Put your mouth where your money is!
Posted: August 10th, 2020, 7:43 pm
In viewtopic.php?p=332203#p332203
Taken from the "Capital" thread, this seems to sum up the very safe approach of those who relentlessly criticise so-called "income" investors for not seeing it their way. I think the readership is more than familiar with the theoretical "natural yield versus total return" debate by now. Personally, what I'd find far more interesting at this stage would be someone who professes to invest for total return having the gumption to put a little flesh on the bones of their own strategy. There are many income investors on this site who generously share their experiences, explaining their objectives, how their strategies are designed to achieve them, and who give running commentaries and specific details of the management of their portfolios over periods of years. They continue to do this despite frequent (often quite condescending) criticism from people who clearly feel they know what's better for them than they do!
What is conspicuous by its absence, is the same kind of detail from any of these critics about their own investment portfolios. It's one thing to say "I don't invest for income", "money is fungible", "I sell assets when I need cash" and the like, but what does this entail in reality? It would be very helpful in understanding the mindset of someone who invests this way if they would share their investment objectives, how they have built and run their portfolio, what it consists of, how they decide what and when to sell and how they react to unusual (both positive and negative) market events as and when they encounter them.
Although about 20% of my equity investments could be considered "growth" orientated, the bulk of my portfolio consists of "income" shares and investment trusts. This suits me as I can draw a steady and fairly predictable income, reinvesting excess dividends (of which there seem to be fewer this year!) while planning to hopefully use the growth to provide more income in the future. Given my circumstances (that is such a crucial factor in anyone's choices) this works for me and I feel absolutely no need to try to shoot the lights out. Others have explained what works for them and their own personal circumstances. So, to those enthusiastic critics out there, what are the nuts and bolts of your strategy in the context of your circumstances and needs? I dare you. Are you prepared to put your mouth where your money is?
dealtn wrote:
The simple model was just to show an example of how it works.
Moderator Message:
Link to source topic provided. TJH
Link to source topic provided. TJH
Taken from the "Capital" thread, this seems to sum up the very safe approach of those who relentlessly criticise so-called "income" investors for not seeing it their way. I think the readership is more than familiar with the theoretical "natural yield versus total return" debate by now. Personally, what I'd find far more interesting at this stage would be someone who professes to invest for total return having the gumption to put a little flesh on the bones of their own strategy. There are many income investors on this site who generously share their experiences, explaining their objectives, how their strategies are designed to achieve them, and who give running commentaries and specific details of the management of their portfolios over periods of years. They continue to do this despite frequent (often quite condescending) criticism from people who clearly feel they know what's better for them than they do!
What is conspicuous by its absence, is the same kind of detail from any of these critics about their own investment portfolios. It's one thing to say "I don't invest for income", "money is fungible", "I sell assets when I need cash" and the like, but what does this entail in reality? It would be very helpful in understanding the mindset of someone who invests this way if they would share their investment objectives, how they have built and run their portfolio, what it consists of, how they decide what and when to sell and how they react to unusual (both positive and negative) market events as and when they encounter them.
Although about 20% of my equity investments could be considered "growth" orientated, the bulk of my portfolio consists of "income" shares and investment trusts. This suits me as I can draw a steady and fairly predictable income, reinvesting excess dividends (of which there seem to be fewer this year!) while planning to hopefully use the growth to provide more income in the future. Given my circumstances (that is such a crucial factor in anyone's choices) this works for me and I feel absolutely no need to try to shoot the lights out. Others have explained what works for them and their own personal circumstances. So, to those enthusiastic critics out there, what are the nuts and bolts of your strategy in the context of your circumstances and needs? I dare you. Are you prepared to put your mouth where your money is?