How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?

[CryptoPlankton]

As I said, it was only a rough and ready attempt to illustrate a possible approach to compiling a HYP in these difficult times - more about the method than the content. So, forgive me for not having the remotest interest in engaging with you about the minutiae

As the saying goes "the devil is in the detail", not addressing the detail makes a discussion rather pointless. I could just stick up a list of any old shares and then when somebody challenges some of them say "forgive me for not having the remotest interest in engaging with you about the minutiae"... The point of this thread is to test if there a practical way to construct an HYP at the current time following a set of selection criteria that is reasonably consistent with the HYP approach. So far your list is by far the most reasonable attempt to come up with a proposal...

I don't mind a discussion, I only said I wasn't interested in engaging with you about that. I had already explained my answer to "How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?" and that the actual choices were very "rough and ready", so wasn't interested in turning the conversation into what you wanted it to be. In my post, I said that the criteria used left me short of the full 15 acceptable candidates required and further explained what sort of relaxing of these criteria might be needed to achieve a satisfactory result. To me, that is the point of this thread.

Unless somebody comes up with another suggestion the answer to the OP's question is simply, no at the moment it is not possible to set up an HYP in a single lump sum purchase. Such a response makes HYP neither good nor bad, it is just a recognition of the current situation with regard to the practicalities of buying an HYP.

Firstly, how does the answer "no" make any sense at all as a response to the question "How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?"? Secondly, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and I can understand why at least one other poster has been deterred from putting forward their suggestions. However, based on my casual investigation, I would certainly go as far as to say it looks pretty difficult at present.

I have posted too much on here, so I will retreat to HYS&S.

But not just yet, I see...

[Gengulphus]

Unless somebody comes up with another suggestion the answer to the OP's question is simply, no at the moment it is not possible to set up an HYP in a single lump sum purchase. Such a response makes HYP neither good nor bad, it is just a recognition of the current situation with regard to the practicalities of buying an HYP.

Firstly, how does the answer "no" make any sense at all as a response to the question "How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?"? ...

Be fair! Wizard said his answer was "no at the moment it is not possible to set up an HYP in a single lump sum purchase", not just "no". The word "no" isn't needed to make his answer make sense, but it still makes sense with it...

Gengulphus

[tjh290633]

You really do need to do your research.

TJH

Yes everybody needs to do their research, and I certainly do a lot before I invest anything in anything. Furthermore I very deliberately gave my source and acknowledged the level of research wasn't deep or complete (something I doubt is universal).

it really isn't necessary to make "cheap" personal digs.

Apologies, I perhaps should have used "One" rather than "You". I was referring to the need to go back to the horse's mouth to make sure what third parties are saying is correct.

TJH

[CryptoPlankton]

Unless somebody comes up with another suggestion the answer to the OP's question is simply, no at the moment it is not possible to set up an HYP in a single lump sum purchase. Such a response makes HYP neither good nor bad, it is just a recognition of the current situation with regard to the practicalities of buying an HYP.

Firstly, how does the answer "no" make any sense at all as a response to the question "How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?"? ...

Be fair! Wizard said his answer was "no at the moment it is not possible to set up an HYP in a single lump sum purchase", not just "no". The word "no" isn't needed to make his answer make sense, but it still makes sense with it...

Gengulphus

I wasn't going to reply to this as it's getting off topic and I hesitate to ever disagree with you, but I really don't believe I was being unfair:

Q: How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?
A: No at the moment it is not possible to set up an HYP in a single lump sum purchase

Sorry, but to me, although it's easy to interpret the intended meaning with it there, the answer clearly only makes linguistic sense if the "no" is removed.

(Apologies for boring the rest of the world with this - that's me well and truly done now!)

[tjh290633]

I wasn't going to reply to this as it's getting off topic and I hesitate to ever disagree with you, but I really don't believe I was being unfair:

Q: How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?
A: No at the moment it is not possible to set up an HYP in a single lump sum purchase

Sorry, but to me, although it's easy to interpret the intended meaning with it there, the answer clearly only makes linguistic sense if the "no" is removed.

(Apologies for boring the rest of the world with this - that's me well and truly done now!)

Nothing like that is ever impossible, just a little difficult. Currently it may be better done in stages, once the Covid-19 fog has cleared a little.

There are always some shares that fit the bill, the current question is: How many? Also how much can you stretch the guidelines, at a time when almost all shares are affected to one degree or another. Going back to the 2008 crisis, some paused a single payment, two because they had rights issues at the time and it made no sense to take money then hand it back. At this time, companies are wisely deciding to be cautious, even though they could pay dividends. Treating such a pause as a definite disqualification is justified temporarily, but in a year or so it may be safely ignored. We just have to wait and see. Meanwhile there are a few shares that are on offer at historically bargain prices if one is inclined to take the risk.

TJH

[Wizard]

...Indeed, the way my own criteria are developing, the gearing (or balance sheet strength) one is partly quantitative (and as objective as balance sheet figures ever are...), partly qualitative and subjective - the latter being my own assessment of how much balance sheet strength a company's businesses are likely to need in current conditions. E.g. a pharmaceuticals company and a specialist retailer could have exactly the same gearing / balance sheet strength, yet the former might pass my criterion with flying colours and the latter fail it abjectly because I consider the former's business far less likely to need substantial additional borrowing...

Gengulphus

I wondered if you had made any further progress on coming up with a proposal? So far (other than CryptoPlankton's suggested 14 which included some current deferrers / suspensders) whilst there have been statements that it is possible as far as I can see no portfolios with criteria defined have been put forward.

[Arborbridge]

...Indeed, the way my own criteria are developing, the gearing (or balance sheet strength) one is partly quantitative (and as objective as balance sheet figures ever are...), partly qualitative and subjective - the latter being my own assessment of how much balance sheet strength a company's businesses are likely to need in current conditions. E.g. a pharmaceuticals company and a specialist retailer could have exactly the same gearing / balance sheet strength, yet the former might pass my criterion with flying colours and the latter fail it abjectly because I consider the former's business far less likely to need substantial additional borrowing...

Gengulphus

I wondered if you had made any further progress on coming up with a proposal? So far (other than CryptoPlankton's suggested 14 which included some current deferrers / suspensders) whilst there have been statements that it is possible as far as I can see no portfolios with criteria defined have been put forward.

Gengulphus will no doubt answer. but my gut feeling is rther like TJH's. It would be possible to put together a HYP covering some sectors and add more as things evolve. So the answer to "How" is that one would start with a HYP which was possibly incomplete but functional.

It might also be possible to construct a lump sum HYP - it nearly always is - except for the major question of what the FTSE yield is(!). However, I can't frankly see the point of publishing such an effort at the moment when critics are sitting in the wings poised just to have a little fun at someone else's expense. Those that can, do, those that can't, criticise.
In formers times, we might have had some helpful responses and some cooperative enjoyment derived from such an exercise - but I fear not these days. Certain posters are always too willing to flame contributors rather than be constructive.

Arb.

[Wizard]

...Indeed, the way my own criteria are developing, the gearing (or balance sheet strength) one is partly quantitative (and as objective as balance sheet figures ever are...), partly qualitative and subjective - the latter being my own assessment of how much balance sheet strength a company's businesses are likely to need in current conditions. E.g. a pharmaceuticals company and a specialist retailer could have exactly the same gearing / balance sheet strength, yet the former might pass my criterion with flying colours and the latter fail it abjectly because I consider the former's business far less likely to need substantial additional borrowing...

Gengulphus

I wondered if you had made any further progress on coming up with a proposal? So far (other than CryptoPlankton's suggested 14 which included some current deferrers / suspensders) whilst there have been statements that it is possible as far as I can see no portfolios with criteria defined have been put forward.

Gengulphus will no doubt answer. but my gut feeling is rther like TJH's. It would be possible to put together a HYP covering some sectors and add more as things evolve. So the answer to "How" is that one would start with a HYP which was possibly incomplete but functional.

It might also be possible to construct a lump sum HYP - it nearly always is - except for the major question of what the FTSE yield is(!). However, I can't frankly see the point of publishing such an effort at the moment when critics are sitting in the wings poised just to have a little fun at someone else's expense. Those that can, do, those that can't, criticise.
In formers times, we might have had some helpful responses and some cooperative enjoyment derived from such an exercise - but I fear not these days. Certain posters are always too willing to flame contributors rather than be constructive.

Arb.

Surely better to put something up and then report any inappropriate posts than not post anything?

I guess it is an element of which angle one is looking from when considering a part build now. It could be viewed as a practical approach, I agree it is. But it also not really answering the question in the thread’s title, which asks how to construct a portfolio currently, as it is only starting to construct a portfolio. Of course many portfolios are added to over time, but if one can’t get to 15 shares to start with it does not seem it is a portfolio in the context of HYP.

I did have a go myself on HYS&S a while back, but could not get to 15 shares. CryptoPlankton made a good post covering another portfolio suggestion just short of 15. Within that portfolio were some shares which have suspended or cut or deferred due to Covid. Now it may be that some of those shares will see a rebound in dividend payments so it is fine to include them, the interesting discussion would be about which ones will, which ones won’t and why. You may have seen I have started a thread on that topic specifically about BAe Systems on Share Ideas.

These are clearly very unusual times and if the answer is a portfolio can’t be constructed it is a function of the times, not the HYP approach. I may not want to run an HYP myself but it is clear that for anyone who does in more normal times it would not be hard to construct a portfolio that meets the requirements.

[Arborbridge]

I guess it is an element of which angle one is looking from when considering a part build now. It could be viewed as a practical approach, I agree it is. But it also not really answering the question in the thread’s title, which asks how to construct a portfolio currently, as it is only starting to construct a portfolio. Of course many portfolios are added to over time, but if one can’t get to 15 shares to start with it does not seem it is a portfolio in the context of HYP.

It may be answering the question, depending on one's interpretation of the question

Constructing a HYP over time is a valid answer to "How one might currently construct a HYP".
No one said it had to be a lump sum HYP - apart from Luni, I believe - and HYP4 was constructed over a period of time so there's a precedent: it would still be a portfolio in the context of HYP. Diversity wasn't flagged as a problem and I'm sure half a dozen sectors are pretty safe as a start - in fact diversity can wait as the chances of one sector being hit by a problem particular to it are remote, even with one share.

But, if we are being theoretical about the whole thing, I'd say constructing a HYP might be technically impossible because no one can say what the FTSE yield is at the moment. Well, at the very least, which FTSE yield one chooses will radically alter the share and sector choice

Arb.

[Wizard]

I guess it is an element of which angle one is looking from when considering a part build now. It could be viewed as a practical approach, I agree it is. But it also not really answering the question in the thread’s title, which asks how to construct a portfolio currently, as it is only starting to construct a portfolio. Of course many portfolios are added to over time, but if one can’t get to 15 shares to start with it does not seem it is a portfolio in the context of HYP.

It may be answering the question, depending on one's interpretation of the question

Constructing a HYP over time is a valid answer to "How one might currently construct a HYP".
No one said it had to be a lump sum HYP - apart from Luni, I believe - and HYP4 was constructed over a period of time so there's a precedent: it would still be a portfolio in the context of HYP. Diversity wasn't flagged as a problem and I'm sure half a dozen sectors are pretty safe as a start - in fact diversity can wait as the chances of one sector being hit by a problem particular to it are remote, even with one share.

Given the quote in the opening post I think it was fairly clear that the question was in the context of a lump sum single purchase. But Gengulphus may of course correct me.

But, if we are being theoretical about the whole thing, I'd say constructing a HYP might be technically impossible because no one can say what the FTSE yield is at the moment. Well, at the very least, which FTSE100 yield one chooses will radically alter the share and sector choice

Arb.

But it is always difficult to say with precision what the yield of the FTSE100 will be in the next 12 months, it is after all a forecast. Previously I put forward 3.1% as an estimate with a rationale, IIRC somebody else suggested anything below 4% is not really high yield from an absolute stand point. The threshold used and the reason for using it is surely part of the articulation of the criteria being used. I used 3.1% because that was the estimate of forward FTSE100 yield I had made. The lower the threshold used the more shares will clear it and so be eligable against that criteria, so my 3.1% was, I think, a generous threshold to set. Others may use a different, potentially tougher benchmark and can explain the reasoning behind it.

If you still think only a partial portfolio is the best option, which shares / sectors would you include now and which gaps do you think it would be important to fill going forward? Which, if any, current cutters / deferers / suspenders would you include, if any?

[idpickering]

I don’t see what there is to bicker about. There is such a thing as a mini HYP, with only a handful of shares, and maybe not 15 shares at all.

Each to their own. Some prefer to hold more than 15 shares, and some less, so let’s respect that.

Ian.

[Arborbridge]

I don’t see what there is to bicker about. There is such a thing as a mini HYP, with only a handful of shares, and maybe not 15 shares at all.

Each to their own. Some prefer to hold more than 15 shares, and some less, so let’s respect that.

Ian.

I suppose it depends what the starting point for this thread was,(lump sum only, or not, a few shares or loads of shares, at what yield???) but it seems to me a thankless task to contribute much effort to something which is just an excuse for more argument, rather than a positive exploration. And more argument and nit picking is what we receive from some posters who will argue the hind legs off a donkey just becuase it is fun to see HYPers tied in knots rather than wanting to contribute ideas of their own.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Arb.

[Wizard]

I don’t see what there is to bicker about. There is such a thing as a mini HYP, with only a handful of shares, and maybe not 15 shares at all.

Each to their own. Some prefer to hold more than 15 shares, and some less, so let’s respect that.

Ian.

I do not think there is any bickering Ian, just a question as to what the question in the title is looking for. My understanding is that Arb was suggesting buying some shares now and completing the HYP later as more qualifying shares become available. Your suggestion of a "mini HYP" with fewer than 15 shares in the long term is different, I find it interesting for a number of reasons.

It is certainly true that the guidance for HYP-P does not require a portfolio to be of 15 shares or indeed state the number of sectors to be covered, it simply says the portfolio should be diversified. There is, therefore, no requirement to hold 15 shares or any particular number of sectors for a portfolio to qualify as diversified. You use the term a "mini-HYP", I must be honest I do not recall hearing that phrase previously, is there some discussion you can point me to? I would be interested to have a read of it.

I do recall discussion on diversification, but that was some time back and may even have been on TMF, however, IIRC that was more about what benefits there are to diversifying beyond 15 shares. I believe you hold 20 plus shares and although some double-up in sectors it is clearly a diversified portfolio; a holding of just BAT (or any single share) would clearly not be diversified. Equally a portfolio consisting of HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Barclays, Standard Chartered, Close Brothers, Prudential, Legal & General, Aviva, St James's Place, Pheonix, Admiral, RSA, Direct Line and Hastings may be 15 shares, but I doubt anyone would consider it diversified. At what point do you feel sufficient diversification is achieved?

Returning to the question in the thread, clearly reducing the number of shares and sectors required makes current constraints on availability of sustainable dividend payers much less of an issue. Which shares would you suggest for a mini-HYP purchased with a lump-sum now?

[Gengulphus]

Given the quote in the opening post I think it was fairly clear that the question was in the context of a lump sum single purchase. But Gengulphus may of course correct me.

Yes, that's the context of the post by Luniversal that I quoted in my OP, and as I said in viewtopic.php?p=326996#p326996, "I think there's a general consensus there that constructing a lump-sum-invested-all-at-once HYP is at least difficult at present, and is more difficult than constructing one over a significant amount of time (and that's my impression as well)". And as I said in viewtopic.php?p=327341#p327341, "On the "diversified portfolio" bit, I don't think that there's any real disagreement about 15 shares being the minimum level of company diversification, and at least close to 15 sectors being the minimum level of sector diversification". The 5-share "HYPLite" did get discussed a bit on TMF, but pyad said at the time he wrote an article about it (*) that:

Very clearly though, there are far higher risks to both the income and capital with a Lite than a full HYP. If one share went bust, the effect on a fifteen-share portfolio would not be that great. On a five share though, it would be traumatic. Going bust is perhaps not that likely. What will certainly happen though from time to time with any HYP, whatever its size, are dividend cuts by a large number of leading companies which will drop the portfolio income for a period. We have just come through a round of that in recent years.

With a Lite there are not enough shares to achieve the compensating effects in a season of cut dividends. A full HYP won't usually suffer that much because it will contain sufficient shares that don't cut payouts, counteracting to some extent the divi slashers, with the result that total income may be down, but not by a large amount. But the Lite could easily find itself with all shares cutting their payouts substantially in the inevitable bad periods. This is why HYPers looking for income must not follow the Lite route but stick with the full monty.

Of course, there is plenty of room for levels of diversification between a 15-share HYP and a 5-share HYPLite, but equally, each step down towards 5-share diversification increases the risk. Those risk increases become steadily larger as one goes down, so e.g. a 14-share, 13-share or 12-share HYP is riskier than a 15-share one, but much less so than a HYPLite.

Anyway, putting all of that together, I think a 15-share (or larger) lump-sum-invested-all-at-once HYP is the 'gold standard' for answers to this thread's question - but that does not mean that answers which fall a bit short of that standard are valueless! E.g. "I would buy the following 10 shares now and leave the cash for the remaining 5 'slots' to be invested later when things clarify" and "I would buy the following 13 shares now" are valid types of answer to "How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?" - not as good as "I would buy the following 15 shares now", as they only partially construct the HYP and leave the HYP a bit riskier respectively, but nevertheless answers.

As for my own answer to the question, I'm still working on it. The delay is partly caused by this thread having made me more aware of some of the issues (especially just what the FTSE100 yield should be regarded as being), partly by being interrupted by various more important matters, and partly by being distracted by thoughts about some mathematical problems I'm interested in...

(*) I have deliberately not linked directly to that article, as I don't want any substantial discussion of HYPLites distracting from the thrust of this thread. But I have started a new thread about them on Investment Strategies, where anyone who wishes to discuss them can do so.

Gengulphus

[Wizard]

Given the quote in the opening post I think it was fairly clear that the question was in the context of a lump sum single purchase. But Gengulphus may of course correct me.

Yes, that's the context of the post by Luniversal that I quoted in my OP, and as I said in viewtopic.php?p=326996#p326996, "I think there's a general consensus there that constructing a lump-sum-invested-all-at-once HYP is at least difficult at present, and is more difficult than constructing one over a significant amount of time (and that's my impression as well)". And as I said in viewtopic.php?p=327341#p327341, "On the "diversified portfolio" bit, I don't think that there's any real disagreement about 15 shares being the minimum level of company diversification, and at least close to 15 sectors being the minimum level of sector diversification". The 5-share "HYPLite" did get discussed a bit on TMF, but pyad said at the time he wrote an article about it (*) that:

Very clearly though, there are far higher risks to both the income and capital with a Lite than a full HYP. If one share went bust, the effect on a fifteen-share portfolio would not be that great. On a five share though, it would be traumatic. Going bust is perhaps not that likely. What will certainly happen though from time to time with any HYP, whatever its size, are dividend cuts by a large number of leading companies which will drop the portfolio income for a period. We have just come through a round of that in recent years.

With a Lite there are not enough shares to achieve the compensating effects in a season of cut dividends. A full HYP won't usually suffer that much because it will contain sufficient shares that don't cut payouts, counteracting to some extent the divi slashers, with the result that total income may be down, but not by a large amount. But the Lite could easily find itself with all shares cutting their payouts substantially in the inevitable bad periods. This is why HYPers looking for income must not follow the Lite route but stick with the full monty.

Of course, there is plenty of room for levels of diversification between a 15-share HYP and a 5-share HYPLite, but equally, each step down towards 5-share diversification increases the risk. Those risk increases become steadily larger as one goes down, so e.g. a 14-share, 13-share or 12-share HYP is riskier than a 15-share one, but much less so than a HYPLite.

Anyway, putting all of that together, I think a 15-share (or larger) lump-sum-invested-all-at-once HYP is the 'gold standard' for answers to this thread's question - but that does not mean that answers which fall a bit short of that standard are valueless! E.g. "I would buy the following 10 shares now and leave the cash for the remaining 5 'slots' to be invested later when things clarify" and "I would buy the following 13 shares now" are valid types of answer to "How might one currently construct a HYP in practice?" - not as good as "I would buy the following 15 shares now", as they only partially construct the HYP and leave the HYP a bit riskier respectively, but nevertheless answers.

As for my own answer to the question, I'm still working on it. The delay is partly caused by this thread having made me more aware of some of the issues (especially just what the FTSE100 yield should be regarded as being), partly by being interrupted by various more important matters, and partly by being distracted by thoughts about some mathematical problems I'm interested in...

(*) I have deliberately not linked directly to that article, as I don't want any substantial discussion of HYPLites distracting from the thrust of this thread. But I have started a new thread about them on HYS&S, where anyone who wishes to discuss them can do so.

Gengulphus

Thank you for your comprehensive answer Gengulphus, hopefully it will generate some useful input to the question you posed.

[dealtn]

It might also be possible to construct a lump sum HYP - it nearly always is - except for the major question of what the FTSE yield is(!). However, I can't frankly see the point of publishing such an effort at the moment when critics are sitting in the wings poised just to have a little fun at someone else's expense. Those that can, do, those that can't, criticise.
In formers times, we might have had some helpful responses and some cooperative enjoyment derived from such an exercise - but I fear not these days.

Which is a shame as although I don't "HYP" I do invest in a number of candidates that meet the criteria, albeit following a different strategy, and it would be helpful to be introduced to a few, less familiar qualifying names, from outside the FTSE-100 maybe, for consideration.

[JamesMuenchen]

It might also be possible to construct a lump sum HYP - it nearly always is - except for the major question of what the FTSE yield is(!).

I think it's worth nothing that the original method PYAD used, in HYP1 etc, looked at the average FTSE yield only in passing. It wasn't a requirement - that has been added later and is only on TLF, AFAIK.

At least until the TMF board split in 2008, the focus on the TMF-HYP board was more towards the P part of HYP. Lower-yielding shares were quite common, especially if the HYPer preferred faster dividend growth to a higher initial yield. As long as the Portfolio yield was OK, it was OK.

In fact, it's only a happy coincidence that HYP1 qualifies under this requirement as a TLF-HYP. PYAD brought in some lower yielders simply because he wanted them in the portfolio.

Also in HYP1 there was a recommended maximum of 15 shares, and in fact only 12 Sectors.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140528041 ... 01113c.htm

So, I'm pretty confident it would be possible to construct an old-style HYP now or any other time - you just sort by yield and work down the list, disposing of shares that don't meet your requirements until you have enough or reach the end of the list.

The only question is whether you would be allowed to discuss such a portfolio on TLF-HYPP.

[idpickering]

The only question is whether you would be allowed to discuss such a portfolio on TLF-HYPP.

More to the point for me, is how long would it take for that thread to be trolled and hijacked? This board isn’t a nice place to visit nowadays, let alone put up ones HYP for discussion.

In answer to the op, of course one could start a lump sum HYP now, by using the same method as always. By screening the market and buying the highest yielder in a number of sectors until you think it’s full.

Ian.

[Arborbridge]

It might also be possible to construct a lump sum HYP - it nearly always is - except for the major question of what the FTSE yield is(!).

I think it's worth nothing that the original method PYAD used, in HYP1 etc, looked at the average FTSE yield only in passing. It wasn't a requirement - that has been added later and is only on TLF, AFAIK.

At least until the TMF board split in 2008, the focus on the TMF-HYP board was more towards the P part of HYP. Lower-yielding shares were quite common, especially if the HYPer preferred faster dividend growth to a higher initial yield. As long as the Portfolio yield was OK, it was OK.

In fact, it's only a happy coincidence that HYP1 qualifies under this requirement as a TLF-HYP. PYAD brought in some lower yielders simply because he wanted them in the portfolio.

Also in HYP1 there was a recommended maximum of 15 shares, and in fact only 12 Sectors.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140528041 ... 01113c.htm

So, I'm pretty confident it would be possible to construct an old-style HYP now or any other time - you just sort by yield and work down the list, disposing of shares that don't meet your requirements until you have enough or reach the end of the list.

The only question is whether you would be allowed to discuss such a portfolio on TLF-HYPP.

In some ways, it's a shame that TLF helped to muddy the waters by changing some criteria, although I understand this was supposed to be helpful at the time.
Looking through the article you posted, it's clear that pyad was aiming at FTSE 100 or acceptably "big" companies, and I doubt it's a coincidence that all those in the list yielded more than the FTSE 100 at the time. I believe that's what he was aiming at, ideally. What comes across in the article is the clarity of his writing - later we made things so much more complicated - and the little bit of give and take in the concept.
Also worth re-reading these paragraphs:

"Just to recap: my suggestion is that you simply buy and hold forever, ignoring press comment on your shares, resisting the temptation to meddle once the initial decision has been taken. There may be occasions when something has to be done, for example if a share is taken over for cash which has to be reinvested, but in general leaving the portfolio completely alone is probably the best policy for a large number of income investors.

The income portfolio is not for those who like to trade in order to generate capital profits. It is for the income investor seeking an alternative to insurance products or deposit accounts."

It's all simple and clear - only when discussing it do we start teasing it out and asking unecessarily detailed questions. I doubt pyad ever wanted to be quite so exacting, mechanical or picky as some of us have become. The feeling I get through all his writings is that he is saying "do this or something like it, and you won't go far wrong".

You say "So, I'm pretty confident it would be possible to construct an old-style HYP now or any other time - you just sort by yield and work down the list, disposing of shares that don't meet your requirements until you have enough or reach the end of the list. "

I say halleluja to that!

Arb.

[dealtn]

You say "So, I'm pretty confident it would be possible to construct an old-style HYP now or any other time - you just sort by yield and work down the list, disposing of shares that don't meet your requirements until you have enough or reach the end of the list. "

I guess it will all come down to what is meant by "your requirements", and depending on that whether the end of the list is reached before a suitable number is reached for it to be considered complete.

It would be welcome to see such a list from others though, as I would be interested in some of the less usual candidates for further analysis and purchase consideration. There appears a reluctance to contribute possibly as has been said due to the "atmosphere" surrounding such threads.

Back in March I suggested WEIR as one candidate outside of the usual suspects. Since then it too has cancelled its dividend, making it ineligible, but it has risen by about 50% (which I know isn't the purpose of this strategy - and also such performance has also been made by others). It's that kind of thinking, and identifying opportunities, that I have found useful amongst the community here in the past, and look forward to.