The comment stream is asking you to elaborate as to that portion of your statement wherein you said owning 'dividend growers exclusively' is risky or not advisable...exactly what are the dangers of having an income stream as a primary goal instead of capital appreciation?
I have tried to address this before. This is in part a philosophical issue. My first hand experience with capital markets goes back to 1984 (worked in the industry for a year before starting college) and I have tried to learn about stock market history from before 1984.
In my time I have seen plenty of things that could never blowup or otherwise hurt people in fact go on to blowup and otherwise hurt people. I believe you are around 70 but I do not know how long you have been a market participant but you have probably seen more of this first hand than I have.
For whatever reason I have a pretty good memory for how the psychology around these things has worked and I believe I see a lot of the same behavior repeating in many of the comments.
It may be difficult to believe but the can't go wrong idea was also applied to the Nifty 50 and Junk Bonds--yes, you can say it was different for this or that but the behavior is not different. In the 1990s Fannie and Freddie were must holds because of how incredibly safe they were.
It is simply a matter of philosophy based on personal observation that too much of anything, ANYTHING, increases the risk taken. The debate that we all have is actually not whether the risk is greater (IMO) but whether or not there will ever be a consequence for that risk and for that, I have no idea. I do know that some event that I can't imagine that somehow does blow up whatever segment of dividend stocks you care about won't blow up our clients.
Frankly I would be more concerned about the blowup I CAN'T envision as opposed to the one I can envision.
My own preference is to be segment agnostic (so dividend stocks would be one segment, for example). There are many segments in the market, they all rotate in and out of favor and occasionally something truly awful happens to some stray market segment. Something truly awful could happen to any segment. This is of course improbable but it is not impossible. The individual consequence of "truly awful" depends on the amount of exposure in the portfolio.
I don't think you all see it this way but I think my comments in this thread over the last couple of years have been ones of moderation.