Yes that is exactly the point, but other than the income i get from these assets i try to use a rule based system to buy them when they are cheap generally.

I want the cash flow. I actually use a model in my 401K where i look at the ratio between other workers putting money in my 401K and myself. I got the idea from George S Clason's book "The Richest Man in Babylon". It has been very interesting to watch that ratio rise. By the time I need the 401K, it should be very well developed as an income generating machine.

Also as you recognized i like the fact that even when it dips in value I get paid all the same.

401K's tend to hold Mutual funds which have a peculiar mechanism of paying distributions and dropping the NAV at the same time so that you appear to be no better off the next day. However the price tends to go back to where it was and next time there is a payout i have more units. Its the compounding that I watch. Its confusing because the financial industry says payout or no payout the net affect is the same, but I struggle with that. Certainly if you model it, it looks as they say but one comparison I have used in my own argument with Fidelity who changed our S&P500 fund into one that did not pay a distribution but pooled the money. The fact is is that it does exactly track the price only trend of SPY. But the holders of SPY are getting a 2% dividend. So where is my money :) I don't like the pool idea. There is no transparency and I have plenty of ideas of what to do with the funds so I like them to pay me rather.