What type of HYP do you run?

[Gengulphus]

And by the way, "only sell if forced" is not a "HYP rule" on HYP Practical (either TLF's or TMF's previous version), nor for all of pyad's demo HYPs (the now-defunct HYP3 and HYP4 didn't have it), and not even HYP1 has obeyed it all that religiously! It's a recommendation by pyad (which he does find occasional reasons to make an exception to), a personal rule that some HYPers follow, and something that zealous anti-HYPers love to treat as an absolute "HYP rule" that all HYPers must follow because it makes their job of arguing against HYP easier...

That's your personal opinion. There are other opinions on this matter.

To break it down:

* '"only sell if forced" is not a "HYP rule" on HYP Practical (either TLF's or TMF's previous version)'. This is fact: neither TLF's HYP Practical guidance nor TMF's HYP Practical guidance (nor its earlier version) contains "only sell if forced" or anything equivalent to it.

* '"only sell if forced" is not a "HYP rule" ... for all of pyad's demo HYPs (the now-defunct HYP3 and HYP4 didn't have it)'. This is fact - here is evidence that evidence that neither HYP3 nor HYP4 had it in theory and HYP4 didn't have it in practice, and evidence that HYP3 also didn't have it in practice.

* '"only sell if forced" ... not even HYP1 has obeyed it all that religiously!". This is fact - HYP1 wasn't forced to sell the United Utilities rights in its 2003 rights issue, nor to sell the Mondi shares demerged from Anglo American in 2007, nor to sell Alliance & Leicester shares when they were taken over for Banco Santander shares in 2008, nor to sell Dixons Carphone shares when they were taken over for GVC shares and other securities in 2018 - but in each of those cases, the link and/or HYP1's current holdings show that it did.

* '"only sell if forced" is ... a recommendation by pyad (which he does find occasional reasons to make an exception to)". This is fact. The link about HYP3 and HYP4 above says "I have many times advocated that the best way for most HYP investors to follow the strategy is never to trade voluntarily but rather to hold for eternity.", which is the language of a recommendation, not a rule, and is just one of quite a few quotes I could dig up using such language. And the instances given in the last bullet where HYP1 has sold despite not being forced to are evidence that pyad does find occasional reasons to make exceptions to it even in HYP1.

* '"only sell if forced" is ... a personal rule that some HYPers follow'. Enough HYPers have indicated that it is that on HYP Practical that I find it impossible to believe that it isn't a personal rule for any of them, but I'll admit that it's not something I absolutely know to be fact.

* '"only sell if forced" is ... something that zealous anti-HYPers love to treat as an absolute "HYP rule" that all HYPers must follow because it makes their job of arguing against HYP easier...". I'm sure that with a bit of effort, I could dig out a good number of quotes from anti-HYPers' posts on HYP Practical treating it as an absolute "HYP rule" that all HYPers must follow. I'm pretty sure you or any other interested reader could as well, so I'll spare myself the effort - especially as I don't want to make this discussion more personal than it need be. I will clarify that "zealous anti-HYPers" does not mean "all anti-HYPers", any more than "red apples" means "all apples", and I'll agree that my description of zealous anti-HYPers' motives are my opinion, though I'd like to see another plausible explanation of the fact that they keep attacking HYP strategies on the basis that "only sell if forced" is an absolute HYP rule despite that basis having often been debunked by me and others.

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

No. A real issue with the HYP definition is that it does not cater for selling. That in turn gets all sorts of people riled up ...

I agree that that's a real issue with TLF's HYP Practical guidance - but the solution to that is in your hands and those of the other moderators and admins, not mine! And what I said about TLF's HYP Practical guidance was that "only sell if forced" is not in it, which is fact, not opinion as you indicated. Indeed, it would be rather difficult for TLF's HYP Practical guidance both to say "only sell if forced" and not to cater for selling!

And TMF's HYP Practical guidance did cater for selling - it said:

"4. What sort of issues are welcome on this board?

Any issues to do with the practicalities of running a HYP or other similar strategy. Some examples would be:
...
• for those who occasionally voluntarily sell a share (known on this board as "tinkering"), when and how to decide to tinker."

and:

"6. What are the hallmarks of a HYP strategy?

The type of strategy discussed on this board invests in shares:
...
• That they hold for long periods, to reduce the effect of trading costs. Typical average holding periods range from several years to decades. That doesn't exclude selling shares entirely, but does mean that sales should be very few and far between.
...
A HYP strategy doesn't have to adhere 100% to these hallmarks. But if a strategy deviates from them in a major way, such as having a significant proportion invested in funds or frequently selling shares after a shorter holding period, then it is off-topic for this board."

I'm afraid that in their very understandable wish to produce shorter guidance than TMF's, the admins and moderators have thrown the cater-for-selling baby out with the bathwater...

Gengulphus

[Alaric]

• for those who occasionally voluntarily sell a share (known on this board as "tinkering"), when and how to decide to tinker.[/i]"

Describing portfolio management as "tinkering" is using a pejorative word.

Another way of looking at is that there are investors coming into the market with lump sums continuously. Although they may be applying the same set of rules for portfolio construction, they will likely end up with different portfolios depending on when they invested. Apart from the constraints of gains tax, buying and selling costs, it would be possible to reinvest an existing portfolio at its market value into the latest selection.

[Gengulphus]

Describing portfolio management as "tinkering" is using a pejorative word.

Probably best dealt with by reporting it under TLF's recently-announced rule. If you do, I'll abide by the moderators' decision about whether it is appropriate in that context.

Another way of looking at is that there are investors coming into the market with lump sums continuously. Although they may be applying the same set of rules for portfolio construction, they will likely end up with different portfolios depending on when they invested. Apart from the constraints of gains tax, buying and selling costs, it would be possible to reinvest an existing portfolio at its market value into the latest selection.

Agreed, but those constraints are fairly significant if one does it at all often - 0.5% stamp duty on a typical HYP holding's value is something of the order of 5-10% of the annual income it will generate, which is quite a noticeable cost to the primary aim of a HYP if for example it's incurred once per year, and other buying and selling costs may well add significantly to that.

Gengulphus

[Alaric]

Probably best dealt with by reporting it under TLF's recently-announced rule. If you do, I'll abide by the moderators' decision about whether it is appropriate in that context.

I thought it was a historical quote from TMF, showing the attitude that pertained to those who "managed" their income portfolios.

[dspp]

No. A real issue with the HYP definition is that it does not cater for selling. That in turn gets all sorts of people riled up ...

I agree that that's a real issue with TLF's HYP Practical guidance - but the solution to that is in your hands and those of the other moderators and admins, not mine! And what I said about TLF's HYP Practical guidance was that "only sell if forced" is not in it, which is fact, not opinion as you indicated. Indeed, it would be rather difficult for TLF's HYP Practical guidance both to say "only sell if forced" and not to cater for selling!

And TMF's HYP Practical guidance did cater for selling - it said:

"4. What sort of issues are welcome on this board?

Any issues to do with the practicalities of running a HYP or other similar strategy. Some examples would be:
...
• for those who occasionally voluntarily sell a share (known on this board as "tinkering"), when and how to decide to tinker."

and:

"6. What are the hallmarks of a HYP strategy?

The type of strategy discussed on this board invests in shares:
...
• That they hold for long periods, to reduce the effect of trading costs. Typical average holding periods range from several years to decades. That doesn't exclude selling shares entirely, but does mean that sales should be very few and far between.
...
A HYP strategy doesn't have to adhere 100% to these hallmarks. But if a strategy deviates from them in a major way, such as having a significant proportion invested in funds or frequently selling shares after a shorter holding period, then it is off-topic for this board."

I'm afraid that in their very understandable wish to produce shorter guidance than TMF's, the admins and moderators have thrown the cater-for-selling baby out with the bathwater...

Gengulphus

Thank you G. I think you have demonstrated very capably that opinions differ on this. regards, dspp

[Gengulphus]

No. A real issue with the HYP definition is that it does not cater for selling. That in turn gets all sorts of people riled up ...

I agree that that's a real issue with TLF's HYP Practical guidance - but the solution to that is in your hands and those of the other moderators and admins, not mine! And what I said about TLF's HYP Practical guidance was that "only sell if forced" is not in it, which is fact, not opinion as you indicated. Indeed, it would be rather difficult for TLF's HYP Practical guidance both to say "only sell if forced" and not to cater for selling!

And TMF's HYP Practical guidance did cater for selling - it said:

"4. What sort of issues are welcome on this board?

Any issues to do with the practicalities of running a HYP or other similar strategy. Some examples would be:
...
• for those who occasionally voluntarily sell a share (known on this board as "tinkering"), when and how to decide to tinker."

and:

"6. What are the hallmarks of a HYP strategy?

The type of strategy discussed on this board invests in shares:
...
• That they hold for long periods, to reduce the effect of trading costs. Typical average holding periods range from several years to decades. That doesn't exclude selling shares entirely, but does mean that sales should be very few and far between.
...
A HYP strategy doesn't have to adhere 100% to these hallmarks. But if a strategy deviates from them in a major way, such as having a significant proportion invested in funds or frequently selling shares after a shorter holding period, then it is off-topic for this board."

I'm afraid that in their very understandable wish to produce shorter guidance than TMF's, the admins and moderators have thrown the cater-for-selling baby out with the bathwater...

Thank you G. I think you have demonstrated very capably that opinions differ on this. regards, dspp

Thank you dspp. With that response to something that demonstrates that "only sell when forced" was not part of the TMF HYP Practical guidance (which is part of what I said), and your total ignoring of the links I've provided to support other parts of what I said, I think you have demonstrated very capably that you have no interest in defending your dismissal of my "And by the way, "only sell if forced" is not a "HYP rule" on HYP Practical (either TLF's or TMF's previous version), nor for all of pyad's demo HYPs (the now-defunct HYP3 and HYP4 didn't have it), and not even HYP1 has obeyed it all that religiously! It's a recommendation by pyad (which he does find occasional reasons to make an exception to), a personal rule that some HYPers follow, and something that zealous anti-HYPers love to treat as an absolute "HYP rule" that all HYPers must follow because it makes their job of arguing against HYP easier..." as just my opinion.

Given that lack of interest, this discussion with you is at an end as far as I am concerned - I'm quite simply not going to waste any more time on exposing your failure to read and understand what I actually said. If you want an argument with an assertion such as "only-sell-if-forced is a good idea", "only-sell-if-forced is a requirement of the HYP strategy" or whatever it is that you mean by "this", I suggest that you go and find someone who has actually said it and argue with them.

Gengulphus

[dspp]

I agree that that's a real issue with TLF's HYP Practical guidance - but the solution to that is in your hands and those of the other moderators and admins, not mine! And what I said about TLF's HYP Practical guidance was that "only sell if forced" is not in it, which is fact, not opinion as you indicated. Indeed, it would be rather difficult for TLF's HYP Practical guidance both to say "only sell if forced" and not to cater for selling!

And TMF's HYP Practical guidance did cater for selling - it said:

"4. What sort of issues are welcome on this board?

Any issues to do with the practicalities of running a HYP or other similar strategy. Some examples would be:
...
• for those who occasionally voluntarily sell a share (known on this board as "tinkering"), when and how to decide to tinker."

and:

"6. What are the hallmarks of a HYP strategy?

The type of strategy discussed on this board invests in shares:
...
• That they hold for long periods, to reduce the effect of trading costs. Typical average holding periods range from several years to decades. That doesn't exclude selling shares entirely, but does mean that sales should be very few and far between.
...
A HYP strategy doesn't have to adhere 100% to these hallmarks. But if a strategy deviates from them in a major way, such as having a significant proportion invested in funds or frequently selling shares after a shorter holding period, then it is off-topic for this board."

I'm afraid that in their very understandable wish to produce shorter guidance than TMF's, the admins and moderators have thrown the cater-for-selling baby out with the bathwater...

Thank you G. I think you have demonstrated very capably that opinions differ on this. regards, dspp

Thank you dspp. With that response to something that demonstrates that "only sell when forced" was not part of the TMF HYP Practical guidance (which is part of what I said), and your total ignoring of the links I've provided to support other parts of what I said, I think you have demonstrated very capably that you have no interest in defending your dismissal of my "And by the way, "only sell if forced" is not a "HYP rule" on HYP Practical (either TLF's or TMF's previous version), nor for all of pyad's demo HYPs (the now-defunct HYP3 and HYP4 didn't have it), and not even HYP1 has obeyed it all that religiously! It's a recommendation by pyad (which he does find occasional reasons to make an exception to), a personal rule that some HYPers follow, and something that zealous anti-HYPers love to treat as an absolute "HYP rule" that all HYPers must follow because it makes their job of arguing against HYP easier..." as just my opinion.

Given that lack of interest, this discussion with you is at an end as far as I am concerned - I'm quite simply not going to waste any more time on exposing your failure to read and understand what I actually said. If you want an argument with an assertion such as "only-sell-if-forced is a good idea", "only-sell-if-forced is a requirement of the HYP strategy" or whatever it is that you mean by "this", I suggest that you go and find someone who has actually said it and argue with them.

Gengulphus

G,
It is more a case of that I have seen this debate go in circles so many times, with so many people having such divergent opinions over what constitutes evidence, where to find it, what is acceptable as a dateline for 'fixing' acceptable evidence that I think it is a pointless debate and/or enquiry. It simply is not resolvable beyond concluding that there are many opinions on this. That is even before one gets into the second question of whether the investment approach advocated had then - or has now - any merit. That is not to say that I find your views to be anything other than exhaustively and cogently structured. I wish you well, but please do not say flatly that your way is the only way that is capable of being followed in this regard. It is, ultimately, opinion.
regards,
dspp

[tjh290633]

Probably best dealt with by reporting it under TLF's recently-announced rule. If you do, I'll abide by the moderators' decision about whether it is appropriate in that context.

I thought it was a historical quote from TMF, showing the attitude that pertained to those who "managed" their income portfolios.

"Tinkering" is an expression that I have used whenever I have had cause to adjust my portfolio. The objective has been two-fold - to reduce the imbalance in the portfolio and to enhance the dividend income flow, because the share trimmed back has usually provided less income than those topped up. Today, for example, I trimmed back Segro, with a yield of 2.2% and reinvested in Aviva, with a yield of 7.5%, and South32 with a yield of 5.3%.

TJH

[88V8]

Describing portfolio management as "tinkering" is using a pejorative word.

Whoa whoa whoa... we have enough of this with Swinson, and Baroness Varzi, trying to tell us what to think what to say and how to say it. Tinkering has a perfectly understood meaning on here, thankyou.

V8

[SDN123]

Thanks to everyone who voted, it seems (at the time of writing) that 59 people have real world HYP portfolios as understood around these parts.

It also seems clear that there is a mix of “pure” HYPs and HYPs that contain other types of investments (foreign shares etc).

Although not explicitly asked in my survey I think it’s clear, from other threads, that there are a mix of tinkered and untinkered portfolios. (In case anyone was wondering I do not consider “tinkering” to be a pejorative term, at least as used on these boards in relation to HYP.)

I like that so many readers have “skin in the HYP game” of what is, after all, a niche investment framework. Although it is niche, HYP seems to suit my investment needs and personality very well. Being part of an informed group that discusses / debates the concept from actual experience, rather than theory, is both reassuring and educational.

The HYP/TLF community have certainly helped me develop my own style and have given me ideas on how that might revolve over time.

Now to take the survey results a little further...

59 responders said they run a HYP like portfolio.

I know that at least one respondent picked an option that they felt didn’t really represent their true situation because they followed my exact “instructions” (I know because Gen told me that’s what he/she did) I have to assume that some others were in the same situation.

i assume that some respondents misunderstood the survey, pressed the wrong option or just chose a random answer for their own reasons. I’m not saying any if these things actually happened, only that it’s a reasonable assumption.

I also assume that some (maybe even most) readers didn’t see my survey or didn’t bother responding. I have have no way to measure that.

I also assume that some HYPers don’t even read TLF - perhaps they picked up HYP on TMF and didn’t transfer here or subscribed to PYADs tipsheet and have never been aware of TLF.

Taking all of the above into account I think its reasonable and quite conservative to assume that, in round numbers, at the very least 60 people run real world (real money) HYP portfolios as understood on these boards.

To speculate more wildly I’m going to guesstimate that the average value of these HYPs is £75,000 each. That is a big stab in the dark, I’ve simply taken the original portfolio size that PYAD mentioned in his original articles. However, in other threads, some talk of living purely off their HYP income (implying much larger portfolios thank £75k) and many talk of being in a saving mode (implying at least some much smaller portfolios). I’m certainly not going to ask people how much cash they have in their HYPs (that is none of my business) but I am going to estimate around a minimum (?) of (60 x £75k =) £4.5 million of ”assets under HYP management”. That’s quite an extraordinarily number to me!! (Especially as I suspect that it’s an underestimate).

I’m not sure what else I can conclude but I certainly have found the speculation both interesting and enjoyable!

SDN

[tjh290633]

I think that you could say that 23 run separate HYPs, while 37 do not separate their HYP from other investments, and some more (12?) have an element of HYP in with other investments.

I probably keep mine separate because it was built in a PEP initially and was perforce kept separate. I keep my funds in a separate segment, as also the ITs I buy for my grandchildren. When the time comes for me to switch into ITs, then I shall keep them separate. When I dabbled in AIM shares, I kept them isolated.

It's all a matter of habit, and personal convenience. Incidentally, concerning the typical value of an HYP, you will recall the original concept was to buy 15 shares at £5,000 each. That was £75,000 in total back at the turn of the century. We know from updates what that would be worth today with all income withdrawn. Reinvested it could have doubled every 7 to 10 years. That would take it to between £300,000 and £600,000. This is probably the upper limit, so the average is probably higher than you have estimated.

TJH

[monabri]

To speculate more wildly I’m going to guesstimate that the average value of these HYPs is £75,000 each. That is a big stab in the dark, I’ve simply taken the original portfolio size that PYAD mentioned in his original articles. However, in other threads, some talk of living purely off their HYP income

SDN

The survey (2 years ago!) said

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8105

[SDN123]

Incidentally, concerning the typical value of an HYP, you will recall the original concept was to buy 15 shares at £5,000 each. That was £75,000 in total back at the turn of the century. We know from updates what that would be worth today with all income withdrawn. Reinvested it could have doubled every 7 to 10 years. That would take it to between £300,000 and £600,000. This is probably the upper limit, so the average is probably higher than you have estimated.
TJH

Thanks TJH, A good point of course.

In the same time RPI has gone from around 170 to around 290 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflatio ... eries/chaw) and so on that basis £75,000 has become about £128,000 today.

To speculate more wildly I’m going to guesstimate that the average value of these HYPs is £75,000 each. That is a big stab in the dark, I’ve simply taken the original portfolio size that PYAD mentioned in his original articles. However, in other threads, some talk of living purely off their HYP income

SDN

The survey (2 years ago!) said

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8105

Thanks monbari. The question was, in detail, slightly different to mine but very relevant. There were notably more respondents and so perhaps it was a more interesting question In any case taking the mid-point of each band and making the assumption that all of the £2M+ respondents were both honest and had exactly £2M HYPs the survey implies an average (mean) HYP of about £187,000.

So:
- from THJ: $75,000 went to around £300,00 (the lower of "probably an upper limit");
- from Clitheroekid's survey: real respondents averaged around £187,000
- from RPI: $75,000 went to around £128,000

The survey "average" was two years ago but is sort of in the middle of these three numbers and was conservative (rounding all of the £2M+ portfolios down to £2M) so I'm going to stick my thumb in the air and call the current average £190,000.

With my previous assumption of 60 "live HYPers" that implies a conservative estimate of "assets under HYP management" of £11.4M !!

SDN

[monabri]

Probably 5 times that... Using a mid point in the "valuation bands" and from the "survey"...one can calculate a figure of ~£56M

[PinkDalek]

Probably 5 times that... Using a mid point in the "valuation bands" and from the "survey"...

Possibly but you've assumed that those 5 who said Over £2,000,000 were all at £2,000,000 and you were, of course, unable to find a mid point for them as no range was provided.

[funduffer]

Of course, we’ll all have to wait for a good few months before all the people running the first option actually leave the allotment/get out of bed/are between cruises/etc to actually check their portfolio, have a look at this forum and make their vote...

I just voted for Option 1, and I have been too busy on the allotment to have read this blog for while!

FD

[Mercenary]

I keep non-HYP investments in separate jam jars, as it were, so no conflict with a full-on HYP, which is tinkered, as and when needed.

TJH

Me too. Separate accounts and asset allocations. ISA for HYP, SIPP for total return, and a Trading account for growth (focused on the intermediate term). I align my mindset when I log into each. I view my "without good reason" buy and hold HYP as the annuity I could never have!