Trump’s New Rule Aims to Expand Health Coverage and Lower Costs

By Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.  The Daily signal

The Trump administration just announced a major regulatory change, effective Jan. 1, 2020, that could significantly expand access to affordable health coverage and increase the choice of health plans, particularly among workers and their families in small businesses.

The proposed rule, jointly developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Treasury Department, would allow employer-sponsored health reimbursement accounts to fund the purchase of individual health insurance on a tax-free basis.

Today, workers and their families can use tax-free health reimbursement accounts to offset medical expenses, such as out-of-pocket medical costs. Under the new rule, workers and their families could use employer contributions to the accounts to buy health insurance on their own.

This opportunity is particularly valuable for workers employed by small business owners who cannot afford to offer standard group health insurance, but who could afford to help offset the premium costs of their employees’ individual coverage.

Treasury Department officials estimate that the new rule could encourage as many as 800,000 employers to sponsor health reimbursement accounts, or HRAs, to fund individual coverage for more than 10 million workers.

This relief is crucial, particularly for workers and their families in small businesses. With the enactment of Obamacare in 2010, the already fragile condition of health coverage among small businesses worsened. For little companies with fewer than 25 workers, the percentage of businesses offering health insurance fell from 44 percent in 2010 to just 30 percent in 2018.

The Trump rule has the potential not only to expand coverage, but also to increase employees’ choices in health plans.

Among small and midsize companies (with fewer than 200 employees), 81 percent offered only one health plan as of last year. No choice, just a “take it or leave it” option.

The Trump rule would open up new coverage opportunities for employers and employees.

The rule also has some ancillary benefits for workers already covered by traditional, employer-sponsored health insurance. It would permit employers to contribute up to $1,800 yearly (indexed to inflation) to reimburse workers for certain additional medical expenses, such as dental benefits, as well as premiums for short-term health insurance plans. Such less expensive plans are especially valuable for persons who are between jobs.

The impact of the Trump rule could prove genuinely transformational, if Congress would take the obvious next step: Adopt the reform policies outlined in the Health Care Choices Proposal, developed by a broad coalition of conservative health policy analysts.

That proposal would restore the bulk of regulatory authority over health insurance markets to the states, provide financial assistance for the poor and the sick, and enable persons in government programs to use public funding to enroll in a private health plan of their choice, if they wished to do so.

By enabling states to liberalize their health insurance markets, Congress could enable employees, using health reimbursement accounts as a vehicle for tax-free premium payments, to choose among a variety of new and innovative plans.

Today, enrollees in the broken individual and small group markets are trapped in artificially expensive Obamacare plans. They are punished with explosive deductibles, shrinking choices, and excessively narrow networks of doctors and hospitals.

Working together, Congress and the president could yet achieve the greater policy goal long supported by America’s most notable economists, including the late Milton Friedman: individual tax relief for the purchase of health insurance in a robust and competitive consumer-driven market.

That change could be, in the very best sense of the word, revolutionary.

They're bidding for what?!!!

They're bidding for what?! By Jason Stutman Less than a month from today, the world will witness a modern David versus Goliath story play out. On November 14th, David Beyerle, a communications engineer at Penn State University's IT department, will go toe to toe with a long list of major internet service providers (ISPs). The ticket includes some of the most powerful carriers on the planet, namely Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and AT&T. If you’re hoping for blood, you won’t find any in this fight. The battle will be overseen by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in an orderly fashion. No fists will be thrown and no stones will be flung. Nonetheless, it will be a fierce and hard-fought bout. The prize won’t be anything you can touch or hold in your hands, yet it will be incredibly valuable to those who wish to wield it. Largely ignored by the mainstream media, the battle for something known as "millimeter waves" is one where investors will want a front-row seat. Millimeter Waves: What Are They, and Why Are They So Valuable? Millimeter waves, I have to admit, aren’t exactly a sexy topic. Most people have probably never even heard of millimeter waves before, but there’s a reason multibillion-dollar conglomerates are lining up to bid for them in a series of highly anticipated government auctions. There’s a reason even underdogs like David Beyerle are hoping for a moonshot to get their hands on them... Occupying the spectrum of frequencies between 24 GHz and 28 GHz, millimeter waves are much like any other form of wireless communication we’re already familiar with. Radio, cellular, and satellite all operate within specific ranges of wavelengths and frequencies. Sending information through thin air may seem like magic to some, but the technology is based entirely in physics. Imperceptible to the human eye, electromagnetic waves of all shapes and sizes are constantly flowing through (or bouncing off) you at any given moment. These waves all carry a set of physical properties that determine how they can be used for human benefit (or even harm). Frequency, wavelength, and photon energy ultimately determine what are known as propagation characteristics, or the way waves move through the atmosphere. Again, this isn’t exactly enthralling information, but it absolutely matters. The point is that data doesn’t just travel through empty air; it rides physical waves, which are ultimately finite in supply. This is why local television and radio broadcasters have unique “channel” assignments. Designating channels to specific broadcasters allows for multiple routes of communication without interference. If we didn’t divvy up these channels, wireless communication would be as effective as a two-way highway with no lanes and no median. Hence the upcoming FCC auction for millimeter wave, a spectrum that will be crucial in the next generation of mobile communication, or 5G. The Very Foundation of 5G Without digging too deep into the details, millimeter waves operate within a range of relatively short wavelengths and high frequencies. This combination makes them incredibly effective at sending large amounts of data (high bandwidth) through the air to many different devices at once. Now, high bandwidth on its own, of course, isn’t anything new. Infrared and optical wavelengths, in fact, can support higher data rates than millimeter waves can. These shorter wavelengths, however, are easily disrupted by the atmosphere. All it takes is a little bit of rain or fog to disrupt the signal, hence the use of optical fiber to prevent any interference. Millimeter waves, though, are much more durable in the air. Not quite as durable as radio waves, mind you, but enough to get the job done. In short, millimeter waves exist at the perfect intersection between distance and bandwidth. In the balancing act of the electromagnetic spectrum, they are essential to increasing the capacity of wireless communication as far as we need it today. Needless to say, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile have incredible incentive to control parts of the millimeter spectrum. Barring an act of God on behalf of David Beyerle, they’ll easily outbid the remaining competition when the FCC auctions kick off on November 14th.Why This All Matters to You The millimeter wave spectrum may hold incredible value for ISPs, but it isn’t enough on its own. At the end of the day, these ISPs need access points to send and receive those signals. Because millimeter waves can only travel so far, mobile carriers and their infrastructure partners have to tighten the net, so to speak. Instead of enormous cell towers every 20 miles or so, “small cell” towers are being deployed across the U.S. (and soon the entire world) in order to make full use of that millimeter spectrum. In 2019 you’re going to start seeing these small cells popping up all over the place, if you haven’t already. They’ll be deployed on city sidewalks (perhaps disguised as lamp posts to conform to specific regulations), atop parking garages, and elsewhere. All told, North American enterprises are expected to deploy a total of 400,000 small cells by the end of 2018, up from 292,000 in 2017. By 2020, that number is forecast to reach 552,000 small cells per year. By 2025, the number is expected to reach 849,000. Needless to say this is going to be an explosive trend for the next half-decade and then some. For investors, it’s a potential gold mine, as the companies behind these small cell deployments have yet to reach the attention of the masses. Frankly, we don’t expect that to last much longer, as 5G is less than a year away from becoming truly mainstream, so there’s a sense of urgency here I cannot stress enough. My best is advice is to locate the top 5G stocks ASAP. You don't want to wait on this opportunity.

Trump’s Plan to Cut Budget by 5% Meets With Skepticism

From the Daily Signal

With the federal budget deficit reaching $779 billion, President Donald Trump is asking Cabinet members to cut spending in their departments by 5 percent next fiscal year.

Because such trimming is hardly slashing the total budget, however, some experts question whether that even will make a difference in fiscal 2020, which will begin Oct. 1, 2019.

The national debt is more than $21 trillion.

“We’re going to ask every Cabinet secretary to cut 5 percent for next year,” Trump said Wednesday during a Cabinet meeting.

The president, asked about increases in defense spending, said: “The military was falling apart, it was depleted, it was in very bad shape.”

Congress approved an increase in the military budget to $716 billion for fiscal 2019, but there will be a cut, Trump said, “probably” to $700 billion, for fiscal 2020.

Given the $779 billion budget deficit, and a 13 percent increase in discretionary spending from 2017 to 2018, each department should be able to cut 5 percent, said Justin Bogie, senior policy analyst in fiscal affairs for The Heritage Foundation.

Federal spending is also set to increase by more than 3 percent from 2018 to 2019. Congress and federal agencies should adhere to the 2011 Budget Control Act, which limits the growth in spending, Bogie said.

“Congress should stick to the current discretionary budget caps and, moving forward, should look to implement a cap on all spending,” Bogie told The Daily Signal. “We support defense spending to the level needed. But if you increase it, you should find a way to pay for it through cuts elsewhere.”

The president acknowledged that some fiscal hawks likely won’t believe a 5 percent cut is enough.

“Some will say I can do much more than 5 [percent],” Trump said during the Cabinet meeting, but added: “It will get rid of the fat, get rid of the waste. It’ll have a huge impact.”

Such a cut is achievable, since government spending increased by 16 percent in the previous two years, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

“We should be able to scale back one-third of that, easily,” MacGuineas said in a prepared statement. “A 5 percent cut will actually cost money, though, since current law brings back budget caps next year that equal a 10 percent cut. So going with 5 percent over 10 percent means a $63 billion deficit increase just for a single year.”

She added:

Something will have to give if we stay on our current track. With trillion-dollar deficits returning in as soon as a year—indefinitely—5 percent budget cuts to a small portion of the budget will pale in comparison to what will be needed in 15 years.

Thoughtful reforms phased in now over time will be much better for the American people and economic growth.

Presidential budget proposals rarely are enacted by Congress.

Some Cabinet members previously ran large organizations and will have some expertise in managing waste, said Tom Schatz, president of the nonprofit Citizens Against Government Waste.

“This is better than nothing, but we’d like to see more,” Schatz told The Daily Signal. “It’s achievable. We’d rather see a 10 percent cut.”

“If this was the Trump Organization,” Schatz said of the president, “he could say he wants a 10 percent cut and employees would come back with 15 percent. But given how government works, 5 percent is a good start.”

The Fed has gone crazy

By Briton Ryle Written Oct. 15, 2018 In this age of machines and ETFs, there just aren't slow grinds to the downside. Instead, we get gut-wrenching plunges that push indicators from extremely bullish to extremely bearish in a matter of two or three days... Remember that VIX crash back in February, when the S&P 500 corrected by 13%? It actually started during the last couple days of January. The high for the S&P 500 came on January 26. And it didn't really get back to rally mode until May 3. But the bulk came during just three sessions between February 2 and February 8. If you blinked, you missed it.   The machines make sure selling is relentless. And ETFs make sure that when the selling starts, it's everything.   It's a pretty wicked combination. It looks very much like panic selling. Though we really don't how it will look if/when some real panic selling hits. If we can get 800–1,000-point drops on the Dow for no good reason, does that mean we'll see 3,000-point drops if we get another 2008–9 financial crisis?  The best thing any of us can do to navigate these types of sell-offs is know what's causing investors to suddenly hit the sell button. Knowledge is the best antidote for fear. So that's where we're going today: to take a look at what crushed the Dow 1,400 points in two days last week. Interest Rates or Trade War? I've seen a lot of commentary that investors are really worried about interest rates going higher. You've probably heard the supposed cause-and-effect relationship between the Fed hiking rates and the economy hitting recession. But let me tell you: Rising interest rates do not cause recessions. It's the bad decisions that get made when rates are low that eventually cause recessions.  Did Greenspan's rate hikes cause the financial crisis? Of course not. A 500-point rate hike might've popped the internet bubble, but it was 9/11 that really hit the economy.  So now the Fed has hiked interest rates to 2.25%... and people are worried that's going to bring it all crashing down? Please, just stop. Rates were 5.25% before the financial crisis. And the hike that broke the internet bubble took rates to 6.5%.   Of course, it's a relative thing, how much rates have gone up and how fast. You'd be hard-pressed to say rates have risen a lot, or fast. But still, today's first-time homebuyers might've only been in middle school the last time rates were "high." All they know is a mortgage is more expensive today than it was a year ago. Same with a new car payment. And that's kind of the point: Make money more expensive, and people tend to borrow and spend less.  On the corporate front, it is likely that higher rates will affect stock buybacks. Companies have been buying back about $1 trillion of their own stock for the past six years. And that's been a solid source of upside for prices. Problem is, they've borrowed to do it. Not because they don't have the cash — they do. But when rates are so low, it makes sense to borrow at the low rate and keep the cash on the books and invested.  Companies aren't likely to start spending their cash, either. The most obvious response to higher rates is simply to borrow less. Which means fewer buybacks. But of course, fewer corporate buybacks aren't going to make the U.S. economy slow down... When it comes to a slowing economy and the potential for recession, we have to look to what could kick off the vicious cycle. Less spending → lower profits → corporate layoffs → less spending.   The answer is tariffs. The Ford Problem Last week was not great for Ford. The carmaker had to admit that China sales were down over 40%, that its annual profit would be $1 billion lower than last year, and that it was going to restructure its workforce and layoff thousands. Hello, vicious cycle! Now, Ford has some issues of its own that are contributing. But pretty much all automakers saw their sales decline in China for the last three months. It's the tariffs and trade tensions.  China's stock market has been selling off since February, when the first tariffs were announced. The Chinese economy is weakening. You could say this proves that the tariffs are working, that China will be forced to negotiate. But tariffs will hurt the U.S., too. And Europe. Because the bottom line is that China is now an end market for Ford, for Apple, for Harley-Davidson, for Nike, for Starbucks... And it's also the most important end market in the world due to the combination of size and growth. Now, like with Ford, major corporations are at risk of joining the vicious cycle that starts with slowing sales in China.  I think the risk of recession in the next months is high. And it's a virtual certainty if there's no trade deal with China.  You know the financial media will run around like headless chickens, shrieking, "Trade war! Trade war!" And given the elevated valuations, the downside for stocks could be pretty decent. But ultimately, any tariff-related recession ought to be pretty mild. So here's the game plan... Check through your stocks, pinpoint the ones that aren't great, and get rid of them. Keep the great ones. And start putting some cash aside to buy more great stocks when they get cheap. That's it. Pretty simple. But as Buffett said, the most important trait for an investor is patience.

Government Economists Offer Window Into What a Socialist US Economy Would Look Like

By Fred Lucas the Daily Signal

If the United States were to adopt the socialist policies of Venezuela, the move would slash the economy by 40 percent—or $24,000 per year for the average American, according to a report by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“Coincident with the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth, socialism is making a comeback in American political discourse,” says the council’s report, “The Opportunity Costs of Socialism.”

“Detailed policy proposals from self-declared socialists are gaining support in Congress and among much of the electorate,” the report continues.

The report specifically cites so-called “Medicare-for-all” proposals, which essentially would be a single-payer health care program. The study found that if Medicare-for-all were financed out of current federal spending—without additional borrowing or tax increases—it would eat up more than half of the entire federal budget.

That would require drastic cuts in Social Security and in national defense to pay for it, said Kevin Hassett, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday.

Further, the report states, if the Medicare-for-all plan were financed through higher taxes, the gross domestic product would fall by 9 percent, or about $7,000 per person in 2022, because of the high tax rates that would reduce incentives to supply the factors of production.

Venezuela, where the economy is falling apart, is a profound example of what can happen under socialism, Hassett said.

“When you have a breakdown in the rule of law, and you take away private-property rights, it’s not unusual to have a pattern of destabilization,” he said. “When you undermine property rights, it undermines stability.”

Citing the worst examples, the report refers to Mao-era China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union, which nationalized the agriculture industry and caused tens of millions of deaths by starvation.

Asked about current-day China’s strong economic growth, Hassett said that’s due largely to a “hybrid” within its economy that allows private property and market forces in the parts of the economy that are most successful.

Even if the United States adopted the less-repressive socialist policies of Nordic countries—Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland—it would mean a 15 percent lower standard of living, the council’s report says.

The Nordic countries in some areas are less regulated than the United States, the report says.

“Marginal labor income-tax rates in the Nordic countries today are only somewhat higher than in the United States, and Nordic taxation overall is surprisingly less progressive than U.S. taxes,” the report says.

“However, the Nordic countries do regulate and tax labor markets somewhat more; thus, American families earning the average wage would be taxed $2,000 to $5,000 more per year net of transfers if the United States had current Nordic policies,” the report continues. “Living standards in the Nordic countries are at least 15 percent lower than in the United States.”

However, in the 1970s, the Nordic countries had more restrictive socialist policies. If the U.S. adopted the Nordic policies of that era, the gross domestic product would be about 20 percent lower, according to the council’s report.

Growing number of $100,000-plus public pensions in Illinois cost taxpayers

• By Greg Bishop | Illinois News Network

The Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois.

John Spataro | Illinois News Network

Two recent studies of public sector pay and retirement benefits show tens of thousands of retired Illinois public employees making six-figures or more in all levels of government, dwarfing figures from states with more people.

Two organizations that reviewed and released the information hope it encourages taxpayers to seek change.

Illinois has more than $130 billion in unfunded pension debt for its five state-run pension systems. Adding in other post employment benefits, that number climbs to more than $200 billion. Municipal governments in Illinois also are struggling with unfunded pension liability. Some report using most, if not all, of their share of property taxes to pay pension costs.

Taxpayers United of America said Illinois’ public sector pension plans are too expensive. To highlight the problem, its annual pension report of all public employees in Illinois shows nearly 19,500 government retirees getting a pension of $100,000 or more. That’s 2,500 more retirees than last year.

The group's founder, Jim Tobin, said that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

“The pensions are just out of line,” he said. “We’ve got one guy here who’s getting an annual pension of almost $600,000 a year and he’ll get $22 million if he lives to be 85. It’s ridiculous.”

OpenTheBooks.com founder Adam Andrzejewski said Illinois has more educators in the so-called $100,000 Club than more populous Texas, which has 7,300 educators making that much or more.

“Just on salaries, Illinois has nearly 20,000, so it’s three times worse, yet Texas has twice the population,” Andrzejewski said.

Andrzejewski’s research shows overall, 23,000 retirees got $100,000 or more in annual pension payments. Adding in the 71,000 employees at every level of government making at least that much in pay, and the number is 94,000 current public employees or pensioners making $100,000 or more a year. That costs taxpayers $12 billion a year.

There were also private associations Andrzejewski’s research highlights where it’s employees are getting big payouts.

“Two of the highest earners within the municipal pension system work for private associations – not government,” the report said, showing two park district association officials making more than $320,000 a year. “These private nonprofits muscled their way into the government system, and their huge salaries will guarantee lavish taxpayer-funded pensions.”

Then there are double dippers, including a former governor.

“Former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar double dipped the Illinois General Assembly pension ($166,000 per year), the State University Retirement System pension ($83,000 per year), and was hired back ‘part time’ by the University of Illinois for another $62,769,” Andrzejewski’s report said. “In total, Edgar pulled down more than $311,000 last year – in addition to the $2.4 million in compensation from the University of Illinois (2000-2013) and another $2 million in pension payments already paid-out from his 20-year career as legislator, secretary of state and governor.”

The Taxpayers United of America report found there are two pensioners making $500,000 or more a year. Nine retirees are getting in excess of $400,000 a year in pensions, 42 make $300,000 or more a year. From there, the numbers climb. More than 440 government retirees make $200,000 or more a year. More than 19,480 government retirees make $100,000 a year while the bulk, 107,092, make more than $50,000 in annual pensions.

The average total public sector pension payout for a lifetime, according to Taxpayers United of America, is $1.45 million in Illinois while the average retirement age almost 61 years old.

“We have to work into our 60s and 70s so these people can retire in their 50s and 60s on these ridiculous exorbitant pensions which is nothing short of legalized theft,” Tobin said.

Even more stark is what Taxpayers United of America reports employee withholdings deposited into the various funds, or $1.9 billion, compared with the $8.7 billion taxpayers pay into the funds.

“Nowhere is that available in the private sector,” Tobin said. “It’s just something that doesn’t happen, but it happens here in Illinois every time people get into these government pensions wherever they are in the state of Illinois.”

Tobin said all government new hires must be put in self-managed plans and the state constitution should be changed to allow diminishment of benefits.

Andrzejewski said “it’s time to slap a pay cap on the highly compensated public employees at every level of Illinois government.”

“People need to raise their voice, they need to give public comment, they need to start holding their elected officials accountable for tax and spend decisions,” Andrzejewski said.

The exorbitant pay and benefits is unsustainable, he said, and it takes resources away from other government services.

Tags

• Pension
 
• Politics
 
• Welfare
 
• Pay
 
• Government
 
• Work
 
• Employee
 
• Retiree
 
• Adam Andrzejewski
 
• Payout
 
• Economics

Are Dividends Really That Great?

Are Dividends Really That Great?

By Jason Williams Written Oct. 05, 2018

If you’ve been reading Wealth Daily for a while, then you’ve probably noticed that I talk about dividends. A lot. I’m a believer in dividend investing. And it’s paid off very well for both me and subscribers to The Wealth Advisory, an investment newsletter I coauthor. If a company has extra money and doesn’t share it with the owners, what good is it really? A good investment should spin off profit. And dividend-paying stocks do just that. But it’s not just me that’s smitten by income. Some of the best investors and richest folks in the world insist on their investments paying them back. The Dividend Aristocracy Many people, me included, use Warren Buffett as an example of an all-star dividend investor. It’s really because one of his investments is the absolute best real-world example of the power of dividends. Back in the 1980s, Coca-Cola stock was trading around $2 a share and paid an annual dividend worth a whopping 49%. Today, it trades for $45 a share but only pays a dividend worth about 3%. But that’s 3% of $45, or $1.56 a year. If you bought Coke back in the 1980s like Warren Buffett did, you’d be getting almost your entire initial investment back this year in dividend payments. And you’d have been collecting those payments for over 30 years. Warren Buffett bought more than $1 billion of Coca-Cola shares in 1988 for an average price around $2.45. After collecting and reinvesting dividends for the past three decades, he has grown that investment to over $38 billion. And last year alone, he received over $1 billion in dividend payments. He just got more in dividends than he invested in the first place. If you add up all the payments over the past 30 years, he’s gotten nearly $12 billion in dividend payments alone! But he’s not the only investor who’s crazy for dividends. Have you ever seen the TV show Shark Tank? The billionaire investors on there make most of their money through venture capital and private equity investments. But when they do invest in stocks, they insist on dividends. Mark Cuban recently said he’d cut his stock portfolio down. He now only owns two non-dividend-paying stocks. All the rest provide him with regular, dependable income. And Kevin O’Leary is so smitten by dividends that he started an ETF company called O’Shares that focuses only on dividend-paying investments. Those are some pretty big names who’ve been pretty successful in accumulating wealth. It might be wise to take their advice. But if you need more, there’s a whole lot of it. Brilliant Minds Some incredibly smart folks at JPMorgan did a study where they went back to the 1970s and examined the returns of dividend and non-dividend stocks. You can read through it at your leisure. But I’ll summarize for you here. Over the long term, dividend-paying stocks posted the strongest returns and had lower volatility than the rest of the market. That means they go up faster and aren’t as likely to crash. The average return of a stock that pays and grows its dividend is 9.5% per year. The average for a dividend payer with no growth is 7.2%. The average for non-dividend stocks is 1.6%. That shows us that dividend payers that grow their payments — like Coca-Cola — give investors better returns than any others. And finally, companies with attractive yields and low payout ratios outperform the entire market. That’s to say that dividend payers with a nice 3–5% yield that aren’t shelling out too much profit in payments give you a bigger gain than any other kind of stock out there. The CFA Institute also recently released a study on dividend investing and the difference it can make. You can check that out when you have time, too. But the main finding was that high-dividend payers have the least risk yet return over 1.5% more per year than non-dividend payers. Why would you want to invest in anything else? Seriously. I want to tell you about an investment the subscribers to my advisory service recently made. It’s a really amazing stock. But you’d have no idea by looking at its chart over the past five years.. When 15 Is Bigger Than 64 It’s called DNP. It’s a closed-end fund that invests in dividend-paying companies. It’s been up and down, but never that much. And after half a decade, it’s only up 15.2%. That doesn’t sound like a great investment to me. Tesla’s been up and down, but at least it’s up 64% over that period... But the thing is, you have to look beyond the price to see the real return from DNP. Because it’s then that you’ll understand why DNP’s 15% was a bigger return than TSLA’s 64%... DNP pays a dividend to its shareholders. Tesla doesn’t. And while DNP’s stock price didn’t move all that much, DNP investors made more in the past five years than anyone holding Tesla stock. And the DNP investors didn’t have to deal with the heartburn Tesla’s fans have... Look at that jagged chart for Tesla and that nice smooth upward line for DNP. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have my investment tracking the yellow line. Dropping Some Knowledge Divvies Now, I’m not the kind of guy to get you all excited and then not give you a way to put that energy to work. No, no. I’m far better than that. So, I’m going to share a couple of my favorite dividend investments with you so you can go out and get started today. Now, you already know I’m a big fan of DNP. It trades in a really tight rage (between $10 and $12). So you don’t have to worry about timing your buys. They’re all good prices. And its dividend has never failed. You really can’t go wrong putting some money to work there. I’m also a big fan of Starbucks. Up until just recently, it was an active recommendation in The Wealth Advisory. And it paid off big for us while we held it. We may even get invested again once things between China and The Donald cool off some. The company just started paying dividends a few years ago. And it’s managed by top-notch talent. It’s a ubiquitous brand that has global recognition. My only real concern is that a lot of its expansion plan hinges on China. And it could get a lot tougher for American companies to do business over there. China aside, Starbucks is an amazing company, and I expect it’ll be paying those dividends for decades to come. Third, I’m going to tell you about an entire family of investments that not many folks know about. They’re called REITs. It stands for real estate investment trust. They basically own real estate and physical assets and rent them out to other companies. They can be in retail, industry, finance... pretty much any sector. And because of a special tax law, they have to pay nearly all their profits to shareholders. The magic number is 90% of pre-tax profits shared with investors. But some of them pay out even more. One of my favorites in this space is Realty Income. It’s a retail REIT, meaning it owns retail properties and rents them back to businesses that need a storefront. Realty Income is pretty well insulated from online retail’s attacks against brick and mortar because it rents to businesses that really can’t operate online. Think Jiffy Lube, Panera Bread, and AMC movie theatres. And it pays a monthly dividend that’s been growing every single quarter for the past 84. The company has paid out 578 consecutive monthly payments. And management takes those payments so seriously that they’ve styled Realty Income as “The Monthly Dividend Company.” The Next Big Payout I ended my list with REITs because they’re my absolute favorite dividend-paying investment. They have real assets — land and buildings. They spin off profits — not just because they want to but because they have to. And they’re some of the most stable stocks on the market. And while Realty Income is one of my favorites, there are two other investments that sit atop it when it comes to real estate. One of them is a company that provides funding and property for the medical cannabis industry here in the United States. It pays a hefty dividend and has already hiked it twice in the past year. Analysts are estimating that the U.S. cannabis market could be worth tens of billions within a few years. If they’re right, those payments are only going to keep growing. You can learn all about that opportunity by clicking here. The second investment that’s topping Realty Income on my list of favorites is one that capitalizes on the massive growth of online retail. Amazon recently surpassed $1 trillion in market cap. That makes it the third company in history to achieve such a feat. And it did it entirely through online retail. But Amazon isn’t the only company out there selling on the web. Pretty much every company that wants to survive has turned to the internet. And I recently found an investment that lets me get dividend payments funded entirely by all those online sales. I’ve taken to calling it “Prime Profits” since Amazon is the big name in e-retail here. But it’s so much more than just Amazon. My subscribers and I are profiting from nearly every single online retailer in the world. You can, too. Just click here to get all the details on that amazing investment. I hope you take the opportunity to invest alongside the rest of The Wealth Advisorycommunity. But if you don’t, I hope you at least take my words on dividends to heart and get your investments working for you, too.