IanTHughes wrote:
Some [posters] even suggest that Investment Trusts will provide a better return.
Have any of those posters actually looked at the data? Have you?
All I am saying is that over the past 20 years, using the example of HYP1, the idea that Investments Trusts would have provided a better result, or even a similar result, is not necessarily borne out by the facts!
Again though Ian, I think it's your own continued use of the word 'better' that's perhaps causing most of the issues with these types of regular disagreements...
Your use of the word 'better' is
purely around
quantitative values, and I think ignoring the
qualitative side of things, especially when we're talking about potential investment strategies that are supposed to be providing for
retirement income, is very likely to persist in putting your own protestations at odds with many other income-investors...
Pyad said the following abut HYP all the way back in November 2000 -
Anyone with a lump sum available to invest for income upon which they depend must therefore try and find a source that will grow that income and also offer some easy access to the capital. https://web.archive.org/web/20140219210446/http://news.fool.co.uk/news/foolseyeview/2000/fev001106c.htmI think the key words there are '
upon which they depend', so let's look at how the Oxford Dictionary defines the word '
dependable' -
Source -
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/dependableSo given the above, I think the
simplest way to now demonstrate the ongoing clash between your continued
quantitative use of the word 'better', and perhaps some other income-investors which might be using a
different definition of the word (and I'd put myself into that second group of income-investors..), is to show you the following simplified chart using data from monabri's great post from earlier this year, where he was charting income-comparisons between a number of different well-known income-portfolios -
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=281496#p281496In the chart below, I've pulled out data from the above post just comparing income from HYP1 and Luni's Basket of Seven -
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/XKPvzq2.png)
Now I think that single chart more or less describes the clash we've got here between
your use of the word 'better', and perhaps some other income-investors who might be looking for an income-strategy to help provide
regular and dependable retirement income.
I think it describes the issue very well because of that single pair of 2019 data-points, where HYP1, for the very first time since 2007, actually manages to be providing a 'better' result (by your more quantitative approach to the use of the word...) than the Basket of Seven at that precise point in time...
But I think anyone holding HYP1 aloft at that point in 2019, and loudly claiming some sort of 'victory' would be ignoring both the original plan for the strategy,
and the previous 12 year-record of actually
delivering to that plan...
Remember, the original HYP wording said '
upon which they depend', and I would like to think that it's quite clear from the above chart which of the two income-strategies is 'dependable', and which one is not, and that's
before we might wish to look at a
separate real-life income-unit comparison that Arb is running, between his HYP portfolio and a separately-owned portfolio of income-IT's -
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=26214&start=120#p358283So, given these two charted examples, I would like you to imagine that we go and pluck a random retired gentleman off the street, and ask him to read pyad's original phrase -
Anyone with a lump sum available to invest for income upon which they depend must therefore try and find a source that will grow that income and also offer some easy access to the capital.Then ask him to look at the above chart comparing HYP1 to the Basket of Seven, and also Arb's comparison chart, and ask that retired gentleman to describe the portfolios that he thinks are actually
delivering on that premise...
I would like to think we've got a good idea regarding most of the answers we'd get, and I
hope that answer clearly shows why your own
purely-quantitative use of the word 'better' will
continue to be at odds with many of us looking for a
reliable real-world solution to our long-term income-requirements...
Cheers,
Itsallaguess