Arborbridge wrote:absolutezero wrote:Gengulphus wrote:And the difference you perceive between a "hyp" and a "HYP" is? The board guidelines only talk about "HYP"s and at least as far as I'm concerned, the two terms you've used are simple typographical variations of "HYP" - i.e. they mean exactly the same thing...
HYP is the purest of pure THOU SHALT NOT TINKER AND THOU SHALL LEAVE YOUR PORTFOLIO INTACT - even if half the shares in it are dogs and they yield 1.2% and pull down your overall yield.
hyp is the TINKER ALL YOU LIKE variant to maximise dividend income.
The HYP you think of, we usually call a classical, Dorisian or Pyadic HYP. ...
I would strongly recommend calling them "non-tinkering HYPs" rather than any of those terms. It actually makes it clear in which way you're distinguishing the two types of HYP, with just one bit of background knowledge required, namely that "tinkering" is HYP jargon for "voluntary selling". (The term "no-voluntary-sales HYP" would be even more descriptive, but it's got very little (if any) history of being used and it's a bit too long-winded.)
In contrast, all three of "Pyadic HYP", "Dorisian HYP" and "classical HYP" require knowledge of old TMF articles that AFAIAA no longer exist on the TMF site and can only be found in archived form. Also, "Pyadic HYP" suffers from the problems that pyad has selected and run multiple HYPs, using slightly different methods (tinkering vs not tinkering being one of the differences), and that he's made various recommendations about how to run them, of which not tinkering is just one. For instance,
his original article recommended "
no more than about 15 shares", "
Stick to FTSE 100 companies", "
choosing one from each sector", "
pick only those companies that have increased dividends regularly over the last few years" (and probably others as well that I've missed on a quick skim) as well as "
simply buy and hold forever". Calling some HYPs "Pyadic" leaves it totally unclear which of those recommendations one is referring to. Of course, one
might only be talking about HYPs that treat
all of those recommendations as strict commandments that are not to be broken under any circumstances - but that leads to the rather silly conclusion that HYP1 has
never been a "Pyadic HYP", even when it was first selected in
pyad's follow-up article: that article admits that he went outside the FTSE100, and offers no reason to regard the miners Anglo American and Rio Tinto as being in different sectors.
So while I'd be reasonably certain that a poster who uses the term "Pyadic HYP" knows what they mean by it, I as a reader am left having to guess what meaning they have in mind (unless of course they explain that, but they almost never do, and if they did it would defeat the object of using a brief term!). Other readers will be in the same position, and it's practically inevitable that different guesses will be made. I.e. using "Pyadic HYP" is a good way to create misunderstandings... "Classical HYP" is much the same - basically, using it leaves it unclear which of the recommendations in the 'classic' articles and posts about HYPs are being treated as commandments and which as mere recommendations.
"Dorisian HYP" is somewhat different, as just about the only things we know about
Doris's portfolio are that "
Over some forty years, at £7m it was around 65 times its value when she inherited it at a then value of £108,000 back in the thirties" (which made her "
pretty rich, so much so that she never really knew how much she had, which it has been said is one mark of a rich person"), that it delivered "
an income of something like £275,000 a year" (making its yield about 4%, but I've no idea whether that was a high yield for the time), that it was "
a selection of the blue chips of their day" and that "
she never did any trading. The only changes to the portfolio over all those years were consequently those mandatory impositions resulting from corporate activity." I.e. it
might have been selected along HYP lines (though the article specifically notes that pyad didn't know how it had been selected), and the only thing known about the way it had been run was that it was non-tinkering. So it's reasonably clear that the only aspect of how a portfolio is run that "Dorisian HYP" can be referring to is not tinkering. Or rather, that would be clear were it not for the fact that Doris has been portrayed in many ways on TMF and TLF, including as an old lady who is struggling financially. (The Doris of the article would probably have hardly noticed a year of widespread dividend cuts and a number of investee companies going bust that resulted in her income being halved or even worse, perhaps finding that she didn't have as much cash available to donate to charity as usual but nothing more. That's a position that very few investors are in, and it does make a difference to how imprudent it is to pay no attention to one's portfolio!)
So while the phrase "Dorisian HYP" can only really mean a non-tinkering HYP if one goes back to the only real source of information about 'Doris', that source is rather obscure, and searching for it is likely to produce quite a few conflicting ideas of what it's referring to.
Gengulphus