The first is that income investing is a great way to boost not only your returns but your cash flow. And second, that every investor should have a substantial chunk of their portfolio invested in commodity stocks.
Here's the good news: it is perfectly possible to combine the two strategies, earning the benefits of both worlds.
In fact, in a moment I'll tell you about a few of my favorite high-yielding commodity stocks. Two of them pay safe, hefty yields over 7%!
Compare that to what you can earn with your local bank or with U.S. Treasuries. You'll quickly find there is nothing comparable.
In fact, by investing in income-producing commodity stocks, you get a steady stream of income along with the best possible protection against the ravages of inflation.
That combination is tough to beat. Let me explain...
The Best of Both Worlds: Income and AppreciationThe truth is, income investing is crucial for three reasons.
The first is obvious. No matter how well-off you become, the bills just keep getting worse and worse. I never met anyone that couldn't use more cash.
The next two aren't nearly as evident to most investors-- even though both are of the utmost importance to their portfolios.
Stocks that pay steady, consistent dividends add a measure of certainty to share prices. It's why top quality dividend stocks typically do well even in bear markets. Conversely, since earnings are so easily manipulated, companies with fancy bottom lines but no dividend usually turn out to be a scam and end up being priced accordingly when things turn south.
Finally, dividends themselves keep management honest (or fairly honest.) Cash that is paid out to shareholders cannot be used for grandiose expansion plans, or to pump up the stock price to help inflate top management's stock options.
As a result, companies that pay decent dividends are less likely to suffer value-destroying scams than those that don't and are likely to be around longer. For investors, that offers stability -- invaluable these days.
As for commodity stocks, I'll be the first to admit they are not a universal panacea. But two long-term factors currently favor them.