VIGI
Vanguard International Dividend Appreciation ETF
stock NASDAQ ETF

>You did: my original statement was dividend growers, not payers
Your remarks were about adding portfolio stability. I see no evidence of that. You posted a document that said it "might be more stable" than dividend payers alone, but I ran VIG against SCHD and it's also a beta of 96 against each other, which means basically a 1:1 correlation.
>You are looking at one metric to judge stability
Is there another metric you'd like to use apart from beta? That's typically how we measure volatility and risk. I'm open to suggestions if you have something more solid than a gut feeling.
>What I originally offered isn’t really all that novel or controversial
I think it's very controversial. It misleads people into thinking that dividend ETFs are somehow more stable than the broader market they belong to. This is a common Reddit myth, no data backs it up, and when I challenge these arguments with actual numbers, people fall back on emotions or the notion that finance is subjective like cooking, body building, or fashion. It's not.
>My friend who is in the business as a wealth manager uses VIG/VIGI in the portfolios his clients for exactly this reason
For the reason he thinks it adds stability with a 96 beta? I mean everyone has to earn a living, but I don't see how he'd pass professional exams with that rationale. He'd fail a lot of questions on volatility and asset correlation.
>Not much point debating me about it
I write this for the other readers here. It's not about changing your mind individually. It's not a DM. I'd just delete a DM. This thing about "dividend payers are less risky" is a Reddit myth that needs to be put down. I'm using your arguments to help put it down.
>I have read and heard persuasive cases in favor.
I haven't. And I've looked.

You did: my original statement was dividend growers, not payers. You are looking at one metric to judge stability. I am not an expert. I’m only referencing others’ analysis. What I originally offered isn’t really all that novel or controversial. My friend who is in the business as a wealth manager uses VIG/VIGI in the portfolios his clients for exactly this reason. Not much point debating me about it. I have read and heard persuasive cases in favor.

IDVO, VXUS, VIGI, IDMO.

>You did: my original statement was dividend growers, not payers
Your remarks were about adding portfolio stability. I see no evidence of that. You posted a document that said it "might be more stable" than dividend payers alone, but I ran VIG against SCHD and it's also a beta of 96 against each other, which means basically a 1:1 correlation.
>You are looking at one metric to judge stability
Is there another metric you'd like to use apart from beta? That's typically how we measure volatility and risk. I'm open to suggestions if you have something more solid than a gut feeling.
>What I originally offered isn’t really all that novel or controversial
I think it's very controversial. It misleads people into thinking that dividend ETFs are somehow more stable than the broader market they belong to. This is a common Reddit myth, no data backs it up, and when I challenge these arguments with actual numbers, people fall back on emotions or the notion that finance is subjective like cooking, body building, or fashion. It's not.
>My friend who is in the business as a wealth manager uses VIG/VIGI in the portfolios his clients for exactly this reason
For the reason he thinks it adds stability with a 96 beta? I mean everyone has to earn a living, but I don't see how he'd pass professional exams with that rationale. He'd fail a lot of questions on volatility and asset correlation.
>Not much point debating me about it
I write this for the other readers here. It's not about changing your mind individually. It's not a DM. I'd just delete a DM. This thing about "dividend payers are less risky" is a Reddit myth that needs to be put down. I'm using your arguments to help put it down.
>I have read and heard persuasive cases in favor.
I haven't. And I've looked.

You did: my original statement was dividend growers, not payers. You are looking at one metric to judge stability. I am not an expert. I’m only referencing others’ analysis. What I originally offered isn’t really all that novel or controversial. My friend who is in the business as a wealth manager uses VIG/VIGI in the portfolios his clients for exactly this reason. Not much point debating me about it. I have read and heard persuasive cases in favor.

IDVO, VXUS, VIGI, IDMO.

Depends on a lot of factors.
The standard, qualified dividend funds tend to yield about 2-4% per year. For the US, those funds would be things like SCHD, DGRO, DGRW, VIGI, and VYM. For international, funds like VYMI, LVHI, and DIVI are popular. For these, the yield is fairly low but long-term price appreciation and dividend growth tend to be fairly decent.
Alternatively, there are covered call funds that pay higher yields but have less price appreciation, if any price appreciation at all. Funds like DIVO and IDVO balance yield and appreciation (paying 5-7%) while funds like GPIX, SPYI, and NIHI prioritize yield (paying 8-12%).
If your main goal is for retirement that's far into the future, I'd probably go with the qualified dividend funds. If your main goal is income now, the covered call funds would provide higher distributions.

Don't know what the OP had in mind since they never responded, but are there any ETFs in the US that are like SCHD but invest in EU-only companies? SCHY and VIGI seem to fit the bill. IDVO is a CC option.