Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

HYP1 is 16

For discussion of the practicalities of setting up and operating income-portfolios which follow the HYP Group Guidelines. READ Guidelines before posting
Forum rules
Tight HYP discussions only please - OT please discuss in strategies
tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4643

Postby tjh290633 » November 13th, 2016, 10:16 pm

What prompted me to set a limit on holding weight was the knowledge that unit funds are limited in their holding weights. From memory it is something like no one holding can exceed 10% and only a few can exceed 5%. Quite frankly, I got frightened when Lloyds TSB rose to 16%.

If you set your limits too tightly, you end up dealing very frequently. Evenso, I have had a number of shares where I had to trim back on several occasions. Imperial Tobacco and Stagecoach were two of them.

TJH

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4663

Postby Gengulphus » November 14th, 2016, 12:36 am

Bubblesofearth wrote:I think the reason HYP1, and no doubt other HYP's, has outperformed the index from both an income and capital pov is down to the equal weighting of constituents. Which, if true, is a powerful learning in itself.


I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's a justifiable statement. HYP1 was equally-weighted 16 years ago, but hasn't been for many years now - just take a look at the first table in the OP of this thread!

My view is that HYP1's outperformance of the FTSE 100 index is due to:

* A headwind faced by the FTSE 100 index in the early years: while November 2000 was several months after the peak of the tech boom, the index still contained a considerable number of overpriced tech shares, whose subsequent price performance handicapped the index - and didn't touch HYPs, as their yields were negligible at best. As a measure of that, the ratio of the FTSE 350 Higher Yield total return index to the FTSE 100 total return index on November 13th, 2000 was 0.8836. On November 13th, 2002, it was 1.1074 and on Friday, it was 1.0928 - so the headwind has given high-yield FTSE 350 shares a 23.7% advantage (1.0928/0.8836 = 1.237) over the FTSE 100 index, but that advantage was basically all over in the first two years.

* Failure to diversify when reinvesting past takeover proceeds that were significant percentages (well above 1/15th = 6.67%) of the total portfolio value. Both of HYP1's top two holdings (BATS and BT) were bought with such large takeover proceeds... Putting a lot of eggs in one basket can be very profitable when it works!

* Some good share selections. In a 15ish-share portfolio, just one really good performer can make quite a difference - e.g. I haven't done my CHYP1 review yet, but I'm pretty certain that HYP1 will have outperformed it significantly, and the difference will be very largely down to HYP1's selection of Persimmon in 2008. And HYP1 has had quite a few good share selections - not just ones that are in the portfolio now, but also past ones that have been taken over.

I won't comment on whether those shareholdings were good due to inherent advantages of HYP share selection, to pyad's stockpicking skill or to luck - because I really have no idea what the answer is!

Gengulphus

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4672

Postby Alaric » November 14th, 2016, 2:25 am

Bubblesofearth wrote:
1. Efficient market hypothesis would suggest that the market cannot on average be beaten.


Shouldn't that statement be qualified by the rider that "without increase in risk"?

The obvious example is this. Suppose you constructed a couple of indexes with the first fifty companies of the FTSE 100 by alphabet and the second fifty. They aren't going to perform the same and one is going to beat the other and the whole index. Other splits are possible.

Depending on which half you select and how it pans out, you get a higher or lower performance than the FTSE 100 as a whole.

The other thought is that markets can be beaten by insider knowledge. That's illegal but forensic accounting isn't.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4675

Postby Gengulphus » November 14th, 2016, 3:37 am

1nv35t wrote:All indexes tend to follow mechanical rules, but with some having a degree of human selectivity thrown in (such as S&P500). Comparing sets of different mechanics is less indicative than comparing more like-for-like mechanics and the FTSE100 is so different in mechanics to HYP1 that doing so is a pretty meaningless choice of benchmark. As bad as comparing one portfolio with that of another over a totally different time period.


I'm afraid I think you're losing track of the purpose of benchmarking... It isn't to eliminate as many differences as possible between the portfolio you're looking at and the benchmark - otherwise I've got this convenient P131100 benchmark for HYP1 which has an awful lot in common with HYP1 - a 15-share portfolio, equally weighted at the outset on 13/11/2000 but left to weight itself after that, selected for high yield and other criteria that suggested the dividends would be maintained and hopefully would grow, etc, etc, etc. And it turns out that HYP1 has performed identically to that benchmark...

That is of course a reduction ad absurdum argument rather than a seriously proposed benchmark. What it points out is that when benchmarking, you do want to keep some differences!

Which differences? My answer is that you need to have some sort of purpose in mind when benchmarking - generally some questions you want to answer - and you want to keep the differences relevant to those questions and get rid of others as far as possible.

So if for example the question someone wants to answer is "Would I have been better off taking the easy option of an index tracker?", the FTSE 100 and FTSE AllShare indices (*) are excellent benchmarks. Agreed that the comparisons they give mix up a whole lot of mechanical differences with each other, but they're the right set of mechanical differences for the question.

If on the other hand one is trying to break the outperformance down into that due to the type of share selected and that due to methods such as initial equal-balancing, non-tinkering, etc, the FTSE 350 Higher Yield index (*) is about as good a match as one is going to get on the type of share selected, so using it as a benchmark is a plausible attempt at looking at the effect of the methods.

I'm not saying anything against your chosen benchmarks, by the way - just against the idea that one can describe a particular benchmark as good or poor. Good or poor for answering a particular question, yes, but not across the board.

(*) Or (inter)national equivalents if one is not a solely-UK-based investor.

Gengulphus

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4677

Postby Gengulphus » November 14th, 2016, 4:46 am

tjh290633 wrote:I don't invest fresh money into a share which is not paying a dividend, except that I added to both Indivior and South32 when they were demerged, so that I had a more comfortably saleable holding. In fact both have rewarded me with capital growth, and also dividends.


In a situation like that, I would only invest fresh money if I thought that the shares were a good investment. Otherwise I would just sell them - the size of the holding might make the commission on the sale uncomfortably big, but the costs of topping up and then later selling are even more uncomfortable: two commissions, plus the stamp duty and the bid/offer spread on the top-up. One really needs to expect a positive return on the top-up to make it a good manoeuvre.

I realise you probably did expect that positive return, and just didn't say so in the above - I'm just concerned that someone less experienced might pick up the idea that in the situation of wanting to sell but having an uncomfortably small holding, it's a good idea to top the holding up to a more comfortable size. That's only a good idea if you've got some additional reason for wanting to buy: if you don't, it's better to do what I did with South32: bite the bullet and sell anyway (*), despite the selling commission being a large percentage of the sales proceeds. I did that not only for my demo HYPs, whose admin-reasons-only tinkering rules say to sell foreign shareholdings, but also for my main HYP: I didn't see any reason why I would want to buy South32. And taking a look, I see that while I was right for the rest of 2015 (I definitely prefer my actual sale in the region of 100p to the idea of having sold in the region of 40-50p near the end of the year), I'm wrong and you're right by now - well done, however you did it!

(*) Unless the selling commission is going to be more than the sales proceeds, so that the sale will leave your cash down overall. In that case, other sensible solutions include just leaving it alone in the hope that it will sometime become sellable for a cash gain (that was my solution in UHYP13 - its South32 holding in the Halifax ShareBuilder account became sellable for a cash gain when one of Halifax's cheap-trades lunchtimes came along) or donating it to ShareGift, who are a charity that specialises in collecting donations of such small shareholdings until they've got a holding that can be sold cost-effectively, then passing the proceeds on to other charities.

Gengulphus

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: HYP1 is 16 vs Preference Shares

#4678

Postby Gengulphus » November 14th, 2016, 5:28 am

Breelander wrote:but in the end ruled them out...
Gengulphus wrote:Conclusions: I'm still undecided about the question of allowing preference shares in general into the demo HYP. I've sorted out some questions about them in my mind - in particular, that their yield needs to be high enough to cover both required income generation and required income growth over the long term. But I need to make up my mind about the in-principle question raised in this thread of exactly what I wish the demo HYP to demonstrate, and there is still the in-practice issue of good data sources about preference shares - specifically, ones that allow me to provide the safety-factor information about their issuers that I normally put in the 'candidates' and 'final run-off poll' posts, or some sort of reasonable equivalent. Both of those will need to be resolved before I allow any preference shares (I'm not willing to let them in in an ad hoc way, based on special-case arguments).
https://web.archive.org/web/20121011041 ... sort=whole


For completeness, that wasn't quite the end of the story, which came a few months later when I did the next GDHYP share selection:

I've also now slept many times on the issues raised and left partially unanswered in https://web.archive.org/web/20121011041 ... e#12658107 and come to the conclusion that I don't want to allow preference shares in this demo HYP. As indicated there, I don't entirely exclude the possibility that they would fit in a HYP, but I regard cases where they do as sufficiently rare and the extra complications they add in terms of admin and providing comparable data with other candidates as sufficiently major that they're just not worth the extra trouble.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161114045 ... sort=whole

I've edited the link in that quote to one that should continue to work after the TMF boards disappear - it's the same archived thread as Bree's link above goes to, just entered at a different point.

I should stress that the whole story was about a demonstration HYP in which I do share selections by public voting, and that did influence my conclusions quite noticeably. So to get any value out of it, don't just use its conclusions - instead, look at the various arguments given for and against using preference shares in a HYP, discounting the ones that simply don't apply to your HYP, and then decide what conclusions to draw for it.

Gengulphus

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4687

Postby Bubblesofearth » November 14th, 2016, 7:28 am

Alaric wrote:
Shouldn't that statement be qualified by the rider that "without increase in risk"?

The obvious example is this. Suppose you constructed a couple of indexes with the first fifty companies of the FTSE 100 by alphabet and the second fifty. They aren't going to perform the same and one is going to beat the other and the whole index. Other splits are possible.

Depending on which half you select and how it pans out, you get a higher or lower performance than the FTSE 100 as a whole.



Yes, but that's why I was careful to say you cannot beat the market on average. Some portfolios will outperform whilst others will under-perform but when you sum the performance of all portfolios you will, by definition, get the index performance.

BoE

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4689

Postby Bubblesofearth » November 14th, 2016, 7:44 am

Gengulphus wrote:
I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's a justifiable statement. HYP1 was equally-weighted 16 years ago, but hasn't been for many years now - just take a look at the first table in the OP of this thread!


Equal weighting on purchase was what I meant.

I agree avoidance of tech stocks helped as well although an equal weight 15-share portfolio with just one tech stock would not have been as affected as the index.

And, yes, there will also be an element of luck/skill when selecting only 15 shares. As you mention, reinvesting takeovers in single shares will increase that element.

The point about a good performer or two having a big affect on outcome is true but this is where equal weighting comes in. If you are cap-weighted then to get a significant uplift in performance vs the index you need outstanding performance from a mega-cap or two. This is less likely for two reasons,

1. There are less of them so from a purely statistical pov outperformance is less likely down to them.
2. They are less likely to increase several times over compared to smaller companies. Persimmon is a good case in point.

However, without more detailed analysis, and analysis of other HYP's over other time periods, it's difficult to draw any firm conclusions. It remains my belief, however, that equal weighting on purchase is a powerful driver of performance.

BoE

GrahamPlatt
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2059
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:40 am
Has thanked: 1032 times
Been thanked: 823 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4779

Postby GrahamPlatt » November 14th, 2016, 12:42 pm

Alaric wrote:
Bubblesofearth wrote:
1. Efficient market hypothesis would suggest that the market cannot on average be beaten.


Shouldn't that statement be qualified by the rider that "without increase in risk"?



Apparently not: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2055431

Don''t know if subscription is required to read this, but the paper referenced above comes from this article:
http://www.stockopedia.com/content/the- ... ly-110043/

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#4887

Postby tjh290633 » November 14th, 2016, 5:00 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:I don't invest fresh money into a share which is not paying a dividend, except that I added to both Indivior and South32 when they were demerged, so that I had a more comfortably saleable holding. In fact both have rewarded me with capital growth, and also dividends.


In a situation like that, I would only invest fresh money if I thought that the shares were a good investment. Otherwise I would just sell them - the size of the holding might make the commission on the sale uncomfortably big, but the costs of topping up and then later selling are even more uncomfortable: two commissions, plus the stamp duty and the bid/offer spread on the top-up. One really needs to expect a positive return on the top-up to make it a good manoeuvre.

I realise you probably did expect that positive return, and just didn't say so in the above - I'm just concerned that someone less experienced might pick up the idea that in the situation of wanting to sell but having an uncomfortably small holding, it's a good idea to top the holding up to a more comfortable size. That's only a good idea if you've got some additional reason for wanting to buy: if you don't, it's better to do what I did with South32: bite the bullet and sell anyway (*), despite the selling commission being a large percentage of the sales proceeds. I did that not only for my demo HYPs, whose admin-reasons-only tinkering rules say to sell foreign shareholdings, but also for my main HYP: I didn't see any reason why I would want to buy South32. And taking a look, I see that while I was right for the rest of 2015 (I definitely prefer my actual sale in the region of 100p to the idea of having sold in the region of 40-50p near the end of the year), I'm wrong and you're right by now - well done, however you did it!

My feeling was that INDV would pay a useful dividend, as that was implied in the demerger documentation, whereas S32 indicated that it would not pay a dividend. As it happens, INDV paid two then stopped, while S32 has now started. I was attracted to the mix of mining operations in S32 and felt that it had good prospects once mining came back into favour. INDV is something of a one-trick pony, with one major pharmaceutical product. They have litigation problems and are buying in more products.

Be that as it may, both are doing well for me particularly in share price terms, which shouldn't matter but will always come in handy if I wish to switch into something else.

TJH

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#6145

Postby Itsallaguess » November 17th, 2016, 9:01 pm

Further to my earlier post that was looking at how reliant HYP1 is on a relatively small number of portfolio components, I've now looked back at HYP1 ages 10-to-16 and compiled some income and capital data that I've found interesting.

I've chosen to look at how reliant HYP1 has been over recent years on the dividend income and capital values of the top 5 holdings per year.

The compiled data and resultant chart is here for anyone interested -

http://i.imgur.com/BwrQGzN.png

Looking back at earlier data might give a more illuminating picture, but the thing that strikes me immediately is that considering this historical data covers a relatively turbulent time with regards to the UK stock market and the wider global economic situation, both the income and capital figures come out within fairly tight ranges for the 5-share contributions to overall portfolio output, with those ranges being roughly 66% to 72% for dividends and 62% to 70% for capital, and being range-bound within those parameters for the past 7 years.

Whilst those dependency levels might be seen to be relatively high for just a third of the shares in the HYP1 portfolio, I think it's heartening to know that such a steady level of dependency was maintained throughout the period.

That said, it also makes me wonder if a larger number of initial shares, rather than the 15 allocated to HYP1 over the period being looked at, might produce a similarly range-bound result, but at a lower level than the 60% to 70% levels seen with HYP1.

Whilst I've always been keen on the original HYP idea, one of the things that I've always had a natural aversion to is such a small number of portfolio holdings. If we could find out that, over a similar period to the HYP1 history examined above, a larger but equally-mature High-Yield Portfolio of income-producing shares delivered similarly range-bound levels of income and capital, but at a lower level than that seen with HYP1, it would be quite instructive to discover in my opinion.

Given that the 5 top HYP1 contributors above equate to roughly 33% of the overall 15 HYP1 holdings, then taking similar income and capital data for the top 33% of the holdings of a larger, more mature HYP portfolio would seem to be an interesting and relative comparison point....

Does anyone know of anyone that might have the data easily available to carry out such an exercise?

:O)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#6215

Postby Itsallaguess » November 18th, 2016, 5:17 am

Moderator Message:
Quote rmeoved at request of poster. Raptor.


That certainly seems to tally with the data for HYP1 for the last 7 years, with similar ratios being seen, and it's that set of ratios that I'm interested in when I've started to look at this HYP1 data, as I think it might be instructive to my thinking in relation to a more ideal number of High-Yield portfolio components.

The issue I'd have with HYP1 in that position over that period, especially if it were to progress in a similar way, would be that I'd not be too comfortable depending on 2/3rds of my income and capital to be provided by just 5 shares in, presumably, 5 sectors. That's of course a personal position and others may be much more comfortable with it.

Having visibility of similar data, over a similar time period and from a larger High-Yield Portfolio that's equally 'mature', would be instructive in terms of how we might possibly be able to shift that 'responsibility' of delivering 2/3rds of the HYP income and capital reliance to a larger number of shares. If we could see that this is the case then it would, certainly for me, give more credence to the case for a wider starting position than 15 shares for such a portfolio.

If we could see, for instance, that a mature High-Yield Portfolio over a similar time-scale similarly received 2/3rds of it's income and capital reliance on 1/3rd of it's shares, but the number of shares in that HYP were, say, 30 and hence the number of shares delivering 2/3rds of the income and capital were 10, for the sake of an example, then I think for me that would begin to start to justify such a larger initial portfolio, in terms of the number of shares in it, to get to that improved position later in the portfolio's maturity-cycle.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#6268

Postby tjh290633 » November 18th, 2016, 9:03 am

Moderator Message:
Quote removed on request of poster. Raptor.


So, like a normal distribution?

The point to remember is that the same shares will move around the rankings quite a lot, from top to bottom weight in fact and then come back again.

TJH

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#6565

Postby tjh290633 » November 18th, 2016, 7:16 pm

Moderator Message:
Quote removed on request of poster. Raptor.


My method is to top slice any holding which hits my arbitrary limit of 1.5 times the median weight. I usually sell about 25% of the holding, so it falls to about 120% of the median, depending on the price movement. It is not unusual for a share to be trimmed several times as it continues to move. Sometimes this takes the form of selling rights or receiving a cash return from B-shares or the like.

Having trimmed a share, I have had occasion to find that that share rises to the top of my top-up rankings, either because it has had a setback or because other shares have risen more. BAE Systems, for example, has been topped up four times and trimmed back twice. Imperial Group has been trimmed 5 times and rights sold twice, and topped up twice in between. There are quite a few more which have been detailed in posts on TMF in the past.

Because my objective is to have a rising income, proceeds of trimming are always reinvested in shares with a higher yield than the source share. The yield from the new shares bought is usually at least twice that of the donor share. If the yield on a share falls below about half that of the market, then I sell it completely. A new share bought is likely to have a yield above that of the market and so the multiple can be 3 or 4 times. This ratchets up the dividend income flow.

TJH

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#6907

Postby Itsallaguess » November 20th, 2016, 8:20 am

tjh290633 wrote:
1nv35t wrote:I'm not so sure about the extent of the migration that TJH highlighted. Over one period some will tend to fail altogether and given enough time the total number will tend to reduce. As per that LEXCX link however and the decay can be very slow, 30 down to 22 for instance since 1935. Taking some of the gains out of the best to add to the poorer performers could be a case of cutting winners to add to losers. But if you don't do that then the reliance upon the winners can become excessive. TJH I believe uses a form of midway between the two type top-slice/rebalance choice, leave some in the winner, but take some of those gains to redistribute across others (or alternative additions). Along the lines of its risen well so don't take all of those gains, but instead take perhaps half of those gains ... as it could continue on to be the outperformer as equally as it could turn around. My guess for what its worth is that is a better choice than just pure buy and hold (continuing to hold as-is as per LEXCX and conventional HYP1).


My method is to top slice any holding which hits my arbitrary limit of 1.5 times the median weight. I usually sell about 25% of the holding, so it falls to about 120% of the median, depending on the price movement. It is not unusual for a share to be trimmed several times as it continues to move. Sometimes this takes the form of selling rights or receiving a cash return from B-shares or the like.

Having trimmed a share, I have had occasion to find that that share rises to the top of my top-up rankings, either because it has had a setback or because other shares have risen more. BAE Systems, for example, has been topped up four times and trimmed back twice. Imperial Group has been trimmed 5 times and rights sold twice, and topped up twice in between. There are quite a few more which have been detailed in posts on TMF in the past.

Because my objective is to have a rising income, proceeds of trimming are always reinvested in shares with a higher yield than the source share. The yield from the new shares bought is usually at least twice that of the donor share. If the yield on a share falls below about half that of the market, then I sell it completely. A new share bought is likely to have a yield above that of the market and so the multiple can be 3 or 4 times. This ratchets up the dividend income flow.

TJH

Hi Terry,

Given the maturity of both your HYP and your methods of managing it, would you be able to provide figures similar to the ones I've compiled for HYP1 regarding the reliance of the 'top-33%' of holdings (in both income and capital terms) on your overall income and capital performance?

I chose 5 shares for HYP1, which is 33% of the total 15 shares held in the portfolio, and they've generally provided around 66% of the overall income and capital from the portfolio over the past 7 years.

I think seeing how that 66% HYP1 provision (from the top 33% of holdings) would compare over a similar time period where a larger HYP portfolio were studied, against the 'top 33%' of that portfolio's holdings, would be quite instructive.

If you've got those figures to hand, would you be willing to compare them with the past 7 years of HYP1 delivery, in the same way?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#7106

Postby tjh290633 » November 20th, 2016, 6:17 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:

If you've got those figures to hand, would you be willing to compare them with the past 7 years of HYP1 delivery, in the same way?


I'll have a look at it, I don't have the data readily to hand, but it ought not to be difficult to work up.

TJH

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#7160

Postby Itsallaguess » November 20th, 2016, 8:13 pm

tjh290633 wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:
If you've got those figures to hand, would you be willing to compare them with the past 7 years of HYP1 delivery, in the same way?


I'll have a look at it, I don't have the data readily to hand, but it ought not to be difficult to work up.

TJH

Thanks Terry, I had my fingers crossed that you'd be able to come up with some meaningful comparison data to go alongside the HYP1 figures I'd compiled, especially given the similarities in terms of the portfolio maturities, but more importantly with regards to your own HYP having many more constituent parts, to help make such a comparison meaningful.

As to your claims that you don't have the data readily to hand, well I think we'll leave it to The Ruttles to best describe how the nation will most probably take that news -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgttPt_1IG0

:O)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#7193

Postby tjh290633 » November 20th, 2016, 10:43 pm

This is not strictly comparable with your data, because of changes to the portfolio along the way, topping up, take-over, etc.

Code: Select all

Year    Number   Share
2011    13/34    52.6%
2012    13/35    52.2%
2013    13/35    55.0%
2014    13/36    59.0%
2015    13/36    53.1%
2016    13/37    51.7%


This is roughly 1/3rd of the shares in the portfolio, i.e. 13 of 34 total rising to 37 total. Special dividends have affected the results, in 2014 for example, CPG, IMI and REX paid special dividends. I took the highest 13 dividends in each year. There have been some shares with zero dividends along the way, like LLOY, TW. Tesco and RSA. Plus Indivior and South32 at some stage after demerging.

Disposals were Cattles and Northern Foods in 2011, RSA in 2014, REX and PFL in the current year.

As you found, there were not always the same shares featuring in the list from year to year.

TJH

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#7524

Postby Itsallaguess » November 21st, 2016, 8:10 pm

tjh290633 wrote:
This is not strictly comparable with your data, because of changes to the portfolio along the way, topping up, take-over, etc.

Code: Select all

Year    Number   Share
2011    13/34    52.6%
2012    13/35    52.2%
2013    13/35    55.0%
2014    13/36    59.0%
2015    13/36    53.1%
2016    13/37    51.7%


This is roughly 1/3rd of the shares in the portfolio, i.e. 13 of 34 total rising to 37 total. Special dividends have affected the results, in 2014 for example, CPG, IMI and REX paid special dividends. I took the highest 13 dividends in each year. There have been some shares with zero dividends along the way, like LLOY, TW. Tesco and RSA. Plus Indivior and South32 at some stage after demerging.

Disposals were Cattles and Northern Foods in 2011, RSA in 2014, REX and PFL in the current year.

As you found, there were not always the same shares featuring in the list from year to year.

TJH


That's great Terry, thanks for digging those ratios out from your own figures. I hope it wasn't too much hard work.

I think it's very instructive (to me anyway...) to see how your own mid-50% figures compare with HYP1's figures of around the mid-to-high 60% marks, fairly consistently over a similar time period -

http://i.imgur.com/BwrQGzN.png

I'd be much more comfortable with the sort of reliance on a third of the 'most prominent for that year' portfolio components seen in your own figures, from a much higher number of constituent parts, and I certainly wouldn't be comfortable relying on just 5 shares for around 60% to 70% of my HYP income or capital for such a consistent period.

I acknowledge that there's a lot of difference in terms of the management of both portfolios, but if anything your figures seem to fully justify a 'hands-on' approach, as it's clear where such a 'hands-off' approach can lead if there's a lack of interest in maintaining any semblance of balance across a mature income portfolio.

Thanks again for pulling these figures together. I hope I'm not the only one that's found this little exercise interesting and illuminating.

It's certainly the case that anyone holding a similar number of shares to HYP1 with the aim of providing long-term retirement income has just gone right up in my 'balls of steel' estimations, that's for sure....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: HYP1 is 16

#7591

Postby tjh290633 » November 22nd, 2016, 7:23 am

Itsallaguess wrote:
That's great Terry, thanks for digging those ratios out from your own figures. I hope it wasn't too much hard work.

Itsallaguess


It wasn't hard work, just a bit tedious. I decided to stick on 13 selections for simplicity, but could have chosen 12 quite easily. I didn't have the capital growth figures in the same way, and it gets complicated by reinvestment of dividends, but it's not impossible if I have time between afternoon naps :roll:

I could have gone back further, but time was pressing. By the way, I am having difficulty posting this message because LemonFool has reached the limit of available connections abpout 23:00. A sign of success. Trying again at 07:20.

TJH


Return to “HYP Practical (See Group Guidelines)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests