![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
The addition of MKS during last year and Marston's paying a month earlier this year has more than compensated for the cutters. Next month may not be so good without Marstons.
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
The addition of MKS during last year and Marston's paying a month earlier this year has more than compensated for the cutters.
Arborbridge wrote:I really wouldn't know about that, but the same six companies have paid me dividends as during the first few weeks of last year and, collectively, they've kindly given me 3.49% more this time - so I would say I am doing fine thanks!
But not all HYPs are the same. I too have six companies which have paid dividends this January. Most are the same, one bad fall, one increase (dividend in pence, third column is percentage chance):
Overall it's down, from a fairly normal group of HYP shares.
Which are your six shares?
Arb.
Why am I feeling this is just wasting everyone's time...?!
Arborbridge wrote:But not all HYPs are the same. I too have six companies which have paid dividends this January.
Which are your six shares?
Arb.
Arborbridge wrote:Why am I feeling this is just wasting everyone's time...?!
It's not a waste of time if it demonstrated to others that we should be careful about what statements we make, and particularly what is the basis of those statements. Asking a few questions has revealed several differences: that apples are being compared with oranges. The most obviously the way dividends are expressed. Your statement that they paid you more is correct, of course, but they didn't necessarily pay you more per share - which is how I read it. The question also revealed I made some errors! - see below.
Incidentally, I too have IMB which you included in 2017, but the pay date was 31 Dec 2016. To ensure correct comparison with my previous year, I accounted for it in 2016 .
You were quite correct to pick me up on the errors in the dividends I gave, both my fault. For SBRY I pick up Jan 2015 in place of 2016 - the divi fell in both January's, sadly. The "15" for NG was because I hadn't made excel show two decimal places.![]()
Anyhow, it looks as though the dividend per share trend was slightly down, but the that net amount received by both of us was slightly up. We are getting slightly less bang for the buck and not more, which people might have thought from your original post. Clarifying that is not a waste of time.
Neither are remotely significant in the grand scheme of things...
Company | Av SP | Qty (£3k/Av SP) | Current SP | Value (£) | Change from £3k
BP | 600 | 500 | 489 | 2443 | -558
Lloyds | 325 | 923 | 66.4 | 613 | -2387
BATS | 1250 | 240 | 4920 | 11808 | 8808
United Utilities | 700 | 429 | 889 | 3810 | 810
BT Group | 225 | 1333 | 304 | 4053 | 1053
Aviva | 700 | 429 | 486 | 2083 | -917
Tate & Lyle | 575 | 522 | 671 | 3501 | 501
RBS | 7000 | 43 | 235 | 101 | -2899
GSK | 1500 | 200 | 1525 | 3050 | 50
Persimmon | 1200 | 250 | 1905 | 4763 | 1763
Pearson | 800 | 375 | 620 | 2325 | -675
William Hill | 400 | 750 | 261 | 1958 | -1043
Land Securities | 1600 | 188 | 1001 | 1877 | -1123
Compass | 275 | 1091 | 1390 | 15164 | 12164
Rentokil | 400 | 750 | 222 | 1665 | -1335
Arborbridge wrote:Neither are remotely significant in the grand scheme of things...
If you don't think it's helping, why are you so keen to carry on teasing out bits and pieces from the discussion?![]()
Arborbridge wrote:Your original remark about dividends was easily misunderstood because it was ambiguous: I'm sorry about that, but that just shows one has to be quite careful to write clearly. It would be usual to normalise to dividends per share and "collectively" can be assumed to be used in the same way. i.e. taking the increases/decreases of the six collectively and express that as a single percentage. Using the word "collectively" did not make the meaning any clearer: i.e. that you meant income, not dividends - allbeit that you used the word dividend.
In the context of varying capital values versus dividends, it would be pointless to say that one's dividends had increased by 5%, for example, if one had pumped more capital into the HYP. The dividends didn't increase by 5%, only the income did - and that was because you bought more income! So no surprise there.
Arborbridge wrote:As you say, there's no point in carry on any further.
CryptoPlankton wrote:I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition to follow!
If you think of : Managerial Ability, Geopolitical Risk & Exposure, Each Companies actual exposure to each different Commodity, Industrial Relations, Debt v Equity profile, Pension Liabilities and so many other criteria you can quite easily come to the conclusion that two businesses in the same sector are probably far more different than you-me or anybody else thinks........grimer wrote:In my head I have a goal of perhaps 15 sectors and up to 30 shares. I appreciate that holding matched pairs such as RIO and BLT may not actually increase 'safety', because you're doubling the charge of an individual company failing, but it feels safer which helps me sleep at night.
Dod1010 wrote:You are both right. Fundamentally it comes down to culture. HSBC and Standard Chartered are two very different beasts.
YeeWo wrote:Dod1010 wrote:You are both right. Fundamentally it comes down to culture. HSBC and Standard Chartered are two very different beasts.
I've yet to see a quantifiable methodology for Culture though!![]()
My current pot : BP, BATS, BLND, BT, DGE, GFS, GSK, HSBA, IMB, INCH, JLT, RB, REL, RR, RDSB, SN, ULVR. VOD & WPP.
What Cultural assumptions can you possible make?
Over the years, one can gather the impression that some companies are just plain accident prone.
Of your set, I have certainly come to that conclusion about BP!
Arborbridge wrote:Over the years, one can gather the impression that some companies are just plain accident prone.
Of your set, I have certainly come to that conclusion about BP!
And GFS?
Return to “HYP Practical (See Group Guidelines)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests