Alaric wrote:......I'm pointing out the apparent eccentricity for a pot builder (someone NOT taking any income) of ranking potential dividends above potential capital growth in their share selection when the effect on their aggregate wealth is the same.
Many years ago, it was more often than not the case that a selection of high-yield shares (with a few simple filters*) outperformed their index for both capital and income.
These days it seems to be more random.
*
It has been a while, but filters might be something along the lines of starting with the FTSE 100, rank by yield, eliminate any with an abnormal yield due to a special dividend etc, eliminate the very highest-yielding companies, then choose one company per sector from what remains until you have satisfied yourself that you have a diverse enough range of shares.
In the past, it was typically the very highest yielding shares which turned into yield traps or worse.
Right now, a quick, half-hearted glance at the FTSE 100 looks like it would produce a list something like this:
Aviva
BAE Systems
Vodafone
BP
Glaxo
SSE
UU
Unilever
Land Securities
Sainsbury's
Johnson Matthey
Disclaimers:
I haven't studied the FTSE's high-yielders much for many years and only took a quick look at the FTSE 100 so the list has been sloppily created and probably isn't 100% true to the method I described.
I have large holdings in Glaxo, SSE, Sainsbury's. I also hold (and very much like) Imperial which were eliminated from the method I described due to being among the very highest yielders.