HYP, TR and other Strategies

[vrdiver]

I read on TLF that many investors recommend a TR strategy during the accumulation phase, before switching to a HYP dividend strategy when it comes time to start living off of the pot.

My own experience was that the confidence to leave employment behind and live off of my own investments came with having the experience, gained over time and varying market conditions, of a particular strategy. As a HYP investor I am pretty sure I have no confidence of being a successful TR investor, generating dividends by selling assets and rebalancing asset classes periodically, simply because I've never done this before and would be nervous to switch to this approach with no safety net of further earnings to cushion any "lessons"!

Based on my own views of switching strategy, had I had 10+ successful years of TR investing, I'd probably be happy to stick with it, rather than switching to HYP at the point of retirement. HYP, in that circumstance, would be an unknown strategy, along with my temperament towards its ups and downs.

Has anybody on these boards pursued one strategy during accumulation, only to switch at the point of retirement? If so, how has it gone?

For others intending to do so, why? What advantage will switching to an untried strategy bring that your years of success with the current strategy are worth giving up?

VRD

[Dod101]

I doubt that I can answer your direct question but I have always thought that those in the 'building' phase of their HYP are actually or should be in the 'accumulating' phase. An out and out HYP strategy is almost always at the expense of capital gains or the opportunity for capital gains anyway. A HYP was never designed to increase capital and that surely is what someone in the accumulating phase is trying to do.

Were I in my 30s, I would be investing in Fundsmith, Scottish Mortgage and the like, that is shares that are dedicated to capital accretion not income, because HYP type shares are often in industries that have gone ex growth such as tobacco or cyclical industries like the miners. What I would be looking for would be total return, and I might also be inclined to take capital gains more often than the average HYPer does.

I do not think the switch from a TR strategy to a HYP strategy is all that dramatic. It is being in the market and experiencing it that matters. I actually run what I call a value portfolio alongside my HYP , although it could be called a TR portfolio, and I expect quite a number of HYPers do. I just judge the outcome differently and certainly turn over the shares in the value portfolio much more than in my HYP. In fact I tend to harvest capital gains from the value portfolio and add them to the HYP so as increase my opportunity for more income.

Dod

[Dod101]

Just noticed that on the HYP Practical Board under the thread 'Which one of you reprobates?' points related to this discussion are rumbling on. Off topic I would have thought but never mind.

Dod

[SalvorHardin]

The thing is that you don’t have to pursue one strategy at the exclusion of all others. Indeed, one of the problems that investors have is that having been successful with a particular strategy that strategy can easily come to dominate their thinking to the exclusion of all alternatives. Even Warren Buffett has switched strategies; up until the early 1970s he was essentially a Benjamin Graham “cigar butt” investor who also liked special situations, but his strategy evolved to focus upon the “moat” (companies with sustainable competitive advantages such as brands which give them pricing power and protected them from competition).

For an investor who is starting off and needs the income in retirement then HYP makes more sense than TR. But there are many pitfalls in HYP, the biggest for me is that HYP candidates tend to be companies with relatively weak or non-existent moats, perhaps with major problems (which is why they are high yielders).

People who are a long way off retirement can mix-and-match by following total return with a bit of high yield. By the time they come to retirement it's likely that their investment experience will have improved to such a degree that it's a fairly easy step for them to move more of their portfolio into HYP.

For example, I’ve been retired for 15 years and still primarily employ TR using strong moat low-yielders such as Berkshire Hathaway, Diageo, Unilever and Union Pacific. But I also own shares in companies which meet the HYP criteria (e.g. AstraZeneca, National Grid, Standard Life Aberdeen). If I needed to sell shares to generate money to live on I’d top-slice (selling fractions of my holding in several companies), though I mostly sell nowadays because it turns out that the company’s moat isn’t what it used to be (or a better idea has come along so I need to raise cash to invest).

A good example of the problems in following a single strategy and not being prepared to consider alternatives was seen in early 2000s on the TMF value shares board. Some people were following the strategy of only buying shares which traded below their published net asset value and woe betide anyone who pointed out the pitfalls in this method. Such as that the net asset values in the accounts of some companies, notably small oil explorers, often bore little resemblance to the actual market value of these assets because of accounting quirks.

Many posts were pulled so off we went to the oil shares board and made fortunes because in some cases the accounts really did wildly underestimate the market value of the assets.

[flyer61]

SalvorHardin,

anything catching your eye at the moment on the investment front?

[SalvorHardin]

SalvorHardin,

anything catching your eye at the moment on the investment front?

Hi flyer 61. The only thing I've bought this year, asides from the investment trust monthly savings plans, is to go back into Walt Disney. I am however seriously thinking of topping up Madison Square Garden (which is even less of a HYP share than Disney!). Asides from that it's inactivity ruling the roost (and with the Indian Premier League starting up today I'll be spending less time looking at investing for a few weeks).

Disney is on a historic P/E ratio of 17.6 and the consensus forecast for 2018 is for eps of something like $7.00. So at $100.35 that's a prospective P/E ratio of 14.3, yielding 1.4% after withholding tax. Whilst Disney has problems, notably ESPN which is under severe pressure from people giving up cable TV ("cord-cutting") in the States it's got a lot going for it elsewhere. Such as in movies where Black Panther is breaking all sorts of box office records, which is rather amazing for a relatively minor Marvel superhero, and Star Wars. If Disney manages to buy Fox and Sky TV this should give it the back catalogue and economies of scale which will enable it to move into streaming in a huge way to take on Netflix as the majority owner of Hulu. Or maybe Apple will buy Disney

Madison Square Garden (MSG) is one of those shares where earnings are not particularly relevant to its valuation. MSG owns two massive trophy assets; the New York Knicks basketball team and the New York Rangers ice hockey team, plus Madison Square Garden arena and a few other businesses (MSG is very big in e-sports). MSG is valued at about $5.8 billion. The prices paid for American sports teams in recent years have continued to rise, I reckon that they have become an asset class of their own; there are few substitutes, a highly limited supply and there will always be billionaires looking to buy a shiny new toy which they can show off and get lots of publicity in the process.

I reckon that given the prices paid for American sports teams, particularly with the Houston Rockets being recently sold for $2.2 billion (and the interest being shown in the NFL's Carolina Panthers for $2.3 billion), that case can easily be made for the Knicks and Rangers being worth something close $4 to 5 billion combined. Throw in something like $2 billion for the arena and its associated "air rights" (the right to build higher skyscrapers, which can be sold on - this is a New York thing), no debt (asides from trade creditors) and over $1 billion in cash. There's a bit of a discount because MSG is majority owned by the Dolan family, though it wouldn't be a surprise if they took it private one day. MSG has been one of my best performing shares in recent years, since it was spun out of Cablevision back in 2010.

Disney is exceptionally well covered online. Madison Square Garden isn't which is somewhat surprising given that its businesses are so high profile - the only place where there's a reasonable amount of coverage is SeekingAlpha.

https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/MSG/analysis-and-news

[OhNoNotimAgain]

I read on TLF that many investors recommend a TR strategy during the accumulation phase, before switching to a HYP dividend strategy when it comes time to start living off of the pot.

My own experience was that the confidence to leave employment behind and live off of my own investments came with having the experience, gained over time and varying market conditions, of a particular strategy. As a HYP investor I am pretty sure I have no confidence of being a successful TR investor, generating dividends by selling assets and rebalancing asset classes periodically, simply because I've never done this before and would be nervous to switch to this approach with no safety net of further earnings to cushion any "lessons"!

Based on my own views of switching strategy, had I had 10+ successful years of TR investing, I'd probably be happy to stick with it, rather than switching to HYP at the point of retirement. HYP, in that circumstance, would be an unknown strategy, along with my temperament towards its ups and downs.

Has anybody on these boards pursued one strategy during accumulation, only to switch at the point of retirement? If so, how has it gone?

For others intending to do so, why? What advantage will switching to an untried strategy bring that your years of success with the current strategy are worth giving up?

VRD

Since the bulk of equity returns comes from dividends there is no need to change strategies.

You just switch from accumulation units to income units when you retire.

[vrdiver]

Since the bulk of equity returns comes from dividends there is no need to change strategies.

You just switch from accumulation units to income units when you retire.

Which is exactly what I've done.

But others talk about TR during accumulation and HYP after, so I'm still curious re the ability to change strategy. I do appreciate that some may well have run parallel strategies, so for them, it's not a jump into new waters but rather a selection of where to focus. For others considering HYP as retirement income only, not to be practised during accumulation, I wonder...

[Itsallaguess]

But others talk about TR during accumulation and HYP after, so I'm still curious re the ability to change strategy.

I've been running my HYP (shares and IT's) for long enough now to know two things -

1. It is adequate for my long-term income requirements, both during my working life when I'm still building it, and also for when I'll ever want to 'flick the switch' and start to take income from it rather than re-invest it.

2. It absolutely suits my investment personality.

Given my acceptance of the above two points, I'd have to question the suitability (for me...) of trying to introduce a different strategy completely for any 'accumulation phase', because I actually value the second point above just as much as I value the first one, and I think any possible trade-off between a second strategy initially that might indeed (who knows?) give slightly better returns, but which might not suit me personally, is one I'm quite happy to ignore, given the above two points.

Let's not forget that it's not just about pointing at a strategy and suggesting it might be more suitable or not for a particular period in people's lives; as soon as we introduce the person to actually having to implement that potential extra strategy, we're also introducing an ability to execute it poorly....

Of course this isn't to say that such a dual-strategy approach won't potentially still suit lots of other investors - it's just to say that I know it won't suit me, and I'm actually quite willing to give up some potential returns (if they actually ever existed...) that a second strategy might be able to deliver for the sake of investment-comfort....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[tjh290633]

From viewtopic.php?p=130517#p130517 Gengulphus kindly provided some data which allows me to look at the Total Return indices, as a guide to whether the HYP principle or growth shares might be better in the accumulation phase of a portfolio.

In the discussion in "the other place", I compared the FTSE100 (UKX) with the FTSE350 High Yield (HIX) index.

Now I can compare the TR versions over a longer period, from 1997 to 2017, i.e. 20 years. I have eliminated points where Gengulphus had two entries for December, in 2012 and 2013, to give the annual change.

Date       Change     on year                 
           HIX-tr    UKX-tr     Difference    
30/12/98     9.53%     17.47%        7.94%    
30/12/99    16.85%     20.59%        3.74%    
29/12/00    10.53%     -8.23%      -18.76%   *
31/12/01    -2.23%    -14.09%      -11.86%   *
31/12/02   -16.39%    -22.17%       -5.78%   *
31/12/03    20.81%     17.89%       -2.91%   *
31/12/04    16.61%     11.25%       -5.37%    
30/12/05    20.61%     20.78%        0.18%    
29/12/06    14.92%     14.43%       -0.50%   *
31/12/07     1.18%      7.36%        6.18%    
31/12/08   -26.69%    -28.33%       -1.64%   *
31/12/09    18.82%     27.33%        8.51%    
31/12/10     6.19%     12.62%        6.43%    
30/12/11     5.49%     -2.18%       -7.67%   *
30/12/12     8.24%      9.97%        1.73%    
30/12/13    20.48%     18.66%       -1.81%   *
30/12/14     0.50%      0.74%        0.24%    
31/12/15    -5.46%     -1.32%        4.14%    
30/12/16    25.17%     19.07%       -6.09%   *
29/12/17    10.38%     11.95%        1.57%

A negative difference in the year-on-year change indicates that the HIX did better than the UKX in TR terms. There are 9 (*) in the 20 years covered. However that does not tell the whole story.

If we look at the change in the indices, both normal and TR, we get the following result over the 20 year period:

UKX      UKX-tr    HIX      HIX-tr 
49.70%   194.06%   59.78%   281.66%

I think that says it all.

TJH

[OhNoNotimAgain]

From viewtopic.php?p=130517#p130517 Gengulphus kindly provided some data which allows me to look at the Total Return indices, as a guide to whether the HYP principle or growth shares might be better in the accumulation phase of a portfolio.

In the discussion in "the other place", I compared the FTSE100 (UKX) with the FTSE350 High Yield (HIX) index.

Now I can compare the TR versions over a longer period, from 1997 to 2017, i.e. 20 years. I have eliminated points where Gengulphus had two entries for December, in 2012 and 2013, to give the annual change.

Date       Change     on year                 
           HIX-tr    UKX-tr     Difference    
30/12/98     9.53%     17.47%        7.94%    
30/12/99    16.85%     20.59%        3.74%    
29/12/00    10.53%     -8.23%      -18.76%   *
31/12/01    -2.23%    -14.09%      -11.86%   *
31/12/02   -16.39%    -22.17%       -5.78%   *
31/12/03    20.81%     17.89%       -2.91%   *
31/12/04    16.61%     11.25%       -5.37%    
30/12/05    20.61%     20.78%        0.18%    
29/12/06    14.92%     14.43%       -0.50%   *
31/12/07     1.18%      7.36%        6.18%    
31/12/08   -26.69%    -28.33%       -1.64%   *
31/12/09    18.82%     27.33%        8.51%    
31/12/10     6.19%     12.62%        6.43%    
30/12/11     5.49%     -2.18%       -7.67%   *
30/12/12     8.24%      9.97%        1.73%    
30/12/13    20.48%     18.66%       -1.81%   *
30/12/14     0.50%      0.74%        0.24%    
31/12/15    -5.46%     -1.32%        4.14%    
30/12/16    25.17%     19.07%       -6.09%   *
29/12/17    10.38%     11.95%        1.57%

A negative difference in the year-on-year change indicates that the HIX did better than the UKX in TR terms. There are 9 (*) in the 20 years covered. However that does not tell the whole story.

If we look at the change in the indices, both normal and TR, we get the following result over the 20 year period:

UKX      UKX-tr    HIX      HIX-tr 
49.70%   194.06%   59.78%   281.66%

I think that says it all.

TJH

I don't like the way the HIX is constructed but it does make you wonder why no one has launched a fund to track it.

[DiamondEcho]

Since the bulk of equity returns comes from dividends there is no need to change strategies.
You just switch from accumulation units to income units when you retire.

Or in my case with a HYP I've been re-investing the divs all along (10-15yrs), and come 'R-day' in 3-4 months I stop doing that and draw the income instead.

[tjh290633]

I don't like the way the HIX is constructed but it does make you wonder why no one has launched a fund to track it.

The lack of discrimination in the HIX is a major problem to construct a fund based on it. At one time it would have been very heavily weighted to financial shares. That's why I prefer the HYP approach for its diversity and flexibility.

Incidentally, over that 20-year period my HYP has risen by over 470% as accumulation units. Beats both of them.

TJH

[Pendrainllwyn]

If no experience of investing in high yield shares was gained in the accumulation phase I can understand why it might be risky and discomforting to suddenly change strategy at a time of life when mistakes cannot be rectified through job related earnings. I agree, I am not sure why it would make sense to make such a dramatic one off change.

Target date retirement funds, not that I invest in them, gradually shift asset allocation from equities to bonds as retirement nears. I suspect most do-it-yourselfers make adjustments of one sort or another over time. I invest across the income range, some companies that pay no or small dividends and others with high yields. Weighting the portfolio to higher yielding names when needed shouldn't be too difficult.

[tjh290633]

If no experience of investing in high yield shares was gained in the accumulation phase I can understand why it might be risky and discomforting to suddenly change strategy at a time of life when mistakes cannot be rectified through job related earnings. I agree, I am not sure why it would make sense to make such a dramatic one off change.

Target date retirement funds, not that I invest in them, gradually shift asset allocation from equities to bonds as retirement nears. I suspect most do-it-yourselfers make adjustments of one sort or another over time. I invest across the income range, some companies that pay no or small dividends and others with high yields. Weighting the portfolio to higher yielding names when needed shouldn't be too difficult.

The business of switching from equities to bonds as retirement approaches should have died out years ago. 20 years ago when I retired it was still in vogue, then interest rates fell and, if you already had a high and growing income from equity dividends, there was no sense in switching to a lower fixed income from bonds. I know that it was never a sensible move for me.

TJH

[pendas]

I'm sure that I'm not the only one that hasn't had the opportunity to try various strategies prior to retirement.

My investment capital came from a combination of redundancy payment, tax free payment from one occupational pension and realising the cash from another by first transferring it to a sipp as an annuity didn't appeal.

The need for income was then immediate and HYP seemed to fit the bill.

[DiamondEcho]

The business of switching from equities to bonds as retirement approaches should have died out years ago. 20 years ago when I retired it was still in vogue, then interest rates fell and, if you already had a high and growing income from equity dividends, there was no sense in switching to a lower fixed income from bonds. I know that it was never a sensible move for me. TJH

Progressive de-risking (equities>bonds) centred around the projected time of retirement was the common approach in the industry when I was in it in the 90s; you still see it reflected in the portfolio allocations in the various iterations of say the Vanguard Lifestrategy funds.* IIRC it was acknowledgement that come retirement you don't really have no want time to ride out say 10-years rebuilding after the stock-market takes a major periodic hit. So it was about de-risking, locking in portfolio value and the income from it.
It was so central to the guidance with which we over-saw client portfolios that I feel somewhat at a loss that it likely no longer applies today. Coming up towards retirement in theory I should be progressively phasing away from equities into fixed income. But in a climate of rising interest rates this would seem to be precisely the wrong time to be locking-in buying fixed income streams (bonds).
If there is still a time for such a switch to be made I suspect it is when we are near what is felt likely the top of the interest rate cycle - when ever that might be. Meanwhile in the absence of a better alternative I'll probably be sticking with my HYP for the medium-term.

* https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/inve ... tegy-funds

[vrdiver]

The business of switching from equities to bonds as retirement approaches should have died out years ago.

Progressive de-risking (equities>bonds) centred around the projected time of retirement was the common approach in the industry when I was in it in the 90s

I remember reading (somewhere) that bonds should make up an increasing % of your portfolio as you got older; something like 100 - your age was the recommended % allocation of bonds.

That was in the days when the pot was going to be flipped to a compulsory annuity IIRC?

Now, we don't have to buy an annuity and we live longer, so the risk of a market fall just before purchasing an annuity is no longer valid, whereas the risk of inflation eating away your purchasing power over an extended retirement seems to have grown significantly. Bonds don't address that risk, if anything they add to it. A market crash might make the capital look shabby, but if I'm not spending the capital I don't really care, so long as the dividends keep rolling in.*

VRD


*Yes, you need a safety margin of dividend income and a cash float to protect from being a forced capital consumer, as has been discussed elsewhere...

[DiamondEcho]

That was in the days when the pot was going to be flipped to a compulsory annuity IIRC?
...
*Yes, you need a safety margin of dividend income and a cash float to protect from being a forced capital consumer, as has been discussed elsewhere...

- No the bank I worked for catered for wealthier 'private clients'. Stocks/bonds/mutual funds and so on were the core holdings, we didn't sell anything akin to annuity products. Clients' funds were discretionary investments over which they maintained ultimate control. The asset-allocation was a global approach, many of the clients were international, so annuities didn't figure in it AFAIR.
- Agree with this. If it's no longer wise to progressively phase into fixed-income and remain in stocks instead, then the wisdom of maintaining a reasonably budgeted cash-buffer appears higher.

[Gengulphus]

If we look at the change in the indices, both normal and TR, we get the following result over the 20 year period:

UKX      UKX-tr    HIX      HIX-tr 
49.70%   194.06%   59.78%   281.66%

I think that says it all.

Well, maybe not quite all...

Here's a chart version of some more comprehensive data:

(Image created by me and uploaded to Imgur.)

The red and blue lines chart the total return versions of the FTSE 350 Higher Yield and FTSE 350 Lower Yield respectively, from the end of 1998 to yesterday (which is the range over which I have reasonably complete data).

The green line is the interesting one from the point of view of how high-yield shares have performed relative to low-yield shares. It shows the Higher Yield / Lower Yield index ratio (using the right hand scale rather than the left hand one like the red and blue lines). If both indices have risen by the same percentage (i.e. performed equally well, in total-return terms since I'm using the total-return versions of the indices), that ratio remains the same; if the Higher Yield index has outperformed the Lower Yield index, the ratio rises; if the Higher Yield index has underperformed the Lower Yield index, the ratio falls.

The ratio has risen by roughly 50% since the start of the chart (so about the last 19.25 years), from a bit under 1 then to a bit under 1.5 now. But this isn't anywhere near convincing proof of high-yield shares' superiority, because looking at the last 15 years instead shows about 25% underperformance instead, from a bit under 2 to a bit under 1.5. Both 15 and 19.25 years are convincingly long-term, at least in my view, so they should show pretty equally-good evidence of how higher-yield shares do relative to lower-yield shares over the long term. But they show very different performances, so the only way they can both do that is if "equally-good" = "not very good at all"!

So really, I think that what the data show is the long-term unpredictability of higher-yield non-smallcap shares, at least if one buys them all at once and when measured relative to lower-yield non-smallcap shares ("non-smallcap" because the two indices concerned together make up the FTSE 350, which is essentially largecaps (the FTSE 100) plus midcaps (the FTSE 250)). Of course, it also shows the long-term unpredictability of lower-yield non-smallcap shares relative to higher-yield non-smallcap shares - it's not an argument that either of the two is superior to the other, just that it looks impossible to tell which will turn out to be superior, even if the long term. (Well, strictly speaking it might be possible to tell in the much longer term, but I do mean much longer - and that means longer-term than people's investment lifetimes, so is more a question of academic interest than practical interest for individual investors.)

The data do show that if one buys a HYP all at once, it is very possible that it will enjoy a very nice tailwind or suffer a very not-so-nice headwind due to exactly when it was bought - for example, HYP1 enjoyed a significant tailwind from being bought in late 2000 (+). Though not as good as a HYP bought in early 2000 would have done, if anyone thought to do it... I nearly did, though of course the term "HYP" hadn't been coined then, and while the relevant one of the strategies I was experimenting with then (to see which suited me) had many HYP-like features - it selected higher-yield shares from the top 200 UK shares by market cap, had at least one additional dividend safety check (on dividend cover) and also required sector diversification - it definitely failed to be a HYP on the LTBH aspect. That was that it essentially started looking to sell shares as soon as it had bought them, aiming to usually get a decent profit, enough to more than make up for occasionally having to sell to cut losses. So I'm definitely not claiming to have invented HYP several months before pyad did!

And that difference from HYP is actually the crucial point that meant that the strategy concerned didn't end up suiting me, and I ended up abandoning it after about 3 years. The problem was that since it was basically always looking for good opportunities to sell, it required me to pay more-or-less continuous attention to the market - and while that had been exciting for the first year or so, it became less so in the next year, and a downright chore in the third year... That's all as I saw it, of course - others might feel very differently about it - but the whole purpose of my trying out different strategies was to find out what suited me, so it was highly relevant. And HYP had joined the list of strategies I was trying out from about mid 2001, and was suiting me much better...

As well as that, HYP has additionally suited me since I retired in 2010 because it delivers the income I want, still without having to make selling decisions. That doesn't mean I never sell - as I've said on numerous occasions, I run my main HYP as a 'tinkering' one - but I only ever have to make a selling decision when a company I own is being taken over and it's a choice between actively selling in the market or passively letting the takeover do it for me. Usually that's much of a muchness and I let the takeover do it for me - but occasionally there's an aspect such as the takeover being for shares and the shares concerned being a poor fit to my HYP that makes an active sale before the takeover completes the better choice in my view.

So basically, I'm like Itsallaguess in that HYP delivers what I want from my investments and suits my investment personality - and that's good enough for me. In particular, I have no problem about (and indeed quite like) doing some work on my investments as long as I can choose when I do it, but I do have a problem with strategies that impose lots of decision deadlines on me, either directly (e.g. because the strategy says that I must make a selling decision) or indirectly (e.g. because the strategy won't deliver the income I want without me doing the work). And that's basically the main reason why I am sticking with HYP despite no longer being convinced that higher-yield shares are superior as investments to lower-yield shares. It might be different if I were convinced of the opposite, of course, but as indicated above I'm not convinced of that either!

Since I say "main reason", I should also mention the subsidiary reason: the FTSE 350 Higher Yield index only requires between about two of what I regard as the main four foundations of HYP strategies: high yield (which it requires), dividend safety checks on individual shares (it requires reasonably high market cap and general 'solidity' within the UK market, but no others - better than nothing, but not much IMHO), sector diversification (which it doesn't require) and on-average (*) long-term holding (which it doesn't formally require, though it might usually work out that way in practice). It's conceivable that the additional requirements of HYP over those for the index give it an edge. I'm by no means relying on them doing so, but I'm not ruling the possibility out

(*) Takeovers prevent any individual-shares investment strategy doing better than 'on-average' in this respect, and for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that HYP requires holding periods only to be cut short by takeovers and other compulsory events. Just that it requires that all causes of holding periods being cut short, taken together, should result in the average holding period still being clearly long-term (I'd suggest at least 5+ years).

(+) Edit: I should add that although HYP1 IMHO clearly benefited from that tailwind, its outperformance has been significantly better than can be due to the tailwind alone. That might be due to inherent superiority of its HYP strategy, superior stockpicking by pyad, sheer blind luck (not by any means impossible with a mere 15 choices to be made, or other explanations - and I don't pretend to know which of them (or which combination of them) is the actual explanation.

Gengulphus