HYP1 is 17 - comments not permitted on HYP Practical

[Arborbridge]

PS In terms of this board versus HYP Practical I have decided it is just too difficult to navigate the unwritten rules of the HYP Practical board, so will no longer be posting on it.

That would be a shame if you do, for your would deny yourself exposure to a much better supported board than this one.

If people bear in mind Raptor's very neat summing up of the position, below, there should be no difficulty in "navigating" the HYP board restrictions.

Saying something along the lines that if you compare HYP1 with CTY over the same 17 years is fine, but then discussing whether investing in IT's would have been better is for here. (Here, meaning High Yield Share Strategies)

I believe some of the difficulties are created by posters who just like a good argument about something which is very simple. Some of that has even started in this thread, and the answer is to make a point, but then try not to engage - much easier said than done


Arb.

[JamesMuenchen]

What is not acceptable is including ITs like CTY in an HYP.

Why is that unacceptable?

[Raptor]

What is not acceptable is including ITs like CTY in an HYP.

Why is that unacceptable?

Because we can define an HYP as a portfolio comprised exclusively of ordinary shares. If selected, such shares should have a dividend yield above the average for the FTSE100 index and be drawn from the constituents of the FTSE350 index.

Thus CTY does not meet the spec.

Raptor.

[JamesMuenchen]

What is not acceptable is including ITs like CTY in an HYP.

Why is that unacceptable?

Because we can define an HYP as a portfolio comprised exclusively of ordinary shares. If selected, such shares should have a dividend yield above the average for the FTSE100 index and be drawn from the constituents of the FTSE350 index.

Thus CTY does not meet the spec.

Raptor.

It is high yield FTSE 250 member, so I don't see why it fails your criteria.

TJH's statement applied to ITs in general and I don't remember such a restriction ever being part of HYP cannon.

[Arborbridge]

TJH's statement applied to ITs in general and I don't remember such a restriction ever being part of HYP cannon.

There's been much discussion about it, to and fro as you can imagine.
MY personal approach is to keep my ITs separate from my HYP, for unless I do, any value from comparing the two is lost.
Much cleaner to have a HYP, plus an IT Basket as a separate entity. I see no need to mix the two, and a disadvantage in doing so.

I believe in discussions, the occasional IT has been tolerated in a HYP, but it is generally accepted, is it not? that a HYP should be composed predominantly of ordinary single company shares, not ITs. ITs are shares, granted, but in effect they are bundles of shares with higher management charges, so hardly fitting the HYP model - more like a "fund of funds" investment.

Before anyone gets clever, I acknowledge there are interesting grey areas. For example, some people have included 3i infracstructure fund (3IN) in a HYP, but I regard it as an IT as does the AIC.

Arb.

[tjh290633]

What is not acceptable is including ITs like CTY in an HYP.

Why is that unacceptable?

Because Funds and ITs are not ordinary shares of companies which are not themselves investment organisations. You can hold as many ITs or Funds as your heart desires, but keep them separate from your HYP.

TJH

[Dod101]

I do not often disagree with TJH. I agree that ITs and other collectives should not be discussed on the HYP Practical Board because there is a separate board set up for that purpose. It is though giving totally the wrong impression to say that ITs cannot be part of a HYP. Of course they can and often (as in my case) are. They are simply not 'allowed' by pyad's bible. OTOH if you are of a mind to indulge in comparison of the result between one HYP and another, then a common, agreed definition of its components is probably necessary.

As this is a HYP Strategy Board let me emphasise that I believe that ITs are a very useful addition to a small HYP of say 17/20 shares and are a more effective diversifier than seeking out more, often second rate, individual shares. They can do no harm as an addition to a larger HYP either. Income ITS form a part of my HYP because I am looking for the same from such ITs as from the individual shares in my HYP, which is an emphasis on income.

For my other portfolio my emphasis is just the opposite, on capital growth.

Dod

[Wizard]

PS In terms of this board versus HYP Practical I have decided it is just too difficult to navigate the unwritten rules of the HYP Practical board, so will no longer be posting on it.

That would be a shame if you do, for your would deny yourself exposure to a much better supported board than this one.

If people bear in mind Raptor's very neat summing up of the position, below, there should be no difficulty in "navigating" the HYP board restrictions.

Saying something along the lines that if you compare HYP1 with CTY over the same 17 years is fine, but then discussing whether investing in IT's would have been better is for here. (Here, meaning High Yield Share Strategies)

I believe some of the difficulties are created by posters who just like a good argument about something which is very simple. Some of that has even started in this thread, and the answer is to make a point, but then try not to engage - much easier said than done


Arb.

My bold.

But, as you recently discovered, making such a comparison naturally invites responses about which would be better.

Terry.

[Wizard]

Because we can define an HYP as a portfolio comprised exclusively of ordinary shares. If selected, such shares should have a dividend yield above the average for the FTSE100 index and be drawn from the constituents of the FTSE350 index.

Thus CTY does not meet the spec.

My bold.

And nor does Unilever. So is it now off limits to discuss any new purchases / top ups of Unilever?

I know the answer will be "of course not, don't be so argumentative", but only by giving such examples can anyone try to make clear that there is no written statement of what is, or is not, permitted. That is why I feel it is impossible to know what the rules really are. We have been promised written confirmation of the scope of HYP Practical but it has never materialised, I suspect because when somebody tries to write it down it proves impossible.

Terry.

[Arborbridge]

But, as you recently discovered, making such a comparison naturally invites responses about which would be better.

Terry.

Yes, but I believe it would be sad if that long tail of comment prevented you from contributing to HYP Practical
It's best not to engage in such discussions, but it doesn't stop you posting your comparisons in the first place.


Arb.

[onslow]

Because Funds and ITs are not ordinary shares of companies which are not themselves investment organisations. You can hold as many ITs or Funds as your heart desires, but keep them separate from your HYP.

TJH

Why keep them separate ? I have a High Yield Portfolio and ITs/Funds are very much part of it.

Apparently, the world-unique definition of High Yield Portfolio on TLF has seemingly carried across from TMF so its "not allowed".

The fact that we have again more confusion about what is/what isnt allowed according to some poster called "Pyad" is quite frankly ridiculous. I note comments on this thread about Unilever not being allowed based on a definition posted, which I would have thought would be a good candidate based on its blue chip status with growing dividends.

I also note BLT being referenced over on the HYP Practical and scratch my head in amazement that BLT could ever be considered a steady, stable, high dividend share with a good track record(thats a "Pyad" requirement is it not?)

Mods - where is the policy statement referenced a few weeks ago which was going to make things clear? At the end of the day this is your playground, so what you say goes. However I continue to think you are doing a disservice to most posters by allowing a minority to dictate what discussions are to be had.

[torata]

{Snip}
As this is a HYP Strategy Board let me emphasise that I believe that ITs are a very useful addition....
Dod

While I don't disagree with any of your investment comments, I want to pull you up on your description of this board - it's High Yield Share Strategies.

torata

[Lootman]

Because Funds and ITs are not ordinary shares of companies which are not themselves investment organisations.

The thing with ITs is that they are also companies and ordinary shares, as well as being funds.

There are some listed "investment organisations" which presumably would qualify, e.g. listed fund managers. So I think it is more accurate to say that collectives are not allowed. That would exclude both ordinary shares that are really collectives (ITs and ETFs) as well as non-shares that are collectives (open ended funds, unit trusts etc.)

Of course, people can stick whatever they want in their HYP, and still call it a HYP. The only limitation being discussed here is what can be discussed here!

[Dod101]

{Snip}
As this is a HYP Strategy Board let me emphasise that I believe that ITs are a very useful addition....
Dod

While I don't disagree with any of your investment comments, I want to pull you up on your description of this board - it's High Yield Share Strategies.

torata

Not sure if you were being tongue in cheek or not but I cannot see what difference the addition of 'P' makes. Here we are surely not carrying forward the pyadic definitions which appear to so plague the HYP Practical Board.

Dod

[moorfield]

Because we can define an HYP as a portfolio comprised exclusively of ordinary shares. If selected, such shares should have a dividend yield above the average for the FTSE100 index and be drawn from the constituents of the FTSE350 index.

Thus CTY does not meet the spec.

My bold.

And nor does Unilever. So is it now off limits to discuss any new purchases / top ups of Unilever?

I know the answer will be "of course not, don't be so argumentative", but only by giving such examples can anyone try to make clear that there is no written statement of what is, or is not, permitted. That is why I feel it is impossible to know what the rules really are. We have been promised written confirmation of the scope of HYP Practical but it has never materialised, I suspect because when somebody tries to write it down it proves impossible.

Terry.

Terry

I think it is perfectly acceptable to purchase or top up ULVR in an HYP currently, provided the overall HYP yields above the FTSE 100 index, but I think the point of that guidance is that you should eliminate any higher yielding candidates from your screening first.

You've just reminded me also of a ding-dong I had with Arb about JMAT and SGE in response to one of your earlier posts: see viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5047&p=52455&hilit=qualify#p52455

(BTW, I don't think there can be such a thing as an agreed set of HYP Practical "Rules". IMO they should be stated as a broad framework upon which we can each extend our own implementation - think "base classes" in an object oriented programming language.)

M

[77ss]

...
That would be a shame if you do, for your would deny yourself exposure to a much better supported board than this one.

Utter nonsense!

Wizard said that he would stop posting on the HYP board. he did not say that he would stop reading it.

Better supported? I think you confuse quantity with quality. The signal/noise ratio on the HYP board is appallingly low.

Like Wizard, I shall no longer be posting on the HYP board.

Moderator Message:
text removed. Personal attaqck. Raptor.

[toofast2live]

I think it is perfectly acceptable to purchase or top up ULVR in an HYP currently, provided the overall HYP yields above the FTSE 100 index,

'Fraid not, my friend. The provisional wing of HYP claim that EVERY share should be HY. No low yielders allowed - even if the overall yield is HY.

[moorfield]

'Fraid not, my friend. The provisional wing of HYP claim that EVERY share should be HY. No low yielders allowed - even if the overall yield is HY.

Indeed they do.




You missed the point of course, my friend . I did caveat the above with:

but I think the point of that guidance is that you should eliminate any higher yielding candidates from your screening first.

[tjh290633]

What is not acceptable is including ITs like CTY in an HYP.

Why is that unacceptable?

Because we can define an HYP as a portfolio comprised exclusively of ordinary shares. If selected, such shares should have a dividend yield above the average for the FTSE100 index and be drawn from the constituents of the FTSE350 index.

Thus CTY does not meet the spec.

Raptor.

We could also define the eligible shares as being from the "FTSE350 ex InvestmentTrusts", which is a separate index, comprising 302 shares, according to the FT's "World Markets at a Glance" page.

TJH

[Lootman]

We could also define the eligible shares as being from the "FTSE350 ex InvestmentTrusts", which is a separate index, comprising 302 shares, according to the FT's "World Markets at a Glance" page.

I always thought it was anomalous that investment trusts are included in the indices in the first place. Insofar as they hold UK shares, that represents double-counting of their market cap. And insofar as they don't, they have no business being in an UK index anyway.