The Lemon Fool

Dod101 wrote:To be honest, I am not sure that this thread is very helpful as not all are reporting on the same basis.

Dod

I agree in that people have their own different approaches and frankly I'd prefer something more standardised. Each year we have a selection of reports which are generally informative, though one does (as you imply) have to be careful to read between the lines or ask subsidiary questions about those results. However, I do not think the difficulty of comparison should prevent us from trying.

There is a core who runs HYPs which are unitised, and it is those people who are more likely to produces "apple" which can be compared with "apples" - we rely on those to show whether or not HYP is working. Without them, there would be no evidence at all outside HYP1, and a sample of one is hardly convincing.

So, you could be a positive help to get us all reporting on the same basis, which as you point out is the key problem. You can do this quite simply by unitising and joining in . Or you could just be negative and undermine our efforts: your choice.
Hopefully when all dividends are in you will let us have something more exact* - which is when most people will come in. However, I started this thread early so it will run for the duration across to the new year and act as a repositiory for headline results - someone else started it last year and it worked quite well.

* you say you can't bothered, but it's hardly any effort. There are only a few dividends due in December and they are all listed in itsallaguess's post earlier this month. You know your number of shares, divs in pence and the main effort would be lifting a calculator out of a drawer. Bingo! Job done.

OZYU wrote:Here are mine , in my HY ISA, YTD

Acc unit -6.54%
Inc unit -11.20%
Implied Yield 5.25%

Divi per unit ( excluding all specials) has increased by 10.57%, but not a good comparator this year due to portfolio re arrangements. The increase for the previous 5 years averaged 7.89% .

For reference all YTD

FTSE 100 TR -7.24%
FTSE 100 -10.96%
Implied Yield 4.18%

FTAS TR -8.13%
FTAS -11.58%
Implied Yield 3.90%


Ozyu

Thanks Ozyu, Nicely done. We are beginning to get similar pictures coming in, which is encouraging. Down on cap, but income per unit or for the same invested capital up by a satisfactory amount.

Arborbridge wrote:So, you could be a positive help to get us all reporting on the same basis, which as you point out is the key problem. You can do this quite simply by unitising and joining in

Yes It would certainly be interesting to see a "League Table" next year of how the various HYP interpretations perform against each other on the same scale. GDHYP, TJH's medianic tinkering, no-look HYPing, knee-jerk HYPing etc. etc. And who doesn't like a little competition ? I'm in.

Using Income Units would certainly be simplest, and inclusive of "drawers" and "builders", and a wider audience from the Other Place (HYSS) with other ideas. As you said, we can all simply rebase to 100, or create a parallel number of "Arb Units" to 100, at close of business on 31 December. It does rely on honest reporting but I don't doubt those genuinely interested in such comparison would report otherwise.

I'll do something at year end because I like to take my portfolio yield based on actual dividends against year end values.

Dod

My HYP isn’t unitised, but looking down the dividends per share I see some holds, some increases, and two specials (Lancashire Holdings and Paypoint) to offset two cuts (Inmarsat and Petrofac).

My capital performance has been roughly what others have reported, but as a builder that just means i’m on average buying a higher yield than last year, which should positively feed through to rising income in future.

I note my portfolio yield has crept up to 5.8%, helped by the additions in 2018 of Imperial Brands, Newriver REIT and yesterday by a possibly reckless (but small) purchase of Galliford Try. It was below 5% for the first three years of my HYP, but as was reported yesterday the FTSE 100 now yields 5%, so I doubt I’m alone.

Wasron

I can envisage two separate boards coming along. Those that unitise, and those of us who don't. Looking down one's nose at those who don't doesn't help I think.

Ian.

idpickering wrote:I can envisage two separate boards coming along. Those that unitise, and those of us who don't. Looking down one's nose at those who don't doesn't help I think.

Ian.

Ian, nobody looks down their nose at non-unitisers. All that is being said is that unitisation gives a realistic view of how a portfolio performs, whether in the building phase, the drawing income phase or a mixture of the two. It also allows comparison with market indices, be they normal or total return.

Because of this, bald statements like "My income increased by x%" or something similar when capital is being added, or dividends reinvested, will always beg the question about unitisation.

TJH

Not such a good year





Oh well there is always next year and look at all those amazing yields on offer


Ian

tjh290633 wrote:

idpickering wrote:I can envisage two separate boards coming along. Those that unitise, and those of us who don't. Looking down one's nose at those who don't doesn't help I think.

Ian.

Ian, nobody looks down their nose at non-unitisers. All that is being said is that unitisation gives a realistic view of how a portfolio performs, whether in the building phase, the drawing income phase or a mixture of the two. It also allows comparison with market indices, be they normal or total return.

Because of this, bald statements like "My income increased by x%" or something similar when capital is being added, or dividends reinvested, will always beg the question about unitisation.

TJH

Thank you for your input Terry, I appreciate, and accept your points.

Ian.

IanTHughes wrote:Not such a good year


Oh well there is always next year and look at all those amazing yields on offer

As you are a strong advocate of buying the highest yield available (subject to the usual caveats), it would be interesting for many of us to know if you have any explanation or feelings about why your out turn is not very good for this year.

TIA

Dod

Wasron wrote:My HYP isn’t unitised, but looking down the dividends per share I see some holds, some increases, and two specials (Lancashire Holdings and Paypoint) to offset two cuts (Inmarsat and Petrofac).

My capital performance has been roughly what others have reported, but as a builder that just means i’m on average buying a higher yield than last year, which should positively feed through to rising income in future.

I note my portfolio yield has crept up to 5.8%, helped by the additions in 2018 of Imperial Brands, Newriver REIT and yesterday by a possibly reckless (but small) purchase of Galliford Try. It was below 5% for the first three years of my HYP, but as was reported yesterday the FTSE 100 now yields 5%, so I doubt I’m alone.

Wasron

I will also admit to having a little top up of Galliford Try yesterday. I had some dividends that were ready to be re-invested. They were at the smallest amount that I would consider a purchase, but I think it has quelled my urge until the New Year Happy xmas one and all.

With dividend reinvestment and some overtrading I look to be at around parity in GBP with last year's PF value.

All be it my current yield is far higher than it was with bigger positions in Tobaccos/ Vodafone and recently Persimmon being added. Petrofac the big winner for the year and the weak pound seems to have support the GBP valuation. In USD terms performance is pretty bleak .

I don't unitise and all my figures are derived from Microsoft Money. The complexity of money movements in my portfolio demonstrates why many of you unitise but the figures produced by a readily available commercial program are good enough for me.

My HYP started life in 2005 and the annualised return from Jan 2006 to Friday's close is 4.56%. Dividends and new money has been added most if not all years.

This year income has fallen year on year. Down 2.7% despite starting the year with 8% more capital than at the start of 2017. (There have been more sells than buys through the year with the difference amounting to 2.3% of the starting capital)

Realised capital losses on Carillion, Pearson and Provident Finance have exceeded the year's dividend income.

Annualised return for the year is minus 9.16%.

Over two thirds of the portfolio constituents were below their purchase price at Friday's close with capital losses amounting to around 3 years income. (This excludes the realised losses on shares no longer held.)


Note that the portfolio is being sold and repurchased in ISAs over several years. (Different brokers) Capital losses are calculated from the new purchase price where applicable. Previous capital gains if any are included in the annualised return figures.

idpickering wrote:I can envisage two separate boards coming along. Those that unitise, and those of us who don't. Looking down one's nose at those who don't doesn't help I think.

Ian.

You forgot the winking smiley

Actually, I quite accept that some people do not unitise, but that doesn't stop me encouraging them to do so
In your case, you have other valid ways of being satisfied about your progress, which is fine.
In my view, it would be extraordinary to embark on a big committment such as a full blown HYP without some means of satisfying myself that it was working - and working compared with other techniques I might employ.

But that's just my nature, I guess.

Arborbridge wrote:

idpickering wrote:I can envisage two separate boards coming along. Those that unitise, and those of us who don't. Looking down one's nose at those who don't doesn't help I think.

Ian.

You forgot the winking smiley

Actually, I quite accept that some people do not unitise, but that doesn't stop me encouraging them to do so
In your case, you have other valid ways of being satisfied about your progress, which is fine.
In my view, it would be extraordinary to embark on a big committment such as a full blown HYP without some means of satisfying myself that it was working - and working compared with other techniques I might employ.

But that's just my nature, I guess.

Fair play Arb. I accept and respect your view. I never wanted to row. I’m not one for over analysing things, but hats off to other investors who like such things.

Ian.

Arborbridge wrote:So, how did you do?

My income per acc. unit was £9.00 at the very beginning of January this year and is £9.99 right now (increase of 11%). In capital terms it was 189.6127 acc. units then and is 175.0781 now (decrease of 7.67%).

Chris
(2017: Income down 0.55%, capital up 0.52%)

Arborbridge wrote:There is a core who runs HYPs which are unitised, and it is those people who are more likely to produces "apple" which can be compared with "apples" - we rely on those to show whether or not HYP is working. Without them, there would be no evidence at all outside HYP1, and a sample of one is hardly convincing.

Unitising is only one component of getting to an 'apples with apples' comparison. Take my high yield portfolio, it contains IBM which I have been told by a mod means I can't post about my high yield portfolio on this board. I certainly will not be unitising once including IBM and once without IBM just to comply with the restrictions of posting the answer on here. I am certain others have non-qualifying elements of what they refer to as their HYP. To give the 'apples with apples' comparison that you seek (and which would be permitted to be posted on this board) they would have to strip out those elements that do not comply with the guidelines for this board. Alternatively they may just not declare the non-qualifying elements of their HYPs, in which case you will think you are looking at apples when in fact you are not.

Terry.

Wizard wrote:Unitising is only one component of getting to an 'apples with apples' comparison.

The commonly used alternative is XIRR, which IMO is a superior measure to use than Inc or Acc Units because it is easier to compute from historical records (cashflows), and can provide meaningful comparison against other asset classes over similar timescales.

But whether you are choosing to use a speedometer, tachometer, or odometer to measure progress I would suggest is missing a point - the most important instrument on your dashboard should be the sat nav, which tells you where you are going and when you are going to get there. This is what I am trying to do with my own income vs. target plan as I build for the future (more on that, plus a pretty graph, in January).

Take my high yield portfolio, it contains IBM which I have been told by a mod means I can't post about my high yield portfolio on this board. I certainly will not be unitising once including IBM and once without IBM just to comply with the restrictions of posting the answer on here.

You know my approach to this already Terry, just call it something else and post it elsewhere. But the end game you are pursuing is little different to the HYPsters'. People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front and all that.

Wizard wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:There is a core who runs HYPs which are unitised, and it is those people who are more likely to produces "apple" which can be compared with "apples" - we rely on those to show whether or not HYP is working. Without them, there would be no evidence at all outside HYP1, and a sample of one is hardly convincing.

Unitising is only one component of getting to an 'apples with apples' comparison. Take my high yield portfolio, it contains IBM which I have been told by a mod means I can't post about my high yield portfolio on this board. I certainly will not be unitising once including IBM and once without IBM just to comply with the restrictions of posting the answer on here. I am certain others have non-qualifying elements of what they refer to as their HYP. To give the 'apples with apples' comparison that you seek (and which would be permitted to be posted on this board) they would have to strip out those elements that do not comply with the guidelines for this board. Alternatively they may just not declare the non-qualifying elements of their HYPs, in which case you will think you are looking at apples when in fact you are not.

Yes as your portfolio appears not to match the guidelines of this board it would be misleading to offer its yearly results up as an example of HYP performance. Far better to do so in the other place but as your personal Wizardous high-yield portfolio. There it would also be reasonable to compare its performance with the ones here.

Regards,
Chris

csearle wrote:Yes as your portfolio appears not to match the guidelines of this board it would be misleading to offer its yearly results up as an example of HYP performance. Far better to do so in the other place but as your personal Wizardous high-yield portfolio. There it would also be reasonable to compare its performance with the ones here.

... or follow on from the 2017 version (including the Co-op and IBM holding - shhhhh) here:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9256