IanTHughes wrote: CryptoPlankton wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:...do not try to persuade me that ULVR is a choice for an HYP. It is not and never has been, at least not since 2012 when I started my HYP.
I made it very clear I wasn't trying to persuade anyone about anything, I was just expressing my thoughts in case anyone was interested.
You put up a scenario that was indicating, to me at least, that the selection of ULVR as an HYP candidate could be accommodated, despite the low yield, based on the anticipated dividend growth. Presumably you believe that this growth makes up for the low yield on offer at purchase.
Actually, you presume wrongly, I was talking about the effect on the portfolio. I was simply explaining what suited me and my objectives i.e. a greater overall long-term income growth rate from the portfolio at the cost of a slightly lower starting income, but I acknowledged at the same time that other people have different requirements and priorities.
IanTHughes wrote:Since my response I notice that you have decided to "UnThank" the few posts of mine that you originally believed were worthy of a "Thank You".
Not all of them, only the ones I have changed my mind about. I probably dish them out too liberally anyway, but you still have at least three "thanks" that I definitely won't retract so it could be worse!
IanTHughes wrote: Oh well, I guess some people just do not enjoy debate.
I enjoy a civil discussion. You said earlier that your HYP has a dividend growth rate well in excess of 2%, can you give it a figure? Is the underlying dividend growth rate (excluding new money and dividend reinvestment - which will presumably cease when in drawdown) comfortably above inflation? If so, this won't be with any great thanks to several of the large cap "usual suspects" to be found in many HYPS. All the following companies have 5 year compound annual dividend growth rates failing to keep up with current CPI (2.4% in September): HSBA, BP., RDSB, GSK, AZN, NG., BA., SSE and CNA - and those failing to do so over 10 years include BT., AV., BLND and UU. Fortunately, there are some high yielders with decent dividend growth (like RIO, IMB, LGEN) and these appear to be very important to have in a well diversified portfolio if it is to outstrip inflation.
I am fortunate enough to be satisfied with the income generated by my "HYP" shares and the most important thing to me now is that it keeps up with inflation. To that end, having the likes of ULVR and DGE make it more comfortable (for me) than relying on just a small proportion of "growers" like IMB and LGEN. I understand you are a strict adherent to HYP "rules" and don't accept that they have any place in a portfolio, even at previously higher yields that others agree were acceptable . That's absolutely fine, I'm not trying to persuade anyone otherwise and I hope I haven't overstepped the mark by explaining how they work for me.
Anyway, that's all from me for a while. Good luck with your investments.