The trial court ruled in Karen’s favor and signed a proposed divorce decree that had been drafted up by Brad’s attorney. Neither party appealed the decree. After the divorce, however, Karen’s monthly income began to progressively decline. As a result, she filed a petition in July of 2007 alleging that Brad had violated the terms of the divorce decree. She also proposed an alternative argument that perhaps the divorce decree was too vague and needed to be clarified. The trial court found that the decree was, in fact, too vague, and ordered it to be clarified.
That strategy seems waaaayyyy less risky than actively picking stocks of supposedly “reliable” stocks that issue dividends, which could be cut at any time due to shifting industry trends and company performance. Dividend investing feels like an overly complex old-school way of investing that doesn’t have a very strong intellectual basis compared to index investing.
When looking at income in the future, shouldn’t we be looking at what is going to happen and determine if that is what we want life to look like? We need to work backward from that point until we reach today, viewing our decisions with money as the pre-cursor of tomorrow? The reason we even talk about residual income is that’s the goal of retirement or what we like to call time freedom.
Residual income is calculated as net income less a charge for the cost of capital. The charge is known as the equity charge and is calculated as the value of equity capital multiplied by the cost of equity or the required rate of return on equity. Given the opportunity cost of equity, a company can have positive net income but negative residual income.