Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Boris S.'s avatar

The "sequence of returns" simulations are always interesting to play with. It brings up the "4% rule". The idea is people ought to count on at least a 7% growth rate of their portfolio. Selling down 4% of the account leaves 3% of the growth untouched and available for compounding. That works fine during good years. What happens during the down years when a portfolio can sink 20%, 30%, or even 50%? The dot-com bubble brought the NASDAQ down 80%. Way more shares will need to be sold off at lower prices to get the same funds as before. Dividends, distributions, and coupon payments from bonds can provide a steady-eddy flow of income without needing to sell anything down.

It's true that dividends can be cut and suspended. That's where intelligent diversification and a cash reserve can help. An example of diversification would be 20 streams of income consisting of stocks, CEFs, and bonds. It's unlikely all 20 streams will get whacked at once in the same way. A doomsday example could be 5 streams are frozen, 5 streams are cut, and the other 10 keep marching along. The difference could be made up by pulling from cash reserves.

Dividends definitely have their place in a portfolio. Understand what they can and cannot do and everything will be just fine. 👍

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts