Stockopedia article

[Clitheroekid]

An interesting article about selecting HYP type shares, and some suggestions - (sorry about the link - I'm not sure why it's displayed like that, but it does work!)

Moderator Message:
Edited to remove link as displayed personal information. Raptor

[PinkDalek]

... (sorry about the link - I'm not sure why it's displayed like that, but it does work!) ...

Off-topic and, yes, it does work but I think it shows your user ID.

Here is a shorter version without such matters:

https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentar ... -ii506635/

If of any concern to you, you could always report your post and ask if a Mod would edit your post.

[jackdaww]

this stock screen looks extremely risky to me .

would i invest in a company with a dividend yield of 14% ? or even 10% .

my limit there is about 7% and all the other metrics would need to be pretty good as well .

a market cap of under 1billion would also be a worry for a high yielding share .

[Arborbridge]

this stock screen looks extremely risky to me .

would i invest in a company with a dividend yield of 14% ? or even 10% .

my limit there is about 7% and all the other metrics would need to be pretty good as well .

a market cap of under 1billion would also be a worry for a high yielding share .

Like you, I'd tend to disagree with the article about what is a "reasonably" high yield. I think many of us would start to get worried around 7-8% - but I guess the point they are making (talking their own book, so to speak) is that by using their clever software one can achieve a higher yield with safety, which one could not do without their sprinkling of fairy dust.

Whether it works? - one would have to suck it and see.

It's of some comfort for us, I suppose, that half a dozen of those shares are often listed here in people's HYPs.

Arb.

[monabri]

Whether it works? - one would have to suck it and see.

Arb.

I took out a free 14 day trial with Stockopedia in February 2017.



I invested in PFC based on a scores of 7 and 95/100. The share price was 924p...

I didn't invest in in IGG as the F-score was 6 and the quality score 53/100. The share price was 522p....

Kier received quite a good quality score of 86 with a share price of 1416p.....Carillion happened.

PETS was tempting as the F-score was a "9" ......now very heavily shorted at 13% and is top of the shorting list.

I'd definitely keep clear of Unilever with a F-score of 5 and a quality score of 72 and a share price of 3233p ( )


So - I would not rely on their methodology.


Edit

G4S quality score of 86
CPI 44 (got that one right!)
MKS 76
Tesco 80
Admiral 37

[Arborbridge]

So - I would not rely on their methodology.


Edit

Interesting to have some first hand experience. I guess they would say a) you can winn 'em all, and b) you have to give it a longer time.

Still, it's not a good recommendation as to the usefulness.


Arb.

[MDW1954]

The ten picks are from just three sectors. Four are from consumer cyclicals; for from basic materials; and two from energy. The time to buy into the latter two was two and a half years ago (early 2016), not now.

I hold two; would consider one (Rio Tinto), but would steer clear of the rest -- there are better, more-diversified, picks out there. And in radically different sectors, too.

MDW1954

[Raptor]

Moderator Message:
The method used in the article does not follow all the guidelines of HYP Practical. Although the method and shares do result in HY shares that would, mostly, fit. Moving to Strategies with a shadow in Practical. Raptor.

[monabri]

I just found some info on the Stockopedia rating for Carillion

F-score of 6 and a quality score of 70...better than Unilever then . Of course, Stockopedia can only go of the numbers presented in the C annual reports.