When to start running a HYP

[tjh290633]

15 stocks is a minimum, not a maximum. Somewhere in the region of 25-30 is where most end up, by natural growth, corporate actions and portfolio rebalancing.

The point about 2008-9 is that it was preceded by a number of changes, due to takeovers. The replacement shares included a number that stopped paying dividends for longer than a year, and so were replaced. You may recall that the market fell sharply at that time. For these reasons, 2008 can be considered an aberration, and 2007 is a more realistic starting point.

TJH

[Bubblesofearth]

The correct answer is never.

See this highly illuminating research: http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/uploa ... -Bills.pdf

'the eighty six top-performing stocks, less than one third of one percent of the total, collectively account for over half of the wealth
creation.

HYP is a total crock as a strategy to generate equity total returns over time.

I can say this because the chance of picking the 0.3% of top performing stock is so small when one is picking 15-20 stocks from the reject bin. (This is also true of all other stock-picking strategies, so this criticism is not limited to HYP). The research above shows the vast majority of common stocks achieve returns in line with bonds, without the known benefits of that asset class. Thus the majority of common stocks have a subpar true risk/reward profile.

But in order to achieve the observed equity outperformance over bonds, we absolutely must include the top performing stocks in our portfolio.

The only way I know of to reliably achieve this is by buying all the stocks: for example an all-market passive tracker product.

I say it again: HYP is a total crock as a strategy to generate equity total returns.

And if you think income is better than total returns, I have a bridge to sell you right over here. Because that is a total crock too (less certain tax specific situations) . The sellers of high dividend yield, high risk, declining stocks found in a typical HYP are trying to sell you that bridge. Say no and buy a tracker.

I think you need to be careful with this research when extrapolating it to HYP. Whilst the fraction of total stocks that outperform may be tiny the fraction of big-cap stocks that contribute to the return of, say the FTSE 100, is much larger. So if your benchmark is the FTSE 100 then diversifying over 20 companies is likely sufficient to capture this fraction. To put a number on this I did a bit of my own research a while back that suggested around 10% of FTSE 100 stocks gave the bulk of the gain in the index over a 14-year period (2000-14). The value of having the FTSE 100 as a benchmark is underpinned by the approx. 10% p.a. total return it has generated since inception in 1984. That's without including any of the explosive growth stories supposedly required. By the time they are included in the FTSE 100 the bulk of that growth will have happened.

Furthermore HYP has a number of features that IMO improve it's chances of (both stock- and bond-) market beating returns;

1. Equal weight on purchase.
2. Long term buy and hold.
3. Diversification by sector.

There are also a lot of anecdotals on here and previously on TMF showing excellent performance of HYP's that are difficult to simply dismiss. If you have some evidence of HYP's that have under=performed wider markets then please share. Or do you believe these are simply not reported (admittedly possible)?

BoE

[Pastcaring]

I've never found investing to be difficult at all.Understand compounding and leverage and let it all look after itself.

The FTSE 100 return of 10% seems perfectly reasonable,double your money every 7 yrs approx.

The leverage comes in very easily,started in 1984,average wages at say 6 K. Here we are 34 yrs later.Money has doubled close to 5 times,so now 192k How easy is that

This is where it all falls down,nominal and real returns.One times average income in 1984 is approx 6 times average income,taking average income as 30K.

Now the nasty bit,hands up all those prepared to find the cheapest FTSE 100 fund and spend 30K tomorrow.Hands up who is prepared to wait 35 years and do nothing at all for 35 years,leave it alone to compound.

Hands up those prepared to repay that loan over the next 35 years,how easy is that.Present interest rates mean 40 quid a week will pay it off .

Now the cost / benefit analysis.This makes assumptions of a 5% interest rate.

5% of 30 k is 1500 per annum,rounded.30 quid a week,thus the 40 quid a week to pay the loan off.Nose to the grindstone,saving is voluntary,paying off debt is compulsory.

Do we follow the crowd,insist that trying to put in 30 quid a week will produce great returns,it won' t.30 quid a week isn' t frightening,30 K in one hit is.

Now the benefit,assume we do get that 10% in the first year.10% of 30 K is 3K,the wonders of leverage.Think about it.Put some various returns in,9%,10% and 11%, the difference is amazing This assumes the 10% is after all fees,thus find the cheapest. 30 K becomes 920K after 35 yrs .Check that figure,I,m old now,my mental arithmetic is not what it was when I was young.

I don' t like diversification at all,I would never do it.There you go,the lazy mans way to wealth.

Very basic maths like that made me amazingly wealthy.

20 yrs is OK ish,30 yrs is good,I,m coming up to 40 yrs,wow. .

Good luck

Now the really bad bit,it all worked,got the 920K,then the crash comes,50% of it disappears .I've seen that happen and skated through it.

I've never seen dividends crash by 50%,which doesn' t mean it can' t happen

You've got to spend a lot of money to get rich.
Nobody in the whole history of the human race ever has, or ever will ,get rich by saving up.They will still convince themselves that saving is the way to go.

[Dod101]

I am probably the only one who has no idea what pastcaring is saying or trying to illustrate. I certainly understand about compounding and about leverage but I am not sure what his comments are supposed to be showing except that if you leave funds in the stockmarket and reinvest all dividends for 35 years you will get an apparently spectacular return.

I would though be interested to know in detail what he is showing us beyond that.

Dod

[Gengulphus]

What I have learnt so far (from starting clearing a credit card debt 11 years ago and knowing nothing about saving beyond post office savings book):
- HYP requires investor skill (a little for buying, a bit more to handle taxes, platforms and corperate actions and a lot ore if you want to sell anything)

With regard to the taxes part of that, I would emphasise (for the benefit of other readers) that that's a personal lesson. What you've said later in the thread, it's your particular circumstances that mean you've been unable to make very effective use of ISAs so far. My own circumstances have resulted in me only getting about 10-15% of my investment capital into tax shelters so far, so it applies to me as well - but it's a lesson that simply won't apply to a lot of people.

With regard to the platforms part, I think that's something that basically applies to any type of investment and so isn't really a lesson about HYPs. Whatever type of investment one chooses, the available platforms will have various advantages and disadvantages compared with each other, and one might well need to make different decisions between them depending on the type of investment. But the skills required to make those decisions are more-or-less the same regardless of the type of investment.

With regard to the buying, selling and corporate actions parts, agreed!

What I conclude from all of that is:
- It’s good to “practice” HYP for some time.
- Aim for maximum capital at the point of switching from accumulation to decummulation.
- I’m unlikely to make HYP my sole source of income at any point.

And at this point in time (somewhere between 5 to 10 years from retirement):
- Run a (relatively) small HYP while accumulating to learn the ropes.
- Invest the rest in the best “total return” scheme that suits.

All to say that my current approach is spot on for me.

OR my plan and analysis is simply an exercise in confirmation bias and self-delusion.

Thoughts?

I think there is some relevant information about your intentions that is missing. First, you say that your HYP is currently about 10% of your investments and you're planning to make it a "major element" when you're living off the dividends - but "major element" could mean just about anything from 20% upwards. How big it is does make quite a difference to the overall risk attached to each HYP shareholding - for instance, if the HYP is providing 20% of your income and a shareholding in it is providing 5% of the HYP's dividends, that company cancelling its dividend will inflict a 1% 'pay cut' on you. If the HYP is instead providing 80% of your income, the same dividend cancellation will inflict a 4% 'pay cut' on you - which is quite a bit more serious, especially if you happen to get two or three of them in quick succession. That affects how diversified a HYP needs to be for whatever level of income safety you feel you want.

Secondly, you may well have preferences about the level of income safety you're generally looking for, for which there is a trade-off against the number of different investments you own and so have some work keeping track of and maintaining (with the amount of maintenance work depending quite a bit on the type of investment). The 31-share size of your existing HYP suggests that you like quite a high level of income safety even if it means you have the work of quite a lot of holdings, but I can't be certain that it isn't just for the sake of getting a good amount of "practice"!

Anyway, the relevance of all that is that if you decide you want to end up with a HYP with anything like your current HYP's level of diversification, I don't think it's really a very good plan to continue with your HYP at its present 10% until you abruptly grow it to (say) 40% in 5-10 years' time. The problem is that at any one time, the market is generally offering only a limited number of reasonably clear HYP purchases - I've generally found it not too difficult to find 15 when I've tried the exercise, but then selecting further shares to buy becomes more and more difficult, and I generally run out of anything I find reasonably convincing before I reach 20 shares. So when the time comes for the big increase in HYP value, either you top up every (or nearly every) holding in it, making a lot of purchases that aren't really consistent with your HYP strategy, or you only top up the holdings that look like good HYP purchases at the time and end up with many of the HYP's holdings being too small to make any real contribution to the HYP's diversification.

A very oversimplified example to illustrate the point: a HYPer has a perfectly balanced portfolio of 25 shares, each therefore making up 4% of the portfolio. He wants to quadruple its total value by adding cash equal to 3 times its current value. In terms of the new portfolio value, each existing holding is 1% of that new value. Unfortunately, only 15 of its current 25 shares look like good purchases to him at the moment. Should he (a) top up all 25 holdings to 4% of the new portfolio value, ending; or (b) only top up the 15 holdings that look like good purchases to him, to 6% each, while the other 10 holdings remain on 1% each? The former ends up with a well-diversified portfolio but spends 10*3% = 30% of the new portfolio value on purchases that don't look good to him, while the latter spends all the new cash on purchases that look good to him but the risk posed by dividend cuts and cancellations is little better than that posed by a 15-share HYP (a rough measure is that 6% in the biggest holdings has only gone a quarter of the way from 6.67% for a balanced 15-share portfolio to 4% for a 25-share balanced portfolio).

A better plan IMHO would be to shift the HYP percentage gradually and steadily from its current 10% level to where you want it to end up over the remaining 5-10 years of accumulation, just running it as normal apart from the larger cash inputs into it from the sales proceeds of other investments whose percentages you want to reduce. Over the years, you should get a wider variety of HYP purchases to choose from - and I suspect it will be better from the tax angle as well (though that depends on which country's tax system you're currently subject to - and no, even if I knew what country it was, I wouldn't be able to say anything helpful about it!).

If you will be content with just a 15-share HYP or one that is only a bit more diversified than that when you're living off the dividends, that sort of gradual switchover isn't necessary (though it's still a perfectly sensible plan IMHO).

I won't comment on the issue of whether you should be using a HYP at all, since as far as I can see, your OP wasn't really asking about that issue and your posts since then make it pretty clear that you're quite content to be using it. I'd recommend liberal use of the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" - and you, not other people, are the one whose judgement counts about whether it's "broke" or not!

Gengulphus

[tjh290633]

I've never seen dividends crash by 50%,which doesn' t mean it can' t happen

If you look at viewtopic.php?p=144717#p144717 and compare the figures for 2008 and 2010, you will see that they can.

Looking at my records from 2008 onwards, there are a number of significant events.

Looking at my records from 2008-9, Mapeley, Taylor Wimpey, Premier Foods and DSGI stopped paying dividends. By 2009-10 the list included Anglo American, Lloyds TSB, Cattles, Rentokil, William Hill, Trinity Mirror, ITV, Yule Catto and Rexam. In 2010-11 they were joined by BP. and Tomkins. Some only passed a single dividend when having a rights issue (REX and WMH). I decided to keep Taylor Wimpey and Lloyds-TSB for recovery, and also held on to BP. There were also some companies which reduced dividends.

In 2008 I sold Carbury Schweppes to avoid getting Dr Pepper and bought Yule Catto.

Soon after I sold HBOS, because they were proposing a rights issue which seemed bound to fail, and bought Cattles in preference to Provident Finance, because PFG were about to split.

In 2009 I sold Mapeley before they went private.

Later that year I sold DSGI after they stopped paying dividends. Later still I sold Trinity Mirror for the same reason and bought Pearson.

In 2010 I sold Anglo-American, Rentokil and Premier Food, replacing them with BHP Billiton, BATS and Unilever

Later in 2010 I sold Prudential, as they were proposing a massive rights issue, and bought Brit Insurance. Later still I sold Yule Catto and ITV, replacing them with Glaxo and SSE. Shortly after Tomkins were taken over and were replaced with British Land.

Now Brit Insurance were taken over and Aviva replaced them.

In early 2011 Northern Foods were taken over and Marstons replaced them. Cattles were put out of their misery soon afterwards.

Companies taken over earlier included Pilkington, Scottish Power, Hanson, Scottish & Newcastle and ICI.

I think that this shows the scale of things which happened during that period, and perhaps puts things into perspective.

TJH

[SDN123]

I think there is some relevant information about your intentions that is missing. First, you say that your HYP is currently about 10% of your investments and you're planning to make it a "major element" when you're living off the dividends - but "major element" could mean just about anything from 20% upwards. How big it is does make quite a difference to the overall risk attached to each HYP shareholding - for instance, if the HYP is providing 20% of your income and a shareholding in it is providing 5% of the HYP's dividends, that company cancelling its dividend will inflict a 1% 'pay cut' on you. If the HYP is instead providing 80% of your income, the same dividend cancellation will inflict a 4% 'pay cut' on you - which is quite a bit more serious, especially if you happen to get two or three of them in quick succession. That affects how diversified a HYP needs to be for whatever level of income safety you feel you want.

Secondly, you may well have preferences about the level of income safety you're generally looking for, for which there is a trade-off against the number of different investments you own and so have some work keeping track of and maintaining (with the amount of maintenance work depending quite a bit on the type of investment). The 31-share size of your existing HYP suggests that you like quite a high level of income safety even if it means you have the work of quite a lot of holdings, but I can't be certain that it isn't just for the sake of getting a good amount of "practice"!

Gengulphus

The answer to these points is, of course, it depends. I'd like a "guaranteed" base income to cover my basic needs (things like shelter, food, heat, light, the internet and chocolate) and then use whatever capital is left for "luxury money" (* eg travel, eating out, tech gadgets, clothes for my wife, etc, not the proverbial Ferrari.). In the end I'll have to cut my cloth to suit the capital that I have been able to accumulate.

Ideally I'd be most comfortable generating this "basic" income using very low risk instruments* such as gilts, index linked gilts, interest on premium bonds, interest on National savings bonds,(whisper it) an annuity, etc. The plan would then be to "bung" the rest into a HYP for my "luxury money". However all of these low risk instruments are (relatively) expensive.

(* I'll also receive a full state pension, which I count as low risk income, but not for at least 15 years - so this income will not arrive until a a few years after my preferred "retirement" in 5 to 10 years.)

If I can't afford to buy all of base income I need from low risk instruments (perhaps because of continued low interest rates) then I could buy less low risk "stuff" and instead use the money to buy more (relatively cheap but higher risk) HYP. In this case I'd definitely us an appropriate cash buffer and safety margin. At the extreme of low capital I'd consider being 100% in HYP (but that would worry me and much more likely I'd just keep working).

At the other extreme, very high capital - for example if I won the lottery jackpot - my whole attitude to risk might be different and I might be happy to have a 100% in HYP with no buffers or safety margins.

In summary:
- not really enough capital: some "low risk" plus a high % in HYP with a cash buffer and a safety margin ;
- a Goldilocks amount of capital: enough "low risk" to cover basics plus the rest in HYP;
- a huge amount of capital: a high % in HYP (although in reality I'd probably diversify between several growth and income strategies and likely spend more time thinking about things like Inheritance Taxes [on my yacht] ).

In reality:
Based on my current guesstimates and with a reasonable amount of luck I'll be close to the Goldilocks situation (above) in 5 to 10 years. I expect to be able cover my basic needs with low risk instruments and to have at least a third of my capital invested in HYP for "luxury" income. I expect to have over half (possibly well over a half) of my capital in HYP once I reach state pension age.

Anyway, the relevance of all that is that if you decide you want to end up with a HYP with anything like your current HYP's level of diversification, I don't think it's really a very good plan to continue with your HYP at its present 10% until you abruptly grow it to (say) 40% in 5-10 years' time.

...

A better plan IMHO would be to shift the HYP percentage gradually and steadily from its current 10% level to where you want it to end up over the remaining 5-10 years of accumulation, just running it as normal apart from the larger cash inputs into it from the sales proceeds of other investments whose percentages you want to reduce.
Gengulphus

This is an excellent point and one that I hadn't properly considered. I'm extremely grateful for you raising this issue and a possible approach going forwards. I will have a serious think about how I might best "glide-path" myself from savings mode to income mode. Unless anyone expresses a specific interest I don't think that I'll share my plans here, not because I don't like to share but more because my tax situation is probably very different from most readers / contributors. (To give an example of that, I'm a UK citizen but I live overseas and the country I'm in taxes all of my worldwide property and income. It does NOT recognize ISAs as tax shelters. So, for example, a dividend from a share in an ISA is liable to local income tax (but not any UK tax). A dividend from an un-sheltered UK account it is liable for the higher of UK income/dividend tax or my local income tax (and there are both Federal and State income taxes at different rates). Any wrinkles can be dealt with through tax credits. Creating capital gains also has nuanced tax implications.)

... you, not other people, are the one whose judgement counts about whether it's "broke" or not!
Gengulphus

I couldn't agree more. My OP was to test my assumptions but also to give a little back to these boards, where I've learnt a lot and not been able to contribute too much.

SDN

[Pastcaring]

I' ll take your word for it tjh,however it has no relevance to the point.

The example given was the FTSE 100 from inception in 1984, a growth rate of 10% as BoE said..

Individual companies can and do drop dividends by 50% or more.

Shall we say the index was at 7000 at the top (Nov 2007 in Australia ) .The yield shall we say was 4% . Bottom ( down here ) was march 2009 .Shall we say bottom of 3500 so an exact drip of 50%.Was the yield on the FTSE still 4%.

If the yield was 4% then the market drop of 50% produced a yield drop of exactly 50%.Did that happen?

Prices drop ,yield rises,if the yield went up to 5 or 6% of 3500,then the was no 50% drop in yield,(dividend).

The maths works as 4% of 7000 is 280.

6% of 3500 is 210, there is a drop in income,however it is not a 50% drop.

As I said I have never seen a 50% drop in dividends (yield) across 100 shares,that does not mean it cannot happen.

[Itsallaguess]

As I said I have never seen a 50% drop in dividends (yield) across 100 shares,that does not mean it cannot happen.

But you also previously said that you 'don't like diversification at all'.

However, isn't your dividend position above relying on the dividend-diversification of the FTSE 100?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Pastcaring]

Amazing,

I do not like diversification

I have a very concentrated portfolio

I do not live in the UK.

I do not own any index funds

I do not own a FTSE 100 fund.

My dividend position does rely on any UK companies at all.

The EXAMPLE given by BoE was growth in the FTSE 100 from 1984 at10% compounding ,I expanded on that .

Did the dividend yield drop by 50% or not during the GFC

Which bit is not clear?

[tjh290633]

Amazing,

I do not like diversification

I have a very concentrated portfolio

I do not live in the UK.

I do not own any index funds

I do not own a FTSE 100 fund.

My dividend position does rely on any UK companies at all.

The EXAMPLE given by BoE was growth in the FTSE 100 from 1984 at10% compounding ,I expanded on that .

Did the dividend yield drop by 50% or not during the GFC

Which bit is not clear?

I think that you can take it that the yield did not fall. You are conflating yield and dividends. If the index fell by 50% and dividends also fell by 50%, then the yield would be precisely the same. In fact, because dividends overall did not fall as much in larger companies, the yield probably rose.

I must have a look and see what I have on file from those days, once you could easily look up "World Markets at a glance" for the relevant dates on the FT website, but no longer if you are not a subscriber.

Google might help you.

TJH

[Itsallaguess]

Which bit is not clear?

Well the bit I was struggling with was how your example of how simple investment is, actually relied on a level of FTSE 100 diversification that you fundamentally disagreed with.

If you weren't prepared for that point to be discussed, then I'm really not sure why you felt the need to mention it in the first place.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Pastcaring]

I' ll make it more plain then.A company you probably have never heard of, Macquarie bank.

I' ve used it before to illustrate a point,here we go again,one shot in the locker , high risk, I like it.

I bought it in 2006 approx at $60 per share.Use the DRP and you double your shareholding in 12 yrs approx.Call it a quarter of a century ( 25 years ).Double your shareholding twice so 1000 shares becomes 4000 shares by 31/3/2031.Assuming no splits.

There we go,hands under the [expletive deleted] for 25 years.

Check it 31/3/2019 and we'll say I have 2000 shares then.

Today they closed at $113 ( rounded) a very wild ride since 2006.The chart you need is MQG asx.I think it starts at $80 in 2007, approx 12-15 months after I bought them.

I have the 2017 annual report in my hand,bring it up online.

On page 208 it has the 10 year history.Their year ends on 31 march.

On 31/3/2008 the price is $52.82. Less than I bought them at ,they were on the slide down to the bottom of $27 on 31/3/2009.The actual bottom was around $16- $17,but that did not .coincide with year end.

On page 203 is the shareholder breakdown.As with all companies I own ( think it is up to 14 now) the major shareholders are HSBC with 29.38% ,and JP Morgan with 16.78%.,the pension funds they run.

Total number of shareholders is 112,,678,around 0.47% of the population of Australia.

The number of shareholders with 1-- 5000 shares is 16,370,around 0.068% of the population.

On page 4 is a bar chart of 48 years of profitability..

Can' t say fairer than that,no diversification at all,for away from what the salesmen,sorry experts ,tell me to do.As far away from the crowd as possible

[tjh290633]

I think that I am more confused than ever. What are Pink marshmallows?

Are you suggesting that a single Australian company might be safer than a diversified HYP? could you perhaps explain your thoughts in words of one syllable? What are you trying to tell us?

TJH

[PinkDalek]

I think that I am more confused than ever. What are Pink marshmallows?

That's the TLF profanity filter in action (think of a 4 letter word, beginning with a and ending in e, along the lines of derriere).

As for the remainder, I don't think the High Yield or otherwise for Macquarie Group Limited, prior to any Australian withholding tax, has been mentioned.

[ReformedCharacter]

I think that I am more confused than ever. What are Pink marshmallows?

TJH

Pink Marshmallows = Pillows (on your Uncle Ned, up the Apples and Pears)

RC

[Pastcaring]

There is no withholding tax in Australia.

MQG pays dividends that are 45% franked.Now you' ll have to find out what the dividend imputation system is in Australia ( common name franking credits)Make it as complicated as you like.

Briefly, dividends are taxed as income . The $5.30 dividend for year ending 31/3/18 carried credits at 45%. Round numbers $5.30 at 45% gives a tax credit of $1.02.

How complicated would you like it?

Double taxation agreements would mean you earned $5.30 and paid $1 .02 tax on it for your UK tax return.

See an accountant for advice and check that number ($1.02), my mental arithmetic powers are on the wane.

Tjh,if you want safety put your money in the bank.Stock markets can be risky,you can lose money.You can also make a lot of money.

Whenever the panic grips you,sell them and take the loss ,as explained I watched it go from my buy price of $60 down to $17 .

During the GFC I watched around $1,000,000 disappear,it quickly came back as markets rose again.

For the really wealthy ,say the Walton family ( Wal mart WMT).Two billion shares at $100 each,worth $200 billion. Share price drops to $90,now they are worth $180 billion,do you think they worry about share price movements.

They have a concentrated portfolio,there is the share I have picked for a concentrated porrtfolio MQG.

Money in the bank for safety,money in MQG for the roller coaster ride.

During the GFC I watched aro

[Pastcaring]

I've just looked at WMT,down to around $84 from a top of around $110 at the start of the year,I'll have to pay some attention to it,around a 25--30% drip really grabs my attention.

However there you go,buy 1000 WMT today at $84 and we'll run with a two stock concentrated portfolio.

Use WMT for dividend only,quarterly divi complicates it more.

The IRS has a 15% withholding tax .

For the other guy,sorry I forget your name,forgive my rudeness.

Now I see what you mean by withholding tax.

[tjh290633]

I think that I am more confused than ever. What are Pink marshmallows?

That's the TLF profanity filter in action (think of a 4 letter word, beginning with a and ending in e, along the lines of derriere).

As for the remainder, I don't think the High Yield or otherwise for Macquarie Group Limited, prior to any Australian withholding tax, has been mentioned.

So it's either posterior or fundamental orifice.

In the context it suggests sitting on their? Hands for 25 years. Why the hell couldn't it be said in plain English?

As I understand it, our Aussie friend is claiming that the better option is to buy his favourite company, reinvest dividends for 30 years, then retire to a life of sundowners and fast Sheilas. My friends who worked for GEC and built up a stack of shares, to help their retirement, then found them turned into Marconi and vanished without trace in a very short time, would disagree.

TJH

[Itsallaguess]

As I understand it, our Aussie friend is claiming that the better option is to buy his favourite company, reinvest dividends for 30 years, then retire to a life of sundowners and fast Sheilas.

My friends who worked for GEC and built up a stack of shares, to help their retirement, then found them turned into Marconi and vanished without trace in a very short time, would disagree.

Well, exactly...

Also, go ask JimSusan about Lloyds...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess