BT Group Finals, including dividend suspension.

[Arborbridge]

But looking at it one way equally it is not what most people on here are doing, because they are not managing their portfolio as PYAD articulated in his HYP articles. I guess looking at it another way they are, but that person is not PYAD, it is themselves.

What we are doing, if following the HYP guidelines, is selecting a portfolio and making minimal adjustments and alterations to it, rather than trading willy-nilly to achieve an objective.

As I recall, PYAD's strictures are to avoid trading and to ignore white noise. Panic and knee jerk reactions to outside events do not play a part. To take an extreme and hypothetical example, were Shell to abandon the oil industry and instead go into cannabis culture and distribution, then reaction to that event would be justifiable, particularly if it turned itself into a charity not paying dividends other than ex gratia payments to hippy communes. Unlikely, I admit.

TJH

===========================

so those who are not following hyp guidelines are all trading willy nilly then ?

Why take offence at such an innocuous comment? That isn't what TJH meant as he was writing within the context of the HYP-P board, and you know it. It cannot therefore be a missile aimed at a non-HYPer like yourself. For one of a group of people coming on here to throw stones at HYPers, I'm surprised you are so sensistive.

Arb.

[idpickering]

But back to BT - the answer to the OPs question is simple after all, and shouldn't need 5 pages of 81 posts to get there:

Those who hold should continue to hold, simple as that, as Pyad advocated (viz. "Doing nothing? Nothing Doing." in that Doris article). He did not advocate to "might just dump them on market opening", clearly.

Now there is an interesting piece of advice. Why, in a high yield portfolio, should those who hold a share whose dividend has been cancelled and what is more will not be reinstated for two years (and even then at only 50% of what it was) continue to hold it? The only reason that I can see is because Pyad (note the capital P) advocated it.

Has moorfield not got an independent mind? Can he not see that that is not exactly furthering the cause of a high yield portfolio? Talk about blind faith. Few of us take advice from tipsters in the newspapers, or at least most seem to have a healthy scepticism and yet.........

Dod

Well said Dod. I'm saddened that I can only give you one thanks/rec. I wish the naysayers would just go away, and leave us in peace to manage our HYPs as we each see fit. If they want to gob off about HYP, take it to the other board. At least then I won't have to see their dribble, as I rarely go there.

Ian.

[jackdaww]

What we are doing, if following the HYP guidelines, is selecting a portfolio and making minimal adjustments and alterations to it, rather than trading willy-nilly to achieve an objective.

As I recall, PYAD's strictures are to avoid trading and to ignore white noise. Panic and knee jerk reactions to outside events do not play a part. To take an extreme and hypothetical example, were Shell to abandon the oil industry and instead go into cannabis culture and distribution, then reaction to that event would be justifiable, particularly if it turned itself into a charity not paying dividends other than ex gratia payments to hippy communes. Unlikely, I admit.

TJH

===========================

so those who are not following hyp guidelines are all trading willy nilly then ?

Why take offence at such an innocuous comment? That isn't what TJH meant as he was writing within the context of the HYP-P board, and you know it. It cannot therefore be a missile aimed at a non-HYPer like yourself. For one of a group of people coming on here to throw stones at HYPers, I'm surprised you are so sensistive.

Arb.

====================================

i havnt taken offence , its a fair question i think .

nor am i on here to throw stones , rather to question HYP methodology and point out its defects , for the benefit of newcomers and waverers .

[Wizard]

But back to BT - the answer to the OPs question is simple after all, and shouldn't need 5 pages of 81 posts to get there:

Those who hold should continue to hold, simple as that, as Pyad advocated (viz. "Doing nothing? Nothing Doing." in that Doris article). He did not advocate to "might just dump them on market opening", clearly.

Now there is an interesting piece of advice. Why, in a high yield portfolio, should those who hold a share whose dividend has been cancelled and what is more will not be reinstated for two years (and even then at only 50% of what it was) continue to hold it? The only reason that I can see is because Pyad (note the capital P) advocated it.

Has moorfield not got an independent mind? Can he not see that that is not exactly furthering the cause of a high yield portfolio? Talk about blind faith. Few of us take advice from tipsters in the newspapers, or at least most seem to have a healthy scepticism and yet.........

Dod

Well said Dod. I'm saddened that I can only give you one thanks/rec. I wish the naysayers would just go away, and leave us in peace to manage our HYPs as we each see fit. If they want to gob off about HYP, take it to the other board. At least then I won't have to see their dribble, as I rarely go there.

Ian.

I will repeat again, as the point does not seem to have landed. If people manage their high yield portfolios as they see fit (and why shouldn’t they) and their approach is not what PYAD advocated they are not managing an HYP, it is something else. To be 100% clear when I say that I am not naysaying, it is not criticism, it is not ‘gobbing off’, it is just saying that using HYP as a description of their portfolio is a mis-nomer.

The irony here is that Moorcroft’s quote is the one advocating the pure PYADic approach of LTBH. It is Dod who is saying people should be able to adapt the prescribed HYP methodology, so surely it is Dod who is the one who is the naysayer?

Many regulars on here do not fully follow the PYADic HYP approach, for example by selling shares that stop paying a dividend. But then when others come on challenging other aspects of the PYADic approach it is considered unacceptable. That is IMHO part of the reason for the frequent debates / arguments on this board.

[Dod101]

I plead guilty to being the naysayer and am very happy to do so, although I accept that it is off topic on this Board. I made my comment because it just seems to me that the statement/advice by moorfield seemed to me to be so contrary to common sense that it needed to be challenged. We do not even have any guarantee that in two years time the 50% dividend will actually materialise.

Dod

[tjh290633]

so those who are not following hyp guidelines are all trading willy nilly then ?

That is not what I wrote. Go back and read it again. Detention for you after school.

TJH

[jackdaww]

so those who are not following hyp guidelines are all trading willy nilly then ?

That is not what I wrote. Go back and read it again. Detention for you after school.

TJH

=================

ok

are you sure your commas are correctly positioned ?

i'm not sure - having only just scraped through "O" level english grammar .

detentions i have done many of - all grossly unfair of course...

[moorfield]

Now there is an interesting piece of advice. Why, in a high yield portfolio, should those who hold a share whose dividend has been cancelled and what is more will not be reinstated for two years (and even then at only 50% of what it was) continue to hold it? The only reason that I can see is because Pyad (note the capital P) advocated it.

And because Pyad also practises it. Mitchell & Butlers in the Original HYP1 has not paid a dividend for the last two years, so it is advice offered with precedent.

[Dod101]

But why follow Pyad? Other shares which have been held to await self healing have included Lloyds Bank for several/many years after 2008/9 but that does not make it a good idea.

Obviously others (including yourself) will do as you wish but I try to maintain my independent thought process.

Dod

[moorfield]

Well said Dod. I'm saddened that I can only give you one thanks/rec. I wish the naysayers would just go away, and leave us in peace to manage our HYPs as we each see fit. If they want to gob off about HYP, take it to the other board. At least then I won't have to see their dribble, as I rarely go there.

I offered the advice above because I have been genuinely concerned (believe it or not) for your financial well being having read your trading activities here for the last couple years. Yes you are free to manage your portfolio as you see fit (fwiw, I think an DIY HYP is not for you), but under current (covid) circumstances I believe you would be better served in the long run by holding on to all your shares rather than crystallizing yet another capital loss now. I also don't quite understand what "fails to cut the mustard" means re BT?

[Dod101]

I am not going to interfere in the discussion between moorfield and IDP but since this is the BT thread, if, behind the BT dividend cut, there was simply the Covid 19 issue then I would be less critical and indeed have retained both of the shares that I hold which have cut their dividend on that account, namely HSBC and M J Gleeson. BT's problem is very different though because the cancellation of the dividend is to fund necessary capex and it is unusual to cut the dividend for a couple of years and then forecast, that far ahead what the reinstated dividend is going to be. I think the promise of the reinstate level needs to be treated with caution and that is why I cannot understand why anyone would deliberately hold on to a share where there is a guarantee of no income so far ahead.

Dod

[idpickering]

I am not going to interfere in the discussion between moorfield and IDP but since this is the BT thread, if, behind the BT dividend cut, there was simply the Covid 19 issue then I would be less critical and indeed have retained both of the shares that I hold which have cut their dividend on that account, namely HSBC and M J Gleeson. BT's problem is very different though because the cancellation of the dividend is to fund necessary capex and it is unusual to cut the dividend for a couple of years and then forecast, that far ahead what the reinstated dividend is going to be. I think the promise of the reinstate level needs to be treated with caution and that is why I cannot understand why anyone would deliberately hold on to a share where there is a guarantee of no income so far ahead.

Dod

I agree with your comment re BT.A Dod. I said I’d lost faith in them, hence my dumping them. Still no regrets from me. It might be a couple of years before I’d contemplate maybe buying back in, if all’s well with the share at that time obviously.

Ian.

[csearle]

Moderator Message:
A few off topic posts deleted. The subject of this topic is: BT Group Finals, including dividend suspension. The best place to push for a Total Returns board is in the Biscuit Bar. Thanks. - Chris

[NeilW]

BT cut the dividend to go chasing rainbows and pots of gold. Cutters get dumped. We want cash cows, not some mature operation trying to recapture its youth by splurging shareholders cash on a face lift.

Since when did following a HYP involve holding onto dividend cutters? It's always been my understanding that a cut in dividend that arises from a change in strategy or a colossal management cockup (as opposed to a demerger or a temporary environment glitch like the current Covid issue) means that the share gets binned.

[Arborbridge]

I plead guilty to being the naysayer and am very happy to do so, although I accept that it is off topic on this Board. I made my comment because it just seems to me that the statement/advice by moorfield seemed to me to be so contrary to common sense that it needed to be challenged. We do not even have any guarantee that in two years time the 50% dividend will actually materialise.

Dod

It may be contrary to common-sense, and all of us have limits of tolerance in this matter. However, the truth is (like it or not) HYP guidelines do postulate that one should let the portfolio self-heal.

One can argue that nearly all of us are running HYp v2.x, and very few are running a pyadic HYP - but I'd argue it is still HYP.

Self healing was part of pyad's idea, along with investing equal amounts at the outset, and along with the diea of SI. These ideas were to counter the notion that most investors have a low patience threshold and jump too often from the frying pan into the fire, and frankly, I think he was correct. Most investors lose money when they chop and change, and that probably includes some of the more knowledgeable investors here too. HYP1 shows that to a large extent, Pyad's idea does indeed work - you can set up a portfolio and just let it run with quite reasonable results.
And like all his ideas - SI, equal weighting, self-healing - they were nascent theories based on some experience of clients, but still just theories waiting to be proven. Indeed, one might say that pyad was following his own style of smell test when he formulated HYP. Not unlike you, Dod



Well, each must be the judge of what they do, and I would be reluctant to call out a fellow for being "not-HYP" just because he had decided not to wait for a self-healing episode to come to fruition. Some of us don't have that time to spare! I've done some self-healing myself with Lloyds and it was a pretty protracted affair which still hasn't fully evolved - thank's to Covid + HMG interference. Similarly with Tesco.

So in practice, sometimes I think it is perfectly understandable that a HYP investor, even a pretty solid one, will want to move on and gain some dividends in the fallow years which BT (for exmple) is offerring. But - importantly - I believe such a fellow is still a HYP follower, just not a pyadic purist.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

BT cut the dividend to go chasing rainbows and pots of gold. Cutters get dumped. We want cash cows, not some mature operation trying to recapture its youth by splurging shareholders cash on a face lift.

Since when did following a HYP involve holding onto dividend cutters? It's always been my understanding that a cut in dividend that arises from a change in strategy or a colossal management cockup (as opposed to a demerger or a temporary environment glitch like the current Covid issue) means that the share gets binned.

I seem to remember that for a pyadic HYP cutters are only binned if there is no chance of a resumed dividend in the forseeable future. BT is a little borderline, but I'd say that since they have made an announcement about resumption of dividends, in original HYP terms, it would not be binned.

Sorry, but that's my interpretation of the facts as I understand them. If only Gen. would come along to give us chapter and verse!

However, as we are nearly all running HYPv2, one could well argue that as the resumption in this case is too far into the future and is at any rate known to be at a lower rate, cutting it would also come within pyad's guidelines.

To sum up, it's an area of value judgement - so one can fortunately be correct in either direction!

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

BT cut the dividend to go chasing rainbows and pots of gold. Cutters get dumped. We want cash cows, not some mature operation trying to recapture its youth by splurging shareholders cash on a face lift.

Since when did following a HYP involve holding onto dividend cutters? It's always been my understanding that a cut in dividend that arises from a change in strategy or a colossal management cockup (as opposed to a demerger or a temporary environment glitch like the current Covid issue) means that the share gets binned.

Forgive me for I am not a true believer, but with cutters like BT, I understand you are supposed to exercise so called strategic ignorance. I.E. - Do nothing. HTH.

RVF

I don't believe that is correct - see my other contribution. Pyad later modified what he said to allow cutters to be dumped if there was no chance of a resumption of dividends in the forseeable future.

Arb.

[tjh290633]

Forgive me for I am not a true believer, but with cutters like BT, I understand you are supposed to exercise so called strategic ignorance. I.E. - Do nothing. HTH.

RVF

I don't believe that is correct - see my other contribution. Pyad later modified what he said to allow cutters to be dumped if there was no chance of a resumption of dividends in the forseeable future.

Arb.

Having just had a look at viewtopic.php?p=95702#p95702 I see that HYP1 still contained Lloyds Banking Group, Mitchells and Butlers and Dixons Carphone Warehouse, and the link from there to https://imgur.com/onwguKf shows how many of the constituents did not pay dividends, yet were retained. Indeed the only disposal in the 10 years shown was Ladbrooks in 2017, replaced by Glaxo.

He may have said that culling was allowed, but he certainly did not practice it.

TJH

[Arborbridge]

Forgive me for I am not a true believer, but with cutters like BT, I understand you are supposed to exercise so called strategic ignorance. I.E. - Do nothing. HTH.

RVF

I don't believe that is correct - see my other contribution. Pyad later modified what he said to allow cutters to be dumped if there was no chance of a resumption of dividends in the forseeable future.

Arb.

Having just had a look at viewtopic.php?p=95702#p95702 I see that HYP1 still contained Lloyds Banking Group, Mitchells and Butlers and Dixons Carphone Warehouse, and the link from there to https://imgur.com/onwguKf shows how many of the constituents did not pay dividends, yet were retained. Indeed the only disposal in the 10 years shown was Ladbrooks in 2017, replaced by Glaxo.

He may have said that culling was allowed, but he certainly did not practice it.

TJH

That's because HYP1 was set up to illustrate what would happen in the case of a pure HYP. It was essentially an experiment to prove a point. Wandering from his original concept would not have been sensible for that reason. In any case, I'm pretty sure that his reluctant agreement that complete cutters might be sold was a) a later modification and b) intended not so much for him but for people who were not comfortable with the "no tinkering" ideal. More or less "you can if you like, but I don't intend to". HYP1 was a lump sum no tinkering portfolio and depended on market trading, SI, self healing etc.
I've always though it a valuable experiment for the proof of principle - the only one we have.

Arb.

[Wizard]

I don't believe that is correct - see my other contribution. Pyad later modified what he said to allow cutters to be dumped if there was no chance of a resumption of dividends in the forseeable future.

Arb.

Having just had a look at viewtopic.php?p=95702#p95702 I see that HYP1 still contained Lloyds Banking Group, Mitchells and Butlers and Dixons Carphone Warehouse, and the link from there to https://imgur.com/onwguKf shows how many of the constituents did not pay dividends, yet were retained. Indeed the only disposal in the 10 years shown was Ladbrooks in 2017, replaced by Glaxo.

He may have said that culling was allowed, but he certainly did not practice it.

TJH

That's because HYP1 was set up to illustrate what would happen in the case of a pure HYP. It was essentially an experiment to prove a point. Wandering from his original concept would not have been sensible for that reason. In any case, I'm pretty sure that his reluctant agreement that complete cutters might be sold was a) a later modification and b) intended not so much for him but for people who were not comfortable with the "no tinkering" ideal. More or less "you can if you like, but I don't intend to". HYP1 was a lump sum no tinkering portfolio and depended on market trading, SI, self healing etc.
I've always though it a valuable experiment for the proof of principle - the only one we have.

Arb.

My bold.

That is an interesting point I do not recall hearing before, do you know where it was said, was it in any follow up article in TMF post the Doris one which still seemed to solidly stick to LTBH?