1nvest wrote:Itsallaguess wrote:1nvest wrote:...
But that's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand - the OP isn't talking about a single-share HYP being one of his two options, he's talking about a collection of income-related Investment Trusts, which have generally been shown to provide much lower volatility in terms of delivered income, as can be seen by this chart from someone who's been running long-term comparisons for some years.
The income-IT line is the pink one -
<snip>
I hold the FT250 which holds getting on for 50 IT's that presumably also include those 'exceptionals'. The reality is however that FT250 excluding IT's was more rewarding that FT250 including IT's. That selective set you're promoting isn't reflective of the general case. I suspect yet again you're looking to 'report' one of my posts that have no ulterior motive in order to promote your own ulterior motive.
<Sigh>
Why not actually address the point that was made....you were so keen to introduce your views regarding single-stock HYP income-volatility that you completely missed the point that the OP was actually talking about income-related Investment Trusts, that mitigate much of that specific issue due to the way they usually operate income-smoothing processes as part of their underlying operations.
Instead of always rushing to think how you might yet again inject one of your stream-of-conciousness discussions into a thread that doesn't warrant it, and often spoils many threads where such regular irrelevance isn't warranted, why not actually read what people are discussing first....
[Edit] - I see on a later post that you've now managed yet again to inject your well-worn 'historic gold performance' discussion into the thread - Bravo - that's nearly all your 'thread-irrelevance' boxes ticked.....
1nvest wrote:
As a extreme for instance, from 1972 to 1980 if you'd invested just in cash deposits, and then in 1980 upon seeing high interest rates/inflation and a low Dow/Gold ratio rotated into Long Dated Treasury bonds and held since, then the rewards were close to that of all stock total 1972 to 2020 inclusive annualised returns. More so if you'd held some gold along with cash in the 1970's in reflection of the $ ending the pegging to gold (at 67/33 cash/gold perhaps in reflection of a mindset that if 67 $ cash value halved and 33 gold doubled you'd still be at break-even).
You know, I often wonder if there's some sort of 'Talmud posting process' -
One third mis-reading the actual discussion at hand, one third obfuscate the whole discussion, and one third rinse-and-repeat no matter what the opportunity...
Cheers,
Itsallaguess