Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

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
Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222355

Postby Arborbridge » May 13th, 2019, 7:13 am

moorfield wrote:
MDW1954 wrote:If you're suggesting that chasing yield is not without risk, then many of us here would agree with that. A proper discussion of that notion belongs elsewhere, though.


What I'm suggesting is HYP selection/top-up guidelines could be evolved/improved by adopting a yield ceiling, as well as a floor - which is well known of course. You're right that discussion belongs elsewhere; VOD, and CNA, make pertinent case studies of the notion. But what do I know.


These are fair comments and those with longer memories will know of Luni's attempts (a long time ago now, it seems) to create "zones" or yield acceptability. Many people didn't accept the idea that there was a "hard border" - or rigid zone - but nevertheless the idea lingers on. Lingers on in the sense that Luni's warnings may set some of our antennae waving a bit when the yield become suspiciously high.
BTW, MDW, I'm not sure why "a proper discussion of this belongs elsewhere" - maybe you could explain that so we can all learn from it? It seems to me that this is exactly the place to discuss it as it part of managing one's HYP. Just another factor to bear in mind along with the dividend record etc.

It's an area where personal taste can have a big influence. Especially in a case like VOD where people have noted the consistently low eps cover which added to the high yield have been a puzzle for years. That the cash flow cover seems reasonable mitigates this, but it isn't surprising if HYPers have been drawing back from topping up or buying VOD.

It would be that VOD becomes another "interesting" test for HYP principles - but my belieif is that my HYP will still carry on doing what it has been doing for the past ten years - providing my with a significant part of my pension. That's even after all my blunders and self doubts along the way :?

Arb.

Moderator Message:
This post, and any others timed before 12 noon on May 17th that follow it, were originally part of the "Bad week for Vod" thread, and have been moved to tidy things up, and facilitate further discussion. -- MDW1954

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222361

Postby Itsallaguess » May 13th, 2019, 10:41 am

Arborbridge wrote:
These are fair comments and those with longer memories will know of Luni's attempts (a long time ago now, it seems) to create "zones" or yield acceptability.

Many people didn't accept the idea that there was a "hard border" - or rigid zone - but nevertheless the idea lingers on. Lingers on in the sense that Luni's warnings may set some of our antennae waving a bit when the yield become suspiciously high.


I thought Luni's 'Danger Zone' theory was a very well defined idea that unfortunately muddied it's own waters by hugely over-working the theory...

Rather than thinking there was a need to constantly update lists of 'Danger Zone' shares, which in my view was simply 'make-work' for the sake if it, I thought the best idea would be to simply use the 'Is the proposed yield over 1.5x the FTSE average yield?' question as part of the other standard HYP sanity-checks, which would have helped embed it into the HYP process itself, rather than persist in having it as some sort of 'external process' that also then required constant monitoring..

Surely potential 'Danger Zone' HYP options only ever need filtering-out once they've made it onto our initial options-list, so I always thought that this should then be the point to carry out those 'Danger Zone' checks, much in the same way as we might carry our 5-year dividend-rises, and dividend-cover checks....

With regards to your 'hard border' that some people might 'have a problem with', I think that's a bit of a red-herring if people really did get that worked up about it.

I think to see a 'hard-border' with potential 'Danger Zone' candidates is missing the point of the filter - I don't really think anyone would ever really try to suggest that there's a 'hard-border', where a potential yield over a certain amount would always lead to a failed-outcome - I think the main thing to take account of is that the majority of HYP owners might not want to carry out the further due-diligence checks that might begin to point out the difference between potential 'safe' options within a 'Danger Zone', and ones that really are likely to lead to poor outcomes...

So as a 'Danger Zone' filter, I think it's got a lot of merit - not in defining any sort of hard-line above which we should never venture, but in defining a good-enough line where, if we're not willing or able to work a bit harder to see if such warnings might be warranted, then we're simply better off generally staying away from anything above it...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4764
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 4812 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222388

Postby csearle » May 13th, 2019, 6:32 pm

Personally I think the main objection to Luni's danger zone was the arbitrary nature of it. Were it to be a function of the average FTSE100 yield then I think it could be a useful refinement to the purchasing filter. C.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222390

Postby Arborbridge » May 14th, 2019, 11:51 am

csearle wrote:Personally I think the main objection to Luni's danger zone was the arbitrary nature of it. Were it to be a function of the average FTSE100 yield then I think it could be a useful refinement to the purchasing filter. C.


I agree it was arbitrary, but possibly less so than people who use a vague notion like "smell". Once his "gut feeling" about where the zones should be was decided, it was then mechanical. But Luni would not stick with something as an absolute - in other words, if he felt his ideas needed modifying, he did it.
To that extent, it wasn't arbitrary, but based on experience and of updating that experience.
I expect, in the end, it all became too much hassle. The truth is that the conditions which give rise to various ideas slowly morph, and the idea may not work as well. Or in a different context: "Once one has seen a bandwagon, it has probably passed by" .

My own experience of experimenting for many years led me to similar conclusions: it wasn't worth the bother! The only method to have endured for many years has been HYP.

Arb.

Luniversal
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 157
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:01 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222392

Postby Luniversal » May 14th, 2019, 5:49 pm

Arborbridge wrote:
csearle wrote:Personally I think the main objection to Luni's danger zone was the arbitrary nature of it. Were it to be a function of the average FTSE100 yield then I think it could be a useful refinement to the purchasing filter. C.


I agree it was arbitrary, but possibly less so than people who use a vague notion like "smell". Once his "gut feeling" about where the zones should be was decided, it was then mechanical. But Luni would not stick with something as an absolute - in other words, if he felt his ideas needed modifying, he did it.
To that extent, it wasn't arbitrary, but based on experience and of updating that experience.
I expect, in the end, it all became too much hassle. The truth is that the conditions which give rise to various ideas slowly morph, and the idea may not work as well. Or in a different context: "Once one has seen a bandwagon, it has probably passed by" .

My own experience of experimenting for many years led me to similar conclusions: it wasn't worth the bother! The only method to have endured for many years has been HYP.

Arb.


For the record: Vodafone was in the Danger Zone for yield (>=160% of the All-Share average) 24, 12 and 6 months before today's news. Given that shares rarely cross zonal borders, it is fair to assume that VOD was in Danger or Warning Zones (150-160% of the All-Share yield) throughout those two years.

I wish I could find some research I never had time to post on the Motley Fool before it closed. This examined all 'surprise' dividend cuts and passes among HYPable companies between the end of the global financial crisis in 2009 and mid-2016. From memory, there were about 30. I looked at the yield relatives and zonal patterns for each at intervals between five years and one month before the 'shock' announcement. IIRC about half of these offenders had been in the DZ two years previously, but this rose to more than three-quarters one year earlier, with little change in the 12 months before the axe fell.

Yield relatives were useless as a predictor more than two years beforehand. Interestingly this matches the timescale of pyad's Strategic Ignorance, more or less.

The data gave some comfort to my initially arbitrary setting of zonal limits back in 2012, and did not incite me to fine-tune them. But I remember that in 2016, shortly before I stopped monitoring, three or four new bad boys were still in the Optimal Zone shortly before lapsing. So the limits might have begun to cough, though not for VOD.

Previously, when I monitored such things weekly, VOD was almost continuously in the Optimal or 'Goldilocks' Zone (90-150% of average) between mid-Nov. 2014 and the end of 2016. It had been in and out of red zones between Apr. 2013 and Aug. 2014, when it began a few months in the red ones before becoming moderately high-yield anew.

Vodafone's payout record between 2000 and 2015 was unblemished by cuts, with CAGR of 15%. It was graded 1 on a 1-10 scale, although its payout growth was only just above inflation and complicated by the Verizon reorganisation. However, falling into Danger Zone territory latterly excluded it from the weekly HYPs I compiled. (An analogous and indeed unique case is SSE, only more so: it has been in red zones more often than not for 15 years, yet swears eternal fealty to the dividend and has not breached faith yet.)

The zonal rules of thumb embody common perceptions. First, that among the larger companies in which HYP deals, information abounds and soon reflected in pricing. Secondly, that predictions about dividends are likely to be much more reliable than about prices, since most of the time dividends rise moderately whereas prices can be widely swayed by moods. Therefore as a function of price and dividend rates, the yield is a less emotive indicator of the business's health than the SP: more of a weighing machine, less of an adding machine.

Whatever else a yield spike which sticks signifies for the business, it usually portends impairment or abolition of the dividend itself, and that is what counts for an income-seeker. One may gamble that fears will be refuted by experience; but gambling is against the spirit and object of a HYP, which ought to be about constructing a device for preserving and in time enhancing the purchasing power of income.

That said, it is (as I used to write on TMF) a Danger Zone, not a Doom or Disaster Zone. One might get away with betting that the consensus is wrong to worry about a running return more than half as high again as the field. I prefer to stick with a portfolio mainly or wholly composed of yields perhaps a quarter or one third above the market-- say blended to 5.6-6.0% at present. One trusts that inevitable mishaps will be more than balanced by sedate growth from most out of 15 or 20 constituents, topped off with the odd windfall and resumed payments from earlier defaulters.

My tests and experience have shown that reserving c. one-fifth of the raw receipts, together with strict sectoral diversity and equal weighting, would accommodate cuts and passes even in Divigeddons such as 2008-10. It would allow for spendable income to be maintained in real terms, and sometimes permanently enhanced.

I hold VOD, as well as SSE and Centrica, in my Footsie HYP: it was bought in one lump almost eight years ago, before I invented zones. Projecting the worst for these and nothing brilliant for other members does not point to the 5.6%+RPI pa which LuniHYP100 now pays being imperilled. I should have about 14 months' income in reserve by Jul., which could absorb quite a few shocks.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222393

Postby Arborbridge » May 14th, 2019, 6:07 pm

Luni,

So nice to know you are keeping a watching brief over us, and it's lovely to have you back again with your unique inventive language -Divigeddon - love it!

It would be good news if you decide contribute more.


Arb.

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222395

Postby MDW1954 » May 14th, 2019, 7:55 pm

Luniversal wrote:I wish I could find some research I never had time to post on the Motley Fool before it closed. This examined all 'surprise' dividend cuts and passes among HYPable companies between the end of the global financial crisis in 2009 and mid-2016. From memory, there were about 30. I looked at the yield relatives and zonal patterns for each at intervals between five years and one month before the 'shock' announcement. IIRC about half of these offenders had been in the DZ two years previously, but this rose to more than three-quarters one year earlier, with little change in the 12 months before the axe fell.

Yield relatives were useless as a predictor more than two years beforehand. Interestingly this matches the timescale of pyad's Strategic Ignorance, more or less.


Luni,

I would like to see that research, if you ever find it.

For the record, although I've said this before, I had a high regard for your approach. The rebarbative adamantine animus of others never seemed to be matched by an ability to come up with any more compelling or credible alternative.

We could argue over the labeling of the zones, and how blurry the lines between them could get, but I always thought your contribution to the greater body of HYP thought was a valuable one.

Good to see you here. And yes, the point about the difficulty in seeing beyond a two-year horizon is well made. Many also mock the notion of strategic ignorance, yet here you have a potential data-based justification for it.

MDW1954

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222396

Postby Dod101 » May 14th, 2019, 8:31 pm

MDW1954 wrote:The rebarbative adamantine animus of others


Could we have this translated into an easily grasped form of English please?

Dod

Luniversal
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 157
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:01 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222398

Postby Luniversal » May 15th, 2019, 10:47 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
Luniversal wrote:
Luni,

I would like to see that research, if you ever find it.

MDW1954


I will go on searching. Another study to be tracked down was of Gengulphus's 'one-eighth scale' HYP, the one for which TMF readers picked the constituents. When they backed Danger/Warning Zone candidates, they tended to come to grief.

Meanwhile, here is a later example of zones in action-- the last of my monthly yield lists, calculated on Dec. 23, 2016.

At that point my database held 195 past and present HYP-able shares, but only 71 had good enough five-year dividend records and yielded enough (90% or more of the All-Share yield, then 3.5%) to be potentially eligible for one of my 'sturdometer' monthly portfolios. Of these 52 were in the Optimal Zone and 19 in the red zones, as below:

DANGER/WARNING ZONES*
average trailing yield 6.3%

Aberdeen Asset Management (ADN)
Admiral (ADM)
Ashmore (ASHM) - freeze
Capita (CPI) - pass
Carillion (CLLN) - bust
Galliford Try (GFRD) - cut
IG (IGG)
Interserve (IRV) - bust
International Personal Finance (IPF) - freeze
KCOM (KCOM) - freeze
Legal & General (LGEN)*
N Brown (BWNG) - cut
Pearson (PSON) - cut/restore
Petrofac (PFC)* - cut
Restaurant (RTN)* - cut
Royal Dutch Shell B (RDSB) - freeze
SSE (SSE)
Stagecoach (SGC)* - freeze
Vodafone (VOD) - cut
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPTIMAL ZONE
average trailing yield 4.1%

3i Infrastructure (3IN)
AG Barr (BAG)
AstraZeneca (AZN) - freeze
BAe Systems (BA.)
BBA Aviation (BBA) - freeze
Berendsen (BRSN)
Big Yellow (BYG)
Bovis Homes (BVS)
Brewin Dolphin (BRW)
British American Tobacco (BATS)
Britvic (BVIC)
Close Brothers (CBG)
DS Smith (SMDS)
F&C Commercial Property (FCPT)
G4S (GFS) - freeze
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) - freeze
Go-Ahead (GOG)
Greene King (GNK)
Greggs (GRG)
Hammerson (HMSO)
Hansteen (HSTN)
Henderson (HGG)
HICL Infrastructure (HICL)
ICAP (IAP)
IMI (IMI)
Imperial Brands (IMB)
Inmarsat (ISAT) - cut
International Public Partnerships (INPP)
ITV (ITV)
Jardine Lloyd Thompson (JLT)
Keller (KLR)
Kier (KIE) - cut
MITIE (MTO)
moneysupermarket (MONY)
National Grid (NG.)
Next (NXT)
Novae (NVA)
Old Mutual (OML)
Paypoint (PAY)
Pennon (PNN)
Photo-Me International (PHTM)
Primary Health Properties (PHP)
Provident Financial (PFG) - pass/restore
RPS (RPS) - freeze
Severn Trent (SVT)
Sky (SKY)
Standard Life (SL.)
Tate & Lyle (TATE)
Tullett Prebon (TLPR)
UBM (UBM)
Unilever (ULVR)
United Utilities (UU.)



From a quick check of what has befallen their payouts since, 14 of 19 red-zoners came to grief: suspending, passing or freezing the rate. Two, Carillion and Interserve, were wipeouts.

Only eight of 52 in the OZ misbehaved similarly, and on the whole, the red yielders have suffered worse: only Pearson among them has begun to restore a cut dividend. (AstraZeneca, Shell and BBA Aviation pegged the dividend in dollars, but it grew in sterling terms.) The worst that befell 'Goldlilocks' yielders was Provident Financial's pass, which it began to mend before becoming a bid prospect. Otherwise the OZ saw five freezes and two serious 'rebasings' but no busts.

This contrast seems to support my theory that the market mainly evaluates income prospects accurately, on the 2-3 year horizon beyond which yawns Strategic Ignorance. It could be argued that the riskier yields compensate by being much bigger; but the accident-proneness of the DZ and WZ in this example would seem to undermine that. Fourteen out of 19 going wrong in fairly short order requires a load of outperformance elsewhere to keep the overall result sweet.

'Market trading' might make up for damage to the regular inflow, but of red-lit shares at end-2016 only Aberdeen Asset Management and KCOM have become takeover targets-- whereas in the Optimal Zone Berendsen, Henderson, ICAP, Jardine Lloyd Thompson, Novae, Old Mutual, Tullett Prebon and UBM have been in the frame.

Anyway, seeking the quieter life a High Yield Portfolio promises, 'don't chase the yield' and 'good enough is better than even better' remain my watchwords.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222399

Postby Alaric » May 15th, 2019, 11:02 pm

Luniversal wrote:This contrast seems to support my theory that the market mainly evaluates income prospects accurately, on the 2-3 year horizon beyond which yawns Strategic Ignorance.


Is there another observation that the market puts a premium on shares with a track record and intent to continue with dividend increases? So much so that the share prices rise enough to reduce the dividend yield below par, as defined by the yield on one of the Indexes. I note the absence in any of your lists of any of the notorious shares for dividend increases.

midgesgalore
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 249
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 12:02 am
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222400

Postby midgesgalore » May 15th, 2019, 11:07 pm

Luniversal wrote:
MDW1954 wrote:
Luniversal wrote:
Luni,

I would like to see that research, if you ever find it.

MDW1954


I will go on searching. Another study to be tracked down was of Gengulphus's 'one-eighth scale' HYP, the one for which TMF readers picked the constituents. When they backed Danger/Warning Zone candidates, they tended to come to grief.

Meanwhile, here is a later example of zones in action-- the last of my monthly yield lists, calculated on Dec. 23, 2016.
...
...
Anyway, seeking the quieter life a High Yield Portfolio promises, 'don't chase the yield' and 'good enough is better than even better' remain my watchwords.


Yes I agree with that sentiment.
Since I repurchased VOD, post divestment of Verizon, the share price was volatile for a while then sank. Now the dividend is cut. Nothing much more to say really other than not a stellar performer ;)

midgesgalore

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222403

Postby MDW1954 » May 15th, 2019, 11:36 pm

Luniversal wrote:
From a quick check of what has befallen their payouts since, 14 of 19 red-zoners came to grief: suspending, passing or freezing the rate. Two, Carillion and Interserve, were wipeouts.

Only eight of 52 in the OZ misbehaved similarly, and on the whole, the red yielders have suffered worse: only Pearson among them has begun to restore a cut dividend. (AstraZeneca, Shell and BBA Aviation pegged the dividend in dollars, but it grew in sterling terms.) The worst that befell 'Goldlilocks' yielders was Provident Financial's pass, which it began to mend before becoming a bid prospect. Otherwise the OZ saw five freezes and two serious 'rebasings' but no busts.

This contrast seems to support my theory that the market mainly evaluates income prospects accurately, on the 2-3 year horizon beyond which yawns Strategic Ignorance. It could be argued that the riskier yields compensate by being much bigger; but the accident-proneness of the DZ and WZ in this example would seem to undermine that. Fourteen out of 19 going wrong in fairly short order requires a load of outperformance elsewhere to keep the overall result sweet.

'Market trading' might make up for damage to the regular inflow, but of red-lit shares at end-2016 only Aberdeen Asset Management and KCOM have become takeover targets-- whereas in the Optimal Zone Berendsen, Henderson, ICAP, Jardine Lloyd Thompson, Novae, Old Mutual, Tullett Prebon and UBM have been in the frame.

Anyway, seeking the quieter life a High Yield Portfolio promises, 'don't chase the yield' and 'good enough is better than even better' remain my watchwords.


Luni,

Thank you. Absolutely fascinating. This says it all:

Fourteen out of 19 going wrong in fairly short order requires a load of outperformance elsewhere to keep the overall result sweet.

Your observation about Gengulphus' one-eighth-scale portfolios is also fascinating. After the first few, I stopped voting, regarding them as an exercise in confirmatory bias. To say more would be off topic, but verbum sapienti sat est, as it were.

Your final sentence is very close to my own views. Some yields are high yields for very good reasons.

MDW1954

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222406

Postby Arborbridge » May 16th, 2019, 7:30 am

It's interesting that Luni places great store by the idea of warnings zones for yield - but at the same time he will never sell (or at least that used to be his position). Once a choice has been made, it will stay in the portfolio come rain or shine.

If excessively high yield were useful as an indicator, should we not be using it as a "sell and replace" signal?


Arb.

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222407

Postby UncleEbenezer » May 16th, 2019, 8:11 am

Luniversal wrote:DANGER/WARNING ZONES*
average trailing yield 6.3%

Most (all but SSE?) of those moved from "optimal zone" to "danger zone" due to big drops in the share price. The investor with hindsight could profitably have sold them when they were in the optimal zone, and might even have bought them back cheaper in the danger zone.

Adherence to zones can be a fine buy-high-sell-low strategy.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222408

Postby IanTHughes » May 16th, 2019, 8:32 am

Arborbridge wrote:If excessively high yield were useful as an indicator, should we not be using it as a "sell and replace" signal?


Are you perhaps recommending: buy at "optimal" yield, wait for yield to rise/price to fall, sell, rinse and repeat?

I think I shall stick to HYP


Ian

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222409

Postby Arborbridge » May 16th, 2019, 8:43 am

IanTHughes wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:If excessively high yield were useful as an indicator, should we not be using it as a "sell and replace" signal?


Are you perhaps recommending: buy at "optimal" yield, wait for yield to rise/price to fall, sell, rinse and repeat?

I think I shall stick to HYP


Ian


I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I was just wondering about the apparent dichotomy between Luni's signs of danger and the fact that he doesn't make use of them - except perhaps at the buying stage.

Like you, I try to stick with HYP as closely as possible or as I think reasonable.

Arb.

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222410

Postby moorfield » May 16th, 2019, 9:18 am

Arborbridge wrote:If excessively high yield were useful as an indicator, should we not be using it as a "sell and replace" signal?


As you may know Arb I already use twice x City of London IT (CTY) yield (which I find is a very good proxy for FTSE100) as a signal to not top up holdings rather than sell them - that encourages me to put new cash elsewhere in the meantime. Until yesterday that signal applied to VOD, but its “rebased” yield has now moved back into top-uppable range.

It’s certainly been useful for me to help limit the damage of the cut to my overall portfolio income this year. Lesson learnt and applied having been seduced too much by the Carillion yield.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222411

Postby IanTHughes » May 16th, 2019, 9:28 am

Arborbridge wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:If excessively high yield were useful as an indicator, should we not be using it as a "sell and replace" signal?


Are you perhaps recommending: buy at "optimal" yield, wait for yield to rise/price to fall, sell, rinse and repeat?

I think I shall stick to HYP


I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.

Sorry, I should have said "Sell and Replace" rather than "Sell, rinse and repeat"


Ian

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222412

Postby Dod101 » May 16th, 2019, 9:34 am

Arborbridge wrote:It's interesting that Luni places great store by the idea of warnings zones for yield - but at the same time he will never sell (or at least that used to be his position). Once a choice has been made, it will stay in the portfolio come rain or shine.

If excessively high yield were useful as an indicator, should we not be using it as a "sell and replace" signal?


Answer to me is 'Yes'. An excessively high yield (however you define that) is very often a sign of a dividend cut on the horizon. The problem is that it does not always signify that as the tobaccos have so far shown.

Dod

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10369
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: Specific discussion of Luni's zones, moved from earlier Vodafone thread

#222413

Postby Arborbridge » May 16th, 2019, 9:55 am

Dod101 wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:It's interesting that Luni places great store by the idea of warnings zones for yield - but at the same time he will never sell (or at least that used to be his position). Once a choice has been made, it will stay in the portfolio come rain or shine.

If excessively high yield were useful as an indicator, should we not be using it as a "sell and replace" signal?


Answer to me is 'Yes'. An excessively high yield (however you define that) is very often a sign of a dividend cut on the horizon. The problem is that it does not always signify that as the tobaccos have so far shown.

Dod


I agree. Like cash flow cover or shorting, it's all a bit indefinite: whether it's enough to take action is up to the individual, naturally. The true HYPer just ignores it all.
But I just find Luni a little inconsistent in closely monitoring "zones" (as he used to, at least) as though he really believes it as an indicator, but then declaring that he never sells (even if the zones are breached for a long period).


Return to “HYP Practical (See Group Guidelines)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests