Same money, two calendars Two portfolios, the same capital, the same yield, the same annual income. Only the pattern is different. Two readers each put $90,000 to work in three positions of $30,000. Every position yields 4 percent a year, so each one pays $1,200 a year, which is $300 a quarter. The first reader owns three names that all pay in March, June, September and December. The income lands as $900 four times a year, and the other eight months pay nothing. The second reader owns one name from each of the three rhythms. That portfolio pays $300 in every month of the year. Both collect $3,600 a year. Same capital, same yield, same number of holdings. Now hand both readers a $300 bill that arrives every month. The second portfolio covers it as it goes. The first reader has to hold the March payment and spend it down through April and May, every quarter, without slipping once. Most people manage that in a calm year. The trouble shows up in a bad one, when an empty month and a falling market arrive together. Say the shares were $50 and the market has taken them to $35. Raising $300 at $50 means selling 6 shares. Raising the same $300 at $35 means selling about 8.6 shares. Those extra 2.6 shares were paying about $5 a year in dividends, and that income does not come back when the price does. It is a small amount on one sale, and it repeats every time a bill lands in an empty month during a bad stretch. The risk in a monthly ladder, stated plainly: building a portfolio around the calendar can walk you into a worse business. A pay month is a scheduling convenience and it tells you nothing about whether a company can keep paying. Swap a durable payer for a weaker one to fill an empty February and you have taken on a cut you never needed. A cut costs far more than eight quiet months ever will. Companies can also move their pay months, so a ladder built today is not fixed for good. Illustrative example with round numbers and assumed market returns, not a forecast. General education, not advice. |