DiamondEcho wrote:The 'sift-matrics'? That was the original criteria/thresholds a stock needed to surpass to be eligible for consideration for inclusion in a HYP.
A rough idea might be mirrored in this ancient file-note I have: Per 'HYP-52443' [post number], apparently.
Cost not to exceed 5% of the total portfolio cost;
Income contribution not to exceed 5% of the total portfolio income;
Weight after top-up not to exceed 1.5 times the median holding weight.
FTSE-100 AVG = 4.6% [at the time of file-note]
[For new share pick] Take top three highest yielding share in each sector, and sift via these criteria
Prospective yield >= 4%
Prospective P/E <= 10
Market cap >= 500m'
dividend cover >= 1.2+
The reference to 'HYP-52443' looks as though it means
http://boards.fool.co.uk/added-to-tate-13090776.aspx, and the first three lines are a verbatim copy of part of that TMF post. The fourth line looks like information you added from some data source, rather than being any sort of 'sift-metric'.
I haven't tracked down the rest, but I'm not going to bother trying: there's enough there to say that at best, it's the original criteria/thresholds a stock needed to surpass to be eligible for consideration for inclusion in
tjh290633's HYP, and I suspect much more likely some sort of combination of his criteria and one or more other people's (tjh290633 is strongly in favour of using historical data, so the use of "prospective" in the part I haven't tracked down doesn't look like him). They're not the corresponding criteria for anyone else's HYP, except by coincidence or because someone is deliberately copying tjh290633. In particular, they're not the corresponding criteria for HYP1 - a fully-invested portfolio
cannot satisfy the "Cost not to exceed 5% of the total portfolio cost" criterion without containing at least 100%/5% = 20 holdings, and HYP1 is a fully-invested 15-holding portfolio... (Furthermore, we do have an article that gives at least some of its original construction criteria - see
http://news.fool.co.uk//news/foolseyeview/2000/fev001113c.htm.)
DiamondEcho wrote:Them were the rules
Correction: Them were
somebody's rules - at best!
Gengulphus