ElLobo,

Anyhow, you can go back and check the dividend history of any stock, or market, over the past 30 years.  Or even 100 years.  What you will find is that the stability of those dividends, in general, has been considerably more stable then share prices and fund NAVs..

I agree with you on this point, but dividend capture does not depend on dividend stability alone.  Your own experiment into dividend capture has shown you that success with dividend capture is wholly dependent on share price.

The ADVDX/VPDFX argument is the NAT/XOM arguments, revisited!

I totally disagree with you here.  The NAT/XOM argument depends on the fundamentals, profitability, earnings, and the stability of those two companies.  ADVDX and to a lessor degree VPDFX depend on theme investing.

Regarding the remainder of your post, directed towards me, people always make the argument that dividend capture shouldn't work, but it has, so far.  Or that it shouldn't work, in the future, under such and such conditions.

 I guess it depends on your definition of "what works".  If by working you mean that ADVDX has converted almost all of its total returns since its inception to dividends, then I guess it is working, but if by working you mean actually adding value, income or security above and beyond similar investments it isn't.

 I'm reminded of the age-old theory that bumblebees shouldn't fly!

A linear thinker might agree that bumblebees can not fly, and dividend capture does work, but a strategic thinker, looking at the whole picture would reason, I can actually see bumblebees fly.

As always thanks for the exchange,

helmut