2018 - How did we do?

[Arborbridge]

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.

Terry, you are making a meal out of this issue. No one is going to bother if you quote your unitised figures including IBM - they wouldn't even know! And I also believe that if it concerns you, it would be extremely easy to cut out IBM altogether. You could do it from the HYP value on Friday buying "surrendering" the value of IBM at your current unit price. Dead simple. As I say, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If you want to flounce off over something so petty, so ahead, but I'd much rather you followed the sensible course of action outlined above. "Selling" IBM would be no different to my selling Pearson, so example, because it no longer yields enough.

[tjh290633]

Terry, you are making a meal out of this issue. No one is going to bother if you quote your unitised figures including IBM - they wouldn't even know! And I also believe that if it concerns you, it would be extremely easy to cut out IBM altogether. You could do it from the HYP value on Friday buying "surrendering" the value of IBM at your current unit price. Dead simple. As I say, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If you want to flounce off over something so petty, so ahead, but I'd much rather you followed the sensible course of action outlined above. "Selling" IBM would be no different to my selling Pearson, so example, because it no longer yields enough.

I'm inclined to agree with this point of view. I have a number of holdings which I do not count in my HYP, some AIM shares, for example, a few funds, and ITs which I hold for my grandchildren.

Just put IBM in another jamjar or else don't mention it. You don't have to quote your whole portfolio, just the part which qulaifies as an HYP.

TJH

[moorfield]

Just put IBM in another jamjar or else don't mention it.

Sorry I'm being thick and have obviously missed something. I don't want to drift O/T, but what's wrong with IBM please? Quick glance at FT (https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/te ... ?s=IBM:LSE) puts yield at 3.85% (higher than ULVR incidentally).

[Breelander]

Sorry I'm being thick and have obviously missed something. I don't want to drift O/T, but what's wrong with IBM please?

It's not in the FTSE350.

[IanTHughes]

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.

What was not good? My Income per unit is up nearly 9% so my HYP has performed fairly well in my opinion.

The "not a good year" that I mentioned was in fact directed at the FTSE 100 - down 11% this year? Sure my Accumulation Units are down a similar amount and the more comparative Income Units are down 15%, but I do not see that as a problem. After all, I am not intending to sell so who cares? On top of that, as someone who is still within the "building phase" and adding not insignificant sums of money each year, I am rather pleased about all those high yields now available. Aren't you happy about that too?

By the way as I am sure you are aware, HYP advocates the selection of the highest sustainable yield available, subject to appropriate diversification, it is not just me.


Ian

[Arborbridge]

Just put IBM in another jamjar or else don't mention it.

Sorry I'm being thick and have obviously missed something. I don't want to drift O/T, but what's wrong with IBM please? Quick glance at FT (https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/te ... ?s=IBM:LSE) puts yield at 3.85% (higher than ULVR incidentally).

Good point: I assume the answer is that it is a foreign company:

Location
International Business Machines Corp1 New Orchard RdARMONK 10504-1722United StatesUSA

And that was a dilemma for the rest of us if Unilever became a EU based company.


As regards your present position, TJH has it right - just keep it but float it off to another investment "drawer".

Good luck with whatever you choose.

[Dod101]

What was not good? My Income per unit is up nearly 9% so my HYP has performed fairly well in my opinion

It was you that said 'Not such a good year' so I thought you were looking at your own performance. We all know how the FTSE100 has performed (so far anyway; there of course is still about two weeks trading to go).

I did not really understand your graphs so your comments are helpful. With income per unit up 9% that seems to me to be a good result, you must avoided most problem shares, so did I but good for you. My capital is down about 10% maybe a bit less I hope but I will do my own numbers at year end.

Dod

[jackdaww]

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.

By the way as I am sure you are aware, HYP advocates the selection of the highest sustainable yield available, subject to appropriate diversification, it is not just me.

Ian

===========

i can see no evidence of this advocacy whatsoever in the PYAD articles of 2000.

[Raptor]

Moderator Message:
It is obvious that a review of the guidelines for this board by posters is needed and does explain the "off topic" posts that we see. Could you all have a look at the guidelines for the board. Thank you. Can we please return to Arbs original post. If you wish to discuss foreign, unitising etc, create a new thread on the appropriate board. Raptor.

[miner1000]

moorfield wrote:
Sorry I'm being thick and have obviously missed something. I don't want to drift O/T, but what's wrong with IBM please?



It's not in the FTSE350.

Neither is Marstons. But I am sure it is in a few HYPs

[funduffer]

I unitise my 20-share HYP, and 2018 has not been a good year.

My income unit price has fallen 9.5%
My income per unit has fallen 5.8%

This all following a year of relative inactivity.

The main culprits for the income result are: Carillion (disaster), Capita (dividend suspension), Galliford Try (dividend cut), Stagecoach (dividend cut).

Bit of a message here - construction and outsourcing!

I guess I am in some poor sectors.

Onwards and upwards in 2019 hopefully!

Happy Christmas and Prosperous New Year to you all!

FD

[tjh290633]

moorfield wrote:
Sorry I'm being thick and have obviously missed something. I don't want to drift O/T, but what's wrong with IBM please?



It's not in the FTSE350.

Neither is Marstons. But I am sure it is in a few HYPs

It was when first bought. It dropped out of the FTSE350 a couple of quarters ago, when it did not participate in the general market rise. With a good yield, there is no need to jump ship.

TJH

[Raptor]

moorfield wrote:
Sorry I'm being thick and have obviously missed something. I don't want to drift O/T, but what's wrong with IBM please?



It HAS NEVER BEEN in the FTSE350.

Neither is Marstons. But I am sure it is in a few HYPs

Moderator Message:
As per guidelines (please refresh your understanding of them) we can discuss shares that have met the criteria in the past. I have highlighted a change in Quote above.

Raptor.

[moorfield]

moorfield wrote:
Sorry I'm being thick and have obviously missed something. I don't want to drift O/T, but what's wrong with IBM please?



It HAS NEVER BEEN in the FTSE350.

Neither is Marstons. But I am sure it is in a few HYPs

And neither has Verizon (VZ.), for example.

So portfolios containing that are also not welcome here on Arb's thread, right?

(You've spotted the absurdity I'm picking at here perhaps: US listed shares acquired following a UK corporate action might be tolerated, those "bought new" not?)

Moderator Message:
You answered your own question, so no idea why you posted. Stop trying to push the "lines". Leaving post for reference. All future off topic posts will be deleted. Raptor.

[Wizard]

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

Yes, with the large bond component it was clear the total would not fit in here, so that was in Strategies. But I had thought without the bonds and 1 non-UK share in a sector where there are few qualifying UK options I would be OK posting here. As that is not the case I will indeed update including both IBM and Co-Op and not attempt to post here.

Terry.

[OZYU]

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

Yes, with the large bond component it was clear the total would not fit in here, so that was in Strategies. But I had thought without the bonds and 1 non-UK share in a sector where there are few qualifying UK options I would be OK posting here. As that is not the case I will indeed update including both IBM and Co-Op and not attempt to post here.

Terry.

When presented with a grotesque and ridiculous 'ruling', transgressed by countless other posts anyway without the slightest comment, just ignore it and carry on posting here. It should be the spirit of the thing rather than the letter of it which matters in this instance, and your portfolio looks hyp enough imho. What possible distortion to the overall broad picture could the odd 'rogue' or two investments do? NOWT. Sometimes I just laugh about this board's antics on maintaining 'purity', but this is just plain sad, deeply so. Trying too hard to keep a species pure often leads to genetic weakness, a little cross breeding revives it.


Ozyu

Moderator Message:
People, people, people... moderators are just trying to maintain a logical, structured dialogue. We all know the pragmatic thing to do, which has been more than adequately summed up OZYU: nowt. HYP is about income, *not* about having HYP statistics that are accurate to three decimal places. Please, please, please: no more discussion that will bring on thread-locking and post deletions. This is a *really* useful thread, with lots of data being shared, so let's not spoil it. -- MDW1954

[IanTHughes]

By the way as I am sure you are aware, HYP advocates the selection of the highest sustainable yield available, subject to appropriate diversification, it is not just me.

i (sic) can see no evidence of this advocacy whatsoever in the PYAD articles of 2000.

As I understand it, HYP advocates listing shares in descending yield order and selecting the first share that passes muster for sustainability of the dividend as well as providing appropriate diversification. In other words: "HYP advocates the selection of the highest sustainable yield available, subject to appropriate diversification".

Or am I missing something here?


Ian

[StepOne]

My HYP includes S32 (spun out from BLT) - so I take it that no longer qualifies for this board either?

[jackdaww]

By the way as I am sure you are aware, HYP advocates the selection of the highest sustainable yield available, subject to appropriate diversification, it is not just me.

i (sic) can see no evidence of this advocacy whatsoever in the PYAD articles of 2000.

As I understand it, HYP advocates listing shares in descending yield order and selecting the first share that passes muster for sustainability of the dividend as well as providing appropriate diversification. In other words: "HYP advocates the selection of the highest sustainable yield available, subject to appropriate diversification".

Or am I missing something here?


Ian

where does that understanding arise from ? (my L/C)

[Arborbridge]

To quote MDW : This is a *really* useful thread, with lots of data being shared, so let's not spoil it. -- MDW1954

I never imagined I would be kicking a hornets' net. We started a similar thread last year and there was zero controversy AFAIK. Let's keep to the subject of abstracting our results with a brief note if necessary which might help*, and leave it at that.
Otherwise all we have is a ramble which is already difficult to negotiate, rather than an abstract for reference.


Arb

*e.g. whether new capital has been added or withdrawn, perhaps even timorously mentioning you're harbouring a non-HYP share (but don't shout about it!) . In fact, anything which would help us compare apples with apples - or inform us that we are not.