Dod101 wrote:Irrespective of all the caveats to this HYP and the explanations for what has happened to the income the outcome would be a disaster for a Doris or indeed anyone trying to live off the income. I can speak with complete authority as I rely totally on the income from my portfolio for income. I have no other income than the SP. I can assure you that that sharpens the mind and is one reason why I hold no miners or house builders (except Gleeson which is not one of the biggies)
I regard the HYP under discussion is a complete disaster.
Dod
Sorry this is nonsense Dod. If you are going to complain HYP is a complete disaster, against what bench mark are you claiming that?
Whether it is a disaster or not depends very much on Doris' own needs and expectations at the outset. If a £3451 income was enough for Doris to live off in 2000, then it is still enough now, cost of living factored which would be ~£7800 exactly what HYP produced today.
Scale it up 5x if it makes it easier to understand:
If a £17255 income was enough for Doris to live off in 2000, then it is still enough now, cost of living factored which would be ~£39000 exactly what HYP produced today.
And if she were still using it as a savings vehicle, well she might have £391,464 producing an income of £19,723 today, without any further capital contributions. Against what bench mark is that a complete disaster?
I suspect what you mean is income volatility has been a disaster in some years. I think most folk would agree with that, and I suppose brings us back to cash reserves etc. I am a big fan of high pyadic principles (buy high yield, diversify sectors, hold, do nothing but corporate actions) , its just the implementation of I have come to disagree with, for this reason. I still operate my retirement portfolio as pyad suggested, with a dose of TJHs top up rankings.
I just have 15 ITs instead.