Hariseldon58 wrote:
Rather than looking at this issue from exclusively the Total Return vs Dividend Income, there are practical questions as to how that income is delivered.
I'd perhaps argue that beyond the more obvious '
is any likely income actually going to be enough?' question, then your '
how that income is delivered?' one is often the *major* practical question that
income-investors often really care about, and is one of the primary 'value offerings' of the income-strategy that they might well employ...
I think that quite often, so long as an income-investor is happy that they're well-diversified, have got a system in place regarding appropriate cash-reserves for any inevitable market-induced 'barren period', and are utilising an income-strategy that broadly delivers on their own particular income-requirements with the
minimum of physical market-interaction, then beyond that, I'm really not sure how much 'Total Return' actually features in many income-investors thoughts
at all, beyond what might be a simple 'is it doing OK?' question.
Certainly over the years that I've been interested in income-strategies, I can't remember any great focus on 'Total Return' at all from the parties involved, other than when
other investors who may choose to deploy
alternative strategies choose to poke their heads around the door....
Which leads me again to say that I think the whole '
Total Return vs Dividend Income' question has been
consistently framed incorrectly over many, many years, because right from the off-set, that '
Total Return vs Dividend Income' phrase itself seems to suggest that
both parties either side of the 'vs' is somehow 'wanting' to be proved some sort of 'winner' in a question
specifically framed around '
Total Return', when
in actual fact, and as far as I'm aware, absolutely no-one on the 'Dividend Income' side of that phrase is actually arguing, or wanting to argue, that
specific case.....
In my view, the whole '
Total Return vs Dividend Income' phrase is a
complete red-herring, set up by TR proponents with a view to winning 'an argument'
that no-one on the opposite side actually wants to have...
Let's frame it in exercise terms....
Let's have '
Racers' and '
Joggers'....
Racers want to run their race in the fastest time possible - that's their PRIMARY goal from running...
Joggers want to carry out regular, enjoyable exercise only. They aren't
interested in speed, or timings - they just want to get out regularly, spend 45 minutes jogging round their routes, and get back home having fulfilled a need for enjoyable exercise...
What would an
interested observer think if the Racers kept wanting to have a '
Racers speed vs Joggers speed' debate?
What would an
interested observer think if, when the Joggers consistently reminded the Racers that, for them, running
wasn't all about 'Speed' at all, but was
primarily about carrying out an enjoyable exercise
in a way that suits them as individuals, and delivered a regular exercise regime that
really helped their physical health over long periods, but when the Joggers kept
reminding the Racers of this fact, it was simply ignored, with the '
Racers speed vs Joggers speed' challenge regularly raised again, and again, and again....
An
interested observer might suggest that the Racers throwing down their regular '
Racers speed vs Joggers speed' challenge is perhaps
framing the whole debate in a way
that completely ignores the primary goals of the second 'Joggers' party,
and loads the question itself in a way that, of course, the Racers are always likely to 'win'....
But what is there to really 'win', when the Joggers point at the wording of the '
Racers speed vs Joggers speed' challenge
itself and
consistently remind the Racers that they're never actually likely to want to have that debate, as it
completely ignores the needs and deliverables of the
particular type of exercise that THEY are choosing to partake in, and which continues to deliver to THEIR actual requirements....
Cheers,
Itsallaguess