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

5 years ago

General discussions about equity high-yield income strategies
Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422243

Postby Gengulphus » June 25th, 2021, 12:41 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
funduffer wrote:Got it, Thanks!

A bit slow today!

If I may elaborate a little, this thread began life on the HYP-P board, and was subsequently moved here. In that context, one can speculate a little more precisely as to what the OP's intentions were with his 'elephant in the room' remark.

And a bit of further elaboration by me: as far as I am concerned, moorfield quite strongly (as indicated by his use of bold) expressed a wish in the OP that people should not discuss his "elephant in the room" remark explicitly. I don't know why he expressed that wish (I could speculate, of course, but speculating about other posters' motives is not part of any board's topic AFAIAA), and it might or might not still be what he wants. If he's changed his mind about it, he can post to say so; until and unless he produces such a post, I'm going to respect the wish he's expressed.

Gengulphus

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422284

Postby moorfield » June 25th, 2021, 1:48 pm

tjh290633 wrote:In 2022, GSK shareholders will receive dividends from GSK and New Consumer Healthcare due to the expected mid-year timing of the demerger. Together, these are expected to amount to approximately 55p per share for the year, assuming a New Consumer Healthcare dividend at the lower end of the previously announced 30-50% pay-out ratio range and subject to approval from the Board of New Consumer Healthcare. This pro-forma full year 2022 dividend would be a 31% reduction compared to the expected 2021 dividend of 80p per share.




Indeed. In fact I will likely refix GSK's figure to 55p on 1 January (I tend to err on the conservative side), and then to 44p/11p once the corporate split is done later in the year. By the end of 2022 the overall income figure will have come out in the wash with all the other dividend raises, cuts, top ups, and I can then make a decision on whether any tinkering is needed.
Last edited by moorfield on June 25th, 2021, 1:57 pm, edited 5 times in total.

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422286

Postby moorfield » June 25th, 2021, 1:51 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
If I may elaborate a little, this thread began life on the HYP-P board, and was subsequently moved here. In that context, one can speculate a little more precisely as to what the OP's intentions were with his 'elephant in the room' remark.




I was just having a bit of psychological fun with the timing of the OP. The point is such events or noise shouldn't matter to those in the HYP game, should they.

TUK020
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2039
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 1175 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422373

Postby TUK020 » June 25th, 2021, 6:02 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
In case anyone is interested, here is the logarithmic linear least squares regression fit of TJH's data, showing an annual compound growth rate of 6.728%.

(Calculated using the statistical package R; plotted with ggplot2.)

MDW1954

Image


Malcolm,
this leads to the opportunity to infer more meaning than the data warrants.
Terry's figures are nominal (he accounts for inflation comparison by tracking the total RPI factor for the period).
However, the rate of inflation has varied considerably over this period, and this means that the shape of the cart could be very misleading
tuk020

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422375

Postby moorfield » June 25th, 2021, 6:04 pm

Gengulphus wrote:That question is ambiguous. Which of the following do you mean?

1) Back in 2016, I was expecting my HYP to produce a certain amount of income in the following year (i.e. the year from June 2016 to June 2017). Is my HYP now producing that amount of income?

2) Back in 2016, I was expecting my HYP to produce a certain amount of income in 2021. Is my HYP now producing that amount of income?

But I can produce (non-)answers to both of those questions:




From my old records (viewtopic.php?p=44061#p44061) I see that five years ago my target income (ntm) for this year would have been 1859.7p/unit. After a coronvirus induced reconstruction of my portfolio it is now about ~3% short of that today, and may well exceed it with a couple more top ups by the end of the year.



MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422409

Postby MDW1954 » June 25th, 2021, 9:07 pm

TUK020 wrote:
MDW1954 wrote:
In case anyone is interested, here is the logarithmic linear least squares regression fit of TJH's data, showing an annual compound growth rate of 6.728%.

(Calculated using the statistical package R; plotted with ggplot2.)

MDW1954

Image


Malcolm,
this leads to the opportunity to infer more meaning than the data warrants.
Terry's figures are nominal (he accounts for inflation comparison by tracking the total RPI factor for the period).
However, the rate of inflation has varied considerably over this period, and this means that the shape of the chart could be very misleading
tuk020


Tuk,

With the greatest of respect, you may be over-thinking it. I'm simply plotting an underlying growth rate of Terry's reported annual nominal dividend-per-unit outturns, using all the data points, as opposed to just two of them (which is what CAGR would do). I would argue that logarithmic linear least squares is also superior to a geometric mean approach, which gives the same answer as CAGR, and is conceptually identical -- ie, what average growth rate transforms data point #1 to data point #n, where n= the number of data points in the series.

However, I'm no mathematician or statistician -- simply a recovering economist.

There is no attempt whatsoever to calculate real RPI/CPI-adjusted dividend growth.

And finally, also with the greatest of respect, I have edited your reply to change "cart" to "chart", inferring that this was your intention. Let me know if it wasn't.

Malcolm

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

Re: 5 years ago

#422410

Postby tjh290633 » June 25th, 2021, 9:39 pm

TUK020 wrote:Malcolm,
this leads to the opportunity to infer more meaning than the data warrants.
Terry's figures are nominal (he accounts for inflation comparison by tracking the total RPI factor for the period).
However, the rate of inflation has varied considerably over this period, and this means that the shape of the cart could be very misleading
tuk020

Here is a direct comparison between the dividend per unit and the RPI, both rebased to the same starting value:

.            Ordinary    Rebased     RPI    
Year to Divs/unit Divs/unit Rebased
05-Apr-88 2.86 100.00 100.00
05-Apr-89 2.72 94.81 112.28
05-Apr-90 4.24 147.94 122.89
05-Apr-91 5.42 189.25 130.75
05-Apr-92 7.52 262.34 136.35
05-Apr-93 6.91 241.32 138.11
05-Apr-94 6.27 218.85 141.65
05-Apr-95 7.48 261.07 146.37
05-Apr-96 7.38 257.48 149.90
05-Apr-97 8.40 293.36 153.54
05-Apr-98 8.88 310.04 159.72
05-Apr-99 8.46 295.34 162.28
05-Apr-00 11.33 395.51 167.09
05-Apr-01 11.73 409.64 170.04
05-Apr-02 13.02 454.50 172.59
05-Apr-03 12.10 422.26 178.00
05-Apr-04 11.62 405.63 182.42
05-Apr-05 12.07 421.42 188.21
05-Apr-06 13.12 458.13 193.03
05-Apr-07 14.04 490.19 201.77
05-Apr-08 24.32 849.07 210.22
05-Apr-09 21.17 739.15 207.76
05-Apr-10 11.06 386.20 218.86
05-Apr-11 16.71 583.44 230.26
05-Apr-12 17.46 609.34 238.21
05-Apr-13 19.91 694.93 245.09
05-Apr-14 20.47 714.45 250.29
05-Apr-15 21.33 744.60 253.44
05-Apr-16 21.67 756.58 256.78
05-Apr-17 24.93 870.11 265.82
05-Apr-18 29.23 1,020.51 274.75
05-Apr-19 29.25 1,020.97 283.10
05-Apr-20 31.57 1,102.06 284.38
05-Apr-21 19.15 668.60 295.78

As you can see, dividends have been well ahead of inflation except for that second year, when timing of dividends received was a little awry.

TJH

TUK020
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2039
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 1175 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422453

Postby TUK020 » June 26th, 2021, 7:31 am

MDW1954 wrote:Tuk,

With the greatest of respect, you may be over-thinking it. I'm simply plotting an underlying growth rate of Terry's reported annual nominal dividend-per-unit outturns, using all the data points, as opposed to just two of them (which is what CAGR would do). I would argue that logarithmic linear least squares is also superior to a geometric mean approach, which gives the same answer as CAGR, and is conceptually identical -- ie, what average growth rate transforms data point #1 to data point #n, where n= the number of data points in the series.

However, I'm no mathematician or statistician -- simply a recovering economist.

There is no attempt whatsoever to calculate real RPI/CPI-adjusted dividend growth.

And finally, also with the greatest of respect, I have edited your reply to change "cart" to "chart", inferring that this was your intention. Let me know if it wasn't.

Malcolm


Malcolm,
I think you are probably right.
Thanks for the edit.
Curious to know: What's a 'recovering economist'?
tuk

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

Re: 5 years ago

#422456

Postby Itsallaguess » June 26th, 2021, 8:06 am

TUK020 wrote:
Curious to know: What's a 'recovering economist'?


Might it mean that he'd calculated that his situation should have improved by now, but it's turning out that those forecasts weren't as accurate as he'd hoped them to be?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

SalvorHardin
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2048
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:32 am
Has thanked: 5297 times
Been thanked: 2465 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422460

Postby SalvorHardin » June 26th, 2021, 8:41 am

TUK020 wrote:Curious to know: What's a 'recovering economist'?

IMHO it's an economist who has come to realise that economics is less of a science and more of an art. Far too many influential people think that economists are able to forecast the macroeconomy (the entire economy) with the accuracy of Hari Seldon in Asimov's Foundation series. In practice they're fumbling around in the dark, many accepted theories are highly flawed (some are totally wrong) and their predictions make astrologers look good.

A spectacular amount of damage is done because many politicians believe that macroeconomic forecasts are highly accurate, and make decisions assuming that these forecasts will come true. Economists are on much more solid ground when it comes to microeconomic forecasts (behaviour of individuals and firms) because there are fewer variables to consider. From 2016:

"As a recovering economist writing on behalf of my erstwhile field, I would like to apologize to every American who has lost a job or a livelihood because of globalization. Economics has failed you. It has failed you because of ideology, politics, and laziness. It has failed you because its teachings are woefully incomplete, and its greatest exponents have done almost nothing to complete them."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/19/economics-has-failed-america-globalization-trade/

Most of the economics profession (and other arts and humanities) suffers badly from "physics envy". Economic forecasters love their detailed mathematical models of how the economy will work if something is done, use lots of complicated jargon to make themselves seem more scientific, and then find out that it's a lot more complicated (and much harder to predict) than they thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

In dealing with economics, you have to bear in mind that the foundations of the dominant theory (neoclassical economics) are built on sand. For example, the assumption that people are always totally rational when it comes to economic and financial matters.

1nvest
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4323
Joined: May 31st, 2019, 7:55 pm
Has thanked: 680 times
Been thanked: 1316 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422516

Postby 1nvest » June 26th, 2021, 10:53 am

tjh290633 wrote:
TUK020 wrote:Malcolm,
this leads to the opportunity to infer more meaning than the data warrants.
Terry's figures are nominal (he accounts for inflation comparison by tracking the total RPI factor for the period).
However, the rate of inflation has varied considerably over this period, and this means that the shape of the cart could be very misleading
tuk020

Here is a direct comparison between the dividend per unit and the RPI, both rebased to the same starting value:

.            Ordinary    Rebased     RPI    
Year to Divs/unit Divs/unit Rebased
05-Apr-88 2.86 100.00 100.00
05-Apr-89 2.72 94.81 112.28
05-Apr-90 4.24 147.94 122.89
05-Apr-91 5.42 189.25 130.75
05-Apr-92 7.52 262.34 136.35
05-Apr-93 6.91 241.32 138.11
05-Apr-94 6.27 218.85 141.65
05-Apr-95 7.48 261.07 146.37
05-Apr-96 7.38 257.48 149.90
05-Apr-97 8.40 293.36 153.54
05-Apr-98 8.88 310.04 159.72
05-Apr-99 8.46 295.34 162.28
05-Apr-00 11.33 395.51 167.09
05-Apr-01 11.73 409.64 170.04
05-Apr-02 13.02 454.50 172.59
05-Apr-03 12.10 422.26 178.00
05-Apr-04 11.62 405.63 182.42
05-Apr-05 12.07 421.42 188.21
05-Apr-06 13.12 458.13 193.03
05-Apr-07 14.04 490.19 201.77
05-Apr-08 24.32 849.07 210.22
05-Apr-09 21.17 739.15 207.76
05-Apr-10 11.06 386.20 218.86
05-Apr-11 16.71 583.44 230.26
05-Apr-12 17.46 609.34 238.21
05-Apr-13 19.91 694.93 245.09
05-Apr-14 20.47 714.45 250.29
05-Apr-15 21.33 744.60 253.44
05-Apr-16 21.67 756.58 256.78
05-Apr-17 24.93 870.11 265.82
05-Apr-18 29.23 1,020.51 274.75
05-Apr-19 29.25 1,020.97 283.10
05-Apr-20 31.57 1,102.06 284.38
05-Apr-21 19.15 668.60 295.78

As you can see, dividends have been well ahead of inflation except for that second year, when timing of dividends received was a little awry.

TJH

Since the 1970's/1980's there's been a transition from high to low interest rates/inflation, a rising tide effect for investors, even inflation bonds have provided around 4% annualised real gains. The tendency is toward similar rising prices/income values in real terms.

Image

Counter cycle, interest rates/inflation rising from low levels tends to see the opposite

Image

Both of those are extracts from the Barclays Equity Gilt study

A 'normal' situation across a period of multi-year/decade low to high interest rate transition trend will tend to see the likes of individuals with perhaps a former £1M home value, £1.1M in investments/savings (combined £2.1M), seeing that drop to a third or lower if they're also drawing a income/spending dividends (£700K total wealth) ... from where it starts to recover again (re-cycles all over again).

Former multi-millionairers falling to less than a million type situation, feeling a lot poorer than before.

Income wise and from the peak (2.1M) drawing a 4% SWR (40K odd from 1M liquid portfolio value) to when the value is at/toward the lows (700K wealth, 350K stock portfolio value) and that 40K income rises to being 11% of the portfolio value type amounts. Whilst the sustainability of that seems like a tall order historically that has been supported i.e. gains from the lows tend to be good enough such that 11% type withdrawals sustained through to cover to 30 years total drawdown. To leave some (PWR) you had to drop to more like 3% SWR i.e. around 9% of portfolio value withdrawal rates at the lows.

If your period covers the high to low interest rate transition period then good/great gains will tend to be evident, pretty much no matter what you might have invested in across the exceptionally high interest rates/inflation 1970's/1980's to recent period. That should not however be considered as being representative of the broader average reward expectancy.

Forward time is likely to be harder for those entering retirement if they haven't already accumulated enough. For those accumulating it likely will be good, cost averaging into lower prices buys more shares than otherwise might have been the case. But that all broadly washes. Above average accumulation/below average drawdown, or below average accumulation/above average drawdown ... broadly the two compare equally overall.

Critical however is not to expect too much income production/spending from the high present valuation levels. 5% yield/dividends/SWR if/when valuations fall to a third = 15% comparable rate which is most likely unsustainable. £700K wealth, £350K stock value, drawing/spending 50K type example figures. If anything you should go the other way, reduce to a 3% SWR type withdrawal rate. As I understand it that is a common practice for HYP'ers i.e. don't spend all of the dividends, reinvest some.

I suspect that forward time, someone looking back at a similar table to yours Terry might see more a case of the second image/table outcome. Likely not as bad, but something along those lines.

TUK020
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2039
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 1175 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422557

Postby TUK020 » June 26th, 2021, 12:33 pm

SalvorHardin wrote:
TUK020 wrote:Curious to know: What's a 'recovering economist'?

IMHO it's an economist who has come to realise that economics is less of a science and more of an art. Far too many influential people think that economists are able to forecast the macroeconomy (the entire economy) with the accuracy of Hari Seldon in Asimov's Foundation series. In practice they're fumbling around in the dark, many accepted theories are highly flawed (some are totally wrong) and their predictions make astrologers look good.

A spectacular amount of damage is done because many politicians believe that macroeconomic forecasts are highly accurate, and make decisions assuming that these forecasts will come true. Economists are on much more solid ground when it comes to microeconomic forecasts (behaviour of individuals and firms) because there are fewer variables to consider. From 2016:

"As a recovering economist writing on behalf of my erstwhile field, I would like to apologize to every American who has lost a job or a livelihood because of globalization. Economics has failed you. It has failed you because of ideology, politics, and laziness. It has failed you because its teachings are woefully incomplete, and its greatest exponents have done almost nothing to complete them."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/19/economics-has-failed-america-globalization-trade/

Most of the economics profession (and other arts and humanities) suffers badly from "physics envy". Economic forecasters love their detailed mathematical models of how the economy will work if something is done, use lots of complicated jargon to make themselves seem more scientific, and then find out that it's a lot more complicated (and much harder to predict) than they thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

In dealing with economics, you have to bear in mind that the foundations of the dominant theory (neoclassical economics) are built on sand. For example, the assumption that people are always totally rational when it comes to economic and financial matters.


Oh, so a lot in common with climatologists and epidemiologists then
:D
Thanks

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: 5 years ago

#422951

Postby MDW1954 » June 27th, 2021, 8:04 pm

tjh290633 wrote:Dividends rise and fall, but by less than share prices. Here is the record of my dividends in pence per income unit:

.            Ordinary 
Year to Divs/unit
05-Apr-88 2.83
05-Apr-89 2.25
05-Apr-90 3.40
05-Apr-91 4.67
05-Apr-92 5.94
05-Apr-93 5.52
05-Apr-94 5.31
05-Apr-95 6.45
05-Apr-96 6.27
05-Apr-97 7.13
05-Apr-98 7.55
05-Apr-99 7.92
05-Apr-00 10.79
05-Apr-01 11.39
05-Apr-02 12.46
05-Apr-03 11.68
05-Apr-04 11.13
05-Apr-05 13.03
05-Apr-06 14.21
05-Apr-07 15.18
05-Apr-08 18.73
05-Apr-09 21.60
05-Apr-10 11.91
05-Apr-11 15.12
05-Apr-12 17.78
05-Apr-13 19.93
05-Apr-14 20.34
05-Apr-15 21.35
05-Apr-16 21.68
05-Apr-17 24.17
05-Apr-18 27.02
05-Apr-19 26.36
05-Apr-20 29.71
05-Apr-21 19.34

As you can see, there was a reduction last year, approximately one third. It is too early to opine on 2021-22.

TJH


Further to my logarithmic linear least squares post, here's a bar chart of TJH's data. Again, the year-to-year fluctuations stand out, as does the rate of increase.

Again, done with R and ggplot2.

MDW1954

Image

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

Re: 5 years ago

#422983

Postby tjh290633 » June 27th, 2021, 10:42 pm

What is noticeable is that the two major drops, in 2010 and 2021, are preceded by significant rises. However the figure for 2020 could be on the exponential curve.

TJH

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

Re: 5 years ago

#423005

Postby Itsallaguess » June 28th, 2021, 6:20 am

tjh290633 wrote:
What is noticeable is that the two major drops, in 2010 and 2021, are preceded by significant rises. However the figure for 2020 could be on the exponential curve.


Also interesting that both the 2010 and 2021 drops set the HYP income back similar periods, which look to be around 6 or 7 years.

The 2010 drop took 5 or 6 years to recover to around the earlier pre-drop levels, so it'll be interesting to see how these 2021 cuts recover, and if the recovery timescales are in the same ball-park, but we've then got to be careful not to assume such a recovery happened 'naturally', and if there was any level of 'management action' that helped that 2010 income-recovery process, then clearly a chart like this would be less useful in capturing and describing that process...

With thanks to Malcolm for charting the figures.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4349
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: 5 years ago

#423009

Postby GoSeigen » June 28th, 2021, 6:40 am

tjh290633 wrote:What is noticeable is that the two major drops, in 2010 and 2021, are preceded by significant rises. However the figure for 2020 could be on the exponential curve.

TJH


What's also noticeable was that around 2007/8 some Fools were saying that we were entering a very low-inflation and low-interest-rate period where equities would behave more like fixed interest bonds with their dividends stable or even falling and that the very cheap gilts and corporate bonds of the time might have a better risk/return than shares.

Interesting to see that div/unit in the chart is practically unchanged from 2008 to 2021. Meanwhile gilt and corporate bond yields have plummeted over the same period.

GS

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

Re: 5 years ago

#423123

Postby tjh290633 » June 28th, 2021, 12:13 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:Also interesting that both the 2010 and 2021 drops set the HYP income back similar periods, which look to be around 6 or 7 years.

The 2010 drop took 5 or 6 years to recover to around the earlier pre-drop levels, so it'll be interesting to see how these 2021 cuts recover, and if the recovery timescales are in the same ball-park, but we've then got to be careful not to assume such a recovery happened 'naturally', and if there was any level of 'management action' that helped that 2010 income-recovery process, then clearly a chart like this would be less useful in capturing and describing that process...

With thanks to Malcolm for charting the figures.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

There was, of course, a lot of "management action" after the 2008 hiatus. I disposed of 16 holdings between April 2008 and April 2011. Some were takeovers or going private (Thus, Mapeley, Tomkins, Brit Insurance, Northern Foods and Cattles). The rest were sold for low or zero yield (HBOS, DSG International, Trinity Mirror, Anglo-American, Rentokil, Premier Foods, Yule Catto and ITV) or to avoid corporate actions (Cadbury Schweppes and Prudential).

This time I have done nothing except reinvest dividends into existing holdings and replace William Hill with IG Holdings.

I still have 3 non-payers and BT.A who are promising to pay in 2022. I currently expect a 25% increase for 21-22, compared with 20-21, almost to the 19-20 level.

TJH

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: 5 years ago

#423258

Postby MDW1954 » June 28th, 2021, 10:15 pm

Given the interest in these charts, and the ongoing debate/ discussion, I thought I'd post one more. I found the percentage change take on things to be quite instructive. (I have another version, ranked, that I can post on request.)

My take (but feel free to chip in):

* Double-digit reversals in income are rare
* Reversals in income are infrequent, and relatively minor
* Most reversals in income are a single-digit affair

Am I missing anything?

Chart again from R and ggplot2.

MDW1954

Image

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

Re: 5 years ago

#423276

Postby tjh290633 » June 28th, 2021, 11:11 pm

Just one comment, the negative result in the first year shown is the result of lag in dividends, because of investing late in the financial year. Otherwise it reflects what happened in the market over the years.

TJH

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: 5 years ago

#423279

Postby MDW1954 » June 28th, 2021, 11:16 pm

tjh290633 wrote:Just one comment, the negative result in the first year shown is the result of lag in dividends, because of investing late in the financial year. Otherwise it reflects what happened in the market over the years.

TJH


Happy to delete that first observation, Terry. Whatever shows the cleanest narrative thread...

Malcolm


Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests