TJH Annual Review

#581244

I have just done my Annual Review, and the results are as follows:

.            Income Units              Accumulation   Rebased   Rebased   April   Rebased
Year to      Unit Value     Div/Unit   Unit Value     FT30      FT100     RPI     RPI    
21-Apr-87            1.00       0.00           1.00      1.00      1.00   1.018      1.00
05-Apr-88            0.91       2.86           0.94      0.92      0.91   1.058      1.04
05-Apr-89            1.18       2.72           1.28      1.10      1.05   1.143      1.12
05-Apr-90            1.21       4.24           1.40      1.13      1.14   1.251      1.23
05-Apr-91            1.34       5.42           1.69      1.28      1.26   1.331      1.31
05-Apr-92            1.30       7.52           1.75      1.24      1.26   1.388      1.36
05-Apr-93            1.51       6.91           2.13      1.44      1.46   1.406      1.38
05-Apr-94            1.70       6.27           2.50      1.65      1.65   1.442      1.42
05-Apr-95            1.66       7.48           2.55      1.57      1.62   1.490      1.46
05-Apr-96            1.95       7.38           3.13      1.80      1.90   1.526      1.50
05-Apr-97            2.16       8.40           3.62      1.85      2.21   1.563      1.54
05-Apr-98            3.31      10.00           5.72      2.45      3.05   1.626      1.60
05-Apr-99            3.44       8.46           6.12      2.47      3.21   1.652      1.62
05-Apr-00            3.32      11.33           6.13      2.42      3.35   1.701      1.67
05-Apr-01            3.29      12.42           6.32      2.05      2.89   1.731      1.70
05-Apr-02            3.37      13.02           6.76      1.65      2.69   1.757      1.73
05-Apr-03            2.29      12.10           4.85      0.85      1.85   1.812      1.78
05-Apr-04            2.92      13.38           6.56      1.22      2.25   1.857      1.82
05-Apr-05            3.46      13.06           8.10      1.33      2.51   1.916      1.88
05-Apr-06            4.30      17.42          10.57      1.68      3.06   1.965      1.93
05-Apr-07            4.91      19.42          12.63      1.90      3.31   2.054      2.02
05-Apr-08            4.14      24.32          11.21      1.58      2.93   2.140      2.10
05-Apr-09            2.28      21.17           6.46      0.87      2.01   2.115      2.08
05-Apr-10            3.69      11.06          10.86      1.33      2.91   2.228      2.19
05-Apr-11            4.16      16.71          12.76      1.43      3.03   2.344      2.30
05-Apr-12            4.40      17.73          14.19      1.33      2.96   2.408      2.37
05-Apr-13            5.27      21.83          17.01      1.54      3.29   2.476      2.43
05-Apr-14            5.34      23.05          18.88      1.75      3.38   2.557      2.51
05-Apr-15            5.91      24.98          21.84      1.91      3.47   2.580      2.53
05-Apr-16            5.92      22.67          21.72      1.79      3.17   2.614      2.57
05-Apr-17            6.62      26.21          25.47      2.10      3.76   2.706      2.66
05-Apr-18            6.12      33.19          24.66      1.79      3.62   2.797      2.75
05-Apr-19            6.35      31.25          27.04      1.95      3.82   2.856      2.81
05-Apr-20            4.60      31.57          26.64      1.44      2.77   2.926      2.87
05-Apr-21            5.99      22.54          29.07      1.76      3.46   2.960      2.89
05-Apr-22            6.70      26.76          34.29      1.69      3.86   3.346      3.29
05-Apr-23            6.22      40.34          34.18      1.73      3.93   3.645      3.58

The RPI figure for 2023 is that for February 2023, the latest available.

TJH

stacker512 · #581254

How do you organise your spreadsheet so that you have this history each year?

Div/Unit, is that total amount of dividends per year divided by the ending unit value? Or total dividends in year / number of units?

Thanks

1nvest · #581274

FTSE250 -7.6% total return (loss) for year to end of March (and that has declined a additional -2.1% to end of April 5th fiscal year end)! So in that sense TJH HYP accumulation -0.3% year loss was "better".

Both are even worse in real terms. At recent FTSE250 price levels you can lump in at a lower price than if you'd averaged in equal amounts over the last decade. Such events are relatively rare and more often reverse relatively quickly, so hopefully 2023/24 might be a better/good year.

TJH HYP has the higher CAGR to date, but the exponential trend line slope (log linear regressions) for that and the FTSE250 are the same

1nvest · #581278

Newroad · #581329

Hi Terry.

Please remind us if you have a benchmark (you need not)? I've done a search but I cannot find the answer easily with the tools available.

The inclusion of the FT30 and FT100 and various inflation metrics suggests you somehow think in those terms, but given your apparent universe of investment, 1nvest's focus on the FT250 as a comparison seems appropriate (the repetitive refocus on other idiosyncratic metrics, typically not germane to the OP, is arguably less helpful).

Regards, Newroad

#581330

stacker512 wrote:How do you organise your spreadsheet so that you have this history each year?

Div/Unit, is that total amount of dividends per year divided by the ending unit value? Or total dividends in year / number of units?

Thanks

The last row is a direct link to the current position.

At the year end I insert a row above and copy the bottom row as values into that row for 5th April.

Div/unit is divs/yr in money divided by the closing number of income units. This has reduced because of a large withdrawal of cash, documented elsewhere. It includes special dividends and other returns of cash, like Aviva's B share issue.

TJH

#581334

Newroad wrote:Hi Terry.

Please remind us if you have a benchmark (you need not)? I've done a search but I can find the answer easily with the tools available.

The inclusion of the FT30 and FT100 and various inflation metrics suggests you somehow think in those terms, but given your apparent universe of investment, 1nvest's focus on the FT250 as a comparison seems appropriate (the repetitive refocus on other idiosyncratic metrics, typically not germane to the OP, is arguably less helpful).

Regards, Newroad

I tend to regard the HIX (FTSE350HY) index as the most appropriate. I record the FT30, FTSE100 and HIX daily. The similarity with the FTSE250 may be coincidental, perhaps because of my nominally equally weight approach. I don't have many shares in the FTSE250, but have many in the lower reaches of the FTSE 100, plus the obvious index leaders but not at market weighting.

TJH

#581344

1nvest wrote:

Thanks for an interesting comparison. As stated above, I think that the apparent alignment with the FTSE250 is coincidental, probably because of my nominally equal weighted approach.

TJH

Newroad · #581347

Thanks, Terry.

That makes sense and you may have mentioned it before - my apology for forgetting if so. It wouldn't be off the wall to include comparison to the FTSE350 index as a whole (not just the HY "half") as

(1) It dates back to 1983, which covers the investing period you report on, and
(2) Arguably, it would cover the pluses and minuses of your style (a yield bias) within your chosen universe

I don't see much point in citing the FTSE30 or FTSE100, perhaps you do? I can see some point in citing inflation measures, as certain income methods can be expressed as offsets against such.

Regards, Newroad

#581354

Newroad wrote:Thanks, Terry.

That makes sense and you may have mentioned it before - my apology for forgetting if so. It wouldn't be off the wall to include comparison to the FTSE350 index as a whole (not just the HY "half") as

(1) It dates back to 1983, which covers the investing period you report on, and
(2) Arguably, it would cover the pluses and minuses of your style (a yield bias) within your chosen universe

I don't see much point in citing the FTSE30 or FTSE100, perhaps you do? I can see some point in citing inflation measures, as certain income methods can be expressed as offsets against such.

Regards, Newroad

When I started we only had the FT30. These other indices are Johnny come lately. Once upon a time there was "Beat the Footsie" in the Investor's Chronicle. That used the FT30 and its constituents as the source. A lot fewer companies and many fewer changes. No automatic promotion or deletion, except if the quote vanished, usually through takeover.

I think the FT350 started after me, but I believe that the FTSE All Share has a longer pedigree. I do not propose going back through over 30 years to add it, but if you feel up to it please feel free to add the index of your choice.

TJH

Newroad · #581359

Hi Terry.

Just checked again - the FTSE350 has a base date of 1983, but history only from 1992. I have a sense of deja vu in realising this

I understand your reluctance to go back and add in historic information - we'll just have to consider your information in the abstract or in light of the efforts of those such as 1nvest. Thank you for providing it in any case.

Regards, Newroad

1nvest · #581398

tjh290633 wrote:
1nvest wrote:

Thanks for an interesting comparison. As stated above, I think that the apparent alignment with the FTSE250 is coincidental, probably because of my nominally equal weighted approach.

TJH

The FTSE250 is more equal weight rare for a single stock to rise to being even >1.5% of the total index weighting (in contrast the FTSE100 can at times have 10% in single stocks and sometimes relatively high individual weightings in a bunch of stocks within the same sector (sector concentration/tilting)). Large/rising stocks migrate into the FTSE100, which might be considered a form of 'top-slicing' winners. Faltering/down stocks in the FTSE100 that haven't totally failed drop down into the FTSE250, 'value' plays, might continue to decline, could rebound and return back into the FTSE100; As a alternative to 'value' plays in the way of being measured by dividend yield. At the bottom end faltering smaller caps are ejected, replaced with rising alternatives, potential future 'value' plays that in some cases might see them rise all the way through and out into the FTSE100.

Has many similarities to your 'tweaked HYP' IMO, whilst the historic actual total returns somewhat compare in confirmation of that.

Also include a bunch of Investment Trusts, haven't looked recently, but IIRC something like 40 of the 250 total stocks being IT's, so a 16% type weighting assuming equal value (which they're not, so just a rough guide).

Whilst there were no retail options for FTSE250 exposure back in the late 1980's, as the index wasn't even created until the early 1990's, they did back calculate the FTSE250 index to 1986.

End of Dec 1985 month end total return index values up to end of March 2023

Code: Select all

See also https://uk.investing.com/indices/ftse-2 ... rical-data

Not perfectly aligned values as my accumulation total return index value dating back to Dec 1985 had monthly % changes applied. Generally that washes out, is close enough (better than nowt).

More than just being a coincidental comparison IMO. A better 'benchmark'.

1nvest · #581785

Shh! The boards are quiet, returns are low, little/no excitement.

Nobody buying, some maybe even contemplating selling.

Yet to me a AIM of FT250/gold ratio is shouting out to dump gold and go all in on FT250 !!!

Low PE, you can buy in at a recent price level that's less than the average share price if you'd averaged in over the last 10 years.

Guess others might return to more activity once prices have rebounded 30%+

Was it Buffett who suggested investors were strange, tended to do the opposite to their grocery shopping, preferring only to buy stocks at higher prices, ignoring bargains in expectation of better bargains to come?

moorfield · #581875

1nvest wrote:
Yet to me a AIM of FT250/gold ratio is shouting out to dump gold and go all in on FT250 !!!

How strange. The Dow/Gold ratio is shouting out to dump stocks and go all in on gold!!! But I digress.

1nvest · #581995

moorfield wrote:
1nvest wrote:
Yet to me a AIM of FT250/gold ratio is shouting out to dump gold and go all in on FT250 !!!

How strange. The Dow/Gold ratio is shouting out to dump stocks and go all in on gold!!! But I digress.

FT250 18600 gold 1600/oz = 11.6 FT250/Gold ratio, moderately low(ish). Dow/Gold is moderately high(ish). Cut out the middle man (gold) and directly swap US stock for FT250, or given the similarities ... a HYP

1nvest · #582239

Just out of interest, I compared the yearly average of TJH HYP individual best performing half, and average of the worst half, assuming each stock were initially equal weighted, to that of the yearly best/worst of FT250 and Gold

i.e. rank/sort yearly HYP individual stocks from best yearly change down to worst, and average the top half of that set as the years 'average of best' and average the bottom half as the years 'average of worst'.

Somewhat highlights how stock gains arise out of the better performing stocks outweighing the cost/loss of the worst performing (a stock that loses -50% one year needs to gain +100% the next to get back to break-even (geometric), but that has a +25% arithmetic average).

The more holdings/stocks the less £££ weighting in each individual holding, but where the extreme best (and worse) cases tend to be taller (deeper).

No particular conclusion, just sharing the observation.

The Lemon Fool

Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

TJH Annual Review

TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Re: TJH Annual Review

Who is online