The Lemon Fool

Here is my top 12 shares ranked in top-up order. I'm spoilt for choice, but I feel BAT might get the nod this month; my only reason for delaying would be to pass over the share in favour of one which is not sinking so fast. This would point to SLA or WPP as replacements. Note there are about half a dozen shares which have good cover and low P/Es - definitely factors worth thinking about.
The real problem for now is not too get a stomach ache from eating too many sweets. Compounding the "difficulty" is that there are equally good choices amongst my IT basket competing for attention too.




Arb.

I reckon you should dump PSON and then you'd have funds to top up your non HYP holdings

https://uk.webfg.com/news/broker-recomm ... 35304.html

I'd also side step CNA.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/co ... 12049.html

I read brokers fcast and then take a view. In the case of CNA...is what they saying realistic..are there any surprises?

FWIW, this would be my top up order..based on your table.

IMB (ok...cap weight increases but by how much if topped up?)
BATS
WPP
AV
LLoyds
Standard Life Aberdeen
BT Group
VOD
...
....
UU
SSE
CNA

Arb, on looking at your figures, I’d advise topping up BATS.

Ian.

monabri wrote:I reckon you should dump PSON and then you'd have funds to top up your non HYP holdings

https://uk.webfg.com/news/broker-recomm ... 35304.html

I'd also side step CNA.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/co ... 12049.html

I read brokers fcast and then take a view. In the case of CNA...is what they saying realistic..are there any surprises?

FWIW, this would be my top up order..based on your table.

IMB (ok...cap weight increases but by how much if topped up?)
BATS
WPP
AV
LLoyds
Standard Life Aberdeen
BT Group
VOD
...
....
UU
SSE
CNA

Thanks for your considered reply. CNA I'm vetoing anyway for now - it's on the naughty step for the dividend cut.
The rest of your order is interesting - particularly advancing IMB and Lloyds. My inclination would be SLA and WPP ahead of them. In the end it doesn't make too much difference because it's quite likely the others will rise in due course.

We'll see - and I will let everyone know as usual.

idpickering wrote:Arb, on looking at your figures, I’d advise topping up BATS.

Ian.

Yes, Ian - there's something simple about just going with the first valid choice (CNA being vetoed). Makes life easy and you don't have to think too hard!


Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

idpickering wrote:Arb, on looking at your figures, I’d advise topping up BATS.

Ian.

Yes, Ian - there's something simple about just going with the first valid choice (CNA being vetoed). Makes life easy and you don't have to think too hard!


Arb.

I'm all for Keeping It Simple (KIS) Arb. It's not a sprint, HYP is a marathon.

Ian.

idpickering wrote:
I'm all for Keeping It Simple (KIS)

With the greatest respect Ian, I would have to disagree with you there....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:

With the greatest respect Ian,

I hope Ian isn’t American

Cheers, OLTB.

Itsallaguess wrote:

idpickering wrote:
I'm all for Keeping It Simple (KIS)

With the greatest respect Ian, I would have to disagree with you there....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I get what you’re saying. I wear my heart on my sleeve on this board. sometimes I’m not sure why I bother, like now.

Ian.

It all promotes discussion even on the psychological aspects (phew,slow down, too early in the morning ) of investing so it's Saul Goodman.

idpickering wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:

idpickering wrote:
I'm all for Keeping It Simple (KIS)

With the greatest respect Ian, I would have to disagree with you there....

I get what you’re saying. I wear my heart on my sleeve on this board. sometimes I’m not sure why I bother, like now.

It's a real shame that you take any sort of criticism so personally Ian.

The quite clear contradiction between how the world sees you running your HYP strategy, and how you declare yourself to be running it via your really quite regular 'Keep it simple' statements is something that cannot be brushed under the carpet in the way that you'd clearly prefer.

The fact that you don't like discussing this huge contradiction does not mean that it should be ignored.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Itsallaguess wrote:

idpickering wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:


With the greatest respect Ian, I would have to disagree with you there....

I get what you’re saying. I wear my heart on my sleeve on this board. sometimes I’m not sure why I bother, like now.

It's a real shame that you take any sort of criticism so personally Ian.

The quite clear contradiction between how the world sees you running your HYP strategy, and how you declare yourself to be running it via your really quite regular 'Keep it simple' statements is something that cannot be brushed under the carpet in the way that you'd clearly prefer.

The fact that you don't like discussing this huge contradiction does not mean that it should be ignored.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

How about these for levels of simplicity:

SL1: Doris.
SL2: Active on corporate actions only
SL3: +Ditch holdings that cease paying enough dividends for long enough
SL4: +Rebalance portfolio if holding weight exceeds some threshold
SL5: +Get in to or out of holding based on potentially dividend-affecting news or undesirable corporate action
SL6: +Consider portfolio every time a company publishes anything at all.

I identify with SL4.

Regards,
Chris
[Edit: SL5 extended to TJH's suggestion]

csearle wrote:How about these for levels if simplicity:

SL1: Doris.
SL2: Active on corporate actions only
SL3: +Ditch holdings that cease paying enough dividends for long enough
SL4: +Rebalance portfolio if holding weight exceeds some threshold
SL5: +Get in to or out of holding based on potentially dividend-affecting news
SL6: +Consider portfolio every time a company publishes anything at all.

I identify with SL4.

Regards,
Chris

I like this, but you missed one.

SL7: All of SL3 to SL6 at different points in time

Terry.

csearle wrote:
How about these for levels of simplicity:

SL1: Doris.
SL2: Active on corporate actions only
SL3: +Ditch holdings that cease paying enough dividends for long enough
SL4: +Rebalance portfolio if holding weight exceeds some threshold
SL5: +Get in to or out of holding based on potentially dividend-affecting news
SL6: +Consider portfolio every time a company publishes anything at all.

I do like that idea Chris.

With that said, and to misquote Brody somewhat, "I think we're gonna need some bigger numbers..."

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I must confess to having acted on SL5 in the past, when Prudential announced a massive rights issue (which was later abandoned) and when Cadbury Schweppes decided to spin off Dr Pepper, which I did not wish to hold. Maybe that should be:

SL5: +Get in to or out of holding based on potentially dividend-affecting news or undedsireable corporate action

TJH

I'm an SL4

I've only been at this for ~5 years.

I think I'm nearly an SL4 but will admit to a few SL5 moments.

Umm, I'm an SL2 plus SL5 -

- I still hold PSON, TESC, COB, PFG, LLOY, STAN, CNA, IRV so not SL3
- I did not tinker away some ULVR when it hit 5.5% of my portfolio recently so not SL4
- But I did sell BLND and UU for overseas ITs to reduce my Brexit/Corbyn exposure. I stll hold SSE, PNN & CNA.

mike wrote:Umm, I'm an SL2 plus SL5 -

- I still hold PSON, TESC, COB, PFG, LLOY, STAN, CNA, IRV so not SL3
- I did not tinker away some ULVR when it hit 5.5% of my portfolio recently so not SL4
- But I did sell BLND and UU for overseas ITs to reduce my Brexit/Corbyn exposure. I stll hold SSE, PNN & CNA.

SL5 already includes SL2. That's what the "+" is for.

C.

csearle wrote:

mike wrote:Umm, I'm an SL2 plus SL5 -

- I still hold PSON, TESC, COB, PFG, LLOY, STAN, CNA, IRV so not SL3
- I did not tinker away some ULVR when it hit 5.5% of my portfolio recently so not SL4
- But I did sell BLND and UU for overseas ITs to reduce my Brexit/Corbyn exposure. I stll hold SSE, PNN & CNA.

SL5 already includes SL2. That's what the "+" is for.

C.

I was understanding the + to mean all the previous levels plus that level. So thinking that SL5 included all previous levels, so I was trying to point out that I did not include SL3 & 4, but did use SL5 !