LETS HAVE SOME FUN

TOP 3 STOCKS, YIELDMAX/WEEKLYPAY EXPLANATION, INVESTMENT STRATEGY, BRAZIL HIGHLIGHT

Author

Jay Johnson
July 23, 2025

7/22/25: LET’S HAVE SOME FUN

 DATA DRIVEN AI INVESTOR https://www.beehiiv.com?via=Jay-Johnson

· TOP 3 STOCK PICKS THIS WEEK

o QXO - Growth

o WEN - Dividend

o TSLY – Growth/Dividend

· EXPLANATION OF YIELDMAX AND WEEKLYPAY ETFS: RISKS AND VALUE

· INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND PODCAST RECOMMENDATION

· LOOK INTO A MARKET READY TO BOOM: BRAZIL

 

 

1.  QXO INC (QXO)

📈 Potential Upside

  1. M&A momentum
    – With Jacobs’ track record (~500 deals across past companies) Investors.com+1YouTube+1X (formerly Twitter)+15Wikipedia+15Barron's+15, QXO has a deep pipeline.
    – If GMS doesn’t pan out, there are numerous other fragmented targets across the $800 billion industry Reuters+15Barron's+15Instagram+15.

  2. Technical strength
    – Strong Relative Strength (RS) ratings (up from low 80s to ~92) justify recent investor enthusiasm X (formerly Twitter)+3Investors.com+3Investors.com+3.

  3. Long‑term vision
    – Institutional investors are backing a patient strategy aimed at reaching ~$50 billion in revenue Reuters.

⚠️ Key Risks

  • Execution & integration
    – High risk when integrating large acquisitions; Beacon still needs full integration before new deals Reuters.

  • Valuation vulnerability
    – Early trading saw huge overpricing distortions (once valued at ~$90 billion due to limited float before correction) Wall Street Journal.

  • Bidding competition
    – Running up against Goliaths like Home Depot may force QXO to overpay or withdraw Substack+14Barron's+14Barron's+14.

  • Macro & regulatory headwinds
    – Rising interest rates, trade volatility, and antitrust scrutiny (e.g., lawsuits at United Rentals) may pinch margins or buyout appetite ReutersBarron's.

🎙️ Tom Hayes’ Perspective (Tip check out Tom Hayes)

  • Bullish long-game:
    – On LinkedIn, Tom Hayes described QXO as a “multi‑bagger over a decade,” projecting an 8–10x return to ~$80–100 in 10 years Investors.com+15LinkedIn+15x.com+15.

“No one has created more wealth for shareholders than Brad Jacobs ... this one you just buy, close your eyes and in five years you have a multi‑bagger.” TikTok+3LinkedIn+3Wikipedia+3

  • Housing-cycle tailwinds:
    – He linked QXO's upside to a recovering housing market and emphasized that such building‑product plays are “just getting started” LinkedIn.

💰 Valuation & Market Perception

  • Share price: ~$22.24, up ~50% YTD Barron's+1Barron's+1.

  • IBD technicals: Out of initial buy zone. Investors should wait for a base or pullback to 50‑day or 10‑week moving average before adding Investors.com.

  • Financials: Flat earnings, ~6% YOY revenue decline—unsupportive of the price without continued M&A power Investors.com.

🔍 Summary Table

Strengths

Risks/Concerns

Jacobs’ proven M&A playbook

Integration challenges (Beacon)

Huge industry opportunity (~$800 B market)

Must avoid over-paying for targets

Strong technical momentum (RS ~92)

Undercurrent of flat sales and earnings

Backed by major long-term institutional funds

Macro pressures / competition / regulatory scrutiny

Tom Hayes expects 8–10x over ~10 years

Valuation may hinge on successful future deals

🧭 Is QXO Worth It?

  • For long-term investors (5–10 yr):
    If you trust Jacobs’ M&A strategy and believe in housing/building-material tailwinds, QXO could deliver multi‑bagger returns—aligning with Tom Hayes’ thesis.

  • For tactical/short-term investors:
    Stakes are high: waiting for pullbacks or better technical entry points may reduce risk given flat fundamentals and execution headlines.

✅ Final Take

QXO is a bold, execution‑driven roll‑up. Its upside hinges on future acquisitions and successful integration. Technicals favor it, but fundamentals are lagging. Tom Hayes, supportive of the long-term thesis, values it through the lens of housing recovery and Jacobs’ proven playbook. Still, competition (Home Depot) and macro risks are real. If you’re bullish on building-materials consolidation in a rising housing cycle—and confident in Jacobs’ M&A execution—QXO may be a high-reward long-term bet. Otherwise, consider patience until fundamentals catch up.

Let me know if you'd like to dive deeper into valuation models, compare QXO with peers, or set realistic price targets!

I’ve been listening to Tom Hayes for awhile now and I’ve learned to listen when he trust people. People drive success. Brad Jacob’s seems to have significant track record of reviving companies, and he has invested A LOT OF MONEY into QXO.

· BRAD JACOBS

Career & Entrepreneurial Journey

Brad Jacobs has founded or led eight billion‑dollar public companies, executing over 500 acquisitions Wall Street Journal+8Jacobs Private Equity+8Engineering News-Record+8:

  1. Amerex Oil Associates (1979–1983) – Oil brokerage, later sold Wall Street Journal+4Jacobs Private Equity+4Wikipedia+4.

  2. Hamilton Resources (1984–1989) – Global oil trading business Edelweiss Capital+13Jacobs Private Equity+13Jacobs Private Equity+13.

  3. United Waste Systems (1989–1997) – Built into the 5th largest U.S. waste management firm; outperformed S&P 500 by 5.6× Engineering News-Record+4Jacobs Private Equity+4Jacobs Private Equity+4.

  4. United Rentals (1997–2007) – Grew to world’s largest equipment rental company within a year; stock became a 200‑bagger Wealth Management+3thegeforum+3Jacobs Private Equity+3.

  5. XPO Logistics (2011–2022) – Consolidated logistics space; soared to ~$16.8 b market cap via acquisitions like Con-way and Norbert Dentressangle TIME+2Wikipedia+2Wealth Management+2.

  6. QXO, Inc. (2024–present) – Launched via a reverse-PIPE into SilverSun Technologies, with ambitions to build an $800 b building-products empire GXO Logistics+9Wikipedia+9Financial Times+9.

🎯 Leadership Style & Strategy

🏆 Major Achievements

🛡️ Risks & Considerations

  • Integration risk—fast transitions can disrupt legacy cultures or operations.

  • Aggressive deal pace—he must avoid overpaying.

  • Sector cycles—performance depends on macro trends, like housing for QXO, and global trade dynamics for logistics.

  • Regulatory exposure—XPO faced labor class‑action suits and antitrust scrutiny WikipediaWall Street Journal.

💡 Looking Ahead with QXO

✅ In Summary

Brad Jacobs is one of the most prolific industrial acquirers ever—transforming mundane sectors (waste, rentals, logistics, now building materials) into consolidated, tech-forward giants. His formula: aggressive M&A, swift integration, cultural alignment, and heavy tech investment. While the execution is bold and proven, it’s not without risk—yardsticks like integration friction, valuation discipline, and economic cycles matter.

If you’d like, I can dive deeper into his integration strategies at QXO, compare his leadership style across ventures, or discuss the long-term sustainability of his roll‑up approach.

 

2. WENDYS (WEN)

Business Overview & Strategy

Strategic priorities include:

As of mid‑July 2025, Pete Suerken is Wendy’s U.S. President (formerly head of its supply‑chain co‑op), and CFO Ken Cook serves as interim CEO after Kirk Tanner’s departure in August Wikipedia+4Stock Titan+4Wall Street Journal+4.

💰 Financial Health & Metrics

From trailing‑12‑month figures (TTM):

Valuation:

Analyst sentiment:

📉 Key Risks & Headwinds

  1. Consumer softness & macro stress: 2025 same-store sales forecast cut to flat or down ~2%; U.S. same‑restaurant comps dropped ~2.8% in Q1 2025 Panabee+2Investopedia+2Reddit+2

  2. High leverage: Requires significant servicing and limits financial flexibility Yahoo FinanceReddit

  3. Franchise structure risk: With most operations franchised, Wendy’s depends on franchisees’ consistency and participation (e.g. in brand marketing and technology rollout) Panabee

  4. Management turnover uncertainty: Recent CEO exit, interim leadership, and ongoing executive shifts may slow momentum and impact strategy execution MarketWatchWall Street JournalWikipedia

  5. Competitive pressure: From price-sensitive consumers and rivals like McDonald’s and Burger King leveraging stronger scale and promotions PanabeeTipRanks

🔍 Strengths & Opportunities

✅ Attractive valuation relative to peers, with P/E ~11x vs fair fair P/E of ~17–18x Simply Wall St
✅ Strong cash generation, consistently redirected to shareholders via buybacks and dividends FinanchillReddit
✅ Operational turnaround plan underway: new-store openings, remodels, digital upgrades and supply chain innovation People.comRedditStockAnalysis
✅ International growth runway: focused expansion in markets outside the U.S. StockAnalysis

📋 Summary Table

Key Strengths

Principal Risks

Lean valuation and strong FCF yield

Heavy debt burden limits flexibility

Proactive unit optimization + global expansion

Declining same-store traffic and consumer sensitivity

Tech and supply-chain innovation via Palantir AI

Dependence on franchisee execution and advertising support

Shareholder-friendly past via buybacks/dividend

Leadership transition mid-strategy execution

✅ Should You Consider WEN?

  • Value-oriented income investors: If FCF yield (dividend + buyback) and modest upside appeal, WEN offers compelling yield and potentially attractive entry point.

  • Growth seekers: Unless investor sentiment improves or comps stabilize, limited upside from a current “Hold” consensus.

  • Tactically cautious investors: Recent technical trend and executive turnover may warrant waiting for signs of stabilization before entering.

💡 Final Thoughts

Wendy’s sits at an attractive valuation point, supported by consistent cash flow generation, strategic remodeling and digital investments. However, slowing same-store sales, elevated debt, and leadership transitions weigh on the outlook. Its turnaround hinges on execution of global expansion, tech rollout, and restoring traffic momentum.

Would you like to dive into peer comparisons (e.g. McDonald’s, Burger King), dividend sustainability modeling, or supply chain tech impact like Palantir partnerships?

Related Wendy’s news

 

3. YIELDMAX TSLA OPTION INCOME STRATEGY ETF (TSLY)

TSLY, or the YieldMax TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF, is an actively managed exchange-traded fund (ETF) that has a very specific investment objective and strategy, which directly impacts its opportunity and growth potential. It's crucial to understand how it works before considering it as an investment.

Understanding TSLY's Strategy: Synthetic Covered Call on Tesla (TSLA)

TSLY's primary goal is to generate current monthly income, with a secondary objective of providing capped exposure to the price movements of Tesla (TSLA) stock. It achieves this through a "synthetic covered call" strategy, which involves three main components:

  1. Synthetic Long Exposure to TSLA: The fund doesn't directly own TSLA shares. Instead, it replicates the price movements of TSLA by buying TSLA call options and simultaneously selling TSLA put options, usually with terms of six months to one year.

  2. Covered Call Writing (Income Generation): TSLY generates income by selling (writing) call options on TSLA. Since it doesn't directly own TSLA shares, these are technically "short calls" against its synthetic long position. This is where the high income distributions come from.

  3. U.S. Treasuries: The fund holds U.S. Treasuries as collateral for the options, which also generate income.

Key takeaway: TSLY is designed to be an income-generating ETF, not a growth-oriented one that directly tracks or aims to outperform TSLA's capital appreciation.

Opportunity and Growth Potential Breakdown

1. Opportunity (Income Focus)

  • High Monthly Income: The most significant "opportunity" TSLY presents is its remarkably high monthly distribution yield. Historically, this has been well over 100% annually, making it appealing for investors prioritizing steady, high cash flow.

  • Income Diversification: For investors seeking to diversify their income streams beyond traditional dividends or fixed-income products, TSLY offers an alternative, albeit higher-risk, approach to generating yield from a popular underlying stock.

  • Neutral/Sideways Market Performance: TSLY's strategy tends to perform best when the underlying asset (TSLA) trades relatively flat or within a narrow range. In such scenarios, the ETF can collect option premiums without significant capital erosion from large upward or downward moves in TSLA.

2. Growth Potential (Limited Capital Appreciation)

  • Capped Upside: This is the most crucial limitation for "growth potential." Because TSLY sells call options, its participation in any significant upward movement of TSLA stock is severely capped. If TSLA surges, TSLY's gains from that appreciation are limited to the strike price of the sold call options. This means if TSLA doubles, TSLY's NAV will not double.

  • Capital Erosion (Significant Downside Exposure): TSLY is fully exposed to the downside price movements of TSLA. If TSLA's stock price declines significantly, TSLY's Net Asset Value (NAV) will fall, and the income generated from options might not be enough to offset these capital losses. Many analyses indicate that TSLY's share price has declined substantially since its inception, even while TSLA itself has seen significant periods of appreciation. For example, some reports indicate an 80% price decline for TSLY since inception, while TSLA rose, meaning high income distributions have come at the expense of significant capital depreciation.

  • Total Return Underperformance vs. TSLA: Despite the high yield, the total return (price change + distributions) of TSLY has generally underperformed simply holding TSLA stock over the same period. This highlights that the income often comes at the expense of capital appreciation.

  • Volatility: While designed to provide income, the fund's value can fluctuate significantly due to its reliance on TSLA's volatility and option strategies.

Risks to Consider

  • Return of Capital: A significant portion of TSLY's distributions may be classified as "return of capital." While this isn't immediately taxable, it means you're getting your own initial investment back, which reduces the fund's NAV and your principal over time.

  • Complex Strategy: The synthetic covered call strategy involves derivatives and is not as straightforward as owning common stock. This complexity introduces additional risks.

  • Single Issuer Risk: The fund's strategy is solely tied to Tesla. This means it carries all the risks associated with TSLA as a single company (e.g., regulatory changes, competition, production issues, technological disruptions, Elon Musk's influence, etc.). It is a non-diversified fund.

  • Option Strategy Risks: Options trading carries inherent risks, including imperfect correlation with the underlying asset, market risk, and counterparty risk.

  • High Expense Ratio: As an actively managed ETF using complex option strategies, TSLY has a relatively high expense ratio (e.g., 1.04%), which eats into returns.

  • Distribution Inconsistency: While aiming for monthly income, the actual distribution amounts can vary significantly and are not guaranteed.

Conclusion

TSLY's "opportunity" lies almost entirely in its ability to generate very high, consistent monthly income. Its "growth potential" in terms of capital appreciation is severely limited by its covered call strategy, and it has historically suffered significant capital erosion, even when the underlying TSLA stock has performed well.

In essence, TSLY is primarily an income vehicle for investors who:

  • Are seeking very high monthly cash flow.

  • Are bullish on TSLA but believe its stock will trade sideways or with limited upside in the short to medium term.

  • Are fully aware of and comfortable with the significant risks of capital depreciation and the complex options strategy.

  • Are not prioritizing long-term capital appreciation from TSLA.

It is not suitable for investors seeking capital growth that tracks or outperforms TSLA's direct stock performance, nor for those who are risk-averse to significant principal loss. Always consider your personal financial goals and risk tolerance before investing.

 

 

VALUE OF YIELDMAX OR WEEKLYPAY ETFS

YieldMax and WeeklyPay ETFs (and similar funds from other issuers) offer a very specific value proposition, primarily focused on income generation rather than capital appreciation. They achieve this through active options strategies, most commonly covered call writing.

Let's break down the value and the trade-offs:

The Value Proposition: High Income Generation

The core value these ETFs provide is the potential for significantly higher monthly or weekly income distributions compared to traditional income investments like bonds, dividend stocks, or even many standard income-focused ETFs.

This high income is generated primarily by:

  1. Selling Call Options: The fund typically holds a "long" position in an underlying stock (or a synthetic representation of it, as in the case of TSLY discussed earlier) and then sells (writes) call options against that position. The buyer of the call option pays a premium to the fund for the right to buy the underlying stock at a certain price (the strike price) by a certain date. The fund collects this premium as income.

  2. Short-Term/Out-of-the-Money Options: To maximize premium income, these ETFs often sell relatively short-term (e.g., weekly or monthly expirations) and slightly out-of-the-money call options. This means the strike price is above the current market price of the underlying stock.

  3. Repeatable Process: This process of selling options and collecting premiums is repeated regularly, allowing for consistent distributions.

Why this is valuable to some investors:

  • Cash Flow: For investors seeking consistent, high cash flow to supplement retirement income, cover expenses, or reinvest, these ETFs can be very attractive due to their high yields.

  • Alternative Income Source: They offer a different way to generate income from equity markets, distinct from just relying on company dividends.

  • Volatility Capture: When the underlying stock is volatile, option premiums can be higher, potentially leading to greater income generation (though volatility also increases risk to the underlying position).

The Trade-offs & Limitations (Where Growth Potential is Sacrificed)

While the income is appealing, it's crucial to understand the inherent trade-offs, which directly impact capital appreciation and overall total return:

  1. Capped Upside/Limited Capital Appreciation: This is the most significant limitation. Because the fund sells call options, its participation in any large upward movement of the underlying stock is capped at the strike price of the sold calls. If the underlying stock surges past that strike price, the fund does not participate in the additional gains. This means you forgo a significant portion of the underlying asset's growth potential in exchange for the premium income.

    • Example: If an ETF holds stock A trading at $100 and sells a call option with a strike of $105, if Stock A jumps to $120, the ETF's maximum gain on the stock portion is still only $5 (from $100 to $105) plus the premium collected.

  2. Full Downside Exposure: These ETFs are fully exposed to the downside price movements of the underlying stock. If the underlying stock declines significantly, the value of the ETF's holdings will fall, and the income collected from selling calls may not be enough to offset these capital losses. This can lead to significant capital depreciation of the ETF's share price over time.

    • This is the most common reason why the total return (price change + distributions) of these ETFs often lags behind simply holding the underlying stock over longer periods.

  3. Complexity and Risk: The use of derivatives (options) makes these ETFs more complex than simply holding stocks. They carry various risks, including market risk, volatility risk, and potential for significant NAV erosion.

  4. Tax Implications: Distributions from these ETFs can be complex from a tax perspective. A portion may be ordinary income, while another portion might be classified as "return of capital" (ROC). While ROC isn't immediately taxable, it reduces your cost basis, meaning you'll pay taxes on a larger capital gain when you eventually sell the shares.

  5. Expense Ratios: Actively managed ETFs using complex strategies tend to have higher expense ratios than passive index funds, which eat into returns.

Who are these ETFs For?

YieldMax and WeeklyPay ETFs are generally suitable for:

  • Income-Focused Investors: Individuals who prioritize consistent, high current income to meet living expenses or for regular reinvestment, even if it means sacrificing capital growth.

  • Investors with a Neutral to Slightly Bullish/Bearish View on the Underlying: These ETFs tend to perform best when the underlying stock trades sideways, or within a relatively stable range, allowing the fund to consistently collect premiums without triggering the options (in the case of bullish runs) or suffering massive capital losses (in the case of bearish runs).

  • Sophisticated Investors: Those who understand the intricacies of options strategies and the specific risks involved, including the potential for significant capital depreciation.

  • As a Small Portion of a Diversified Portfolio: For some, they may serve as a small allocation to boost overall portfolio yield, but typically not as a core long-term growth holding.

They are generally NOT suitable for:

  • Growth-Oriented Investors: Those primarily seeking capital appreciation over the long term.

  • Risk-Averse Investors: Individuals who cannot tolerate significant fluctuations in principal value.

  • Investors Unfamiliar with Options: It's crucial to understand how covered calls limit upside and expose to downside.

In summary, the value of YieldMax and WeeklyPay ETFs lies squarely in their ability to generate high current income. This income, however, comes at the cost of capped upside potential and full exposure to downside risk, which often leads to the erosion of the initial investment over time. It's a trade-off of capital growth for yield.

 

INVESTMENT STRATEGY

My Core Investment Philosophy

My strategy is rooted in a disciplined, analytical approach that seeks to identify undervalued opportunities across various asset classes, with a strong emphasis on risk management. I don't chase fads or try to predict the "next big thing" in nascent industries. Instead, I focus on established companies and sectors with robust historical data, allowing me to understand their performance through different economic cycles.

Key Pillars of My Investment Strategy:

  1. Value-Based Investing in Established Businesses:

    • Focus on the "Weighing Machine": I believe that in the short run, the market is a voting machine driven by emotion, but in the long run, it's a weighing machine based on fundamental valuations and business quality. My primary goal is to find assets whose intrinsic value is greater than their current market price.

    • Proven Track Record: I prefer to invest in companies that have substantial resources, a history of performance, and management teams with demonstrated experience. This means avoiding speculative bets on unproven startups, as the odds are typically stacked against them. I look for businesses that are beneficiaries of new trends, rather than betting on early-stage, higher-risk ventures.

    • Data-Driven Decisions: My decisions are heavily informed by rigorous analysis of historic data to understand how companies and sectors have performed under various conditions.

  2. Rigorous Risk Management & Diversification:

    • Uncorrelated Positions: It's not enough to quantify and size risk; I actively seek to ensure my positions are uncorrelated. Having ten stocks in the same sector provides little true diversification, as they're likely to move in similar directions. I aim for exposure across different sectors and, where appropriate, different asset classes to truly manage overall portfolio risk.

    • Defined Risk/Reward: When utilizing derivatives like options (e.g., buying puts for short exposure), I ensure the maximum potential loss is known and defined, avoiding situations with unlimited downside exposure (like naked shorting futures or stocks).

    • Sizing Discipline: Each investment is sized according to a predefined risk tolerance, ensuring that no single position can disproportionately impact the overall portfolio.

  3. Active Management (Long/Short Equity):

    • Seeking Opportunities on Both Sides: I employ a long/short equity strategy, meaning I can profit from both rising (long positions) and falling (short positions) prices. This allows me to adapt to various market environments and express views on both undervalued and overvalued assets.

    • Identifying "Unloved" Opportunities: I actively look for opportunities in sectors or companies that may be currently "unloved" by the broader market but possess strong underlying fundamentals or compelling catalysts for future growth.

    • Commodities, Currencies, and Sectors: My analysis extends beyond just individual equities to include macro themes, commodity cycles, and currency movements, identifying broader trends that can present profitable long or short opportunities.

  4. Patience and Compounding:

    • Long-Term Perspective: True wealth is derived from compounding over time, achieved by buying good quality assets and having patience. I avoid reckless activity or taking outsized risks driven by a desire for quick riches.

    • Adapting to Cycles: I recognize that markets move in cycles. My strategy involves understanding where we are in a given cycle (e.g., commodity cycle, Fed policy) and positioning the portfolio to benefit from anticipated shifts, as seen in identifying "turnaround plays" or sectors poised to outperform during easing cycles.

In essence, my strategy is about identifying compelling value, meticulously managing risk through diversification and disciplined position sizing, and having the patience to allow well-researched investments in established businesses to compound over time, all while remaining agile enough to capitalize on opportunities across both rising and falling markets. If you like my strategy, you should listen to Tom Hayes Podcast: HEDGE FUND TIPS WITH TOM HAYES.

 

FOREIGN MARKET LOOK: BRAZIL

Banco do Brasil (BBAS3)

  • Founded: October 12, 1808—Brazil’s oldest continuously operating bank Global Happenings+10Pocket Option+10Reddit+10Wikipedia

  • Dividend Yield: ~6–8% historically; projected ~10‑11% in 2025 based on a 40‑45% payout policy Reuters

  • Strengths: Strong government backing, resilient retail franchise, predictable cash flow, conservative provisioning.

  • Risks: Potential government intervention, macroeconomic headwinds, moderate growth beyond credit cycles.

Itaú Unibanco (ITUB4 / ITUB3)

  • Founded: 1945 (public operations long-standing)

  • Dividend Yield: ~5.8–6.5%; consistent quarterly payouts and rising digital banking expansion Wikipedia+1skilling.com+1

  • Strengths: Brazil’s largest private bank, robust Basel capital coverage, diversified financial services.

  • Risks: Exposure to consumer credit cycles, rising interest rates, and competitive pressure in digital banking.

Bradesco (BBDC4 / BBDC3)

  • Founded: 1943; one of Brazil’s largest banks

  • Dividend Yield: ~5.4% historically, with projected ~9–10% in 2025 skilling.com+4Top Investidor+4Reuters+4StockViz+7Pocket Option+7FinQuota+7

  • Strengths: Deep retail and insurance footprint, proven dividend discipline, diversified revenue.

  • Risks: High reliance on legacy systems, growth reliant on insurance and credit markets.

⚡ Reliable Utilities & Infrastructure

Taesa (TAEE11)

  • Founded: mid‑1950s; long-standing transmission concessions

  • Dividend Yield: ~8.5–9.3% annual yield, distributing up to 100% of profits via concession model skilling.com+4FinQuota+4Wikipedia+4Pocket Option

  • Strengths: Highly predictable regulated cash flows, minimal capex post-concession build‑out, strong payout consistency.

  • Risks: Political/regulatory changes, inflation indexing adjustments, limited growth beyond transmission assets.

Cemig (CMIG4)

  • Founded: 1952; major energy utility in Minas Gerais region Pocket OptionTop Investidor+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2

  • Dividend Yield: ~10–15%; among Brazil’s top dividend payers Reddit+14Top Investidor+14skilling.com+14

  • Strengths: Integrated energy generation, transmission, distribution with steady concession cash flow, sustainability credentials.

  • Risks: State ownership may invite political decisions, commodity-linked risk in generation segments, regulatory shifts.

Vale (VALE3)

  • Founded: 1942 (later privatized)—global iron ore/mining powerhouse

  • Dividend Yield: ~7–9%; cyclically sensitive but historically among Brazil’s top payers Wikipedia+1Pocket Option+1Reddit

  • Strengths: Global leader in iron ore, scaling in nickel, strong free cash generation in favorable commodity cycles.

  • Risks: Highly cyclical commodity exposure, environmental and geopolitical risk, fluctuating capex needs.

🛢️ Legacy Energy & Conglomerates

Petrobras (PETR3 / PETR4)

  • Founded: 1953; Brazil’s state-controlled oil giant

  • Dividend Yield: Historically up to 12–15%; though political interference can abruptly curtail payouts riotimesonline.comriotimesonline.comReutersReutersFinQuota

  • Strengths: Massive scale, energy self-sufficiency, occasional extraordinary dividends when oil prices strong.

  • Risks: Strong government influence on dividend decisions, high leverage, commodity volatility.

Cosan S.A. (CSAN3 / ADR CSANC)

  • Founded: 1936—bioenergy, sugar, fuel distribution, infrastructure conglomerate ReutersWikipedia

  • Dividend Yield: ~6–7% yield via dividend payments and holdings in Raízen and Comgás Wikipedia

  • Strengths: Diversified across energy, logistics, renewables; exposure to ethanol/biofuel growth and commodity cycles.

  • Risks: Commodity & regulatory volatility, cyclicality in sugar/ethanol, currency exposure.

✅ Summary Table

Company

Founded

Sector

Dividend Yield

Strengths

Risks

Banco do Brasil

1808

Banking

~6–11%

Oldest bank, government backing, steady

Political interference, modest growth potential

Itaú Unibanco

1945

Banking

~6%

Largest private bank, tech-savvy growth

Credit cycle exposure, competition

Bradesco

1943

Banking/Insurance

~5–10%

Diversified financial services

Legacy systems, insurance dependency

Taesa

1950s

Utilities

~8–9%

High visibility, regulated, low capex

Regulatory risks, limited scaling

Cemig

1952

Integrated Energy

~10–15%

Concession cash flow, strong dividend

Political/state influence, commodity exposure

Vale

1942

Mining

~7–9%

Global leader in iron/nickel, strong cash

Cyclical demand, environmental risk

Petrobras

1953

Oil & Gas

~12–15% (but volatile)

Scale, periodic extraordinary dividends

Govt interference, leverage, oil price risk

Cosan

1936

Energy/Conglomerate

~6–7%

Diversified portfolio, renewables edge

Commodity volatility, currency & policy risk

🔎 Final Thoughts

  • Ideal for dividend seekers: Utilities and state‑backed banks like Taesa, Cemig, Banco do Brasil offer the most consistent yields.

  • Growth with income: Vale and Cosan provide exposure to global commodity recovery while still paying attractive dividends.

  • High yield with caution: Petrobras and some holding firms (e.g. Bradespar, Mahle Leve) offer top-tier yields but more volatility, often tied to political dynamics.

📌 Brazilian Tax Advantage

In Brazil, dividends received from publicly traded companies are tax-free for residents, making the net yield even more compelling—especially compared with ETFs, which are taxed on embedded reinvested

 

 

SUBSCRIBE FOR WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS!! FOLLOW ON TWITTER @DATADRIVENAIINV OR ON FACEBOOK DATA-DRIVEN A.I. INVESTOR. INSTAGRAM COMING SOON.