Corrections
We record substantive errors found in our analyses: what was wrong, why it mattered, and what changed. Typo fixes and formatting changes are not listed.
To report an error, email bnam1321@gmail.com. See our Methodology for how articles are checked.
Dividend Cut Audit: A Stock Split Mistaken for a Dividend Cut
Related article: Which Dividend ETFs Actually Cut Their Payouts? A 9-Year Audit
What was wrong:Raw distribution data showed SCHD's 2024 dividend per share falling 61.5%.
Why: SCHD completed a 3-for-1 share split in October 2024. Per-share payments dropped because each share became three, not because the payout was cut.
What changed: All per-share figures were split-adjusted. On a split-adjusted basis, SCHD's 2024 dividend rose about 15.6%. The article's cut count was recalculated.
Dividend Reinvestment Timing: An Unfair Comparison
Related article: We Gave a Dividend Investor Perfect Foresight. They Still Lost to Automatic Reinvestment
What was wrong: The original analysis compared quarterly automatic reinvestment against an annual timing strategy. That mixed two effects: when the money was invested, and how often it compounded.
What changed: The comparison was rebuilt with compounding frequency held the same for both strategies, so only timing differed. Even with perfect foresight, timing trailed immediate reinvestment by 5.34%. The effect of compounding frequency (+7.89%) is now reported separately.
The 0% Dividend Tax Bracket: Social Security and the Standard Deduction
Related article: The 0% Dividend Tax Bracket: How a $1.4M Portfolio Pays Zero Tax
What was wrong:Two errors. First, the model assumed a flat 85% of Social Security benefits was taxable. The taxable share actually depends on “provisional income,” so it rises gradually as other income rises. Second, the early-retiree example left out the standard deduction.
What changed: Social Security taxation now follows the provisional income formula, including the zone where each extra dollar of dividends makes more benefits taxable. Adding the standard deduction raised the portfolio size an early retiree could hold while staying in the 0% bracket, which had been understated.
Dividend ETF Correlation: Baseline and Uncertainty
Related article: SCHD and VYM Share 2.9% of Their Holdings. Their Returns Are 87% Correlated.
What was wrong:The original version measured the diversification benefit against a baseline chosen without justification. Against a different, equally reasonable baseline, the result reversed. It also claimed dividend ETFs provided “no diversification,” which went further than the data supported, and it reported correlations without their uncertainty.
What changed: The article now compares results with a theoretical benchmark, softens the claim to match the data, and reports a confidence interval (0.583–0.973), which shows how imprecise correlations from a short history are.
Allocation and the Price of Yield: Inconsistent Model
Related article: The Real Price of High-Yield Income: A 12-Year Allocation Study
What was wrong: First-year income was calculated as if dividends were withdrawn as cash, while ending balances assumed dividends were reinvested. The two halves of the comparison used different assumptions.
What changed: The model was rebuilt so dividends are withdrawn as cash throughout, and income and ending balances are calculated consistently.
SCHD Return Figures: Mismatched Periods
Related article: SCHD's Real Return After Taxes and Inflation: A 14-Year Reality Check
What was wrong:SCHD's annualized return was quoted as 12.04% (2012–2025) in some places and 10.51% (2014–2025) in others without clear period labels, which made the figures look contradictory.
What changed: Each return figure is now labeled with its time period.