When to invest in a HYP and How should I measure performance

[Johny01]

The original premise behind the HYP strategy was that it was a replacement for an annuity and thus dividends and yield were the only consideration.
This premise presumes that the HYP provides an income from retirement age but it either needs to be built up prior to retirement or your investment strategy changes at retirement age.
Now I cannot see anyone suddenly changing investment strategy at retirement age primarily because they would not have sufficient confidence in their own investing abilities or the strategy to suddenly move all their savings to HYP.
Like me I think most people build an investment pot based on HYP in the years running up to retirement, investing smaller amounts over time. This has 2 great advantages 1) You even out any market timing issues 2) You gain confidence in the strategy and what it produces.
If you are investing for 10 or 20 years before you retire the question comes - Is measuring the results of the strategy by yield alone the correct measure?
When you come to retirement age what do you want? I would suggest that you want as large a pot as possible that delivers a consistent return that you are confident will continue for as many years as you do and you want to be able to sleep at night.
Because I measure my HYP portfolios using Microsoft Money, it provides me with income and Total Return measures. I take more notice of total return than I do income but I base the investment decision on current yield. In other words I have fairly standard HYP portfolios. I do not tinker when a yield drops because that is often caused by an increase in capital value and thus Total Return is good.
The good news is that Total Return has been very good varying between 12% and 6% per annum depending on when the portfolio was started.
I am now starting to take income from the portfolios and I can sleep soundly at night!

Cheers

John

[Itsallaguess]

If you are investing for 10 or 20 years before you retire the question comes - Is measuring the results of the strategy by yield alone the correct measure?

I'm not convinced anyone does measure the results of the HYP strategy by yield alone, so I wouldn't start with that premise. In theory, dividend payouts can rise quite considerably over time, giving higher and higher income to the HYP owner, but so long as those payouts are accompanied by similarly rising share-prices, in theory the yield of a portfolio could stay rock-solid for years, and yet in the real-world, a rising income could still be seen alongside that.

I think the HYP strategy relies on using yield to indicate companies that might be worth investing in, but then the other side of that coin is that we are also looking not just for an initially high yield, but also a dividend-payout level that is likely to rise as well over time. That way, you get a good initial income level, due to the high yield, and also see it rise with a view to beating or at least keeping up with inflation during your retirement years.

As for switching strategies, I'm not sure that's a valid point either if you've spent your earlier years using the HYP strategy, or something akin to it. The only thing that needs to be done in those cases is to switch the 're-investment' lever to the 'payout' feature, and then start living off your income. Nothing difficult about that particular 'switch' at all....

Your point regarding total-return is valid, but not one that HYP investors are generally over-worried about. As I said earlier, the general idea is that mega-cap companies, at least at a portfolio-level, might be expected to trundle along growing their markets at the same time as growing their dividend payouts. If that's the case generally, over time, then HYP owners are likely to see rising market-caps that might well lend themselves to rising share-prices, alongside yields that may not vary that much when comparing share-prices to dividends.

HYP owners are generally not interested in selling such shares to fund income, but of course it's a valid strategy for those that are interested in doing so.

I suppose it's always nice to have the option if it's there on the table...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Gengulphus]

The original premise behind the HYP strategy was that it was a replacement for an annuity and thus dividends and yield were the only consideration.

No, it wasn't. I know that myth has built up over the years, but read pyad's introductory article http://news.fool.co.uk//news/foolseyeview/2000/fev001106c.htm and you'll find that it doesn't specifically mention annuities and that it has quite a lot to say about capital as a secondary consideration. It does mention insurance company products, but the specific type of insurance company product it mentions is guaranteed income bonds (which are a closer equivalent to a HYP, with an income return that does not depend on the investor's age and not involving permanently giving up access to the capital). And it does say that the income is the primary object, but that does not imply that it is the only object!

Gengulphus

[mrbrightside]

Like me I think most people build an investment pot based on HYP in the years running up to retirement, investing smaller amounts over time.

Not necessarily. The perceived wisdom is that you should increase your pension contributions as you get older and approach retirement age.

Personally, I consolidated multiple pension pots into a SIPP in 2003 and adopted a HYP approach to see if it was a viable approach to the leaving my money with fund managers and eventually buying an annuity. My experience suggests it is and, even better, it looks like I could live off the income and leave the pension to my beneficiaries.

[Raptor]

If you are investing for 10 or 20 years before you retire the question comes - Is measuring the results of the strategy by yield alone the correct measure?

I'm not convinced anyone does measure the results of the HYP strategy by yield alone, so I wouldn't start with that premise. In theory, dividend payouts can rise quite considerably over time, giving higher and higher income to the HYP owner, but so long as those payouts are accompanied by similarly rising share-prices, in theory the yield of a portfolio could stay rock-solid for years, and yet in the real-world, a rising income could still be seen alongside that.

I think the HYP strategy relies on using yield to indicate companies that might be worth investing in, but then the other side of that coin is that we are also looking not just for an initially high yield, but also a dividend-payout level that is likely to rise as well over time. That way, you get a good initial income level, due to the high yield, and also see it rise with a view to beating or at least keeping up with inflation during your retirement years.

As for switching strategies, I'm not sure that's a valid point either if you've spent your earlier years using the HYP strategy, or something akin to it. The only thing that needs to be done in those cases is to switch the 're-investment' lever to the 'payout' feature, and then start living off your income. Nothing difficult about that particular 'switch' at all....

Your point regarding total-return is valid, but not one that HYP investors are generally over-worried about. As I said earlier, the general idea is that mega-cap companies, at least at a portfolio-level, might be expected to trundle along growing their markets at the same time as growing their dividend payouts. If that's the case generally, over time, then HYP owners are likely to see rising market-caps that might well lend themselves to rising share-prices, alongside yields that may not vary that much when comparing share-prices to dividends.

HYP owners are generally not interested in selling such shares to fund income, but of course it's a valid strategy for those that are interested in doing so.

I suppose it's always nice to have the option if it's there on the table...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Well said and written. a virtual rec for that.

Personally I have had 3 "strategies" with much tweaking of the criteria over the years. 1st strategy was when I had a cash "bonus" of £15K and wanted to buy 15 shares, aka PYAD. 2nd phase was ok I now have these shares and divi coming in as well as addition funds to invest, along with corporate actions, in this phase was up to 27 shares across SIPP, ISA and trading account. Now in phase 3, partial drawdown, down to 25 shares, looking to get down to 23/22 shortly (need some money for building project, not for income!) and re-investing only in held shares.... Strangely I note that for probably the first time in 6 years I show a capital gain on the portfolio costs. The shares I will be selling will also allow me to use CGT allowance. Upto now the emphasis has been totally on growing y-o-y income from the dividends, the capital seems to have taken care of itself.

Also during phase 3 decided to start an IT portfolio (which is growing faster than the HYP) as if I either no longer feel capable or have the capacity to manage the HYP the IT's will take over.

Raptor.

[Lootman]

The original premise behind the HYP strategy was that it was a replacement for an annuity and thus dividends and yield were the only consideration.

No, it wasn't. I know that myth has built up over the years, but read pyad's introductory article . . . and you'll find that it doesn't specifically mention annuities and that it has quite a lot to say about capital as a secondary consideration.

I get the sense that he went back and forth on this, opportunistically. Seems like he started out seeing this more like an offshoot of a value strategy that used dividends as a factor.

Then when he wanted to market a version, he was concerned that a focus on high yield might hurt capital and so came up with the annuity idea to immunise the strategy from criticism that the portfolio could lose value because of its lack of focus on growth. Since an annuity loses all its value on day one, any alternative strategy that doesn't have that disadvantage can still look preferable.

But then in the late 2000's when his demo HYP had significant cuts in income, he dropped some of the emphasis on only the income, and sought solace in the rationalisation that the portfolio value was still above its original starting value.

All of which is to say that I agree with you that the annuity analogy isn't central. Rather it has been an opportunistic prism that was useful at some times and not so at other times. Personally I think that any equity strategy should produce capital growth over long periods when markets rise. It's more that capital growth recedes in importance as the portfolio matures from one being built to one being drawn down. Beyond that, as you get older, it's capital value is probably more important to one's beneficiaries.

[Johny01]

Genulphus

Pyad wrote " capital growth being merely the icing on the cake"

In my case the icing equates to around 50% of the total return over a longer period. As I was building the pot for retirement that 50% was critical to the performance of the HYP. The cake would have been a lot poorer without the icing.

Now when I am in drawdown, I am confident with the strategy and only tinker when forced. Most of the dividens are invested back into HYP shares.

John

[tjh290633]

The original premise behind the HYP strategy was that it was a replacement for an annuity and thus dividends and yield were the only consideration.
This premise presumes that the HYP provides an income from retirement age but it either needs to be built up prior to retirement or your investment strategy changes at retirement age.
Now I cannot see anyone suddenly changing investment strategy at retirement age primarily because they would not have sufficient confidence in their own investing abilities or the strategy to suddenly move all their savings to HYP.
Like me I think most people build an investment pot based on HYP in the years running up to retirement, investing smaller amounts over time. This has 2 great advantages 1) You even out any market timing issues 2) You gain confidence in the strategy and what it produces.
If you are investing for 10 or 20 years before you retire the question comes - Is measuring the results of the strategy by yield alone the correct measure?

You are correct that, during the building phase, total return is the criterion that matters. However the means by which you achieve that Total Return is open for discussion. Part of that will be down to reinvesting dividends, and they will increase as the size of the portfolio increases. If you invest the same amount each year, my experience has been that you can expect the dividends to exceed your contributions after 12 years or so. If inflation is significant, as it has been in the past, then saving the same amount each year does not make sense. If you annual income increases, then it is logical for your contributions to rise accordingly. Reducing the amount does not make any sense to me.

My view, after trying various methods of investing, is that aiming for dividend income gave the best results. Hoping for capital growth was less successful, because the capital growth did not make up for the lack of the compounding effect of reinvesting larger dividends. Consequently I judged my success or otherwise by the rate at which the income from the portfolio rose. Yield, as such, was less important, although it contributed to the result.

You will find that the dividend income will grow dramatically as you approach the end of the 20 year period. That it does should not be a reason to reduce contributions.

TJH

[moorfield]

If you are investing for 10 or 20 years before you retire the question comes - Is measuring the results of the strategy by yield alone the correct measure?
When you come to retirement age what do you want?

I do not tinker when a yield drops because that is often caused by an increase in capital value and thus Total Return is good.

Hi Johny01

I am aiming for the ballpark of "roughly what a higher rate tax payer earns" in about 14 years time. I measure my own actual vs. target income progress using a method I've written up here. And like you I do not tinker with individual holdings unless my overall portfolio income falls short, which it hasn't done yet in 9 years!

Good luck with it.

M

[Gengulphus]

The original premise behind the HYP strategy was that it was a replacement for an annuity and thus dividends and yield were the only consideration.

No, it wasn't. I know that myth has built up over the years, but read pyad's introductory article . . . and you'll find that it doesn't specifically mention annuities and that it has quite a lot to say about capital as a secondary consideration.

I get the sense that he went back and forth on this, opportunistically. ...

Quite possibly - but I'm not commenting on pyad in general, only on his original HYP premise - i.e. what Johny01 said. Nobody has a completely consistent point of view over the years, and I don't expect pyad, myself, you or anyone else to be an exception to that rule. Add to that the fact that no piece of writing - especially a reasonably short one - can capture all the nuances of its author's point of view, and it becomes just about impossible to see whether e.g. a small alteration in the emphasis they place on one particular aspect reflects a changed point of view or just that they happened to talk about one aspect one time, another aspect another time.

What one can reasonably do though is conclude that if there are several mentions of a particular aspect in a fairly short piece of writing, then at the time they thought that aspect a reasonably significant consideration (*). There are ten occurrences of the word "capital" in pyad's introductory article: I think I'm safe in concluding that in November 2000, pyad thought it such a consideration. Not one of primary importance, since he pretty explicitly says that it isn't - but a consideration nevertheless, and not to be excluded from the list of considerations.

And as far as I'm concerned, maybe he's changed his views since or maybe he hasn't - and it doesn't really matter to me. His original views in November 2000 made good sense to me - not perfect sense, but good enough for me to have based my HYP strategy on them. Both his and mine have doubtless drifted since then, and maybe they've drifted apart - but if so, I'm not going to regard his views as holy writ that I must follow, any more than I regarded his earlier "bet the farm" Value strategy as such holy writ!

In any case, Johny01's statement was about the original HYP premise, and it's pure nonsense. I'm not accusing Johny01 of deliberately rewriting history or creating a myth - I know that the 'annuity replacement' idea about the origins of HYP has been around for quite a while, and many people have been sucked into it, doubtless because it's easily memorable. Indeed, there was a period some years back when I accepted it uncritically myself... Nor indeed am I accusing anyone else of deliberately rewriting history or creating a myth - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the myth was created by a 'Chinese Whispers' type of process. But Johny01's statement does not stand up to a simple check of the facts, and it's clear that history has been rewritten and a myth created somewhere along the line.

Finally, I should say that I would have had no problem with a similar statement that didn't involve talking about the strategy's origins. If Johny01 had said for instance that "Many HYPers base their HYP strategy on the premise that it is a replacement for an annuity and thus dividends and yield are the only consideration", I would not have taken issue with it. (I wouldn't actually agree with those HYPers, but I have little doubt that there are quite a few of them around!)

(*) Unless the mentions are specifically for the purpose of saying that it isn't a consideration - but that isn't the case here: not one of the ten occurrences says that capital isn't a consideration.

Edit:

All of which is to say that I agree with you that the annuity analogy isn't central. ...

What I said is that the "annuity replacement" idea isn't original, not that it isn't central. As far as my HYP strategy is concerned, it isn't there at all, and so the question of whether it's central simply doesn't arise!

Gengulphus

[Bouleversee]

Are any of you going to rethink your strategy now that dividends are going to be taxed more highly and IIRC a higher cgt allowance is on the cards? I am talking about non-ISA and non-SIPP shares, of course. Maybe those with lower yields and a bit more growth might become more appealing, though in my experience that type are the holdings producing huge dividend sums after being held for many years though the rate on current price is modest. I've never needed to worry about higher rate tax but, though I haven't done the calculations yet, I think it's quite likely that I may have to pay some next year if I don't seriously reduce my non-ISA holdings and I want to reduce my estate anyway. That's my next headache. There should be more to life than this!

[Lootman]

I know that the 'annuity replacement' idea about the origins of HYP has been around for quite a while, and many people have been sucked into it, doubtless because it's easily memorable. Indeed, there was a period some years back when I accepted it uncritically myself.

Calling it an "idea" rather than a principle or rule is a better way of looking at it, because viewing a portfolio as an annuity isn't something that really determines how you run that portfolio. It's not a rule in that sense, but rather an attitude. The idea appears to be the advocacy of an insouciant approach to capital values. It's akin to the "capital doesn't matter" mantra that also gets kicked about. Neither informs how to manage a portfolio but rather renders you free (in theory anyway) from worry about price and value fluctuations.

And in turn that is hardly a novel or original idea, no matters whose idea it was nor when they had it. But I think it was tempting for those considering the risks involved with higher yield securities, because it freed them emotionally and mentally from the pain of enduring capital losses. One can respond "Ah, but capital doesn't matter" or "It's still better than an annuity" or "never touch the capital anyway". Rather like "it's only a flesh wound" in Monty Python's Holy Grail film, perhaps.

Other HYP ideas are similar. The "don't tinker" idea is really an admission that the strategy advises how to buy but not how or when to sell. Likewise the "never sell" idea is a nod to the more common "long term buy and hold" strategy. "Strategic ignorance" is another faux invention which is a nod to the idea that markets are efficient. The reality is that HYP is full of folksy homilies designed to soothe and stroke, and to deter some of the more obvious criticisms. They are mental appendages to the strategy designed to predict and forestall attacks on its inherent weaknesses. Pyad may not have invented them all but he certainly encouraged them. He was perhaps a better marketer than he was an investor or inventor.

All of which is to say that I agree with you that the annuity analogy isn't central. ...

What I said is that the "annuity replacement" idea isn't original, not that it isn't central. As far as my HYP strategy is concerned, it isn't there at all, and so the question of whether it's central simply doesn't arise!

Yes, it not original, it's not central and it doesn't exist. I think that about covers it!

[Lootman]

Are any of you going to rethink your strategy now that dividends are going to be taxed more highly and IIRC a higher cgt allowance is on the cards? I am talking about non-ISA and non-SIPP shares, of course. Maybe those with lower yields and a bit more growth might become more appealing, though in my experience that type are the holdings producing huge dividend sums after being held for many years though the rate on current price is modest. I've never needed to worry about higher rate tax but, though I haven't done the calculations yet, I think it's quite likely that I may have to pay some next year if I don't seriously reduce my non-ISA holdings and I want to reduce my estate anyway. That's my next headache. There should be more to life than this!

To some extent. Part of the appeal of dividends was that, until this tax year, they were very lightly taxed. If you had no other income you could earn 40K a year in dividends and pay no tax. Throw in the annual CGT allowance and that's 50K a year tax-free. Or 100K a year tax-free for a couple. Plus whatever they get from ISA.

Not bad, so it's hardly a surprise that the government is taking aim at people in that situation, and I suspect that the 7.5% dividend tax with a 2K allowance is just the start. Although the CGT breaks haven't been messed about with yet - I wasn't aware of a potentially higher CGT allowance, but that would be good too.

So yes, if we ever got to the point where dividends were taxed like ordinary income, then there'd be an increased push to shelter dividends from tax. Historically I've used ISAs more to shield capital gains from tax, and to keep my tax affairs simpler, and things aren't so bad that I'll reverse that yet. And in any event, reversing it completely would be like turning an oil tanker around - it would take a long, long time.

But will such tax changes make a HY strategy less attractive in relative terms? Yes, in my opinion. There was a perception by many that dividends were somehow tax-free, As a result I think some UK investors lost interest in growth investing as a strategy, and that's a shame because there is a lot of growth out there if you know where to look for it. It just doesn't yield 5% a year.

[daveh]

Are any of you going to rethink your strategy now that dividends are going to be taxed more highly and IIRC a higher cgt allowance is on the cards? I am talking about non-ISA and non-SIPP shares, of course. Maybe those with lower yields and a bit more growth might become more appealing, though in my experience that type are the holdings producing huge dividend sums after being held for many years though the rate on current price is modest. I've never needed to worry about higher rate tax but, though I haven't done the calculations yet, I think it's quite likely that I may have to pay some next year if I don't seriously reduce my non-ISA holdings and I want to reduce my estate anyway. That's my next headache. There should be more to life than this!

Not yet, but the dividend tax changes have changed my plans some what. My holdings are split between sheltered and unsheltered accounts ~2/3 : 1/3 and I was under the old dividend allowance, but will be over the new £2000 allowance. What I had been doing was filling my ISA with new money and then at the end of the tax year was using up any ISA allowance by bed and ISAing shares with an aim of reducing CGT problems in the future. Now I will be aiming to get as much as possible of my dividend sheltered in my ISA without breaching the CGT allowance. It also means I may be concentrating more than I would like in the one provider where my ISA is held, though I may open a separate ISA with a different provider in 2018/19 to mitigate this problem.

If I fill the ISA with bed and ISA'd shares I may have to find a home for new money, but I will see how it goes next tax year as the ISA allowance is very generous and with the dividends generated within the ISA on top may well mean that how much I can move into the ISA is limited by the CGT allowance, leaving room for adding new money too.

It does complicate things though as I'm having to juggle the dividend and CGT allowances and not doing too much early in the year that I couldn't cope with an unexpected takeover for cash. It also means I will have to learn the complexities of CGT. I have successfully kept my affairs such that I don't have extra tax to pay over and above PAYE so haven't had to do a SA tax return for a few years and I'd like to keep it that way. So I now need to find out (for example) if I can set losses against gains in the same year without filling out a SA return as long as total sale are less than 4x the CGT allowance.

[Raptor]

Are any of you going to rethink your strategy now that dividends are going to be taxed more highly and IIRC a higher cgt allowance is on the cards? I am talking about non-ISA and non-SIPP shares, of course. Maybe those with lower yields and a bit more growth might become more appealing, though in my experience that type are the holdings producing huge dividend sums after being held for many years though the rate on current price is modest. I've never needed to worry about higher rate tax but, though I haven't done the calculations yet, I think it's quite likely that I may have to pay some next year if I don't seriously reduce my non-ISA holdings and I want to reduce my estate anyway. That's my next headache. There should be more to life than this!

It has made me change tack slightly. The £5K I could have lived with as knew that I would be selling off some shares for a bit of income for a building project. The £2K has made me think ongoing, CGT is obviously a consideration, as is bed & isa the higher yield shares. Will look closer as the new financial year goes on.

Raptor.

[Alaric]

So I now need to find out (for example) if I can set losses against gains in the same year without filling out a SA return as long as total sale are less than 4x the CGT allowance.

Any tax is based on the net gain. There's a rule which requires HMRC sight of the calculations when the gains exceed the annual limit before losses are offset . With the limit on dividends dropping to £ 2,000, that seems likely to require quite a few more people to fill in the SA Return.

[moorfield]

Rather like "it's only a flesh wound" in Monty Python's Holy Grail film, perhaps.

Reading this board rather reminds me sometimes of the "People's Front of Judea" / "Judean People's Front" argument. - we're all after a similar end goal presumably and see the merit of not using an annuity.

The "don't tinker" idea is really an admission that the strategy advises how to buy but not how or when to sell.

Agree with you there - selling is a much more difficult decision for me, but I'm not averse to doing it if/when my targets tell me to.



Edit: or should that be "People's Front of Pyad" / "Pyadic People's Front" ?

[Bouleversee]

Daveh -

I hope you have better luck with bed and isa-ing that I have had. In every case, I clocked up a capital gain only to find that after the transfer, which is not without its costs, the shares dropped and have not recovered. According to sod's law, my biggest gains are outside the ISAs and the losses within them. I suppose the secret is to transfer shares showing a loss rather than a gain and hope they recover rather than going further downhill.

[Bouleversee]

As for annuities, it's quite comforting to have a guaranteed sum dropping into your account every month without having to spend any time watching it. But then, my late husband's was taken out (with what was left of his Equitable Life drawdown) at a time when annuity rates were much higher than at present, at a somewhat enhanced rate on account of his cancer. Anything outside an ISA is a pain in the neck when you get old and decrepit. I intend to get rid of my non-ISAs pdq but as Lootman says, it's a bit like turning round a tanker. I have an awful lot of holdings. most of which have done precious little since I bought them many years ago with small sums, and it will take ages to do the computations for HMRC. And you can't be sure that when you have done all that, they won't say that ISAs can no longer be tax free or if you've gifted it you won't live 7 years.

[Gengulphus]

So I now need to find out (for example) if I can set losses against gains in the same year without filling out a SA return as long as total sale are less than 4x the CGT allowance.

Probably not, but the rules don't automatically mean that you have to fill in a tax return. Rather, the rules about filling in a tax return and CGT combine with a suspected bit of HMRC practice to say that if you want to offset losses against gains, you're probably going to have to fill in a tax return. There relevant factors are:

Tax return rule 1: If HMRC ask you to fill in a tax return, you've got to.

Tax return rule 2: If HMRC don't ask you to fill in a tax return, you're required to notify them (by the October 5th six months after the end of the tax year concerned) if you're due to pay more Income Tax than has already been deducted at source, or if you're to pay any CGT.

CGT rule: You cannot offset losses against gains without 'claiming' them - i.e. telling the taxman about them - and (except for some very old losses pre-dating the introduction of this rule in the late 1990s) there's a deadline of 4 years after the end of the tax year in which the losses were realised to claim them. If you miss that deadline, you cannot ever offset them.

Suspected HMRC practice: If any sort of question arises about a taxpayer's CGT situation, ask them to fill in a tax return.

The three rules combine to say that one way or another, you've got to communicate with HMRC if you have good reason to want to offset losses against gains. Good reason is generally (*) either gains over the CGT allowance before offsetting losses, so that offsetting the losses saves you CGT immediately, or losses greater than gains, allowing the excess losses to be carried forward to future tax years and potentially saves you CGT in the future. That communication only has to be via a tax return if HMRC ask you to fill one in, but the only way to escape all three of a tax return, claiming the losses and notifying them that you have CGT to pay is if your gains are below the CGT allowance and you decide you'd prefer not to bother (e.g. if your losses are £9,877 and your gains are £9,876, you might decide that being able to carry £1 of losses forward into the future is more trouble than it's worth!).

And the suspected HMRC practice means that if your communication with HMRC isn't via a tax return, they'll probably ask you to fill one in and so you'll have to do it anyway. It's only suspected HMRC practice, so you can try claiming the losses in a way that makes it as clear as possible that you're only claiming them in order to offset them and bring your gains under the CGT allowance, and that you neither owe CGT now nor are carrying the losses forward - but I wouldn't be all that hopeful...

Finally, as far as I can tell, the rule about disposal proceeds being over 4 times the CGT allowance is only about what you have to do if you do have to fill in a tax return: if they are, you have to give detailed information in the return about your CGT situation even if your gains are below the CGT allowance and you don't want to claim losses. If you're not asked to fill in a tax return, there doesn't appear to be any legal obligation to pay any attention to whether your disposal proceeds are over 4 times the CGT allowance - in particular, the HMRC manual page https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/self-assessment-legal-framework/salf210 that gives "tax return rule 2" above does not say anything about also being required to notify HMRC if your disposal proceeds are too high.

I.e. basically the part of your question that implies that you're probably going to have to fill in a tax return is "if I can set losses against gains in the same year", and as far as I can tell, "as long as total sale are less than 4x the CGT allowance" is irrelevant until you're actually filling in the tax return.

(*) Weasel word because there are almost certainly some further special-situation good reasons, e.g. involving 'clogged losses' on disposals to 'connected persons'.

Gengulphus