HYP1 is 19 (and a bit)

[bluedonkey]

I think we all know how this thread is going to end up. Please don't carry on, we're only end up disappearing down that f*****g rabbit hole again.

[Wizard]

I think we all know how this thread is going to end up. Please don't carry on, we're only end up disappearing down that f*****g rabbit hole again.

Wise words bluedonkey.

To return to HYP1 I have had a couple of subsequent thoughts.

Given the November year end I guess that some of the cutters in the portfolio may well already have paid out something in year 20, so the income drop may not be as much as I suggested earlier, which was in effect the drop in the running income. The impact on year 21 will then presumably be very much dependent on how quickly dividends are reinstated / resumed / increased. If that is a slow process, as I think it will, be then year 21 could actually show a further decline in income from year 20. If dividends bounce back that may not be the case.

The recovery of the portfolio income to the year 19 level does rely very much on what Persimmon does. If Carphone Dixons or RSA start paying at the same level again it will not move the needle much as they each accounted for about 1% of total income. When Persimmon cut in 2007 it took until 2015 for them to pay anything other than a token dividend in a couple of years. If that is repeated it could be many years until HYP1 is generating the same income as it did in 2019, much longer than other more balanced portfolios that suffer a similar level of cuts. The degree of concentration in HYP1 means it is extremely heavily dependent on Persimmon for the recovery of its income.

[Arborbridge]

HYP-P section has the tendency to push users, postings (and potential donations) away. Would be better if HYP-P were elsewhere, behind closed doors IMO. Leaving a open door leading to censorship/abuse from moderators and a small group who opine that postings must fit in precisely with their mindset has natural push-away from the entire site consequence.

I am sure there's some exaggeration going on here. I've never had any difficulty being critical of HYPs or HYP shares suggestions - I've never been deleted on that ground. But what I've not done, is question the whole HYP idea or tried to trash it, or discuss whether it's a good thing or not. It isn't even a subtle difference, and I'm cannot see why people have found it so difficult to comprehend. Of course one can say critical things about HYP, but just not spend one's life trying to repeatedly trash it!

HYP-P is not entirely asymmetric either, but perhaps one has to be lesss obvious about it. For example, I'm known to be a HYPer, but I also publish reviews which could be said to be critical because comparisons between my HYP and other benchmarks are not always flattering - I just don't labour the point but let people draw whatever conclusion they want. I don't try to alter the niche world of HYP like some crusaders appear to.

As to your remark above about postings having to fit "precisely" I'd say that takes the biscuit. Your post this morning wasn't even remotely on the topic of the thread - on poster commented that your post was "about using another, completely different type of strategy alongside HYP - it wasn't even a share investment strategy and certainly couldn't be described as even "HYPish"! " It's no surprise that it was deleted. As to pushing people away - no. If people want to discuss HYP and all it's wider reaches, they've always been able to do so. If they are dead against HYP and keep saying so, that's when the trouble begins, quite understandably.

Arb.

My bold.

This is not a dig, I am not being provocative. But I would be really interested in what you mean by the phrase in bold.

Seems a fair question, although I do not intend my reply to be the prelude to a long and pointless discussion
The wording deliberately allowed some slack, for as someone (MDW?) mentioned recently, HYP is a broad church. Depending on how you view "broad", of course. By wider reaches, I was just acknowledging that practical ways of running a HYP do include quite a few variations which are still within the bounds of the main principles which themselves are ctually fairly loose. The HYP-P board, despite what some here have commented today, is surprisingly wide and is not exclusively "pyadic" buy once and forget. That's never been the main content of the board and my phrase "wider reaches" meant just that: the inbuilt flexibility that is practiced. That might come as a surprise to some, though I don't see how it can - the board has always taken all HYP shades into account. Just not those who would trash HYP altogether.

Arb.

[Wizard]

I am sure there's some exaggeration going on here. I've never had any difficulty being critical of HYPs or HYP shares suggestions - I've never been deleted on that ground. But what I've not done, is question the whole HYP idea or tried to trash it, or discuss whether it's a good thing or not. It isn't even a subtle difference, and I'm cannot see why people have found it so difficult to comprehend. Of course one can say critical things about HYP, but just not spend one's life trying to repeatedly trash it!

HYP-P is not entirely asymmetric either, but perhaps one has to be lesss obvious about it. For example, I'm known to be a HYPer, but I also publish reviews which could be said to be critical because comparisons between my HYP and other benchmarks are not always flattering - I just don't labour the point but let people draw whatever conclusion they want. I don't try to alter the niche world of HYP like some crusaders appear to.

As to your remark above about postings having to fit "precisely" I'd say that takes the biscuit. Your post this morning wasn't even remotely on the topic of the thread - on poster commented that your post was "about using another, completely different type of strategy alongside HYP - it wasn't even a share investment strategy and certainly couldn't be described as even "HYPish"! " It's no surprise that it was deleted. As to pushing people away - no. If people want to discuss HYP and all it's wider reaches, they've always been able to do so. If they are dead against HYP and keep saying so, that's when the trouble begins, quite understandably.

Arb.

My bold.

This is not a dig, I am not being provocative. But I would be really interested in what you mean by the phrase in bold.

Seems a fair question, although I do not intend my reply to be the prelude to a long and pointless discussion
The wording deliberately allowed some slack, for as someone (MDW?) mentioned recently, HYP is a broad church. Depending on how you view "broad", of course. By wider reaches, I was just acknowledging that practical ways of running a HYP do include quite a few variations which are still within the bounds of the main principles which themselves are ctually fairly loose. The HYP-P board, despite what some here have commented today, is surprisingly wide and is not exclusively "pyadic" buy once and forget. That's never been the main content of the board and my phrase "wider reaches" meant just that: the inbuilt flexibility that is practiced. That might come as a surprise to some, though I don't see how it can - the board has always taken all HYP shades into account. Just not those who would trash HYP altogether.

Arb.

Thanks Arb, that makes perfect sense. I do agree in terms of the HYP-P board not being strictly PYADic, and much, much more importantly I believe the mods do as well! It is still a mystery to me why some aspects of the initial PYADic approach have been flexed, e.g. top slicing to rebalance, while others, e.g. only UK shares, have not*. But I am not expecting you to try and answer that question, just an observation.

* I appreciate under the 'Breelander Convention' that a portfolio with a single non-UK share in it (or possibly two if they are both very small percentage holdings) can be reported on HYP-P, but that non-UK share can not be discussed whereas the rest of the portfolio can.

[1nvest]

As to your remark above about postings having to fit "precisely" I'd say that takes the biscuit. Your post this morning wasn't even remotely on the topic of the thread - on poster commented that your post was "about using another, completely different type of strategy alongside HYP - it wasn't even a share investment strategy and certainly couldn't be described as even "HYPish"! " It's no surprise that it was deleted.

That post highlighted a pure buy and hold non tinker approach, with long term real world evidence, but yes using Keynes' art works as the assets and where the later day portfolio had two pieces accounting for 50% of the final portfolio value, and a handful made up over 80%, similar characteristic of tending to become heavily weighted into relatively few HYP individual holdings over time. The intent was not directed towards the particular assets but as a outline of the tendency and cost/benefit of such tilt. I did have intended follow up potentially useful proposals/suggestions in regard of such, in the hope of reasoned discussion - but no matter.

[MDW1954]

I do agree in terms of the HYP-P board not being strictly PYADic, and much, much more importantly I believe the mods do as well! It is still a mystery to me why some aspects of the initial PYADic approach have been flexed, e.g. top slicing to rebalance, while others, e.g. only UK shares, have not*. But I am not expecting you to try and answer that question, just an observation.

* I appreciate under the 'Breelander Convention' that a portfolio with a single non-UK share in it (or possibly two if they are both very small percentage holdings) can be reported on HYP-P, but that non-UK share can not be discussed whereas the rest of the portfolio can.

The answer to that is easy. When we transitioned from TMF to TLF in November 2016, it was like the Wild West, with zero insight into how TMF had moderated their boards in practice.

A zillion flavours of HYP were observable.

We did the best we could to codify "mainstream" HYP practice.

To stress, there was never an intention to codify Pyad-style HYP. Which is why it is so irritating when certain posters again and again and again carp on about things that they think are in the "rules", but which aren't. As this thread exemplifies.

As an aside, your original post -- which started this interesting discussion -- would have been permissible on HYP-P. But your decision to post it here was well-judged, because a lot of the ensuing discussion wouldn't have been.

MDW1954

[Arborbridge]

As to your remark above about postings having to fit "precisely" I'd say that takes the biscuit. Your post this morning wasn't even remotely on the topic of the thread - on poster commented that your post was "about using another, completely different type of strategy alongside HYP - it wasn't even a share investment strategy and certainly couldn't be described as even "HYPish"! " It's no surprise that it was deleted.

That post highlighted a pure buy and hold non tinker approach, with long term real world evidence, but yes using Keynes' art works as the assets and where the later day portfolio had two pieces accounting for 50% of the final portfolio value, and a handful made up over 80%, similar characteristic of tending to become heavily weighted into relatively few HYP individual holdings over time. The intent was not directed towards the particular assets but as a outline of the tendency and cost/benefit of such tilt. I did have intended follow up potentially useful proposals/suggestions in regard of such, in the hope of reasoned discussion - but no matter.

Well, writing from my own history of being deleted, you might have got away with writing some of the off-topic parts if they had been contained within a body of the text which was on topic. The post was also quite long, in the context of what happened around it so it came over as a bit of a rant, sorry.
I wasn't surprised to see deleted - I even thought about reporting myself, but did not. In fact I very rarely do - usually only when there's a scam or someone advertising something.
You will find HYP-P is OK, and you definitely do not need to be precisely on-HYP - just a bit more sensitive to the rules Better luck next time.

Arb.