In 2021 I had a brief “debate” with a DBS consultant after a Takashimaya seminar. He is conversant with stocks.

DIVA shows 10%+ compound return (assuming DRIP) over a decade+. Impressive, but most of it probably is capital gain, rather than dividend income from constituent stocks. The presentation by DBS/OCBC etc is probably misrepresentation of DIVA dividend dependability.

Q: if an equity mufu like DIVA can pay 4% dividend, then what’s the advantage of MOETF hitting DYOC 4% after tax?
A: This blogpost on DPR is the big picture. I doubt a mufu can generate 4% DYOC consistently without eroding NAV. I have yet to see an example.
A: An big point of confusion — when I say 4% DYOC I’m referring to my entire portfolio, where 80% of t could be earning 5% and the other 20% earning close to 0%. For a mufu investor, DIVA would be part of her portfolio, so her portfolio DYOC is unlikely to be same as DIVA.
A: an equivalent ETF will probably beat the mufu in terms of expense ratio. However, mufu manager can trade better than the ETF robot. Over the decades, countless papers have demonstrated that virtually all eq mufu’s under-perform the index in the long run.
A: MOETF will beat ETF on a few fronts. One financial reason — MOETF gives me the option to liquidate individual constituent stocks.

However, I do agree that dividend tax is a disadvantage of MOETF. Luckily, as U.S. tax payer, my annual income would be so low that my marginal tax rate would be far below 20%.

Tcost is another disadvantage but as an recreational investor I treat it as recreation and learning. Anti-aging.

By the way, the DBS consultant made another misrepresentation implying “10% return every year.” I challenged him “Are you sure there’s not an annual return below 10%”? I believe 2011 and 2018 are negative.