Sounds like you and I think a lot alike. For example, I've caught heat on FR for posting about trying to make us mostly energy independent (putting solar onto our house to take advantage of Alabama sun, doing most of our driving in an EV) as a hedge of protection against the Dims' insane energy policies making energy too costly as I soon head into retirement in my late 50's. The idea being I'm trying to remove the unknown variables form my retirement budget, particular variables I have no control over. Future energy costs is a big unknown variable. But I catch heat also from the libtards at EV charging stations when I tell them I still have an ICE pickup both for pickup chores and to give us some diversity on energy dependency (if the Dims mess up electricity I have an ICE pickup, if the Dims keep messing up gas I have an EV, if the Dims mess up both I have solar to provide about 90% of all of my local driving for free). I can see how others, even like-minded conservatives on FR don't like my plan for self-sufficiency on one of the things that cost us a lot (energy), especially FReepers who don't live in an area where it can provide 80% to 90% of a solution like it does me. I'm just saying the overall mindset for self-sufficiency is common among us.
It's with that same mindset that I incorporate dividend income into my retirement portfolio. I like them, but I'm not all dependent on them. That might be were you and I see things differently. For me diversification, investing in many asset classes, provides more self-sufficiency. For starters, inflation is a real issue to deal with. Particularly to people like you and me who retire a bit early. If we live 30 years in retirement will the dividend income be enough in the last 10-15 years of life? I've been beating this drum since before Commander-by-cheat entered the WH, now with him it's all the more important to address inflation. Maybe it's not for you, but I see a need for a significant amount of growth to retire early, even if we're living mostly self-sufficiently. And I see less risk in having a large number of equities funds. In fact, I reduce risk by making inflation less of a threat. But the trick in having a huge portion in equites (i.e. 70%) is by having them spread out across many asset classes. As I posted in the graph above, even in large market downturns like we experienced the past two decades, there's always something that's up that you can withdraw from to live on. Sometimes it's traditionally safe assets (i.e. long-term treasury funds tend to go up when stocks crash). Sometimes its equity funds no one saw coming (who'd a thunk the Latin American fund would have done so well those years?). Often it's a combination of both.
So say you retired in early 2000 with $1 million spread out like I do and you withdraw 4% annually to live on. That's $40K (which meant a lot more in 2000 than today). Then in January 2001 you log into your investments again to do a 4% withdrawal and see your overall balance is down about 20%. That's a bummer, but still do-able because some of those funds are up anyway. Withdraw your living expenses (about $40K since that's what you withdrew the prior year even though 4% of the 2001 balance is lower than $40K) from those high funds and let the low balance funds sit until they come back up. Repeat the next year, then the next. In the growth years, your 4% calculation increases so you're giving yourself a raise -- much bigger than if it's just dividend equities. This lets you compete with inflation (always a problem) but also have a hedge against broad market downturns (sometimes a problem, but diversification handles it anyway).
I don’t want anything invested in equities I might want to liquidate quickly or have to sell to live on.
What little I do invest in equities is long term on the side icing on the cake.
Some stock heavy portfolios are down 40 or 50 % now. Retired people don’t need to be tying up huge amounts of their life savings into investments they can’t access when needed without HUGE losses. Health problems family emergencies death etc. These people would be SCREWED.
It’s bad advice plain and simple. That’s why successful managers don’t recommend that type of high risk mix for non working retired clients unless they simply don’t have enough to make ends meet or unprepared financially and trying to make up for it after retirement with a high risk strategy used by young working adults or have a paycheck to live on