What type of HYP do you run?

[SDN123]

The poll above is for my personal interest - but may also interest others so please give the closest possible answer for your circumstances.

I know many of you run multiple portfolios (I do). If that’s true for you then please select the option for the “purest” HYP-P style portfolio that you run. I’m aware of the “bias” that may introduce but I’m fine with it.

If my semantics aren’t clear to you then please just use your common sense or don’t respond to the poll.

Thanks,

SDN

[Gengulphus]

The poll above is for my personal interest - but may also interest others so please give the closest possible answer for your circumstances.
I know many of you run multiple portfolios (I do). If that’s true for you then please select the option for the “purest” HYP-P style portfolio that you run. I’m aware of the “bias” that may introduce but I’m fine with it.

Just for your interest: My main HYP is of type 2, though only by containing a few ITs that hold investments in areas that I cannot easily invest in within the FTSE350 - mainly foreign shares. My demo HYPs are of type 1 and are real-money portfolios, but their total value is only very roughly 1% of my total HYP investments. I've followed your instructions and voted for option 1 - but I can't help feeling that with that big a disparity in value, option 2 would be a lot less misleading!

Gengulphus

[tjh290633]

I keep non-HYP investments in separate jam jars, as it were, so no conflict with a full-on HYP, which is tinkered, as and when needed.

TJH

[Breelander]

If this poll were based on TMF rather than LMF guidance mine would be a virtually un-tinkered type 1, but here on LMF over 95% is still type 1, but just one share out of the 27 puts it in type 2.

[dspp]

I have in the past run portfolios which have included a component that were HYP-based sub-portfolios, but no longer do (as will become evident in my next annual review).
dspp

[Arborbridge]

Type 1. Any other investments are not counted in my HYP in order to make comparison more meaningful. I just do not see any point in mixing types when it is easy to keep them separate.

Arb.

[SDN123]

The poll above is for my personal interest - but may also interest others so please give the closest possible answer for your circumstances.
I know many of you run multiple portfolios (I do). If that’s true for you then please select the option for the “purest” HYP-P style portfolio that you run. I’m aware of the “bias” that may introduce but I’m fine with it.

Just for your interest: My main HYP is of type 2, though only by containing a few ITs that hold investments in areas that I cannot easily invest in within the FTSE350 - mainly foreign shares. My demo HYPs are of type 1 and are real-money portfolios, but their total value is only very roughly 1% of my total HYP investments. I've followed your instructions and voted for option 1 - but I can't help feeling that with that big a disparity in value, option 2 would be a lot less misleading!

Gengulphus

Thanks Gengulphus,

I found it challenging to cover all the bases, keep the number of questions reasonable, the length of each question reasonable and not to lose track of the main trust of the question. The challenge is illuminated by the three respondents (to date) who said that no option applied to them.

My original idea was to get a feeling for how many members have real world experience of HYP-P style portfolios. My approach led to me drawing lines across a very wide continuum - which was always going to be an imperfect exercise.

Your additional answer adds value (as they say) so thank you for taking the time. I’ll also add that I really find the demo HYPs useful and interesting despite their low £ value!

SDN

[SDN123]

Type 1. Any other investments are not counted in my HYP in order to make comparison more meaningful. I just do not see any point in mixing types when it is easy to keep them separate.

Arb.

That’s how my brain works too - but I’ve also learnt that others brains work in very different ways to mine! Vive la difference

[Urbandreamer]

I found it challenging to cover all the bases, keep the number of questions reasonable, the length of each question reasonable and not to lose track of the main trust of the question. The challenge is illuminated by the three respondents (to date) who said that no option applied to them.

My original idea was to get a feeling for how many members have real world experience of HYP-P style portfolios. My approach led to me drawing lines across a very wide continuum - which was always going to be an imperfect exercise.

SDN

Well there is an obvious issue with the questions that you chose and your now stated original idea. I'm one who selected option 4, because it reflects my current stance. However in the past I moved my portfolio towards HYP-P and hence do feel that I have had real world experience. I ran my portfolio as a seldom tinker HYP (option 2) for a number of years, but became convinced that I actually desired more growth. I still seldom tinker, however new investments or re-investment do not follow HYP rules*. I'd describe mine as more of a growth and income portfolio.

As you say, picking and wording the questions is very difficult.

*One rule that I now refuse to follow is to only sell if forced. Over the decades I have come to realise that the world in which companies trade may change significantly and the future prospects of a company may adopt a terminal downword trend through no fault of their own.

[Gengulphus]

I found it challenging to cover all the bases, keep the number of questions reasonable, the length of each question reasonable and not to lose track of the main trust of the question. The challenge is illuminated by the three respondents (to date) who said that no option applied to them.

My original idea was to get a feeling for how many members have real world experience of HYP-P style portfolios. My approach led to me drawing lines across a very wide continuum - which was always going to be an imperfect exercise.

Well there is an obvious issue with the questions that you chose and your now stated original idea. I'm one who selected option 4, because it reflects my current stance. However in the past I moved my portfolio towards HYP-P and hence do feel that I have had real world experience. I ran my portfolio as a seldom tinker HYP (option 2) for a number of years, but became convinced that I actually desired more growth. I still seldom tinker, however new investments or re-investment do not follow HYP rules*. I'd describe mine as more of a growth and income portfolio.

As you say, picking and wording the questions is very difficult.

*One rule that I now refuse to follow is to only sell if forced. Over the decades I have come to realise that the world in which companies trade may change significantly and the future prospects of a company may adopt a terminal downword trend through no fault of their own.

I'm a bit surprised that you seem to think that your previous "seldom tinker HYP" is option 2, when option 1 specifically notes that a HYP fitting it could be "(non-tinkering or tinkering)". Is there some other reason why your previous "seldom tinker HYP" didn't match up to option 1?

And by the way, "only sell if forced" is not a "HYP rule" on HYP Practical (either TLF's or TMF's previous version), nor for all of pyad's demo HYPs (the now-defunct HYP3 and HYP4 didn't have it), and not even HYP1 has obeyed it all that religiously! It's a recommendation by pyad (which he does find occasional reasons to make an exception to), a personal rule that some HYPers follow, and something that zealous anti-HYPers love to treat as an absolute "HYP rule" that all HYPers must follow because it makes their job of arguing against HYP easier...

Gengulphus

[Urbandreamer]

I'm a bit surprised that you seem to think that your previous "seldom tinker HYP" is option 2, when option 1 specifically notes that a HYP fitting it could be "(non-tinkering or tinkering)". Is there some other reason why your previous "seldom tinker HYP" didn't match up to option 1?

And by the way, "only sell if forced" is not a "HYP rule" on HYP Practical (either TLF's or TMF's previous version), nor for all of pyad's demo HYPs (the now-defunct HYP3 and HYP4 didn't have it), and not even HYP1 has obeyed it all that religiously! It's a recommendation by pyad (which he does find occasional reasons to make an exception to), a personal rule that some HYPers follow, and something that zealous anti-HYPers love to treat as an absolute "HYP rule" that all HYPers must follow because it makes their job of arguing against HYP easier...

Gengulphus

The reason for your surprise is probably that I didn't put all details in my post. When moving towards HYP I didn't sell some of my lower yielding shares. Indeed some of them carried through to the current day. I simply chose to invest new money exclusively in HYP candidates, at least one of which was an IT. Hence not option 1.

I certainly don't regard myself as an anti-HYPer, however I do think that the idea is both "of it's time" and when taken to the extreme (which as you point out it need not be) intended for a limited duration.

I'm sure that someone may correct me, but I was under the impression that the intention of HYP was very little or even zero maintenence. I thought that Doris actually inherited a version of HYP, rather than chose it herself, and had no interest in it's contents. It may be possible for a decade or so to presume that companies will be able to function as they always have. If we extend the time to several decades then "tinkering" becomes essential IMHO.

Possibly the BIG difference between myself and others who posted in this thread is that I do not split my portfolio into a HYP and a growth portfolio. Since I don't, then I can't claim to currently follow HYP-P.

[77ss]

Type 1. Any other investments are not counted in my HYP in order to make comparison more meaningful. I just do not see any point in mixing types when it is easy to keep them separate.

Arb.

That’s how my brain works too - but I’ve also learnt that others brains work in very different ways to mine! Vive la difference

Quite so.

I have a varied portfolio and I see no point whatsoever in breaking it down by type.

[Dod101]

Type 1. Any other investments are not counted in my HYP in order to make comparison more meaningful. I just do not see any point in mixing types when it is easy to keep them separate.

Arb.

But I have a High Yield Portfolio and what I call a growth portfolio. I keep them separate on the basis that the one emphasises income with some growth (hopefully) and the other growth with maybe some income. I judge the results of each share accordingly.

My High Yield Portfolio more or less falls into category 2 like 41% of us apparently.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

Type 1. Any other investments are not counted in my HYP in order to make comparison more meaningful. I just do not see any point in mixing types when it is easy to keep them separate.

Arb.

That’s how my brain works too - but I’ve also learnt that others brains work in very different ways to mine! Vive la difference

Quite so.

I have a varied portfolio and I see no point whatsoever in breaking it down by type.

That's fine, but I am interested in the differences between various ideas, so prefer to keep them separate. Clearly one is not interested in this, there is little point in separating them. Since I spend most time on the HYP practical board it is of interest for people to be able to compare HYPs, and that was one reason for my accounting that way. Comparing HYPs with other instruments added, muddies the water and proves nothing.

[uspaul666]

Of course, we’ll all have to wait for a good few months before all the people running the first option actually leave the allotment/get out of bed/are between cruises/etc to actually check their portfolio, have a look at this forum and make their vote...

[dspp]

I found it challenging to cover all the bases, keep the number of questions reasonable, the length of each question reasonable and not to lose track of the main trust of the question. The challenge is illuminated by the three respondents (to date) who said that no option applied to them.

My original idea was to get a feeling for how many members have real world experience of HYP-P style portfolios. My approach led to me drawing lines across a very wide continuum - which was always going to be an imperfect exercise.

Well there is an obvious issue with the questions that you chose and your now stated original idea. I'm one who selected option 4, because it reflects my current stance. However in the past I moved my portfolio towards HYP-P and hence do feel that I have had real world experience. I ran my portfolio as a seldom tinker HYP (option 2) for a number of years, but became convinced that I actually desired more growth. I still seldom tinker, however new investments or re-investment do not follow HYP rules*. I'd describe mine as more of a growth and income portfolio.

As you say, picking and wording the questions is very difficult.

*One rule that I now refuse to follow is to only sell if forced. Over the decades I have come to realise that the world in which companies trade may change significantly and the future prospects of a company may adopt a terminal downword trend through no fault of their own.

I'm a bit surprised that you seem to think that your previous "seldom tinker HYP" is option 2, when option 1 specifically notes that a HYP fitting it could be "(non-tinkering or tinkering)". Is there some other reason why your previous "seldom tinker HYP" didn't match up to option 1?

And by the way, "only sell if forced" is not a "HYP rule" on HYP Practical (either TLF's or TMF's previous version), nor for all of pyad's demo HYPs (the now-defunct HYP3 and HYP4 didn't have it), and not even HYP1 has obeyed it all that religiously! It's a recommendation by pyad (which he does find occasional reasons to make an exception to), a personal rule that some HYPers follow, and something that zealous anti-HYPers love to treat as an absolute "HYP rule" that all HYPers must follow because it makes their job of arguing against HYP easier...

Gengulphus

G,
That's your personal opinion. There are other opinions on this matter.
dspp

[88V8]

I invest only for income, so everything is tipped into one pot, HYP shares, REITs, ITs, Prefs, PIBS, Bonds.
So that makes me a type 2.

G, That's your personal opinion. There are other opinions on this matter.
dspp

Opinion? Surely G was just making an observation of fact, at least as regards the definition of HYP on TMF and TLF.
There are other definitions.

V8

[dspp]

I invest only for income, so everything is tipped into one pot, HYP shares, REITs, ITs, Prefs, PIBS, Bonds.
So that makes me a type 2.

G, That's your personal opinion. There are other opinions on this matter.
dspp

Opinion? Surely G was just making an observation of fact, at least as regards the definition of HYP on TMF and TLF.
There are other definitions.

V8

No. A real issue with the HYP definition is that it does not cater for selling. That in turn gets all sorts of people riled up and trying to prove that it does to their satisfaction. Which in turn leads to religious warfare, where imho the purists are correct from a textual perspective / but are incorrect from a practical investment perspective. But since there is not agreement on the definition of the facts in play (and which in any case keep mutating as one tries to pin the HYP definition jelly to the wall) this leads to unresolvable arguments that are in any case pointless. Hence my comment about opinion.

dspp

[Gengulphus]

The reason for your surprise is probably that I didn't put all details in my post. When moving towards HYP I didn't sell some of my lower yielding shares. Indeed some of them carried through to the current day. I simply chose to invest new money exclusively in HYP candidates, at least one of which was an IT. Hence not option 1.

Thanks for the explanation!

I certainly don't regard myself as an anti-HYPer, however I do think that the idea is both "of it's time" and when taken to the extreme (which as you point out it need not be) intended for a limited duration.

I think it's actually pretty clear from pyad's original articles that it wasn't intended for a limited duration. But I suspect that you actually mean "suitable for a limited duration", and especially with regard to how the idea in those original articles was developed in HYP1, I agree. It could have been developed differently without breaking the "never sell (unless forced)" recommendation in those articles, and arguably a lot more in keeping with their principle of holding a well-diversified portfolio, by not making the diversification-ignoring reinvestments of the entire proceeds of the Associated British Ports and Gallaher takeover proceeds into BT and BATS, and had those reinvestments been made with more regard to diversification, HYP1's imbalances would be less than they are because the large BT and BATS holdings would be smaller. Nevertheless, the large holdings of Rio Tinto and Intercontinental Hotels are due to nearly a couple of decades of growth of original holdings only (with Intercontinental Hotels having thrown off the now-pretty-small Mitchells & Butlers holding en route), and the large holding of Persimmon due to a bit over a decade's excellent growth of a reasonable-sized takeover proceeds reinvestment (I think about £6k worth of them, though the exact amount is hidden in HYP1's early-2008-to-mid-2009 'Dark Age'). So it does look as if "never sell (unless forced)" is only suitable for a decades-long period for investors who can tolerate a quite large amount of "concentration risk", or who are prepared to go for quite a lot more initial diversification than a 15-share HYP. The latter almost certainly requires either investing over a long period (rather than all at once with a lump sum), or going for foreign shares. (Note I am not saying any of those possibilities is bad - what's good and what's bad is for the investor to decide for themselves - just that they are realities that an investor who wants to invest in a HYP and more-or-less forget it for a couple of decades has to face.)

I'm sure that someone may correct me, but I was under the impression that the intention of HYP was very little or even zero maintenence. I thought that Doris actually inherited a version of HYP, rather than chose it herself, and had no interest in it's contents. ...

Since you invite correction ;-), it's not known whether Doris had a HYP at all - just that she used a Long Term Buy & Hold approach:

"Doris's story may well have been part of the inspiration behind my High Yield Portfolio strategy. Although I don't know if her shares had been selected originally on that basis she was certainly a quintessential buy and hold investor which is a strong element of the HYP approach."

Rather more extreme than is simply required to qualify as Long Term Buy & Hold, both IMHO and as clearly reflected in the approach of TLF's moderators to posts describing people's "tinkers" on HYP Practical, and also as a simple matter of English usage: holding a share for a decade or more would seem to me to be a clear case of long-term holding. If I wanted to specify that approach more precisely than just calling it Long Term Buy & Hold, I might call it Buy & Hold Forever, Buy & Hold Till Death, Buy & Forget, Buy & Ignore or Buy & Do Nothing More, though those descriptions all have minor imperfections.

Gengulphus

[vrdiver]

I started my HYP in the days of the Motley Fool's "Value Investor" tip sheet, in which Pyad wrote about HYP, both the idea and regular suggestions of shares (along with Maynard Paton and articles on Value Shares). During that time it was a type-1 HYP (or close, considering TLF and the HYP-FAQ didn't exist at that time...) I also bought some of the shares tipped for value, rather than for the HYP as a separate portfolio.

When VI folded, I was left with a few "Value" shares that I didn't understand in terms of recognising when or if the value had been outed. That was a valuable lesson in not relying on others to run my investments, but to stick with a strategy that I could manage, so I focussed on HYP, still pretty purist LTBH etc.

Fast forward to today and I am living off of my HYP, but it now holds foreign shares and Investment Trusts, including a few added for growth rather than dividends. At some point I crossed over from type-1 to type-2.

I am gradually migrating towards a more IT-focussed portfolio, aiming to end up with a "HYP" that will stay balanced due to the ITs internal actions, rather than anything I might do. The rationale being that I want a retirement vehicle fit for Mrs VRD to live off in true Doris-style, as the two of them share the same interest in stock picking.

I don't separate out my holdings into sub-portfolios like HYP, Basket-of-ITs etc. Partly because the shifts have been gradual (think how to boil a frog syndrome) and partly because I see the different components as being apples-and-oranges for comparison, so having them set up to compare seems pointless (i.e. my ITs serve a different risk profile and desire for market exposure than my directly held shares, whilst my high yield shares serve an income purpose that is current, versus a growth share that is for a possible future requirement. By the time I can sensibly measure which did better, it will be too late to act on the information, and the now future will still be no guarantee of the future future, so should I make changes, I could simply be jumping ship at exactly the wrong time!)

The other reason I don't separate out the different types of holdings is that I'm way too indolent. And if the use of the word "indolent" doesn't make me a Pyad-HYP investor, I don't know what does.

VRD