whatever other assets you hold.) Admittedly my arguments around retirement are not aimed at people who have accumulated more wealth than they reasonably want to spend. I don't think this invalidates my points, but rather places a further condition on them. Specifically, the objective for those who are quite wealthy may not be to convert assets into income, but rather what happens to their leftover wealth when they die. My mentioning of dividend investing potentially making sense under a bequest motive was getting at this. Your comment places another light on the issue. Geoff

b0b555
May 16, 2025

In my mind, dividend investing does a reasonable job of addressing 3 of the major risks in retirement, namely sequencing, inflation and longevity risks.

I'm happy with the approach.

Geoff Warren
May 16, 2025

But not the risk of the regret, i.e. that you die without having got as much out of your assets that you might have.

Alan
May 15, 2025

I am concerned that this article makes little mention of risk which is inherent in any investment. I believe all investors need to consider many other things including the trade off between risk and return before any
unresolved debate about dividend investing. I'd like to see a proper reasoned analysis of the debate about setting objectives, identifying what risk needs to be managed etc before debating investment strategy.

Geoff Warren
May 16, 2025

Alan - I have no disagreement that risk is highly relevant, and that it ultimately relates back to your objectives and failure to achieve them, and that investment strategy to meet those objectives and sits down the pile. My aim with this article was a lot more modest: to set out the for-and-against arguments for dividend investing as an investment strategy, with reference to how it is usually discussed. Only so many words are allowed in these forums. Geoff

Lisa Romano
May 15, 2025

Thanks for highlighting this debate. While it is true I vacillate over whether to draw down principal or use earnings, in the inflationary environment we are (perhaps) beginning to see wind down I have been forced to do both to keep up with the comfortable – but not overtly extravagant – retirement lifestyle I've carved out. I'm ever grateful I decided early in my career to save and invest, It is a strategy that has paid off handsomely and there is no finer state then independence, whether it be humble or not.

Sean
May 15, 2025

Invest in the book Motivated Money for the answer to the author's rhetorical question.

Geoff Warren
May 16, 2025

Dean - Did you not see that there was a link to a Firstlinks interview with Peter Thornhill in the footnotes to my article? Geoff

Kevin Buxton
May 15, 2025

If as you say, there is no definitive answer to the question you have posed, what is the point of this article?

Investing is fundamentally a simple process - buy at the bottom of the market and sell at the top, and wealth
" materializes ". Do the opposite and wealth " evaporates ".
The skill is in timing any decision to buy or sell assets as this requires an understanding of market behavior, which
comes with experience over time.

Geoff Warren
May 16, 2025

Buy at the bottom and sell at the top? I wish that I could do that!

K.Buxton
May 16, 2025

It's an aspiration, a mindset and believe it or not on some occasions i've almost succeeded.
Some investment " experts" actually advise investors not to pursue this approach which means you will never benefit from bargain buys or unexpected windfalls (unless by some stroke of good fortune).



christian
May 15, 2025

I have been a smsf "dividend" invester for approx 34 years.(retired at 50yoa)
over this time I have paid myself a minimum of 10% per annum (sometimes 20% in a good year).

Originally I was very cautious but as I aged , and my family were well cared for in a financial sense, income "now' was what mattered to me, rather than potential growth.
Although capital growth has happened along the way, it has obviously not been at a level that if I had invested for growth and I have had the odd failures as well (3).
Of course these returns did not happen by accident, I have closely followed the market daily and have actively sort out opportunities as they presented.
It certainly kept my aged mind active.

Maurie
May 15, 2025

A very measured article Geoff. Thank you. The debate over whether income in retirement should take the form of dividends and/or capital gains is a vexed one and appears to have no end date. However, if the Hawke/Keating Government did not reform the tax system in the mid-1980s, I would speculate that the debate would be more one-sided in favour of capital returns. A Berkshire Hathaway model would have been very popular in Australia prior to 1985 but less so after 1 July 1987. The landmark changes to the tax system (introduction of capital gains tax and dividend imputation) have crept into the psyche of not only retirees but company directors over the years in the pursuit of the most tax efficient returns. Today, the concept of dividend imputation has mainstream acknowledgement amongst the retired fraternity and given the slide in interest rates over that same period, I would imagine that retirees have income from ownership (dividends) on a higher pedestal than income from lending (interest).

On the other side of the debate, the idea of having to partially sell an investment to provide a source of cashflow would come with a significant element of regret for these retirees, and in some circumstances (e.g. CBA) would be viewed as an act of insanity. Whilst the tax system has over the years introduced concessions for (realised) returns generated on capital account, there is still a psychological barrier associated with drawing down capital for consumption akin to the thought of "chewing you arm off".

Geoff Warren
May 16, 2025

Thanks Maurie. You make some good points.

Alex
May 15, 2025

The point that dividend investing is a 'dubious / poor strategy for retirement' doesn't make sense at all. Why would an increasing earning/dividend become a problem even if one's spending decreases as he/she ages, especially in your life phase when you can no longer work to generate income?

Geoff Warren
May 16, 2025

My point is that it builds up income and probably assets that won’t get spent, the upshot of which will be leaving a large bequest. If this is what the retiree wants, then fine. But if they want to get as much spending out of their assets as can be reasonably afforded, it will undershoot what can be achieved by a long way. For that to occur, some capital needs to be drawn down along the way. Hope this helps clear up what I am trying to say.

Disgruntled
May 16, 2025

I'll be retiring at 60 when I have reached preservation age and will cease working and access my Superannuation.

With the likely $2.1M TBC when I'm 60, using a 4% withdrawal rate (minimum currently) will give me $84K

I could also have income dividend shares outside of Super to take advantage of the Tax Free threshold and have another $20K or so.

I don't need over $100K a year to live on. I'd likely have $30k to $40K surplus each year to spend n lifestyle and leisure, overseas trips to avoid Melbourne Winters planned for the first few years of retirement whilst still able and active enough to do the travel.

After that, the years will see domestic travel. Minimum drawdown will be 5%, all things being equal, Super will be worth more so income should now be higher and I will likely be at the stage where my expenditure will start to drop with the reduced travel, seen what I wanted to see.

Income should always cover my needs without eating into capital.

This could well change if in my 80's I need to go into aged care.. My father went into aged care at 87. My mother is 82 and lives on her own and is self sufficient, still drives, still mobile.. I feel confident that I will live into my 80's. Family genetics on both sides are for an 80's to early 90's life expectancy bar accidental death.

The income will give me a fulfilling retirement lifestyle, the capital will give me a buffer for medical/aged care if needed in old age and there will be money for my 3 boys on my passing.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

The two best ways to maximise dividend income

Looking beyond banks for dividend income

The best income-generating assets for your portfolio

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Pros and cons of Labor's home batteries scheme

Labor has announced a $2.3 billion Cheaper Home Batteries Program, aimed at slashing the cost of home batteries. The goal is to turbocharge battery uptake, though practical difficulties may prevent that happening.

Howard Marks: the investing game has changed

The famed investor says the rapid switch from globalisation to trade wars is the biggest upheaval in the investing environment since World War Two. And a new world requires a different investment approach.

4 ways to take advantage of the market turmoil

Every crisis throws up opportunities. Here are ideas to capitalise on this one, including ‘overbalancing’ your portfolio in stocks, buying heavily discounted LICs, and cherry picking bombed out sectors like oil and gas.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 606 with weekend update

The boss of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, UniSuper’s John Pearce, says Trump has declared an economic war and he’ll be reducing his US stock exposure over time. Should you follow suit?

  • 10 April 2025

An enlightened dividend path

While many chase high yields, true investment power lies in companies that steadily grow dividends. This strategy, rooted in patience and discipline, quietly compounds wealth and anchors investors through market turbulence.

Buy the dips?

The Australian stock market has had almost 40 dips of 10% or more since 1920, with many of these triggered by weakness in the US. What would have happened in each case had you 'bought the dip'?

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Investment strategies

Does dividend investing make sense?

Dividend investing offers steady income and behavioral benefits, but its effectiveness depends on goals, market conditions, and fundamentals - especially in retirement, where it may limit full use of savings.

Economics

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

Strategy

Ageing in spurts

Fascinating initial studies suggest that while we age continuously in years, our bodies age, not at a uniform rate, but in spurts at around ages 44 and 60.

Interviews

Platinum's new international funds boss shifts gears

Portfolio Manager Ted Alexander outlines the changes that he's made to Platinum's International Fund portfolio since taking charge in March, while staying true to its contrarian, value-focused roots.

Investment strategies

Four ways to capitalise on a forgotten investing megatrend

The Trump administration have not killed the multi-decade investment opportunity in decarbonisation. These four industries in particular face a step-change in demand and could reward long-term investors.

Strategy

How the election polls got it so wrong

The recent federal election outcome has puzzled many, with Labor's significant win despite a modest primary vote share. Preference flows played a crucial role, highlighting the complexity of forecasting electoral results.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.