Arborbridge wrote:
Well, we already do have a example, if I may be so immodest : ArbIT, which contains several ITs dealing with ex-UK shares.
So why do folk bother with HYPs ?
Thanks to gpadsa,Steffers0,lansdown,Wasron,jfgw, for Donating to support the site
Arborbridge wrote:
Well, we already do have a example, if I may be so immodest : ArbIT, which contains several ITs dealing with ex-UK shares.
moorfield wrote:
So why do folk bother with HYPs ?
moorfield wrote:Arborbridge wrote:
Well, we already do have a example, if I may be so immodest : ArbIT, which contains several ITs dealing with ex-UK shares.
So why do folk bother with HYPs ?
Arborbridge wrote: though I daresay you could pick ITs like HFEL just to prove me wrong
moorfield wrote:Arborbridge wrote: though I daresay you could pick ITs like HFEL just to prove me wrong
Yes HFEL in particular does seem to attract a lot of moaning in these parts. Maybe I will select it into my new IT income portfolio after all.
88V8 wrote:moorfield wrote:Arborbridge wrote: though I daresay you could pick ITs like HFEL just to prove me wrong
Yes HFEL in particular does seem to attract a lot of moaning in these parts. Maybe I will select it into my new IT income portfolio after all.
You want HFEL? You can have mine, provided you pay me what it cost
V8
dealtn wrote:
I have also no issue with a claim that HYP1 shows it can work (although the fact the income is volatile, can go down, and suffers a large degree of reliance on so few income sources in the portfolio stretches what I might consider to be a reasonable description of "work").
But a sample size of "1" is hardly statistically significant - and begs the question what might be the position were HYP1 to have underperformed.
vand wrote: IMO there is no reason to hold a very concentrated portfolio if stable income is your main goal
Alaric wrote:vand wrote: IMO there is no reason to hold a very concentrated portfolio if stable income is your main goal
It's by no means clear that stable income is a main goal of HYP 1 purists, given its track record of jumping all over the place. For stable income from shares you could have a portfolio of Income generating ITs, or emulate their methods by holding back safety margins and reinvesting part of the dividend income as a buffer against cuts.
Lootman wrote:
And given that 2 of those 9 years were in years 3 and 4, any HYP1 income reserve would not have been fully built up at that early point anyway.
Alaric wrote:vand wrote: IMO there is no reason to hold a very concentrated portfolio if stable income is your main goal
It's by no means clear that stable income is a main goal of HYP 1 purists, given its track record of jumping all over the place. For stable income from shares you could have a portfolio of Income generating ITs, or emulate their methods by holding back safety margins and reinvesting part of the dividend income as a buffer against cuts.
vand wrote:I mean is there anyone who actually spends 100% of their dividend income anyway?
Alaric wrote:vand wrote:I mean is there anyone who actually spends 100% of their dividend income anyway?
The hypothetical investors who put their money into HYP1 were deemed to do so, as is the hypothetical investor who may or may not be setting up a HYP in the near future (see other recent threads). These hypothetical investors are also seemingly uninterested in the longer term capital values of their holdings, there not being any real attempt to filter out those companies sustaining dividends by running down the net assets.
Alaric wrote:vand wrote:I mean is there anyone who actually spends 100% of their dividend income anyway?
The hypothetical investors who put their money into HYP1 were deemed to do so, as is the hypothetical investor who may or may not be setting up a HYP in the near future (see other recent threads). These hypothetical investors are also seemingly uninterested in the longer term capital values of their holdings, there not being any real attempt to filter out those companies sustaining dividends by running down the net assets.
tjh290633 wrote: The object is to find companies with a record of high and increasing dividends. High takes preference over increasing.
vand wrote:Alaric wrote:vand wrote: IMO there is no reason to hold a very concentrated portfolio if stable income is your main goal
It's by no means clear that stable income is a main goal of HYP 1 purists, given its track record of jumping all over the place. For stable income from shares you could have a portfolio of Income generating ITs, or emulate their methods by holding back safety margins and reinvesting part of the dividend income as a buffer against cuts.
Well sure, I mean is there anyone who actually spends 100% of their dividend income anyway? Its only prudent that some of it is set aside for purposes of smoothing and/or growing the capital base.
As has been extensively discussed elsewhere, a high yield strategy is far from infallable. When the time comes for me to start drawing from my own HYP I personally plan to spend 70-80% of the income and split the rest between reinvesting and cash buffer purposes. The 4% rule can't easily be cheated just because your starting dividend yield exceed that amount.
Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - General”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests