The Lemon Fool

I thought after funduffer's excellent post, I'd post something similar - though I don't intend to compete will his excellent detailed reporting. Here we have charts showing firstly, capital progress of HYP, IncomeIT basket and incomeOEIC basket:



It's clear that HYP has not progressed well relative to the others since around 2016 and is currently failing even the simple test of exceeding RPI or FTSE100.



The results for income per unit are closer, but the smoothed income increases for ITs will attract many pensioners against the OEICS and HYP which are more volatile. However, one must also bear in mind that HYP constantly yields rather more which helps to compensate.

My mindset is still to continue with HYP for the immediate future, but the IT portfolio will probably be gradually given more of my capital. However, that is quite difficult to do since HYP share are always on offer giving a higher yield - one must steel onself to make do with a lower income each time a choice is being made.

I anyone is interested, I will post full list of the income IT and OEIC fund I use. Overall, the surprise to me is how well the OEICS compare - though it has to be said the income is more volatile - considering what "flack" we give this type of instrument.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:I thought after funduffer's excellent post, I'd post something similar - though I don't intend to compete will his excellent detailed reporting.
Arb.

Arb,
Are you in drawdown or still building ? Can you easily put up a TR graph for all these to compare them ? That would be interesting to see.
regards,
dspp

dspp wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:I thought after funduffer's excellent post, I'd post something similar - though I don't intend to compete will his excellent detailed reporting.
Arb.

Arb,
Are you in drawdown or still building ? Can you easily put up a TR graph for all these to compare them ? That would be interesting to see.
regards,
dspp

Being interested in income, I didn't start keeping records of accumulation units. I can say that the XIRR from August 2006 for the HYP is 5.83% and for the ITs from November 2008 is 9.3%. XIRR isn't very good when the starting dates are different, but this probably shows which way the wind's blowing on TR comparison.

I am living on the income so most of it is drawdown - what isn't drawn is re-invested.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:
I anyone is interested, I will post full list of the income IT and OEIC fund I use.

Arb.

Yes please, it would be very informative to see the portfolios being compared. Any possibility of including the portfolio yields too?

Thanks for sharing your data.

Arborbridge wrote:

dspp wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:I thought after funduffer's excellent post, I'd post something similar - though I don't intend to compete will his excellent detailed reporting.
Arb.

Arb,
Are you in drawdown or still building ? Can you easily put up a TR graph for all these to compare them ? That would be interesting to see.
regards,
dspp

Being interested in income, I didn't start keeping records of accumulation units. I can say that the XIRR from August 2006 for the HYP is 5.83% and for the ITs from November 2008 is 9.3%. XIRR isn't very good when the starting dates are different, but this probably shows which way the wind's blowing on TR comparison.

I am living on the income so most of it is drawdown - what isn't drawn is re-invested.

Arb.

Thank you, no worries. regards, dspp

Arborbridge wrote:
I anyone is interested, I will post full list of the income IT and OEIC fund I use. Overall, the surprise to me is how well the OEICS compare - though it has to be said the income is more volatile - considering what "flack" we give this type of instrument.

Arb.

Yes please, I'm always interested to compare IT Portfolios, and have previously posted mine. Seeing the OEICs as well would also be good.

CryptoPlankton wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:
I anyone is interested, I will post full list of the income IT and OEIC fund I use.

Arb.

Yes please, it would be very informative to see the portfolios being compared. Any possibility of including the portfolio yields too?

Thanks for sharing your data.

Yes please as well
tuk020

Here is the IT basket:



And here is the OEIC basket:



Arb. (now for some breakfast!)

Data geeks might be interested in this site which has a wide variety of indices that can apparently be downloaded.

https://thefreedomindex.com/indexes/

Arborbridge wrote:Being interested in income, I didn't start keeping records of accumulation units. I can say that the XIRR from August 2006 for the HYP is 5.83% and for the ITs from November 2008 is 9.3%. XIRR isn't very good when the starting dates are different, but this probably shows which way the wind's blowing on TR comparison.

I am living on the income so most of it is drawdown - what isn't drawn is re-invested.

A question: do you keep the three components (HYP, ITs and OEICs) mixed together in the same broker account(s), or in separate broker accounts such that any particular account only contains some or all of a single component? If it's the latter, you'll have a separate cash balance for each component, so that in particular, you'll have an easy record not just of what income you withdrew, but also of which component you withdrew it from; if it's the former, that will be a lot more work to work out and there will probably be some arbitrary decisions involved in working it out that have a significant effect on the results. And the point of asking the question is simply that I can suggest ways to fairly quickly and easily get a reasonably good total-return comparison if you have the separate component-by-component cash balances, but there's not much point if there's a lot of work involved in getting them and they're very unreliable because of arbitrary decisions!

Sorry about the question being rather awkward to phrase well - the point being that if for instance you had an ISA account, a SIPP account and an unsheltered dealing account, and one held just the HYP, another just the ITs and the third just the OEICs, you would have the three different cash balances, but if each of them held bits of all three components, you wouldn't without quite a bit of work and arbitrary decisions. So it's not just a question of how many accounts you've got, but also how you're using them.

Gengulphus

Gengulphus wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:Being interested in income, I didn't start keeping records of accumulation units. I can say that the XIRR from August 2006 for the HYP is 5.83% and for the ITs from November 2008 is 9.3%. XIRR isn't very good when the starting dates are different, but this probably shows which way the wind's blowing on TR comparison.

I am living on the income so most of it is drawdown - what isn't drawn is re-invested.

A question: do you keep the three components (HYP, ITs and OEICs) mixed together in the same broker account(s), or in separate broker accounts such that any particular account only contains some or all of a single component? If it's the latter, you'll have a separate cash balance for each component, so that in particular, you'll have an easy record not just of what income you withdrew, but also of which component you withdrew it from; if it's the former, that will be a lot more work to work out and there will probably be some arbitrary decisions involved in working it out that have a significant effect on the results. And the point of asking the question is simply that I can suggest ways to fairly quickly and easily get a reasonably good total-return comparison if you have the separate component-by-component cash balances, but there's not much point if there's a lot of work involved in getting them and they're very unreliable because of arbitrary decisions!

Sorry about the question being rather awkward to phrase well - the point being that if for instance you had an ISA account, a SIPP account and an unsheltered dealing account, and one held just the HYP, another just the ITs and the third just the OEICs, you would have the three different cash balances, but if each of them held bits of all three components, you wouldn't without quite a bit of work and arbitrary decisions. So it's not just a question of how many accounts you've got, but also how you're using them.

Gengulphus

The HYP and ITs mixed up in three broker accounts. The OEICS are only in one particular account, ith HL as it happens.

But my XIRR spreadsheets haven't been told anything about broker accounts so they know nothing. The spreadsheet thinks dividends are all withdrawn in their entirety, which isn't what I do is real life, so the XIRR is a theoretical value. No cash is held overnight!

Arb.

Gengulphus wrote:A question: do you keep the three components (HYP, ITs and OEICs) mixed together in the same broker account(s), or in separate broker accounts such that any particular account only contains some or all of a single component? If it's the latter, you'll have a separate cash balance for each component, so that in particular, you'll have an easy record not just of what income you withdrew, but also of which component you withdrew it from; if it's the former, that will be a lot more work to work out and there will probably be some arbitrary decisions involved in working it out that have a significant effect on the results. And the point of asking the question is simply that I can suggest ways to fairly quickly and easily get a reasonably good total-return comparison if you have the separate component-by-component cash balances, but there's not much point if there's a lot of work involved in getting them and they're very unreliable because of arbitrary decisions!

Sorry about the question being rather awkward to phrase well - the point being that if for instance you had an ISA account, a SIPP account and an unsheltered dealing account, and one held just the HYP, another just the ITs and the third just the OEICs, you would have the three different cash balances, but if each of them held bits of all three components, you wouldn't without quite a bit of work and arbitrary decisions. So it's not just a question of how many accounts you've got, but also how you're using them.

Gengulphus

I understand the problem you are referring to.

I have my IT portfolio and HYP in the same broker account, and dividend cash from both is accumulated in that account. If I re-invest any of this cash, I would have to decide whether the cash came from the IT dividends or the HYP dividends. This is one reason why I use income units, as in that system all dividends are withdrawn and then either spent or re-invested in either portfolio as new cash.

For TR, I separately, in a spreadsheet, look at the capital increase/decrease and total dividends returned for each share, and then add them together. I hope this is correct.

I don't bother with XRR.

FD

funduffer wrote:I have my IT portfolio and HYP in the same broker account, and dividend cash from both is accumulated in that account. If I re-invest any of this cash, I would have to decide whether the cash came from the IT dividends or the HYP dividends. This is one reason why I use income units, as in that system all dividends are withdrawn and then either spent or re-invested in either portfolio as new cash.

For TR, I separately, in a spreadsheet, look at the capital increase/decrease and total dividends returned for each share, and then add them together. I hope this is correct.

I don't bother with XRR.

FD

My understand is that you don't need to do that for accumulation units. You can put all the transactions from different brokers on one spreadsheet including the cash input from dividends. When cash is needed to buy more shares there will be some cash from dividends, but maybe some new cash required too - in which case just issue new units with fictitious capital at the current unit price. What happens in multiple brokers accounts just carries on doing whatever it's doing in real life, and the accumulation spreadsheet carries on in a parallel virtual world of its own. It does not have to be "real", just to reflect what would have happened. When one compares charts from brokers of fund progress for "income re-invested" they are likewise not real but a projection of what would have happened.


Arb.