Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to uspaul666,WrongLicence388,CryptoPlankton,Anonymous,Instep, for Donating to support the site

Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

For discussion of the practicalities of setting up and operating income-portfolios which follow the HYP Group Guidelines. READ Guidelines before posting
Forum rules
Tight HYP discussions only please - OT please discuss in strategies
Bubblesofearth
Lemon Slice
Posts: 469
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175140

Postby Bubblesofearth » October 20th, 2018, 7:47 am

CryptoPlankton wrote: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.
CP


I have highlighted this because, IMO, it is the most important feature of any portfolio, high yield or otherwise. Yield for HYP is clearly critical but even yield is secondary to adequate diversification. If you are building a portfolio of 15 or 20 shares then these can and should be taken from 15 or 20 different sectors of the economy. Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies like RB, DGE and ULVR are a large and important sector of the Global economy and the sector merits representation in a portfolio on diversification grounds alone.

BoE

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 5664
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1315 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175141

Postby Arborbridge » October 20th, 2018, 7:51 am

moorfield wrote:
ULVR currently contributes ~3.6% of my overall income, and at current yield I am unlikely to be topping up for the foreseeable future as I do favour more bang for my newly minted buck, so that will dilute further over time to the extent its contribution to my retirement income (~15 years forward) may well become negligible.

It's a great pity the taking of such low(er) yield shares when your HYP has a high yield overall is not encouraged more here. That would help resolve the perennial conundrum of using them to provide for a long term sustainable retirement, which is the end-game we all seek, right?


Looking across those 15 years, it may not work out in the way you suggest - or it need not because you always have the choice whether it becomes diluted or not.

Over that time, if the capital weight of ULVR falls, it will rise up the HYPTUSS table, and at some point the yield may rise to something you find acceptable which will help it rise. In my case, that yield is usually below my average, but as good as it gets, for ULVR. I try not to be slave to the HYPTUSS and sometimes risk the naughty step by looking further down the table if I fancy it.

So there's no inevitability to either ULVR being diluted, nor becoming negligible.

Arb.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 5664
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1315 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175142

Postby Arborbridge » October 20th, 2018, 8:04 am

Bubblesofearth wrote:
CryptoPlankton wrote: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.
CP


I have highlighted this because, IMO, it is the most important feature of any portfolio, high yield or otherwise. Yield for HYP is clearly critical but even yield is secondary to adequate diversification. If you are building a portfolio of 15 or 20 shares then these can and should be taken from 15 or 20 different sectors of the economy. Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies like RB, DGE and ULVR are a large and important sector of the Global economy and the sector merits representation in a portfolio on diversification grounds alone.

BoE


I don't agree. Yield is not secondary. The method is to go down the list selecting by high yield, and then choosing those which are "diverse". If the yield criterion isn't satisfied, you do not buy the diversity, but wait until the yield is above the required lower limit.
What you've written above - if I've read it correctly - would appear to misunderstand the HYP method.

Arb.

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1623
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 306 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175143

Postby Raptor » October 20th, 2018, 8:15 am

Bubblesofearth wrote:
CryptoPlankton wrote: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.
CP


I have highlighted this because, IMO, it is the most important feature of any portfolio, high yield or otherwise. Yield for HYP is clearly critical but even yield is secondary to adequate diversification. If you are building a portfolio of 15 or 20 shares then these can and should be taken from 15 or 20 different sectors of the economy. Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies like RB, DGE and ULVR are a large and important sector of the Global economy and the sector merits representation in a portfolio on diversification grounds alone.

BoE



Moderator Message:
I agree diversification should be a top fundemental for any HYP. However, buying shares in a sector that do not meet HYP practical guidelines is not one for discussion here. Diversification shares must fit the guidelines (as well as any self imposed criteria). As we all know the stock market is a fickle place and what is acceptable changes on a day by day basis. Ok, there are nearly always the same top shares, IMO, but others regularly pop in and out of favoùr.

This board should restrict its discussions to meet the "guidelines" set by the administrators. Other posts and discussions should be on the "strategies" board. There does seem to be misunderstanding by some posters on this.

Raptor

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 5970
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 2423 times
Been thanked: 4581 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175145

Postby Itsallaguess » October 20th, 2018, 8:59 am

Arborbridge wrote:
I try not to be slave to the HYPTUSS and sometimes risk the naughty step by looking further down the table if I fancy it.


I think it's absolutely right that people don't use *any* sort of automatic ranking method to *force* them to purchase any given output from that method.

There are many reasons why we might rightly wish to do so, such as known corporate actions, known future dividend-cuts, known company-specific or even sector-related issues, etc., that any automatic calculation that's only based on a few metrics will simply never be able to take into account.

It's only right, however, that the portfolio owner *does* take these types of issues into account, or indeed any other consideration that they personally might feel is important in their investment decision-making process, and then makes their decisions accordingly.

Don't be a slave to *any* system Arb, and certainly don't consider it 'naughty' to be using one's own judgement in these matters...

For the avoidance of doubt, I now cannot remember the last time I actually topped up the highest top-up-ranking in my HYP. For as long as I can now remember there's been what I consider to be a very good reason not to do so, and I'm completely happy with that situation.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4986
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 891 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175146

Postby Wizard » October 20th, 2018, 9:16 am

Arborbridge wrote:...Over that time, if the capital weight of ULVR falls, it will rise up the HYPTUSS table, and at some point the yield may rise to something you find acceptable which will help it rise. In my case, that yield is usually below my average, but as good as it gets, for ULVR. I try not to be slave to the HYPTUSS and sometimes risk the naughty step by looking further down the table if I fancy it.

So there's no inevitability to either ULVR being diluted, nor becoming negligible.

Arb.

But then...
Arborbridge wrote:....The method is to go down the list selecting by high yield, and then choosing those which are "diverse". If the yield criterion isn't satisfied, you do not buy the diversity, but wait until the yield is above the required lower limit. 
What you've written above - if I've read it correctly - would appear to misunderstand the HYP method.

Arb.

Arb

I'm struggling to reconcile these two posts, what am I missing?

Terry.

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2009
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 585 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175152

Postby moorfield » October 20th, 2018, 10:05 am

Arborbridge wrote:Looking across those 15 years, it may not work out in the way you suggest - or it need not because you always have the choice whether it becomes diluted or not.


Quite so. Returning to the Q3 results, which I've been asked to do, it's clear that we can expect more of the same lowish yield from ULVR for the foreseeable future. "Nothing to worry about this year Doris".

Wearing the "The construction, management and performance of HYPs is acceptable." hat, yes there is always the choice, holding and diluting, topping up more (which clearly polarizes opinion here), or selling and recycling into a higher yield - something I should perhaps consider also.
Last edited by moorfield on October 20th, 2018, 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dod101
Lemon Half
Posts: 6844
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 1580 times
Been thanked: 2789 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175153

Postby Dod101 » October 20th, 2018, 10:12 am

I have never used a table to decide on my HYP purchases, HYPTUSS or otherwise, in fact I would not recognise a HYPTUSS table if I tripped over it on a dark night.

I always decide based on my own feelings about a share, and CryptoPlankton has summed up my view fairly well. We need the Unilevers and L & Gs to provide the backbone for any HYP and I am bemused by the continual arguments/discussions on this subject. It is though healthy I guess that there are those robust sometimes conflicting views because it helps to refine ideas.

As for Unilever itself, so long as its share price holds up it will never be a very high yielder I suspect but a dividend that is growing at around 8% per annum is an attractive proposition against, as CP has pointed out, static dividends from the likes of Shell, Glaxo and HSBC. I expect all three are in most HYPs so no growth from them then. Where will the growth come from?

Dod

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1287
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 619 times
Been thanked: 601 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175163

Postby IanTHughes » October 20th, 2018, 11:06 am

CryptoPlankton wrote: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.

Yes, I can give a figure but I cannot strip out the new money or dividend re-investment. Well, I suppose I could but even a spreadsheet geek like me has to have a life :D. Also the following are based on the Forecast Income for my portfolio at the time of measurement.

19 Oct 2012 – 53.00p per Dividend Unit
19 Oct 2018 – 77.37p per Dividend Unit

I calculate that to be an annual increase of around 6.50%.

But I do accept that when building an HYP the “new” money always goes into the highest yield at the time of purchase (unless you purchase ULVR :D) which will of course push the figure up

CryptoPlankton wrote: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.

If you want to measure historical dividend growth rates over 5 or 10 years then you should use an inflation figure over the same time periods. The current inflation rate is only relevant to any increase over the last 12 months. But sure, over 5 or 10 years there has been no increase from a number of big dividend payers, assuming you strip out the benefits the falling value of GBP. Of course those time periods do include the effects of what was possibly the single biggest financial crisis on record. And yes, I do know that ULVR sailed through with an increasing dividend but then so did some of the higher-yielders in my portfolio. Not all of course, but then that is why I diversify.

CryptoPlankton wrote: 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.

Then you misunderstand me. I have “tinkered” away a couple of low yielders and my HYP includes some shares from the lower echelons of the FT250. But one thing I am adamant about is that every selection MUST be the highest sustainable yield that I can find at the time of purchase. If that is your definition of a strict adherent to HYP "rules", guilty as charged.

Anyway, that is all I have to say on the subject and my apologies for straying from the subject of the thread. In my defence, I was simply responding to comments such as "low yield is acceptable if historical dividend growth is high" which I disagree with and "every HYP should include ULVR" which in my opinion is complete nonsense


Ian

Breelander
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3409
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 1271 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175177

Postby Breelander » October 20th, 2018, 12:36 pm

IanTHughes wrote: But one thing I am adamant about is that every selection MUST be the highest sustainable yield that I can find at the time of purchase. If that is your definition of a strict adherent to HYP "rules", guilty as charged.


I think there is some loose use of the concept of 'yield' there. 'Yield' is not the same thing as 'dividend'. Strict adherence to HYP rules in my book would be "...highest yield at time of purchase and sustainable dividend thereafter...". Don't forget, another of the HYP 'rules' is "hold for the foreseeable future" so once purchased the 'yield' should no longer relevant, only the dividend.

Say, for example, a share was purchased in 2011 at a yield above the FTSE average, after which the dividend rose steadily to now be paying out 188% of the 2011 dividend. Was that a good choice for an HYP?

But what if the share price rose to 225% of the purchase price over the same period? Does the (by now) below average 'yield' suddenly make it a bad choice after all? Does 'yield' really matter once purchased, or does a strong dividend growth trump yield?


BTW, those are not hypothetical figures - they are for the Unilever in my HYP.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 5664
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1315 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175188

Postby Arborbridge » October 20th, 2018, 1:51 pm

Wizard wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:...Over that time, if the capital weight of ULVR falls, it will rise up the HYPTUSS table, and at some point the yield may rise to something you find acceptable which will help it rise. In my case, that yield is usually below my average, but as good as it gets, for ULVR. I try not to be slave to the HYPTUSS and sometimes risk the naughty step by looking further down the table if I fancy it.

So there's no inevitability to either ULVR being diluted, nor becoming negligible.

Arb.

But then...
Arborbridge wrote:....The method is to go down the list selecting by high yield, and then choosing those which are "diverse". If the yield criterion isn't satisfied, you do not buy the diversity, but wait until the yield is above the required lower limit. 
What you've written above - if I've read it correctly - would appear to misunderstand the HYP method.

Arb.

Arb

I'm struggling to reconcile these two posts, what am I missing?

Terry.


I'm also struggling - to understand why you're struggling.

You've taken two different quotes relating to different circumstances, for one thing: the context is different.
The first post was explaining why it wasn't "inevitable" that one's ULVR holding would become negligible. The second post was replying to someone who appeared to be saying that in the HYP method generally, yield was secondary to diversity - which it isn't. I was correcting both assertions.

If you have a genuine reason for thinking either of those corrections is invalid, we may have room for discussion. On the other hand, if you just want to pick a silly argument for the sake of it, don't expect too much by way of a reply!

Arb.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4986
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 891 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175210

Postby Wizard » October 20th, 2018, 3:45 pm

Arborbridge wrote:
Wizard wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:...Over that time, if the capital weight of ULVR falls, it will rise up the HYPTUSS table, and at some point the yield may rise to something you find acceptable which will help it rise. In my case, that yield is usually below my average, but as good as it gets, for ULVR. I try not to be slave to the HYPTUSS and sometimes risk the naughty step by looking further down the table if I fancy it.

So there's no inevitability to either ULVR being diluted, nor becoming negligible.

Arb.

But then...
Arborbridge wrote:....The method is to go down the list selecting by high yield, and then choosing those which are "diverse". If the yield criterion isn't satisfied, you do not buy the diversity, but wait until the yield is above the required lower limit. 
What you've written above - if I've read it correctly - would appear to misunderstand the HYP method.

Arb.

Arb

I'm struggling to reconcile these two posts, what am I missing?

Terry.


I'm also struggling - to understand why you're struggling.

You've taken two different quotes relating to different circumstances, for one thing: the context is different.
The first post was explaining why it wasn't "inevitable" that one's ULVR holding would become negligible. The second post was replying to someone who appeared to be saying that in the HYP method generally, yield was secondary to diversity - which it isn't. I was correcting both assertions.

If you have a genuine reason for thinking either of those corrections is invalid, we may have room for discussion. On the other hand, if you just want to pick a silly argument for the sake of it, don't expect too much by way of a reply!

Arb.

Arb

OK, I spell it out more clearly. You say in the first quote that you are not a slave to HYPTUSS and will sometimes "look down the table" if you fancy it, but then in the second quote you go on to say that the HYP approach should be more mechanical where you "go down the list selecting by high yield". So I don't get how you can reconcile these two statements. I do not have an issue with either of your corrections, but unless I am missing something on the face of it I think you have contradicted yourself. I guess you do not see the two statements as contradictory, hence why I asked what I was missing. And no, I do not think the difference is one of context.

You may think that silly, but it is intended as a genuine question.

Terry.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 5664
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1315 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175224

Postby Arborbridge » October 20th, 2018, 5:15 pm

Wizard wrote:Arb

OK, I spell it out more clearly. You say in the first quote that you are not a slave to HYPTUSS and will sometimes "look down the table" if you fancy it, but then in the second quote you go on to say that the HYP approach should be more mechanical where you "go down the list selecting by high yield". So I don't get how you can reconcile these two statements. I do not have an issue with either of your corrections, but unless I am missing something on the face of it I think you have contradicted yourself. I guess you do not see the two statements as contradictory, hence why I asked what I was missing. And no, I do not think the difference is one of context.

You may think that silly, but it is intended as a genuine question.

Terry.


It doesn't seem odd to me. I correctly described part of the HYP method: that was just correcting someone's apparently erroneous idea about HYP. But then in the other post (which was in a different context) said that I do not always adhere to the choice proposed by my HYPTUSS . They are not mutually exclusive: I can both explain what a guideline is and say that I don't always obey it in practice.
It's my prerogative to top up ULVR if I so wish - it's my HYP - and I've never claimed to be a "fundamentalist" - it's a hard road to follow. And "looking down the list" doesn't usually mean I'm buying something of very low yield*: it just means I'm not buying the highest yield all the time. I'm rather with itsallaguess on this one, who says he rarely buys the top share in the table.
Importantly, the way HYPTUSS works is not the same as the strict HYP method - shares are not ranged in terms of yield. This is TJH's variation of HYP which builds in additional factors, mainly for risk reduction.

Specifically with regard to ULVR, the bulk of my buys were in the range 3.5-4.27% with three outliers at 3.3%, historic. The forward yield would have been a little better.

Arb.
*a notable exception was a rather off the wall buy recently of TESCO, which I agree was totally non-HYP.

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Slice
Posts: 469
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175230

Postby Bubblesofearth » October 20th, 2018, 5:59 pm

Arborbridge wrote:
I don't agree. Yield is not secondary. The method is to go down the list selecting by high yield, and then choosing those which are "diverse". If the yield criterion isn't satisfied, you do not buy the diversity, but wait until the yield is above the required lower limit.
What you've written above - if I've read it correctly - would appear to misunderstand the HYP method.

Arb.


The method? I wasn't aware that there was one agreed method for building a HYP, or certainly not if you take the stance that HYP is about an above average portfolio yield. My preference is to sacrifice a bit on this average yield for some shares in order to include representation from large and important sectors of the economy.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 5664
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1315 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175232

Postby Arborbridge » October 20th, 2018, 6:17 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:
I don't agree. Yield is not secondary. The method is to go down the list selecting by high yield, and then choosing those which are "diverse". If the yield criterion isn't satisfied, you do not buy the diversity, but wait until the yield is above the required lower limit.
What you've written above - if I've read it correctly - would appear to misunderstand the HYP method.

Arb.


The method? I wasn't aware that there was one agreed method for building a HYP, or certainly not if you take the stance that HYP is about an above average portfolio yield. My preference is to sacrifice a bit on this average yield for some shares in order to include representation from large and important sectors of the economy.


You can take whatever stance you like :) but HYP was codified by Stephen Bland and that is usually considered the default "method" in discussions here. That is the method, as you put it. It's , explained in detail in his articles and well established. It's exactly why the HYP Practical boards came to exist: they almost certainly would not have done otherwise.
That's not to say that people - including me and you - adhere to it absolutely. There developed a number additional ideas over the years to run a HYP in practice (such as HYPTUSS, various limits for risk reduction, safety margins, income reserves - all that practical stuff in relation to pension survival) - however, they build on the underlying method of Pyad, which I'm sure you don't need me to describe. Some people, like you and I are occasionally willing to go "down yield" for various reasons, but what we do does not alter the fact that the basic method exists - it just means we compromise.

Arb.

absolutezero
Lemon Slice
Posts: 557
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175283

Postby absolutezero » October 21st, 2018, 4:12 am

Dod101 wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:[I do agree, but I also tend to worry when someone says: "It is the sort of share that should be in almost every portfolio".
I've heard it before: been there and done that - and lost out heavily! Nothing, it seems in the stock market, is for ever or above suspicion.


I totally accept that. On another thread I was commenting on two excellent shares, circa 1995. One was that conservatively run Scottish bank, RBS (or the even more conservative Bank of Scotland which of course became part of HBOS) and the other GEC, with its pile of cash and run by that arch conservative, Arnold Weinstock. So no share is forever, and LTBH does not mean Buy and Hold Forever.

We must be ever on our guard, but so far Unilever has met most of my criteria.

Dod

Hear hear!

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 5664
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1315 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175285

Postby Arborbridge » October 21st, 2018, 6:48 am

absolutezero wrote:
Dod101 wrote:So no share is forever, and LTBH does not mean Buy and Hold Forever.

We must be ever on our guard, but so far Unilever has met most of my criteria.

Dod

Hear hear!


We need to be circumspect here, in the use of the selling option. Being "on our guard" can easily lead to trading whenever we feel a bit suspicious of prospects, or hear a bit of bad news on the grape-vine. Those who sold ULVR prematurely may come to regret it, and this may be an example of over-trading.

The HYP point of view is that we should allow market trading to take care of the "not forever" dimension for us because the chances are that we will jump from frying pan to fire. So, while it's true that no share is for ever, does it matter?

My own review of my sold shares seems to suggest that my decisions have been only around 50:50 successful. If I'd left well alone, in other words, it would probably have made little difference. Of course, I kid myself every time, that I am gaining an advantage by selling and buying something newer and better, but a cool look at the history of my actions tells me it is by no means clear cut

There might be people out there better at these decisions than I am: good luck to them. But, remember that Stephen Bland's ideas about HYP were intended for "ordinary" investors and that for them (and probably for me) less interference is better than more, difficult though that is to apply.

Arb.

Dod101
Lemon Half
Posts: 6844
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 1580 times
Been thanked: 2789 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175287

Postby Dod101 » October 21st, 2018, 7:54 am

If I respond to Arb (I think he has a good idea of my response anyway) I will be straying well off topic, but just remember the two examples I quoted. I am not suggesting trading; just watching for problems.

To sell Unilever because of a transient problem'? Well with great respect to Ian, I do not understand that.

Dod

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Slice
Posts: 469
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175290

Postby Bubblesofearth » October 21st, 2018, 8:14 am

Dod101 wrote:If I respond to Arb (I think he has a good idea of my response anyway) I will be straying well off topic, but just remember the two examples I quoted. I am not suggesting trading; just watching for problems.

Dod


If you watch for problems you will see them.

Arborbridge
Lemon Half
Posts: 5664
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 1315 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever 3rd Quarter Trading Statement

#175293

Postby Arborbridge » October 21st, 2018, 8:30 am

Dod101 wrote:If I respond to Arb (I think he has a good idea of my response anyway) I will be straying well off topic, but just remember the two examples I quoted. I am not suggesting trading; just watching for problems.

To sell Unilever because of a transient problem'? Well with great respect to Ian, I do not understand that.

Dod


No problem here, Dod. My remarks were really just a general plea (especially to newcomers) not to get drawn into a "trading" state of mind, not aimed at you at all.

Arb.


Return to “HYP Practical (See Group Guidelines)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests