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: 2026 Thresholds, Social Security, and the Standard Deduction
Related article: The 0% Dividend Tax Bracket: How a Retiree Can Hold $1.4M and Owe Nothing
What was wrong: Three errors across two revisions. First, the initial draft assumed a flat 85% of Social Security benefits was taxable and left out the standard deduction in the early-retiree example. Second, the article used an estimated 2026 0% qualified dividend ceiling of $50,400 for single filers ($100,800 for married filing jointly) instead of the official IRS Revenue Procedure 2025-32 thresholds of $49,450 single ($98,900 married filing jointly), which overstated the federal tax-free dividend limit by $950 for a single filer ($1,900 for a joint return).
What changed: Social Security taxation follows the IRS provisional income formula, and all tables and calculator thresholds now use the official 2026 figures ($49,450 single / $98,900 joint 0% ceiling plus the $16,100 / $32,200 standard deduction, for a $65,550 single / $131,100 joint gross limit before Social Security). For a single retiree with $25,000 in Social Security, maximum tax-free dividends were revised from $45,250 ($1,469,156 SCHD portfolio) to $44,300 ($1,438,312 portfolio).
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.