▶ Full Post Text
I have been spending a lot of time comparing income focused ETFs versus growth ETFs, and I am trying to pressure test my own assumptions around why income is the better choice for certain investors. I am genuinely curious how others here think about this, especially those who have held dividend or income portfolios through multiple market cycles.
One question I keep coming back to is whether income ETFs are truly the most efficient way to generate cash flow when compared to borrowing against a growth portfolio. For example, if someone had $1M (USD) invested in broad growth ETFs, it seems possible to take a relatively small securities based loan against that portfolio, say $150k, at a low loan to value. If the interest rate were market, the annual interest cost would be roughly $7k-$8k, while the portfolio itself could continue compounding without selling shares and without triggering capital gains taxes.
From what I understand, these loans can often be rolled or refinanced rather than repaid, meaning the borrower only services interest and does not have to sell assets. In theory, this provides tax free cash flow while allowing the growth portfolio to remain intact. Compared to income ETFs, which often generate taxable distributions and may experience NAV drag due to option strategies, this approach looks compelling on paper.
I also learned that the interest on these loans may sometimes be tax deductible as investment interest, depending on how the borrowed funds are used and how much net investment income the investor has. That said, the deductibility seems limited for investors who primarily hold growth ETFs unless they intentionally generate taxable investment income or elect to treat certain gains as ordinary income. This adds complexity, but it also suggests there are scenarios where borrowing costs can be partially offset.
Where I struggle is understanding when income ETFs clearly win. Income portfolios feel safer psychologically and operationally. There are no margin calls. Cash flow is predictable. There is no reliance on a broker maintaining lending terms. In drawdowns, income continues to arrive without forced selling. On the other hand, the opportunity cost in strong bull markets is real, and long term wealth accumulation appears meaningfully lower compared to pure growth strategies.
I am not trying to argue that one approach is universally better. I am trying to understand where the line is. For someone with a long time horizon, low spending needs, and discipline around leverage, does borrowing against growth dominate income investing. Conversely, for those focused on retirement income, sequence of returns risk, or simplicity, are income ETFs the superior solution despite the tax and NAV tradeoffs.
I would really appreciate hearing from people who have actually used either approach in practice. Have you borrowed against a portfolio for cash flow instead of holding income funds. If so, what risks or downsides did you encounter. For those who prefer dividends and income ETFs, what made you decide the tradeoffs were worth it. I am genuinely trying to learn how others here think about this decision.