It's a good job this HYP lark sees capital as secondary

[pendas]

My income up 37% this month despite cuts to AMEC and Sainsburys.

The addition of MKS during last year and Marston's paying a month earlier this year has more than compensated for the cutters. Next month may not be so good without Marstons.

[Arborbridge]

The addition of MKS during last year and Marston's paying a month earlier this year has more than compensated for the cutters.

My table posted, was showing dividends in pence per share declared, this January compared with last January.
My actually income received has gone up, but if that is due to extra capital being put in, it is only to be expected, and not so remarkable.

[monabri]

I had a look at HYP4 as defined previously (search of TMF).

The portfolio at the time comprised BP, Lloyds, BATS, United Utilities, BT Group, Aviva, Tate & Lyle, RBS, GSK, Persimmon, Pearson, William Hill Land Securities, Compass, Rentokil (and DSG International - but I'm not sure if they became Dixons Carphone so I will exclude it). So 15 companies to assess plus DSG International which I'm ignoring.

Assuming a £3000 per share invested equally into all 15 - we have an initial investment of £45k.

I created a dummy portfolio based on the above companies and ran it through "HYPTUS". Then I could get both the current share prices for each company and - from the graph option for 10 years, the Share Price between between Sep 06 and Dec 07 (which I averaged as they were in a range).

I calculated that the overall value of the portfolio had increased by just over £14k. In addition (assuming a 4% dividend over 10 years on £45k initial investment) - we would have received dividends of £18k.

So, over 10 years, the initial £45k gave rise to a current value of £59k + £18k dividends in addition.

I wonder if Stephen would be kind enough to run his eyes over this and see if it is correct(ish). It is a bit of a guess! If I knew how to post tables I would do so!

edit ::
I should add, there were some stars and some dogs!!
A search on google reveals the original sum in HYP4 was £80k but I would then have just assumed the same equal split of investment over 15+1 companies.

[kempiejon]

I have 3i infrastructure, Dairy Crest and Royal Mail, they all increased for me, TATE unchanged again, as was N Brown Group. Sainsbury's as mentioned a cutter.
Figures based on dividend per share.

[CryptoPlankton]

I really wouldn't know about that, but the same six companies have paid me dividends as during the first few weeks of last year and, collectively, they've kindly given me 3.49% more this time - so I would say I am doing fine thanks!

But not all HYPs are the same. I too have six companies which have paid dividends this January. Most are the same, one bad fall, one increase (dividend in pence, third column is percentage chance):



Overall it's down, from a fairly normal group of HYP shares.

Which are your six shares?

Arb.

Hi Arb

I completely agree that not all HYPs are the same! My point was that I don't know and don't care how mine is performing in capital terms relative to the market - especially over a period of less than four weeks! FWIW, it just so happens that the first few weeks of the year include a dividend from IMB (actual payment date) which has almost single-handed accounted for that increase. But don't worry, there will definitely be other periods during the year where the cutters outweigh the growers in my portfolio! What matters, of course, is how it fares over the whole year...

I hold two the same as you (NG. and SBRY) and my figures for those (including the actual payments received) don't tally with yours. My holdings:

GSK - No change
ECM - No change (now sold and looking to replace the income with approx. half the proceeds)
NG. - +1.13% (15.17p cf 15.0p)
SBRY- - 10.0% (3.6p cf 4.0p)
IMB - +10.18% (54.1p cf 49.1p)

In addition, I hold SQN Asset Finance in the same account as my "HYP" so, despite being an IT it tends to get lumped in with it rather than my "IT portfolio" (I really think of all my income investments collectively, with one total output, which is why I've always shied away from posting my "HYP" as a separate entity). Although SQN have paid more this January, it is complicated by some corporate activity last year, so maybe best to ignore them. In which case, the total payout from the "legitimate" HYP shares has increased by about 1.7%.

Why am I feeling this is just wasting everyone's time...?!

CP

[Arborbridge]

Why am I feeling this is just wasting everyone's time...?!

It's not a waste of time if it demonstrated to others that we should be careful about what statements we make, and particularly what is the basis of those statements. Asking a few questions has revealed several differences: that apples are being compared with oranges. The most obviously the way dividends are expressed. Your statement that they paid you more is correct, of course, but they didn't necessarily pay you more per share - which is how I read it. The question also revealed I made some errors! - see below.

Incidentally, I too have IMB which you included in 2017, but the pay date was 31 Dec 2016. To ensure correct comparison with my previous year, I accounted for it in 2016.

You were quite correct to pick me up on the errors in the dividends I gave, both my fault. For SBRY I pick up Jan 2015 in place of 2016 - the divi fell in both January's, sadly. The "15" for NG was because I hadn't made excel show two decimal places.

Anyhow, it looks as though the dividend per share trend was slightly down, but the that net amount received by both of us was slightly up. We are getting slightly less bang for the buck and not more, which people might have thought from your original post. Clarifying that is not a waste of time.

[77ss]

But not all HYPs are the same. I too have six companies which have paid dividends this January.



Which are your six shares?

Arb.

Quite right - we all have different holdings. My 6 (I am not expecting any more this month, and I include my non-HYP IT, WWH, to make it up to 6) are:



Complicated by ICP's restructuring and TLPR's early (by 5 months) payment. Comparisons can be tricky. One nasty cutter; I hope better for future months - February and March certainly will be.

I understand that your figure of 0% for NG is just rounding, but 1.13% is better than 0%!

When it comes to SBRY, is a drop from 5p to 3.6p not a lot more than 18%?

My first effort at a table - I might not have bothered otherwise - after all, what is one month in the life of an HYP?

[CryptoPlankton]

Why am I feeling this is just wasting everyone's time...?!

It's not a waste of time if it demonstrated to others that we should be careful about what statements we make, and particularly what is the basis of those statements. Asking a few questions has revealed several differences: that apples are being compared with oranges. The most obviously the way dividends are expressed. Your statement that they paid you more is correct, of course, but they didn't necessarily pay you more per share - which is how I read it. The question also revealed I made some errors! - see below.

Incidentally, I too have IMB which you included in 2017, but the pay date was 31 Dec 2016. To ensure correct comparison with my previous year, I accounted for it in 2016 .

You were quite correct to pick me up on the errors in the dividends I gave, both my fault. For SBRY I pick up Jan 2015 in place of 2016 - the divi fell in both January's, sadly. The "15" for NG was because I hadn't made excel show two decimal places.

Anyhow, it looks as though the dividend per share trend was slightly down, but the that net amount received by both of us was slightly up. We are getting slightly less bang for the buck and not more, which people might have thought from your original post. Clarifying that is not a waste of time.

Oh, okay then...

Firstly, I'm really not sure how you interpreted "collectively, they've kindly given me 3.49% more this time" as anything other than I have received 3.49% more dividend income this January. I made no reference to dividend "per share" and certainly didn't mention fruit of any variety! Two paid me more "per share", two paid the same and one paid less - so I'm not sure where you get the "dividend per share trend was slightly down"? (FWIW, if you had one share each of GSK, ECM, SBRY, IMB and NG., your income "per share" would have gone from an average of 18.34p to 19.454p.)
Also, as I am getting 3.49% (1.7% without SQN) more income from the same holdings as last year, surely I am getting more "bang for the buck"? Anyway, I'm sorry if my original comment seemed ambiguous in a way I still can't see!

I did state that IMB was included because it was received this month (as last year) although the official pay date is December. Of course, if we put it in December then that becomes a good month and January starts to look a bit disappointing! Which was kind of what I was driving at when suggesting I was wasting our time. I only mentioned the income as part of a dig at the idea of comparing less than four weeks of a HYP's capital performance with the market over the same short period. Neither are remotely significant in the grand scheme of things...

Do you think this is helping?

CP

[Arborbridge]

Neither are remotely significant in the grand scheme of things...

If you don't think it's helping, why are you so keen to carry on teasing out bits and pieces from the discussion?

Your original remark about dividends was easily misunderstood because it was ambiguous: I'm sorry about that, but that just shows one has to be quite careful to write clearly. It would be usual to normalise to dividends per share and "collectively" can be assumed to be used in the same way. i.e. taking the increases/decreases of the six collectively and express that as a single percentage. Using the word "collectively" did not make the meaning any clearer: i.e. that you meant income, not dividends - allbeit that you used the word dividend.
In the context of varying capital values versus dividends, it would be pointless to say that one's dividends had increased by 5%, for example, if one had pumped more capital into the HYP. The dividends didn't increase by 5%, only the income did - and that was because you bought more income! So no surprise there.
As you say, there's no point in carry on any further. Especially if you cannot see how the original misunderstanding arose from what you wrote.

[monabri]

(This is in response to an unanswered question from Wizard regarding HYP 4) Of course, if any older & wiser Lemons have more accurate data
it would be good to hear.

With a little guidance from Kiloran (thanks) regarding creation of table, here's the HYP4 analysis I mentioned above.
In HYP4 there were 16 companies (I've posted for 15 only - see my earlier post).

I made an assumption that there were 15 shares, all equally weighted in terms of purchase cost ( it doesn't matter as long as the original equal allotment rule held). I don't know the exact purchase price of the shares so I've assumed an average price over the time period that HYP4 was set up.

So, if the BP share price was 600p, the portfolio would get 500 shares. Using HYPTUS, we can get the share prices today and then calculate the current value and how much it has changed from the original £3k investment. Some shares (eg banks) have been dogs in terms of their share price but others (Bats , Compass) have done well.

Company           | Av SP  | Qty (£3k/Av SP) | Current SP | Value (£) | Change from £3k
BP                |    600 |             500 |        489 |      2443 |            -558
Lloyds            |    325 |             923 |       66.4 |       613 |           -2387
BATS              |   1250 |             240 |       4920 |     11808 |            8808
United Utilities  |    700 |             429 |        889 |      3810 |             810
BT Group          |    225 |            1333 |        304 |      4053 |            1053
Aviva             |    700 |             429 |        486 |      2083 |            -917
Tate & Lyle       |    575 |             522 |        671 |      3501 |             501
RBS               |   7000 |              43 |        235 |       101 |           -2899
GSK               |   1500 |             200 |       1525 |      3050 |              50
Persimmon         |   1200 |             250 |       1905 |      4763 |            1763
Pearson           |    800 |             375 |        620 |      2325 |            -675
William Hill      |    400 |             750 |        261 |      1958 |           -1043
Land Securities   |   1600 |             188 |       1001 |      1877 |           -1123
Compass           |    275 |            1091 |       1390 |     15164 |           12164
Rentokil          |    400 |             750 |        222 |      1665 |           -1335

This lead to a "valuation" of just over £59k. In addition, I assumed divis at a level 4% of the original investment value throughout the 10 years which came to a shade over £14k. hence, the £45k original investment would have delivered £73k. Not too shady - pity It wasn't all originally invested in Bats & Compass !

I suppose the concern is , what if you hadn't selected the 2 superstars that have skewed the overall results? I guess you would have broken even at best.

[CryptoPlankton]

Neither are remotely significant in the grand scheme of things...

If you don't think it's helping, why are you so keen to carry on teasing out bits and pieces from the discussion?

I'm really not, I made a simple easily comprehensible statement and have since just been responding to your questions/criticisms.

Your original remark about dividends was easily misunderstood because it was ambiguous: I'm sorry about that, but that just shows one has to be quite careful to write clearly. It would be usual to normalise to dividends per share and "collectively" can be assumed to be used in the same way. i.e. taking the increases/decreases of the six collectively and express that as a single percentage. Using the word "collectively" did not make the meaning any clearer: i.e. that you meant income, not dividends - allbeit that you used the word dividend.

In the context of varying capital values versus dividends, it would be pointless to say that one's dividends had increased by 5%, for example, if one had pumped more capital into the HYP. The dividends didn't increase by 5%, only the income did - and that was because you bought more income! So no surprise there.

Sorry, but that all comes across as condescending pseudo-intellectual twaddle. My initial statement was " the same six companies have paid me dividends as during the first few weeks of last year and, collectively, they've kindly given me 3.49% more this time". Now, to me that simply means they have given me 3.49% more in total dividend payments i.e. income. And, as it happens, it does mean that (on average) the dividend paid per share that I hold has increased by 3.49% because I haven't "bought more income", I have the same number of shares as last year. But, in any case, in the context of the post I was replying to ("I don't know how everyone else is doing at the moment..."), it wasn't pointless as I was simply saying that I am doing fine because I have more income (regardless of how it was derived). As you asked, I did give further explanation (pointing out your data errors as politely as I could), but I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition to follow!

As you say, there's no point in carry on any further.

Actually, I didn't say, but I get the message - I won't trouble you again. (Perhaps you'd be kind enough to reciprocate - after having the last word on this, of course!)

Regards

CP

[Deev8]

I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition to follow!

Nobody expects ...

[YeeWo]

In my head I have a goal of perhaps 15 sectors and up to 30 shares. I appreciate that holding matched pairs such as RIO and BLT may not actually increase 'safety', because you're doubling the charge of an individual company failing, but it feels safer which helps me sleep at night.

If you think of : Managerial Ability, Geopolitical Risk & Exposure, Each Companies actual exposure to each different Commodity, Industrial Relations, Debt v Equity profile, Pension Liabilities and so many other criteria you can quite easily come to the conclusion that two businesses in the same sector are probably far more different than you-me or anybody else thinks........
Holding Standard Chartered and HSBC for a few years reinforced this conviction for me!

[monabri]

Yes, you have a point YeeWo...Just take the comparison between BAE Systems and Cobham.

[Dod1010]

You are both right. Fundamentally it comes down to culture. HSBC and Standard Chartered are two very different beasts.

I am not so sure about BAE and Cobham. I thought Cobham was better because it seemed to have a longer term outlook but................and it got it so wrong. Anyway I do not follow defence suppliers so am not really in a position to judge.

Dod

[YeeWo]

You are both right. Fundamentally it comes down to culture. HSBC and Standard Chartered are two very different beasts.

I've yet to see a quantifiable methodology for Culture though!
My current pot : BP, BATS, BLND, BT, DGE, GFS, GSK, HSBA, IMB, INCH, JLT, RB, REL, RR, RDSB, SN, ULVR. VOD & WPP.
What Cultural assumptions can you possible make?

[77ss]

You are both right. Fundamentally it comes down to culture. HSBC and Standard Chartered are two very different beasts.

I've yet to see a quantifiable methodology for Culture though!
My current pot : BP, BATS, BLND, BT, DGE, GFS, GSK, HSBA, IMB, INCH, JLT, RB, REL, RR, RDSB, SN, ULVR. VOD & WPP.
What Cultural assumptions can you possible make?

Over the years, one can gather the impression that some companies are just plain accident prone.

Of your set, I have certainly come to that conclusion about BP!

[Arborbridge]

Over the years, one can gather the impression that some companies are just plain accident prone.

Of your set, I have certainly come to that conclusion about BP!

And GFS?

[77ss]

Over the years, one can gather the impression that some companies are just plain accident prone.

Of your set, I have certainly come to that conclusion about BP!

And GFS?

Indeed! I just didn't recognise the EPIC. Bargepole material.

[Darka]

I don't mind GFS, I'm up 40% on capital terms and they've returned 7.5% of original cost as dividends, so a 47.5% return on them so far - I'm ok with that