Whilst there’s nothing wrong with buying blue chip stocks like NAB or Telstra, these shares are currently trading on rather low dividend yields, at least compared to what has, on average, been on offer in years gone by.
The BetaShares Dividend Harvester Active ETF (ASX: HVST) is currently trading on a trailing dividend yield of 5.86%.
What’s more, this passive income stock pays out a dividend 12 times a year. Yep, HVST owners get a passive income paycheque every single month. Our 5.86% yield figure includes the 6.52 cents per share dividend distribution due in the middle of this month, for an annual 2025 total of 77.96 cents per unit.
However, whilst this ETF might suit investors looking to get a high yield, it might not be suitable for everyone. Let’s check out how the Dividend Harvester ETF manages to bring in such a sizeable yield.
How does this ASX passive income stock provide its 5.86% yield?
This ASX ETF is not your ordinary, index-hugging passive investment. Instead of holding a relatively consistent portfolio, HVST follows a ‘dividend harvesting’ strategy, as its name implies. This involves buying a passive income stock like Telstra or NAB after it announces a dividend but before it trades ex-dividend. The fund then collects the payout, and later sells the stock, using proceeds to buy its next income payer.
In this way, HVST can provide a relatively large dividend yield to its investors. However, there is a catch.
Buying and selling stocks just to collect dividends doesn’t usually leave any room for capital growth or compounding. As a result, HVST’s overall returns tend to underperform the broader market. In other words, the higher dividends don’t make up for the lost share price appreciation.
To illustrate, HVST units returned a total of 8.82% over the 12 months to 31 October 2025. In contrast, a simple ASX index fund, the Vanguard Australian Shares Index ETF (ASX: VAS), has returned 12.63% over the same period.
There’s also the cost to consider. HVST’s passive income strategy doesn’t come cheap. Whilst VAS charges a management fee of 0.07% per annum, HVST will set an investor back 0.72% per annum.
As such, the Betashares Dividend Harvester Active ETF might be a good fit for those investors prioritising dividend income. But perhaps not for investors looking for the best overall returns for their portfolios.
Should you invest $1,000 in Betashares Australian Dividend Harvester Fund right now?
Before you buy Betashares Australian Dividend Harvester Fund shares, consider this:
Motley Fool investing expert Scott Phillips just revealed what he believes are the 5 best stocks for investors to buy right now… and Betashares Australian Dividend Harvester Fund wasn’t one of them.
The online investing service he’s run for over a decade, Motley Fool Share Advisor, has provided thousands of paying members with stock picks that have doubled, tripled or even more.*
And right now, Scott thinks there are 5 stocks that may be better buys…
Motley Fool contributor Sebastian Bowen has positions in Vanguard Australian Shares Index ETF. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia has positions in and has recommended Telstra Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips.
Recent share market volatility has led to multiple ASX growth shares dropping significantly in value, giving investors an opportunity to pick them up for a much lower price.
Buying at a lower price doesn’t mean it’s going to recover in the next week (or month) of course, but focusing on growing businesses means we’re more likely to focus on a company that could see its share price rebound at some point.
I believe both of the companies I’m about to highlight are two of the most compelling non-tech ASX growth shares with international growth intentions.
Breville sells an array of small kitchen appliances and it’s best known for its coffee machines. It owns a few different brands including Breville, Sage, Lelit and Baratza. It also sells coffee beans through its Beanz business.
As the chart below shows, it’s down more than 20% since January 2025 following the developments with US tariffs, so the company has been working hard to move its manufacturing of US products away from China, with a focus on Mexican production.
The ASX growth share delivered revenue and net profit growth of more than 10% in FY25. I’m expecting attractive growth rates to continue in FY27 and onwards.
I believe there could be more adoption of coffee-at-home consumption globally in the coming years, particularly if expansion markets (for Breville) like China, the Middle East and South Korea help materially.
According to the forecast on Commsec, the business could grow earnings per share (EPS) by 13% in FY27, putting it at 28x FY27’s estimated earnings.
GYG is a Mexican food restaurant business with more than 225 locations in Australia and more than 260 globally.
At the end of the FY26 first quarter, it had 227 Australian locations, 22 Singapore restaurants, five Japan locations and seven US restaurants. I’m expecting those numbers to rise in the medium-term.
The ASX growth share has a long-term goal of 1,000 restaurants in Australia over the next two decades, which would be more than a quadrupling over the period. Economies of scale could mean the ASX growth share achieves stronger profit margins over time, significantly boosting the bottom line.
I think restaurant growth alone could be a stronger driver of the company’s success in the coming years. In the FY26 first quarter, it reported network sales growth of 18.6%, with mid-single digit comparable sales growth across the business.
If Asian network sales can continue growing at a strong double-digit pace over the long-term, GYG could surprise the market and become significantly larger overall.
With the company willing to provide shareholders with both dividends and a share buyback, I think the ASX growth share looks attractive after falling more than 40% since the start of the year, as the above chart shows.
Should you invest $1,000 in Breville Group Limited right now?
Before you buy Breville Group Limited shares, consider this:
Motley Fool investing expert Scott Phillips just revealed what he believes are the 5 best stocks for investors to buy right now… and Breville Group Limited wasn’t one of them.
The online investing service he’s run for over a decade, Motley Fool Share Advisor, has provided thousands of paying members with stock picks that have doubled, tripled or even more.*
And right now, Scott thinks there are 5 stocks that may be better buys…
Motley Fool contributor Tristan Harrison has positions in Breville Group and Guzman Y Gomez. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips.
Gilded Age tycoons built ornate mansions on New York's Fifth Avenue and in Newport, Rhode Island.
Some of today's wealthiest people have opted for more discreet or modest homes.
Today's billionaires live in diverse locations across the US, like the Bay Area, Miami, and Seattle.
A century ago, the wealthiest people in America often lived in ornate residences reminiscent of European royal palaces.
Today, some of the richest citizens are more discreet about their wealth, opting for low-key mountain homes, secure bunkers, or even prefabricated houses. Others, meanwhile, have spent big on tropical getaways and luxurious beachfront estates.
While lavish mansions are still built by wealthy Americans, today's real estate trends and status symbols differ from those of 120 years ago.
See how America's wealthiest have changed their residences as they've moved from Fifth Avenue to Silicon Valley.
During the peak of the Gilded Age, some of the wealthiest Americans lived in full view on New York City's Fifth Avenue.
Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images
The Gilded Age is typically defined as the years between 1865 and 1900, when wealth in America rocketed during a period of exorbitant industrial growth.
During the period, and in the years following it, Fifth Avenue mansions became a status symbol for those trying to establish their place in New York society. Some of the country's wealthiest lived next to one another on what became known as Millionaires' Row.
The Gilded Age brought the exorbitant wealth of industrialists — and their children — to the avenue.
Edwin Levick/Getty Images
Built in 1883, the French-inspired residence of Cornelius II Vanderbilt was the avenue's largest among high society's homes and remains the largest home to have ever been built in New York City.
The mansion, which was believed to have around 130 rooms, was home to a son and heir of Cornelius Vanderbilt, who had an estimated net worth of nearly $276 billion in today's money, per Forbes' 2006 reporting and adjusted for inflation via the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator.
In 1928, the home was replaced with a Bergdorf-Goodman department store. Many Gilded Age mansions in New York City were demolished in the early- to mid-20th century to make way for commercial or apartment buildings, while a few became museums.
Industry leaders like Andrew Carnegie also called the street home.
Museum of the City of New York/Byron Collection/Getty Images
By the turn of the century, steel industrialist Andrew Carnegie — who founded and led the Carnegie Steel Company and had an estimated net worth of over $460 billion in today's currency — joined the group of wealthy residents on the avenue.
Located in the neighborhood now known as Carnegie Hill, the steel magnate's mansion was completed in 1902 and sat further north than those of previous generations of millionaires, which were clustered closer to Midtown Manhattan.
Today, it is the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum.
J.P. Morgan took up residence in Murray Hill.
George Rinhart/Corbis via Getty Images
J.P. Morgan, the Wall Street titan, built his residence in the neighborhood of Murray Hill instead.
The financier, who had a net worth of $80 million at the time of his death in 1913, per Time — around $2.7 billion today — bought his house, which today houses The Morgan Library & Museum, in 1882.
Others, like John D. Rockefeller, built large estates further north of the city.
Remi BENALI/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images
For the elites looking to escape the city, upstate New York offered a quiet and convenient location to build massive estates.
About 25 miles north of New York City, John D. Rockefeller's Kykuit estate was built in 1913 and housed generations of the family until the 1970s. The Standard Oil Company founder had an estimated net worth of over $500 billion in today's money — he is considered the richest American of all time.
Rockefeller's brother, William, had purchased the 204-room mansion Rockwood Hall in 1886, and the area quickly became a hot spot for the era's elites.
Railroad magnate Jay Gould was another industry leader who bought property in the Hudson Valley.
Lyndhurst Mansion.
Talia Lakritz/Business Insider
Jay Gould, railroad tycoon and one of the wealthiest Americans in history — with an estimated net worth of $95.33 billion in today's money — also purchased an estate in Tarrytown, a Hudson Valley town outside of New York City.
Other industrialists, like Henry Clay Frick and Andrew Carnegie, resided in large homes in parts of Pittsburgh.
woodsnorthphoto/Shutterstock
Some magnates of the era resided near their company's operations.
Carnegie Steel Company founder Andrew Carnegie and chairman Henry Clay Frick both lived in the Point Breeze neighborhood in Pittsburgh, where the company had its headquarters.
In the Midwest, Cleveland had its own "Millionaires' Row" on Euclid Avenue.
Euclid Avenue housed some of the most lavish homes in the country and was often compared to Paris' Champs-Élysées, Cleveland Historic reported.
John D. Rockefeller also lived on the fashionable avenue for nearly 20 years.
Owning a vacation home in Newport, Rhode Island, was a must during the Gilded Age.
Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images
No Gilded Age industrialist's real estate portfolio was complete without a lavish mansion in Newport, Rhode Island.
The Vanderbilts were some of the most notable residents, building large estates on the coast like Cornelius Vanderbilt II's The Breakers, which was completed in 1895, and William K. Vanderbilt's Marble House, completed in 1892.
In the early 1900s, magnates like Henry Flagler built ornate winter homes in Florida.
Sepia Times/Sepia Times/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
The turn of the century brought a land boom to Florida as magnates like Standard Oil's Henry Flagler — who had an estimated net worth of over $234 million in today's money at the time of his death, as reported by The New York Times and adjusted for inflation — moved to the state to escape the North's harsh winters.
The early 20th century saw an influx of wealth and rapid development of luxury winter estates, including the construction of Mar-a-Lago by cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post in 1927.
Today, Florida is still home to some of America's wealthiest, but not just during the winter.
Felix Mizioznikov/Shutterstock
While America's wealthy have been vacationing in Florida for decades, some are now also making the state their full-time home.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the state, which doesn't have a state income tax and offers enjoyable weather year-round, has started attracting millionaires, although Florida's real-estate boom has been slowing down in recent months.
Today, some of the wealthiest Americans, including Jeff Bezos, who has a net worth of $246.6 billion as of December 2, and is the fourth-richest man alive, call the state home.
Some Silicon Valley billionaires live in upscale suburbs in the Bay Area.
Sundry Photography/Shutterstock
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, some of the richest Silicon Valley billionaires have opted to stay close to the Bay Area, often residing in luxurious suburbs like Los Altos Hills, home to Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang, or Crescent Park, where Mark Zuckerberg lives.
The Bay Area is home to 82 billionaires — the most of any area in the world — per Henley & Partners' 2025 World's Wealthiest Cities report.
While Gilded Age tycoons often flaunted their wealth with ornate, highly visible showpiece homes, some of today's billionaires live in private properties obscured by mountains, greenery, or gates.
Some of the world's richest people, like Larry Ellison, live just outside San Francisco.
San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst Newspapers/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
Living in Woodside, California, which is 30 miles away from the heart of San Francisco, Oracle founder Larry Ellison is a longtime resident of the state, even as his company's headquarters has moved out of Silicon Valley. He has a fortune of $255.6 billion and is the third-richest man in the world as of December 2.
Other titans keep their dwellings humble, like Warren Buffett's Omaha home.
Orjan F. Ellingvag/Corbis via Getty Images
Other modern-day billionaires have opted to keep their riches modest, like Warren Buffett, who has lived in the same Omaha, Nebraska, home since 1958.
The investor — who has a net worth of $150 billion as of December 2, and is one of the richest men in the world — originally bought the house for $31,500, CNBC reported, which would be around $358,000 today when adjusted for inflation.
The world's richest man, Elon Musk, lives in a pre-fabricated house in Texas.
SERGIO FLORES/AFP via Getty Images
While Elon Musk, the world's richest man, at one point owned luxurious houses in Bay Area suburbs and other California locations like Los Angeles, in 2020, the billionaire sold seven homes in his real estate portfolio and moved to a small, prefabricated home in Boca Chica, Texas, as reported by Architectural Digest.
The tech mogul has said his Texas home is valued at $50,000 and that he rents it from his company, SpaceX. He also noted that he still owns a Bay Area home he uses to host events.
Musk lives near SpaceX's launch site, which has since been integrated into a town called Starbase.
Michael Dell has also stayed close to his company's Texas roots, albeit in a much larger home.
Roschetzky Photography/Shutterstock
Michael Dell has stayed in his hometown of Austin, where he built his tech empire. Today, he has an estimated net worth of $149 billion.
Nicknamed "The Castle," the tech billionaire's Austin home sits on top of a hilltop and is about a 20-mile drive from Dell Technologies' headquarters.
Bill Gates has also stayed in his hometown.
Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates owns 10.5 acres of lakefront property in a tony Seattle suburb.
Ted Soqui/Corbis via Getty Images
Nicknamed Xanadu 2.0, the Microsoft founder's technologically advanced home in Medina, Washington (a suburb of Seattle), spans 66,000 square feet.
Gates, who has an estimated net worth of $104.4 billion as of December 2, grew up in the city where he founded Microsoft, which remains headquartered there.
Many of Silicon Valley's wealthiest are buying up getaway estates in Hawaii.
Steve Heap/Shutterstock
Figures like Ellison and Zuckerberg have also begun purchasing real estate in Hawaiian islands, where they have prioritized privacy and isolation.
The Meta CEO's estate on the island of Kauai, named Ko'olau Ranch, includes over 2,300 acres of land, some of which he has used for cattle ranching, and a nearly 5,000-square-foot underground bunker.
Ellison owns the entire island of Lanai, the sixth-largest island in Hawaii, after purchasing 98% of the island from former Dole Food Company owner David Murdoch for $300 million in 2012, per The Wall Street Journal.
Other billionaires, such as Walmart heir Rob Walton, are buying estates in places like Arizona.
Tim Roberts Photography/Shutterstock
While some billionaires have opted for coastal destinations, others have chosen inland escapes.
Rob Walton, the oldest child of Walmart and Sam's Club founder Sam Walton, who served as Walmart's chairman between 1992 and 2015 and continued to serve on the company's board until 2024, owns a house in the Paradise Valley neighborhood of Arizona, near Scottsdale.
The Walmart heir has a net worth of $131.7 billion.
For those who still flock to Manhattan, Billionaires' Row is the new place to live.
Craig T Fruchtman/Getty Images
While the richest Americans aren't as concentrated in New York City's Fifth Avenue as they once were, many billionaires still call the Big Apple home.
New York is the city with the most ultrawealthy people — those worth over $30 million — in the world, with 21,380, per a September report by wealth intelligence firm Altrata. It is also home to 66 billionaires, according to Henley & Partners' 2025 Wealthiest Cities report.
Manhattan's Central Park-facing 57th Street has been nicknamed Billionaires' Row since three of the world's tallest residential buildings were erected on the street. These skyscrapers house some of the most expensive apartments in the world.
Some people known to own apartments in the street include Michael Dell and hedge fund managers Bill Ackman and Kenneth Griffin.
If you're still looking for best-in-class or best-of-breed when it comes to your enterprise management systems, it might be time to raise your expectations.
According to Stephan de Barse, president of the global Business Suite for SAP, a new gold standard has emerged — a superlative he calls "best of suite."
In de Barse's view, the competitive arena for enterprise management now exists within an integrated framework of AI, data, and core applications. That elevates it from a narrower proving ground, where being a "best of breed" provider checks only one or two of those boxes.
And while being "best of suite" isn't all about AI, the rapid acceleration of AI-centered workflows meant that SAP needed to think differently about the role of AI in enterprise management. This outcome — a clear path and proximity for AI to easily navigate between divisions and functions — is one of the ways the SAP Business Suite lives up to the new designation.
"Many companies treat AI like a separate layer somewhere in the technology stack," said de Barse. "That way, it's disconnected from your end-to-end business processes and disconnected from your data strategy. The moment AI doesn't make it back to the end-to-end business-process context it's very, very difficult to drive value."
.
AI with suite-wide sweep
According to McKinsey's on-going tracking of enterprise AI from the C-Suite perspective — captured in regular releases of its State of AI reports — the percentage of organizations that report using AI in three or more divisions more than doubled between 2021 and 2025. Use of AI in four or more company divisions tripled across that time period. Companies using AI across five or more divisions — while starting smaller at 4% of those surveyed in 2021 — posted quadruple growth, forecasting near enterprise-wide ubiquity for AI use.
Insider Studios/Getty Images
This trajectory toward AI native enterprises is significant. Where the AI ROI conversation was once centered around generalized productivity powered by LLMs, de Barse has watched it reach hard improvements in both the P&L (e.g. improvement of topline revenue) and the Balance Sheet (e.g. improvement of working capital).
He cited the example of an AI agent on the commercial side of an enterprise forecasting deals likely to close. This would send a signal to manufacturing to increase capacity and procurement to line up raw materials.
"If you think about the entire value chain, from sourcing components to getting a product in the hands of customers, that has to be orchestrated by a series of agents that can help organizations reach better decisions and improve business results," de Barse said. "Customers want to work with us to get there, because they understand this must be across business processes."
Best in suite meets best in orchestration
SAP's own proprietary AI interface is known as Joule, which de Barse described as a "superorchestrator" — a single, accessible entry point to all business applications that, in aggregate, determine how an enterprise runs and employees work, as well as the customer experience.
With Joule, "you ask questions, but you also give instructions," de Barse said. "You don't have to log into five different applications to do something — it's all being orchestrated by Joule. So the way we think about interacting with software becomes different."
For manufacturers, that can mean an easy conversational prompt to forecast potential supply-chain disruptions and arrive at a solve. In the finance context, it means instant insight into the cash conversion cycle relative to working capital.
"At the enterprise level, this is happening at an unprecedented pace," he said.
In de Barse's view, these capabilities also call for cultural shifts within organizations — leaning away from optimizing current processes to rethinking how entire functions should be done, so that what becomes automated and tasked to agents is operating in "best-of-suite" condition.
"It's pretty exciting. This," he said, "is the opportunity."
Spotify Wrapped has a new "lsitening age" feature, which guesses your age based on your listening habits.
XNY/Star Max / Contributor / Spotify
Spotify Wrapped has added a new feature, and it's humiliating some of us!
Young people who listen to classic rock or '90s music are shocked to be called old.
A colleague who's in his 30s and listens to a lot of jazz got an age of 86. I got 59 — and I'm 44.
Every December, Spotify Wrapped manages to disappoint parents of young children by reminding them that their identity as fully fledged humans has been erased, leaving just a husk of a vessel that exists only to hit the repeat button on "Wheels on the Bus" or the "Encanto" soundtrack.
But, oh, how the tables have finally turned. Now, young people in their teens and 20s are getting a dose of Spotify's cruel and merciless wrath.
Spotify Wrapped just added a new metric to its year-end personalized wrap-up: "listening age." In addition to telling you which songs and artists you listened to the most, it will give you an estimated age based on your listening tastes.
And for some people, it's waaaay off. And Gen Z — and even some of us in the older set — is getting offended.
Gharieth Edries is only 23, but Spotify just told him his listening age is 50. Edries told me that he isn't totally surprised.
"I dabbled in a bit of Duran Duran this year, due to my parents, unknowingly realizing that I would become overly obsessed with their artwork and that it would appear in my top 5 artists (their music is just sooooo good)," he said. Duran Duran opened a door to more.
"Depeche Mode, Wham, Pet Shop Boys, New Order. These are some of my mother's favorite bands, and I completely understand her now."
happy spotify wrapped day please show me yours… my listening age is 68 i am unc… pic.twitter.com/3CbefGGNCx
Charlotte Ward, 22 in real life, is a big Fleetwood Mac fan, and Spotify pegged her as 68 — "unc" status in Gen Z slang.
I have also been a victim of Spotify's mis-aging me. I'm a spry and youthful 44, but apparently my listening habits are those of a 59-year-old. (I also like '80s music, although I would have assumed the dominance of the "K-Pop Demon Hunters" soundtrack would have dragged down my average.)
A few of my colleagues here at Business Insider also got some surprising ages: Economy editor Bartie Scott, who's 36, got 72, and media editor Nathan McAlone, who's also 36, got a whopping 86 years old. (He thinks that's because he listens to a lot of classic jazz while reading at home, which sounds very cozy and also exactly what an 86-year-old would do.)
Spotify also suggested some people were younger than they actually are. "I got 23 and tbh I think that's more offensive somehow," an unnamed 39-year-old reporter who's too embarrassed to use her real name said in one of our Slacks. And my editor is 47, but Spotify told him he's got the musical tastes of someone who's 30.
Nathan McAlone's 86-year-old Spotify habits.
Business Insider / Spotify
The exact formula for calculating the listening age is unclear, but my guess is that it involves assuming a listener is 18 to 20 years old at the year a song is released. The assumption is that if you listen to a ton of the Beatles, your listening age is going to be around 75. If you listen to mainly Taylor Swift, you're probably 34. I asked Spotify for its secret sauce, but it didn't immediately respond.
Is it cringe to listen to music that's way older than you actually are? Well, maybe. Being young and listening to old music is a sign you're developing a deep and varied musical palate, right? The really humiliating thing would be to be 44 and have it accurately peg you for listening to the same stuff that came out when you were in college. Is having the musical tastes of a much younger person cool or not cool? I truly don't know!
What does it all mean? It's all part of the weird fascination of Spotify Wrapped. Music is so uniquely personal; we feel it says so much about who we are, and we can feel proud or embarrassed by this.
As someone who has ceded control of Spotify to my kids' whims for the last decade, I am delighted to see others join my pain. Maybe when I'm actually 59, I'll have the time to get back into new music on my own.
If you’re a fan of dividend investing as a share market strategy, you might have heard of the term ‘snowball’ to describe the process of building up a stream of passive income from ASX dividend shares.
It refers to the obvious reputation of a snowball rolling down the hill, growing exponentially larger as it collects ever more snow. It’s an apt metaphor for how successful dividend investing can work.
The process is simple. First, an investor buys an ASX dividend share that consistently pays out income every six months (or every quarter or every month in some cases).
The investor then adds to the position when they can. But they also reinvest any dividends they receive back into buying more shares. Now that the investor has more shares to their name, the next time a dividend is paid out, they receive even more dividend income. The process is repeated, and the snowball grows ever larger. Eventually, it will be so large that it can help make our investor fabulously wealthy, and perhaps even fund an early retirement.
That’s the idea, anyway.
But today, I thought it would be worthwhile to go through how this might actually look in action.
How to get your ASX dividend snowball rolling
We’ll use a hypothetical company for this exercise, just to keep things simple. We’ll assume that our company starts at $1 per share, and pays out a 4 cents per share dividend in its first year, which we will dutifully reinvest to buy more shares. Every year, its dividend will increase by 4%, and its share price by 5%, which is roughly in line with what the S&P/ASX 200 Index (ASX: XJO) has historically delivered.
After investing a hypothetical ‘life savings’ of $15,000 in our first year, we committed to buying an additional 3,000 shares every year. Our rising salary from our day jobs will hopefully help in this regard, given that the cost of buying 3,000 shares will go up 5% annually.
Here’s what it looks like if an investor follows this pattern for 35 years:
Year
Share price
Dividend per share
Shares added
Shares owned
Dividend cash flow
1
 $        1.00
 $               0.04
0
15,000
 $                   600.00
2
 $        1.05
 $               0.042
571
18,571
 $                   772.57
3
 $        1.10
 $               0.043
701
24,272
 $                1,050.11
4
 $        1.16
 $               0.045
907
30,179
 $                1,357.90
5
 $        1.22
 $               0.047
1,117
36,296
 $                1,698.47
6
 $        1.28
 $               0.049
1,331
42,627
 $                2,074.50
7
 $        1.34
 $               0.051
1,548
49,175
 $                2,488.90
8
 $        1.41
 $               0.053
1,769
55,944
 $                2,944.74
9
 $        1.48
 $               0.055
1,993
62,937
 $                3,445.36
10
 $        1.55
 $               0.057
2,221
70,158
 $                3,994.27
11
 $        1.63
 $               0.059
2,452
77,610
 $                4,595.28
12
 $        1.71
 $               0.062
2,687
85,297
 $                5,252.43
13
 $        1.80
 $               0.064
2,925
93,222
 $                5,970.04
14
 $        1.89
 $               0.067
3,166
101,388
 $                6,752.73
15
 $        2.00
 $               0.069
3,376
109,764
 $                7,603.04
16
 $        2.10
 $               0.072
3,620
118,385
 $                8,528.16
17
 $        2.21
 $               0.075
3,868
127,252
 $                9,533.65
18
 $        2.32
 $               0.078
4,118
136,370
 $              10,625.41
19
 $        2.43
 $               0.081
4,371
145,741
 $              11,809.77
20
 $        2.55
 $               0.084
4,627
155,367
 $              13,093.43
21
 $        2.68
 $               0.088
4,885
165,253
 $              14,483.56
22
 $        2.81
 $               0.091
5,147
175,399
 $              15,987.78
23
 $        2.95
 $               0.095
5,411
185,810
 $              17,614.18
24
 $        3.10
 $               0.099
5,677
196,487
 $              19,371.39
25
 $        3.26
 $               0.103
5,946
207,433
 $              21,268.58
26
 $        3.42
 $               0.107
6,218
218,651
 $              23,315.50
27
 $        3.59
 $               0.111
6,491
230,142
 $              25,522.51
28
 $        3.77
 $               0.115
6,768
241,910
 $              27,900.62
29
 $        3.96
 $               0.120
7,046
253,956
 $              30,461.52
30
 $        4.16
 $               0.125
7,326
266,282
 $              33,217.63
31
 $        4.37
 $               0.13
7,609
278,891
 $              36,182.14
32
 $        4.58
 $               0.135
7,893
291,784
 $              39,369.03
33
 $        4.81
 $               0.140
8,179
304,963
 $              42,793.14
34
 $        5.05
 $               0.146
8,467
318,430
 $              46,470.23
35
 $        5.31
 $               0.152
8,757
332,188
 $              50,416.98
Passive income compounding in action
As you can see, the effects of compounding start slowly, but become more and more powerful as time goes on. To illustrate, between our first and second year, our investor only got a $172.57 passive income pay rise. But between years 34 and 35, the increase was worth almost $4,000 alone.
Another thing to note is that our investor laid down just over $285,000 in capital over this 35-year period. Yet by the end of it, they had a portfolio worth $1.76 million, spitting out more than $50,000 in passive income annually. That’s your snowball in action.
Finally, it is worth noting that this model assumes many things for the benefits of simplification, which aren’t accurate to real-life investing. For one, share prices do not go up like clockwork every year. Nor do dividend payments in most cases. One year might see a share rise 12%, only to fall by 8% the next. But for quality companies, and every ASX index fund, the long-term trajectory has always been up. As you can see above, the sooner you start investing in quality stocks or index funds, the wealthier you will be, and the more passive income you will bring in.
Wondering where you should invest $1,000 right now?
When investing expert Scott Phillips has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the flagship Motley Fool Share Advisor newsletter he has run for over ten years has provided thousands of paying members with stock picks that have doubled, tripled or even more.*
Scott just revealed what he believes could be the ‘five best ASX stocks’ for investors to buy right now. We believe these stocks are trading at attractive prices and Scott thinks they could be great buys right nowâ¦
Motley Fool contributor Sebastian Bowen has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips.
Term deposit interest rates have reduced, making the yields on offer from some businesses much more appealing.
Some businesses with higher yields can be a risk if those payouts are cut. What’s the appeal of an ‘income stock’ if the income suddenly drops significantly or disappears entirely? I think the three stocks below have large and consistent dividends.
GQG is one of the largest fund managers on the ASX, which provides investors with four main strategies: US shares, global shares, international shares (excluding the US) and emerging market shares.
In recent times, GQG has been defensively positioned with its funds’ portfolios because of worries about AI-related valuations. It has recently been vindicated by that decision with plenty of tech/growth stocks falling back. Prior to that, GQG’s funds had a long-term track record of outperforming its benchmarks.
I think the ASX dividend stock is still significantly undervalued after rising more than 20% in less than a month. It currently has an annualised dividend yield of 12.7% based on the latest announced quarterly dividend and it’s trading at 7x its annualised distributable profit, which I think is very cheap if its funds under management (FUM) grows over the long-term.
Shaver Shop sells a wide variety of male and female premium shaving items from its store network of more than 120 stores.
The company’s position in the market means that it has been able to secure a number of exclusive agreements with certain shaving brands, giving customers more of a reason to shop at the stores.
Excitingly, the high-yield ASX dividend stock is rolling out products for its own brand called Transform-U to fill gaps in Shaver Shop’s item “range of quality, performance and/or price point driven”. Transform-U is steadily adding new products to its range, which generates a higher gross profit margin.
On the dividend side of things, it increased its dividend every year since 2017, aside from FY24 when it maintained the dividend. It grew the annual dividend per share to 10.3 cents in FY25, translating into a grossed-up dividend yield of 9.9%, including franking credits.
Rivco Australia Ltd (ASX: RIV)
Rivco Australia (formerly know as Duxton Water Ltd) is a company that owns water entitlements which are leased to irrigators on short or long-term leases.
I like this high-yield ASX dividend stock as a way to indirectly invest in the Australian agricultural sector, which is an important part of the economy.
It can benefit from both the leasing income and a potential rise in the value of water entitlements over time.
Pleasingly, the business has increased its half-year payout every six months since 2017. Its latest paid dividends equate to a grossed-up dividend yield of 7.25%, including franking credits.
Should you invest $1,000 in GQG Partners Inc. right now?
Before you buy GQG Partners Inc. shares, consider this:
Motley Fool investing expert Scott Phillips just revealed what he believes are the 5 best stocks for investors to buy right now… and GQG Partners Inc. wasn’t one of them.
The online investing service he’s run for over a decade, Motley Fool Share Advisor, has provided thousands of paying members with stock picks that have doubled, tripled or even more.*
And right now, Scott thinks there are 5 stocks that may be better buys…
Motley Fool contributor Tristan Harrison has positions in Rivco Australia. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool Australia has recommended Gqg Partners and Shaver Shop Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips.
This article was originally published on Fool.com. All figures quoted in US dollars unless otherwise stated.
Key Points
Meta is known for its social media leadership, and itâs also building a strong presence in artificial intelligence.
The company has the strength to pay investors a dividend and invest in growth.
Meta Platforms(NASDAQ: META) is a company many of us have close contact with daily. That’s because it’s the owner of some of the world’s most commonly used apps: Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp. About 3.5 billion people around the globe use at least one of these daily.Â
The tech giant doesn’t consider itself just a social media company, though. In recent years, it’s made major steps in the world of artificial intelligence (AI) — for example, it’s developed its own large language model, and this tool powers certain Meta products, like the company’s AI assistant.
So, owning Meta stock offers you access to a social media titan as well as a potential winner in the exciting field of AI. But should you wait to get in on this player? No — Here’s one compelling reason to buy Meta shares hand over fist right now.
A solid earnings track record
It’s important to note that Meta’s well-established social media business has helped it produce a long history of earnings growth. Advertisement across Meta’s apps drives revenue, as many sorts of businesses sign up for ads to reach us where they know they’ll find us — on these social media platforms. In the recent quarter, advertising revenue climbed about 25% to $50 billion.
In fact, Meta’s financial picture is so strong that the company is able to expand and invest in AI as well as pay shareholders a dividend.
While AI represents a considerable investment for Meta today, this effort could deliver big down the road. Meta is using AI to improve the overall advertising experience and boost the capabilities of its apps to keep users on them longer — all of this should encourage advertisers to keep coming back to Meta and even increase their ad spending. Finally, the investment in AI could lead to additional products and services that may expand revenue streams in the coming years.
Why buy now?
All of this makes Meta a fantastic stock to own well into the future. But why buy now? Right now, Meta is the cheapest of the Magnificent Seven tech stocks that have driven the S&P 500 to record highs in recent years.
Meta trades for 24x forward earnings estimates, which looks cheap relative to peers and also seems very reasonable considering the complete Meta package.
This is particularly noteworthy today as investors worry about the formation of an AI bubble, as valuations of many AI stocks have exploded higher. Meta, trading at these levels, looks much less vulnerable than players that are trading at lofty valuations.
This, along with Meta’s strengths in social media and AI ambitions, makes it a stock to buy hand over fist right now.
This article was originally published on Fool.com. All figures quoted in US dollars unless otherwise stated.
This article was originally published on Fool.com. All figures quoted in US dollars unless otherwise stated.
Should you invest $1,000 in Meta Platforms right now?
Before you buy Meta Platforms shares, consider this:
Motley Fool investing expert Scott Phillips just revealed what he believes are the 5 best stocks for investors to buy right now… and Meta Platforms wasn’t one of them.
The online investing service heâs run for over a decade, Motley Fool Share Advisor, has provided thousands of paying members with stock picks that have doubled, tripled or even more.*
And right now, Scott thinks there are 5 stocks that may be better buys…
Adria Cimino has positions in Amazon and Tesla. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has positions in and has recommended Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla. The Motley Fool Australia’s parent company Motley Fool Holdings Inc. has recommended the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool Australia has recommended Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Scott Phillips.
Citi named 276 new managing directors on Wednesday, the bank's highest rank below the C-suite.
This year's class is about 20% smaller than 2024's 344 promotions.
Business Insider has the full list of newly promoted managing directors.
Citi has a new group of senior leaders joining its highest ranks.
On Wednesday, the bank announced 276managing directors, elevating the class of leaders to its highest rank below the C-suite.
This year's class includes 55 promotions in markets, 45 in banking, 40 in wealth, and 33 in services, the bank's unit that helps clients manage and move money globally. The promotions reflect the firm's strong year in the markets and its push to drive more growth from banking, wealth, and its unique services business — all three of which have undergone major revamps in recent years.
The class is about 20% smaller than Citi's last cohort of promotes — the 344 employees it elevated to MD in 2024, the largest class since Jane Fraser became CEO. That group leaned heavily toward markets, wealth, and tech roles. But the drop-off makes this the smallest MD class since 2020, when the bank promoted 241 people. In 2023, it announced 304 new MDs; in 2022, 331; and in 2021, 306.
"Their promotions arrive after a year that asked a lot from all of us as we raised our performance and pushed ahead on the work that will define Citi's next chapter," the executive management team members — including CEO Jane Fraser — wrote in an internal memo viewed by Business Insider.
"Each of these new MDs played a meaningful role in that progress. They led teams through a fast-moving environment, kept focus on what mattered most, and helped turn strategy into action," the memo continued, citing their contributions as helping to accelerate Citi's "steps toward becoming an AI-enabled bank with smarter operations and a clearer foundation for growth."
A Citi spokesperson told Business Insider that the number of promotions varies each year, "taking into account the firm's skill and leadership needs, attrition, external hiring, and other relevant considerations."
On Wednesday morning, Citi marked the annoucements with "roll call" gatherings across its business units — some in person, others remote — a tradition the bank has expanded in recent years. Members of the executive management team led a call with the newly promoted group to share advice, then held their own roll calls within their divisions to read the names aloud.
The overhaul has reshaped its leadership and reorganized significant parts of the bank. In recent years, Fraser brought on star executives like former JPMorgan dealmakerViswas Raghavan, as executive vice chair, to turn the firm's investment banking operations around.
The firm has made significant gains in the past 12 months in sectors like investment banking — which saw a 23% year-over-year bump in fees to $1.15 billion in the third quarter — and its markets unit, which handles trading, experienced a 15% bump.
The new 2025 managing directors come from 21 countries and represent 32 nationalities, the bank said. Two-thirds are multi-lingual, and 30% have worked in at least two countries for Citi. They have a median of 16 years of experience at the firm, and 20 years in financial services overall. Twenty-three percent joined Citi through an early-career program, the bank added.
Nearly half — 134, or almost 49% of the class — are based in North America; 18% in the UK; followed by nearly 10% in Japan, north Asia, and Australia. The rest are dispersed in other regions.
Below is the full list of Citi's newly promoted managing directors.
Donald Trump welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia at the White House in November. Now bin Salman's country is reportedly backing Larry and David Ellisons' bid for Warner Bros. Discovery
If that story sounds familiar, there's a good reason: In November, Variety reported more or less the same thing — which prompted Paramount to call the story "categorically inaccurate".
Now Variety is doubling down on its initial report. Bloomberg also reports that "Middle East funds" are involved in the Ellisons' bid. A Paramount rep declined to comment; I've also reached out to the sovereign wealth funds.
But as I noted before, the fact that it's even possible that Middle Eastern petrostates could have ownership stakes in a giant American media conglomerate — one that would control major movie studios, streaming networks, and news outlets — tells us a lot about 2025. A few years ago, this would have seemed like a non-starter; now it seems quite close to happening.
David and Larry Ellison are charging ahead in their bid to buy Warner Bros Discovery.
Eric Charbonneau/Getty Images for The Hollywood Reporter
That's because Paramount, which is competing with Netflix and Comcast in the WBD bidding, still seems like the most likely WBD owner when all of this is done. That's partially because Paramount is offering to buy all of WBD, while Comcast and Netflix only want part of it. And partially because the Ellisons — Larry Ellison in particular — are close to Donald Trump, and we live in a world where people close to Donald Trump often get what they want.
In the absence of anyone involved in the deal talking to me on the record, I can imagine some arguments why a petrostate-backed mega-media conglomerate makes sense:
The funds would presumably have minority stakes in a combined Paramount/WBD, and it would presumably remain controlled by Americans.
Foreign investors have frequently owned some or all of big, American-based media companies: See, for instance, Japan's Sony, which owns a major movie studio and music label. And Saudi investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was a longtime minority investor in Rupert Murdoch's Fox empire; now he has a stake in the company formerly known as Twitter.
A Middle East-financed deal for WBD could raise some eyebrows
All true! But I still think that there are differences that will certainly raise eyebrows, and maybe more forceful pushback, if a combined Ellison/Middle East deal goes forward.
One obvious point: It's one thing to have a private company or investor from another company taking a stake in an American media giant; it's another to have one that's directly controlled by a foreign government.
Another one: As media companies continue to consolidate, the power of the remaining ones gets amplified. On their own for instance, CBS News and CNN have dwindling influence and financial power; a company that combines the two, though, might have more meaningful sway. You can argue that the Saudis owning one of the world's biggest video game companies is also meaningful, but the video game industry never gets the attention it deserves, and that seems likely to continue in this case.
And last: It's possible that Middle Eastern countries are investing in an American media conglomerate solely for a financial return, and would have zero interest in the content that conglomerate makes and distributes. But that's an assertion that many folks would have a hard time taking at face value. And while lots of American companies have sought Middle Eastern funding for years, there was a pause after 2018, following the murder and dismemberment of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi — a shocking act the CIA concluded was ordered by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman himself. (He has denied involvement.)
Now bin Salman might end up owning a piece of major American news outlets and other media arms. How's that going to go over?
