Stocks Special Reports LICs Credit Technical Analysis Funds ETFs Tools SMSFs
Learn
Video Archive Article Archive
News Stocks Special Reports Funds ETFs Features Technical Analysis SMSFs Learn
About

News

Income versus total return

Christine Benz  |  13 Dec 2016Text size  Decrease  Increase  |  

Page 1 of 1

Don't get hung up on labels; the best approach melds both strategies, Morningstar's US-based director of personal finance Christine Benz says.

 

Just as partisan bickering has the potential to stall legislators' effectiveness, so do investment absolutists have the potential to derail productive investment debate.

Morningstar's president of fund research, Don Phillips, has discussed this phenomenon in the realm of indexing versus active fund management, writing that extremists on either side of the debate routinely ignore legitimate data simply because it doesn't support their views.

Not as different as you think

I've seen signs of the same absolutism in the realm of another great investing debate: whether to manage a portfolio for income or total return.

This is frustrating because when you take the time to examine the two approaches, it's clear that they're not polar opposites at all. By getting bogged down in semantics, I fear that some investors might miss the big picture.

For starters, no one's saying income generation shouldn't be a key goal for every investor; it is, after all, one of two key components of the total-return equation. (The other, obviously, is price appreciation.)

So, when I recommend a total-return approach, I'm not saying to gorge yourself exclusively on securities with growth potential but no ability to "show investors the money". (We saw the downside of such strategies during the late 1990s, and it wasn't pretty.)

Income producers should clearly be an important component of every investor's toolkit. They should also, arguably, grow in importance as a percentage of our portfolios as we age--focusing on securities with the ability to pay income adds a valuable quality overlay to a portfolio, as income production can be an important show of an entity's financial wherewithal.

From a practical standpoint, income can also provide a cushion on the downside when the market is falling.

Moreover, what would seem to be another big ideological fissure between the "incomeniks" and the "totalniks"--whether you tap your principal or not--is not as big a division as it might seem.

True, the goal for many income investors is to not touch principal but rather to fund expenses with the income that their portfolios generate.

By contrast, total-return investors don't reflexively avoid tapping capital to fund living expenses; retired total-return investors might employ a bucket approach that relies on spending both income distributions and rebalancing proceeds.

But that doesn't mean that total-return investors favour blithely tapping capital until it's all gone. Rather, the goal of the total-return strategy is to grow the overall kitty by maintaining a diversified basket of investments--some income-producing, some that will contribute to the bottom line by appreciating in price, and some that do both.

When you get down to it, we're really discussing a difference in logistics--how you extract capital from your portfolio--more than a grand ideological divide.

The big-picture goals of growing and maintaining a portfolio are the same for both income and total-return investors.

Combination of the two

In the end, I think the best answer for most investors is to give due consideration to securities' income-generating potential but within a total-return framework.

Blending the two approaches allows investors to benefit from the stability that income-producing securities bring to the table without sacrificing diversification or chasing securities that, in hindsight, turn out to be yield traps.

And employing a total-return approach has benefits not readily available to investors focused exclusively on income. A biggie is the ability to diversify across more security types than might naturally appeal to investors who are anchoring on securities' current income generation.

Another benefit of a strategy that combines income with total return is the ability to be strategic about which assets get tapped to meet income needs.

A retiree might choose to fill up the income bucket using dividends, but he might also use the proceeds from rebalancing or from a tax-loss sale.

The bottom line? Resist the urge to classify yourself as either an income or total-return investor. When it comes to the health and stability of your portfolio, the best answer is "both".

 

Christine Benz is Morningstar's US-based director of personal finance. This article originally appeared on the Morningstar US website.

© 2016 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved. Neither Morningstar, its affiliates, nor the content providers guarantee the data or content contained herein to be accurate, complete or timely nor will they have any liability for its use or distribution. This information is to be used for personal, non-commercial purposes only. No reproduction is permitted without the prior written consent of Morningstar. Any general advice or 'class service' have been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), or its Authorised Representatives, and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Please refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information at www.morningstar.com.au/s/fsg.pdf. Our publications, ratings and products should be viewed as an additional investment resource, not as your sole source of information. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product's future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a licensed financial adviser. Some material is copyright and published under licence from ASX Operations Pty Ltd ACN 004 523 782 ("ASXO"). The article is current as at date of publication.