No as KK says.
Printable View
"If you had to sell shares for an emergency you wouldn't be selling them at a "loss".You would be selling them for what they are worth".
This statement implies you believe in EMH, since if you are made to sell at a point you could be selling them when they are undervalued.
As the recent discussion about selling shares in case of an emergency expense, more often there's flip side. What about the investors that don't want a dividend because they don't feel they need the cash flow? What if a person does not expect to upgrade or buy a new car until 2 or 3 years time, yet they've been receiving dividend payments where as Buffett says, how can you be so certain that the individual can reinvest those cash proceeds in a manner that does better than owning the shares instead?
I don't subscribe to the belief that great companies always pay a dividend. Look at the tech stocks that trade in the US exchange. It's very clear the CEOs focus is less about dividend payments and more about 'increasing shareholder value' ; the former is a draining of capital of the shareholder's equity. You can't have it both ways.
Good evening!
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. Some fascinating replies.