Lately in Blossom there has been discussions asking / challenging - "Isn't Growth & Income Investing not the same thing just different investments? 2 sides of the same coin? Both use the same strategies, goals, mindset, measures of success? I am truly a Hybrid investor... ONE INVESTOR... Two mindsets, two goals, two strategies, two measures of success. LETS TALK! https://youtu.be/ex0R-H1G8GI
2,756 views
33 Comments
Heath
@incomewealthinvestor · 1moEdited
For this example I used our combined holdings! NAV appreciation (growth) and dividend income for a 3 year total return!!!
Mitchell Muir@mitchell2025 · 1mo
Perry SIXTY could be considered growth…. 🤣🤣🤣 my bank is up 15% in capital since I bought it
Perry's PIIverse
@piiverse · 1mo
You are trying to argue that there is no difference between a Growth investor and an INCOME investor. Since ROI is ROI... then you extrapolate that ... then investment mindset, goals, and strategies should be the same. That is what you are saying... AND YET .. your actual example shows that for you to do with Growth to make it match what an Income investor does you have to jump hoops you as a Growth investor WOULDNT NORMALLY do. As I said in the video... As an investor that is a true HYBRID investor... ROI is ROI.. BUT... a Growth & Income investor has completely different mindsets, goals, strategies that run their respective portfolios. IF I am wrong ... then why to financial planners even ask the questions... WHAT ARE YOUR GOALS? Since as you said... since its all about ROI and nothing else... then a financial planner can execute a universal ONE SIZE FITS ALL strategy that meets any goals. Income portfolios are hands down more efficient and effective than a respective growth portfolio during the consumption years of one's life. I have provided you a video that proves it. A growth portfolio is good for some things... an Income portfolio is better for others. PERIOD. Watch this video... this might help you better understand the spectrum of the INVESTOR... its about 10 minutes into the video... https://youtu.be/X-HEYbbsyMU?si=BgQ-VzcK26FIPjm9
Canadian Investor@canadianinvestor · 1moEdited
@piiverse There are plenty of reasons why someone might choose to go down the income-investing path, but there is also a reason total return is a standard measure used when evaluating a fund’s performance. It is the same point Steven Bavaria repeatedly makes when discussing The Income Factory: total return is total return. Warren Buffett has also illustrated that investors can create their own cash flow by periodically selling shares rather than relying on dividends. And as Olivia Li, Portfolio Manager at BMO ETFs, someone that runs covered call funds puts it: “A distribution is a packaging decision, not an investment process. You can create essentially the same cash flow from a portfolio by periodically selling a small portion of your holdings instead of relying solely on distributions. When comparing investment performance, it will always come back to the total return of the portfolio. If two portfolios start with the same capital, experience the same sequence of total returns, and have identical withdrawals at identical times, then the ending capital will be the same regardless of whether the cash came from distributions or from selling shares You can model it in a spreadsheet or run the numbers through your favourite AI model and you will arrive at the same conclusion. Change the total return, or have one portfolio withdraw more than the other, and you can get different results. But if the returns and withdrawals are identical, the method used to generate the cash flow does not change the math. Like I said before there could be plenty of psychological or behavioural reasons why an investor might prefer income investing, but the math does not change simply because the investor changes how they receive their return.
See the full comment section 👀Sign up for the full Blossom experience!
