Yes it makes perfect sense.

If we were able to count the silent forum readers, I'm sure you lot would be in the majority. But that should be no consolation.

In a word it is LAZY. It's like never maintaining your house and being surprised by a low price when you come to sell.

Glad you posted though. Keep following and you might learn something.

It's a free world. If one wants to be lazy, be lazy.

I suggest that you get LAZY and go back to the bed you so clearly got out the wrong side of today.

Appreciate your thoughts and thanks for sharing. One thing I wanted to clarify is that the majority of my portfolio is actually doing well so far with very good growth year on year. It’s only that small part that is income based to cover my fees which has modest growth. And as I’m a long term investor, I do check my portfolio regularly and tweak it every now and then, I just didn’t want to burden myself with keeping an eye on my platform charges and having to pay money in or sell assets to pay it off. It’s only this fees part which I’m admittedly lazy about.

Thanks again and really appreciated your thoughts.

I wouldn't presume to be patronising. Oh, and income is the whole point of this particular thread, by the way.

Hardly earth-shattering.
It's saying that total return is the relevant criteria, which is capital appreciation plus dividends. Surely this is as obvious as 1+1 = 2.
Also it says that one should not solely go for high dividends. Surely everyone knows this? I learnt that lesson 50 years ago.
He forgot to include "scrub your teeth after breakfast" and "don't beat your wife".

IMO if a businesses can't reinvest capital profitably at a point in time it should not give up IMO. It could consider for example consider qualitative improvements such as improving management and skill training which would involve modest expenditure if any.

Up until the last year or two investors flooded into high yield and
we’re willing to pay a premium for Trusts and Property ICs based
on the believe that the yield would support the value.
As usual the sector got ramped up until the bubble burst with Woodford etc.
This lead to the usual stampeded of PIs and hence the sectors got oversold and
the Trusts/Property Trusts move on to discounts as less buyers than sellers.
Having looked at the 1,2,3,4 and 5 year performance of Lowland/Temple Bar
maybe discounts of 10% offer good value. I know no one is interested as lost money but
I never worry about the past I just let the markets decide what I buy and sell.
In answer to the question what I am driven by is it under or overvalued. Income and capital
in my current a/c are all capital to me.

Been on the Red bull again tonight I see! At least you've kept your language out of the gutter this time though.
As to being poorer than I could be, then I would politely disagree. There's more to life than counting the dollars every night you know, and I've been blessed in many other ways over the years.
Having a reliable, annuity beating, adequate, hands-free income portfolio is nice, very nice actually, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty small beer really.
Lots of other things are more important than 'more money' - and I certainly don't waste a moments thought on for instance, whether a payment from an IT should technically be called a dividend or not. Life's too short. And, say it quietly, but I quite like lazy.
But that's just my perspective; you may disagree.

I agree the temptation is there. But exactly the same temptation exists within a 'go for growth and sell capital when required' strategy.
It would be deceitful to assert that every total return investor will inevitably pile into high risk small start ups in a cultural 'reach for growth', and gamble the family capital away - and then use the caricature as 'proof' that all total return decumulation is ludicrous, foolish, and all the rest.
It is equally deceitful to always characterise income investors as inevitably and exclusively gambling on zombie, high yield, bombed out stocks.

With an annuity, risk has been largely eliminated but at immense cost. Immediate and irretrievable loss of all capital, no inflation linking, and pitiful returns - especially joint life. (c.1.4%, if escalating at 3% per year)
Going up the 'income' risk scale however, is not limited to a single giant leap to the extreme of 5% zombies and junk bonds. A portfolio of mainstream, generalist investments can be constructed to provide a more moderate, yet still annuity beating, income from distributions.
If I were in Mrs Buffet's position my 90% would be invested in VWRL and I would simply let the 2% distributions arrive automatically into the bank account each month via HL. (Using 10% cash reserve to smooth).
I'll leave the semantics to you, but I call that income investing. (No selling of capital for drawdown).
As it is, I prefer to position for a yield whereby our total taxed income (ie combined with state pension etc) is butting up against the higher tax threshold. I have the capital to achieve that without 'Vodafone! Junk!', and the portfolio reflects that.

Trying to fund a decent retirement in current low return climate will be difficult for many. The realisation of just how much capital is needed, how much risk is required, and how little the returns, will become increasingly apparent as more people slip into 'decumulation'.
Therefore there is great value to be had in discussing options, pros and cons. But that isn't going to happen if every conversation gets drowned out by shrieks of 'Vodafone!', 'yield traps!' and all the rest.

I suspect, by the way, that more pensioners will actually run out of cash by mis-managing a 'sell capital when required' retirement fund than ever will through living off natural yield. There is at least some kind of in- built discipline with the latter, no matter how flawed.
It would be helpful to discuss such matters without misrepresenting just what 'income investing' can mean.

Edit. The c.1.4% annuity rate refers to the second life, the surviving spouse. An income portfolio however, would be entirely unconcerned by my death.