LOL I feel your pain, orvil. I've been around the block a few times on this discussion too.

Everybody else:

The disconnect seems to occur with the proper way to measure a cash flow investment versus the way to measure a capital appreciation investment. Following the rules of the Snider Method, there are no "realized losses" unless one of your positions goes bankrupt and the stock becomes worthless. And the method uses some pretty elaborate screening of financial data to make sure we are investing in companies that are likely (notice I didn't say guaranteed) not to go bankrupt. So assuming none of your positions ever go bankrupt, you will never realize any losses. This leaves whatever cash flow the position produces (and possibly a small amount of capital appreciation as shares are sold) as the yield.

It's kind of like investing in a rental property. You are using the property for the objective of producing cash flow, not counting on the house to appreciate in value to make money on it. You're not going to sell it for less than you paid for it and, as long as it's producing the desired cash flow, you're a happy camper and are meeting your objective with this investment. When you finally decide to sell the house for at or above what you paid for it, the cash flow was the vast majority of your return. The market price of the house at any particular point during the time you owned it is irrelevant. The only relevant market price is the one for which you finally sold it. And you predetermined that you would not sell it below your cost.

Sorry for the lengthy illustration. Hopefully it helps to understand the fundamental difference between a cash flow investment and a capital appreciation investment. Like orvil said, if you don't want to do it (Snider Method), then don't.