Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34,Anonymous, for Donating to support the site

Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

General discussions about equity high-yield income strategies
IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223721

Postby IanTHughes » May 22nd, 2019, 4:44 pm

Lootman wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:I've done a lot better than any tracker following HYP principles, without having any fixed interest.

You have, although it seems that a good number here have not. It may depend on when you started out, how good a share picker you are and, at least in your case, the adred strateegies you use which are not part of a bog-standard HYP e.g. the top-slicing and re-balancing.

Are you perhaps suggesting that the start date would be irrelevant for an investment in a tracker? Surely even you would not go that far? Also, the performance of my HYP is superior to a tracker. And I am just a "bog-standard" HYP share-picker who does not indulge in any top-slicing or re-balancing. So it would seem, I am sure you will agree, that those may not be the factors that make the strategy work.

Lootman wrote:So I do think HYP bears additional risk compared to a tracker, which of course also means that with a favourable tailwind it can out-perform like any higher risk strategy can.

Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?


Ian

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2356
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 524 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223752

Postby MDW1954 » May 22nd, 2019, 5:58 pm

Moderator Message:
This thread is very welcome on this board, but is also suitable for discussing on the HYP-Practical board. If anyone feels strongly that they would prefer it to be on HYP-Practical, where the other "zones" thread resides, would they kindly PM me? If there is sufficient strength of opinion, it will be moved. -- MDW1954

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223795

Postby Lootman » May 22nd, 2019, 8:38 pm

IanTHughes wrote:the performance of my HYP is superior to a tracker.

TJH has deomonstrated that with impeccable historic records. We'd love to see yours.

IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:So I do think HYP bears additional risk compared to a tracker, which of course also means that with a favourable tailwind it can out-perform like any higher risk strategy can.

Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

I think it is a very positive thing that you see a strategy that was designed to provide retirement security for investment novices is actually riskier than a neutral strategy like index funds.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223797

Postby IanTHughes » May 22nd, 2019, 8:50 pm

Lootman wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:the performance of my HYP is superior to a tracker.

TJH has deomonstrated that with impeccable historic records. We'd love to see yours.

Why don't you look for them?

IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:So I do think HYP bears additional risk compared to a tracker, which of course also means that with a favourable tailwind it can out-perform like any higher risk strategy can.

Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

Lootman wrote:I think it is a very positive thing that you see a strategy that was designed to provide retirement security for investment novices is actually riskier than a neutral strategy like index funds.

I must confess that I was somewhat surprised that you knew to bring it up! Next you will be telling us that you have read your first Balance Sheet


Ian

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223806

Postby Lootman » May 22nd, 2019, 9:21 pm

IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:the performance of my HYP is superior to a tracker.

TJH has deomonstrated that with impeccable historic records. We'd love to see yours.

Why don't you look for them?

I did. Otherwise I would not have needed to ask you for a link. Can you not provide one?

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223809

Postby JamesMuenchen » May 22nd, 2019, 9:36 pm

IanTHughes wrote:Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

Its implicit in the doctrine that 12-15 shares/sectors is enough diversification.

I've never seen an advocate of HYP claim that it is riskier than a tracker. Critics, yes. Advocates, no. Do you have any examples where this has been stated?


Stephen Bland has this to say
https://app.stockopedia.com/content/hyp ... olio-79719
pyad wrote:I believe this is around the lowest risk an investor can take commensurate with being in equities at all. Widows and orphans stuff.

and comparing to funds:
pyad wrote:If you decide to mix your HYP with funds, avoid those which largely duplicate your HYP holdings. An HYP consists of UK big caps. So you would not want a fund which holds a lot of the same shares. Rather, my advice would be to look at, say, a US equity income fund for example or a bond/gilt fund from the UK or US. The idea of spreading investments around, if you wish to do that, is to reduce risk, not to concentrate it.

Which implies that a HYP has about the same risk profile as a FTSE100 tracker.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223810

Postby Lootman » May 22nd, 2019, 9:55 pm

JamesMuenchen wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

Its implicit in the doctrine that 12-15 shares/sectors is enough diversification. I've never seen an advocate of HYP claim that it is riskier than a tracker. Critics, yes. Advocates, no. Do you have any examples where this has been stated?

Other things being equal 12-15 shares would be more risky, or at least more volatile, than an index of, say, the top 100 shares.

That said you could pick for your 15 shares those which have a low beta and which have solid defensive characteristics. And such a portfolio might be less risky then the market.

The problem is that HYP does the opposite, and instead reaches out for yield. And a high yield is the market's way of telling you that a security is more risky. After all, high yield bonds are known as junk bonds.

So Ian might be correct here, albeit more by accident than design.

Charlottesquare
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1768
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 559 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223817

Postby Charlottesquare » May 22nd, 2019, 11:04 pm

Lootman wrote:
JamesMuenchen wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

Its implicit in the doctrine that 12-15 shares/sectors is enough diversification. I've never seen an advocate of HYP claim that it is riskier than a tracker. Critics, yes. Advocates, no. Do you have any examples where this has been stated?

Other things being equal 12-15 shares would be more risky, or at least more volatile, than an index of, say, the top 100 shares.

That said you could pick for your 15 shares those which have a low beta and which have solid defensive characteristics. And such a portfolio might be less risky then the market.

The problem is that HYP does the opposite, and instead reaches out for yield. And a high yield is the market's way of telling you that a security is more risky. After all, high yield bonds are known as junk bonds.

So Ian might be correct here, albeit more by accident than design.


With Shell being say Market Cap 284bn and FTSE100 market Cap say 1.82Tn, strictly speaking if it went bust with you holding the Index you lose say 12% of your funds,however if you hold a 15 share equal weight you lose circa 7% of your funds- the market cap weighting of the FTSE100 makes holding it riskier where a share in the FTSE 100 makes up more than circa 7% of the FTSE100 total market cap.

Appreciate somewhat of an outlier but for Shell in particular there is actually a higher concentration risk holding the index,

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223841

Postby Lootman » May 23rd, 2019, 6:24 am

Charlottesquare wrote:With Shell being say Market Cap 284bn and FTSE100 market Cap say 1.82Tn, strictly speaking if it went bust with you holding the Index you lose say 12% of your funds,however if you hold a 15 share equal weight you lose circa 7% of your funds- the market cap weighting of the FTSE100 makes holding it riskier where a share in the FTSE 100 makes up more than circa 7% of the FTSE100 total market cap.

Appreciate somewhat of an outlier but for Shell in particular there is actually a higher concentration risk holding the index,

That would assume that the investor actively maintains the equal-weightedness by (presumably) selling off some of the winners and reinvesting the proceeds in the losers. That is how some equal-weighted trackers work - the point being to minimise single-share risk. But HYP doesn't do that and you see the ill-fated results of that in the distorted weightings of HYP1 with all the attendant risk.

Back in my fund management days we actually had a rule that no fund could be more than 10% in any one share, which in some cases forced us to be under-weight in the biggest names. This was more extreme in some foreign countries. For a while Nokia was about one third of the Finnish index by market cap, for instance. At the other extreme no US share is more than about 4% of the US index. It is an indicator of how broad and deep the US market is that a share like Apple, Amazon or MicroSoft, with market caps approaching a trillion dollars, still don't move the needle that much.

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223845

Postby JamesMuenchen » May 23rd, 2019, 6:55 am

Lootman wrote:
JamesMuenchen wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

Its implicit in the doctrine that 12-15 shares/sectors is enough diversification. I've never seen an advocate of HYP claim that it is riskier than a tracker. Critics, yes. Advocates, no. Do you have any examples where this has been stated?

Other things being equal 12-15 shares would be more risky, or at least more volatile, than an index of, say, the top 100 shares.

I agree, but I don't think that HYP doctrine does... I would say it holds that 12-15 is enough (or optimal) for diversification and after that there is negligible benefit.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223858

Postby Lootman » May 23rd, 2019, 8:21 am

JamesMuenchen wrote:
Lootman wrote:
JamesMuenchen wrote:Its implicit in the doctrine that 12-15 shares/sectors is enough diversification. I've never seen an advocate of HYP claim that it is riskier than a tracker. Critics, yes. Advocates, no. Do you have any examples where this has been stated?

Other things being equal 12-15 shares would be more risky, or at least more volatile, than an index of, say, the top 100 shares.

I agree, but I don't think that HYP doctrine does... I would say it holds that 12-15 is enough (or optimal) for diversification and after that there is negligible benefit.

There is certainly a prevalent view in many investment circles that beyond a certain number of shares, the impact of adding another becomes more and more minimal. I've usually seen that number as somewhere between 20 and 30, rather than 15. And certainly not 12.

Look at it another way. To take CharlotteSquare's example, in energy you are probably going to choose BP or Shell. As we saw with BP's Gulf of Mexico disaster, holding the wrong one can be near fatal. (As I recall BP once had a market cap of about the same as Shell; now it is half).

You can avoid that single-share risk by holding both but then that means you are probably missing a sector somewhere else, whilst holding close to 20% of your portfolio in energy.

The other reason why HYPs can be less diversified is that some of the sectors do not yield a lot, and yet if you don't hold those then you have a less defensive portfolio and/or one with fewer growth prospects. For that reason I look at the yield of the overall portfolio, and don't sweat on the yield of any particular holding within it. Sadly HY sectors seem to have more than their fair share of accidents (finance, retail, support services and, most recently, utilities).

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8178
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 4079 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223871

Postby tjh290633 » May 23rd, 2019, 9:13 am

JamesMuenchen wrote:
Lootman wrote:
JamesMuenchen wrote:Its implicit in the doctrine that 12-15 shares/sectors is enough diversification. I've never seen an advocate of HYP claim that it is riskier than a tracker. Critics, yes. Advocates, no. Do you have any examples where this has been stated?

Other things being equal 12-15 shares would be more risky, or at least more volatile, than an index of, say, the top 100 shares.

I agree, but I don't think that HYP doctrine does... I would say it holds that 12-15 is enough (or optimal) for diversification and after that there is negligible benefit.

If you go back to the original work on this, it indicates that risk falls rapidly as you get to 15 shares but, above that the reduction in risk tails off markedly.

The conclusion therefore is that 15 shares, taken from different sectors, is the minimum you should aspire to. Having more helps reduce risk, as long as diversity is maintained.

Regarding equal weighting, that is only practicable when starting a portfolio in one move. When building a portfolio gradually, new holdings should be introduced at about the average or median holding weight. These may be similar, but market forces will inevitably lead to divergence. My policy is to set an upper weight limit with reference to the median holding weight. With 35 holdings at the moment, that puts my limit below 5%. Rather less risk for a big cap than in a tracker. Anyone who does this is free to set their own limits, but 10% is a reasonable limit to set, analogous with the limits for collective Investments.

TJH

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5743
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4068 times
Been thanked: 2553 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#223878

Postby 88V8 » May 23rd, 2019, 9:23 am

JamesMuenchen wrote:..... 12-15 is enough (or optimal) for diversification and after that there is negligible benefit.


Diversification for its own sake, Luni used to call Diworsification, and then there was its running mate Sectoral Philately.

V8

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#224087

Postby Gengulphus » May 23rd, 2019, 8:12 pm

IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:So I do think HYP bears additional risk compared to a tracker, which of course also means that with a favourable tailwind it can out-perform like any higher risk strategy can.

Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

I regard the question of whether HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers as unsettled - I don't say that it definitely isn't, but neither do I say that "of course" it is.

There are two main reasons for my uncertainty about the question. One is just that the question isn't very well-posed: there are many different HYP strategies, so "following HYP" isn't well-defined, and it's entirely possible that following some is less risky and following others more risky than buying trackers.

The second is that it's certainly the case that buying trackers is sometimes higher-risk than following a HYP strategy: the clearest example of such a case in the nearly 20 years I've been actively investing in the stockmarket was at the height of the tech boom's effect on the FTSE 100 at the end of 1999: in the following 3 and a bit years, accumulation units in a FTSE 100 tracker would have lost nearly half of their value (*). I don't have exact figures for what a HYP would have done, since that predates HYP1 by about 10-11 months and my own HYPs by rather more, but I do know that HYP1 lost little of its value after it was set up (which would quite possibly have been none of it if it had been reinvesting its dividends) and that the period from December 1999 to November 2000 was a brilliant time to be investing in high-yield shares: that was pretty much when I started investing more actively in the stockmarket (having previously merely put money I had spare into privatisations and employee share options when the opportunities arose and literally put the certificates in a bottom drawer) and my original strategy was a high-yield trading strategy (so some points in common with HYP, but definitely not actually HYP!).

A further indication is given by using the FTSE 350 Higher Yield index (the total return version, in order to compare like with like) as a proxy for HYP strategies. It lost less than a quarter of its value (*) over the same period, outperforming the FTSE 100 by nearly 50%. And it's definitely an imperfect proxy for HYP strategies, selecting shares purely for high yield and moderately high market cap but nothing more, and going through a major 'tinkering' review once a year. Whether HYP strategies' use of additional criteria aimed at avoiding 'yield traps' and strong reluctance to 'tinker' would have added to or subtracted from that outperformance, I of course don't know: the example of HYP1 suggests that it would have added to it, but without a lot more evidence that's just a suggestion and nowhere near proof. But the nearly-50% outperformance in the index comparison is large enough that it's IMHO pretty clear that HYP strategies generally outperformed buying trackers over that period by a substantial margin, mainly due to the FTSE 100 index being quite heavily invested in the tech boom (though obviously nowhere near as risky as investing 100% in it, as some investors did) and HYP strategies clearly avoiding investing in it completely or nearly completely simply as a natural consequence of their insistence on high yield.

And importantly, not merely was buying trackers pretty risky at the end of 1999 as things actually worked out, the risk was IMHO in the bleeding obvious category even at the time. It was very clear that the stockmarket was in a bubble - the only real questions were about how overinflated that bubble had become (affecting how big the collapse would be when it finally happened) and how long the bubble would last before it burst. And lasting three years was pretty implausible, because the bubble would have become ridiculously big if it had continued to inflate at anywhere near the same rate for another three years, while any significant slowdown would probably have triggered the collapse as significant numbers of the more nervous investors started to cash in on their winnings...

All that only adds up to a good case that some time periods exist in which buying trackers is more risky than following just about any HYP strategy. How common they are, I don't know and doubt I will ever know - it's only in extreme cases like the tech boom and bust that the answer about which is more risky becomes at all obvious. I've little doubt that there are other periods in which buying trackers is less risky than following just about any HYP strategy, though I don't know of any really clear example of such a period. What matters for a long-term investor is of course how the risk averages out over the decades, but all I can say about that is that I'm pretty certain it's an average of 'less risky' and 'more risky' periods, which obviously doesn't answer the question... So as I said at the start of this, I am not certain either way about the answer.

(*) Some precise figures I've got are that the total return version of the FTSE 100 index dropped from 3140.73 to 1624.17 (a 48.3% drop) between 30/12/1999 and 12/03/2003, while the FTSE 350 Higher Yield index dropped from 2370.03 to 1841.54 (a 22.3% drop) over the same period. So £1k invested in perfect trackers of the two (if such things existed!) would have become £517 and £777 respectively, meaning that the FTSE 350 Higher Yield tracker would have outperformed the FTSE 100 tracker by about 47.4% over three and a bit years.

Gengulphus

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#224092

Postby Lootman » May 23rd, 2019, 9:10 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:So I do think HYP bears additional risk compared to a tracker, which of course also means that with a favourable tailwind it can out-perform like any higher risk strategy can.

Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

I regard the question of whether HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers as unsettled - I don't say that it definitely isn't, but neither do I say that "of course" it is.

There are two main reasons for my uncertainty about the question. One is just that the question isn't very well-posed: there are many different HYP strategies, so "following HYP" isn't well-defined, and it's entirely possible that following some is less risky and following others more risky than buying trackers.

To take your second point first, the old "there are so many different HYPs" argument is weak. It's almost as if it is being claimed that because not every single HYP lost money in some time period then it is off the hook for criticism. I have often claimed that Bland's biggest skill was the way he skirted all the obvious criticisms of HYP ("capital doesn't matter" being only the most egregiously obvious one) and that is one blatant example of that skirting.

As for cherry-picking the dot-com crash in 1999 (which of course everyone saw coming in retrospect) all I can say is that you might say the same thing about HYP's biggest failure - the reliance upon the juicy yields in the finance sector in 2007, which Bland fell full into.

Luniversal
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 157
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:01 am
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#224099

Postby Luniversal » May 23rd, 2019, 9:39 pm

88V8 wrote:
JamesMuenchen wrote:..... 12-15 is enough (or optimal) for diversification and after that there is negligible benefit.


Diversification for its own sake, Luni used to call Diworsification, and then there was its running mate Sectoral Philately.

V8


I do not think I used 'diworsification', and I was no foe of seeking as broad a one-per-sector mix as possible. That is, within the constraints of not chasing the yield, limiting one's choice to larger market caps and not admitting companies with an impaired record of paying out over the previous decade.

Those were the three pillars of 'sturdometry' or mechanising the HYP. It sidelined fundamental analysis of accounts, assuming that the security of an income stream is embodied in its running yield as a market consensus. Most shorter-term forecasts of dividends are reasonably accurate, unlike soothsaying about prices.

Zoning allows for the subjective factor in fixing yields: boom-or-bust mood swings. It homes in on 'cheap but not too cheap for comfort' potential income streams, seeing yields of 110-150% of the All-Share Index's-- the range within most sturdometric selections fell-- as signalling the temporarily anxious much more often than the justly doomed. 'Cheer up, it will rarely happen' was the watchword.

Using these three filters, I consistently found that more than 25 sectors/shares was not feasible without going into red zones, which (as I have written elsewhere) have been fairly reliable warning signs of a coming cut or pass. Typically a 25-share 'Big One' sturdometric job lot began on a yield one-quarter above the All-Share Index. A 'classic' 15-share 'SuperHYP', employing stiffer tests of dividend history and quality, might yield only one-sixth more than the FTAS, but promised faster income growth than the Big One.

My own HYPs initially numbered a 'classic' 15 for the Footsie and 20 for the midcaps, which was larger because I then anticipated (unnecessarily, I now feel) that there was extra safety in numbers for a FTSE 250-only selection. Although these portfolios were chosen before sturdometry replaced pyad's criteria in my thinking, they were composed of pretty much the same companies, standing on yields within the Optimal Zone. So my mechanisation may have been another road to the same destination.

The point is that this is not about total return; limits on how many stocks you need to buy to minimise capital risk apply a fortiori to HYPs, which are income machines only. Dividend growth is far less erratic than price behaviour. My 2000-16 study of some 200 past and present HYP candidates, encompassing two serious slumps, found that year on year they raised or maintained payouts in real terms, or resumed a payout, 78% of the time.

Bolt on a safety margin/income reserve method (e.g. my 'derisking') and the odds are that your income will never fall even in hard times for earnings. Income should occasionally be amenable to a raise, and with inflation protection at all times.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#224106

Postby Gengulphus » May 23rd, 2019, 10:19 pm

Lootman wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:Well of course HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers, whoever said it was not?

I regard the question of whether HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers as unsettled - I don't say that it definitely isn't, but neither do I say that "of course" it is.

There are two main reasons for my uncertainty about the question. One is just that the question isn't very well-posed: there are many different HYP strategies, so "following HYP" isn't well-defined, and it's entirely possible that following some is less risky and following others more risky than buying trackers.

To take your second point first, the old "there are so many different HYPs" argument is weak. It's almost as if it is being claimed that because not every single HYP lost money in some time period then it is off the hook for criticism. I have often claimed that Bland's biggest skill was the way he skirted all the obvious criticisms of HYP ("capital doesn't matter" being only the most egregiously obvious one) and that is one blatant example of that skirting.

As for cherry-picking the dot-com crash in 1999 (which of course everyone saw coming in retrospect) all I can say is that you might say the same thing about HYP's biggest failure - the reliance upon the juicy yields in the finance sector in 2007, which Bland fell full into.

Your reading comprehension seems to be letting you down again. I said that I was uncertain about which of buying trackers and following HYP is riskier, giving the reasons for my uncertainty, and that "I've little doubt that there are other periods in which buying trackers is less risky than following just about any HYP strategy". You seem to have somehow interpreted the former as an attempt to let HYP off the hook for criticism, and to be violently agreeing with the latter...

Gengulphus

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18544
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 6487 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#224135

Postby Lootman » May 24th, 2019, 6:40 am

Gengulphus wrote:
Lootman wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:I regard the question of whether HYP is a higher risk strategy than buying trackers as unsettled - I don't say that it definitely isn't, but neither do I say that "of course" it is.

There are two main reasons for my uncertainty about the question. One is just that the question isn't very well-posed: there are many different HYP strategies, so "following HYP" isn't well-defined, and it's entirely possible that following some is less risky and following others more risky than buying trackers.

To take your second point first, the old "there are so many different HYPs" argument is weak. It's almost as if it is being claimed that because not every single HYP lost money in some time period then it is off the hook for criticism. I have often claimed that Bland's biggest skill was the way he skirted all the obvious criticisms of HYP ("capital doesn't matter" being only the most egregiously obvious one) and that is one blatant example of that skirting.

As for cherry-picking the dot-com crash in 1999 (which of course everyone saw coming in retrospect) all I can say is that you might say the same thing about HYP's biggest failure - the reliance upon the juicy yields in the finance sector in 2007, which Bland fell full into.

Your reading comprehension seems to be letting you down again. I said that I was uncertain about which of buying trackers and following HYP is riskier, giving the reasons for my uncertainty, and that "I've little doubt that there are other periods in which buying trackers is less risky than following just about any HYP strategy". You seem to have somehow interpreted the former as an attempt to let HYP off the hook for criticism, and to be violently agreeing with the latter...

You are perfectly entitled to feel uncertain about anything you want. But it's always possible that other people are less uncertain than you. In this case I think that taking an index and then removing shares that are growing well, that are defensive, or that have well-covered dividends is clearly going to increase risk in the main.

The parallel is the bond market where it is widely accepted that high yield bonds are riskier, hence them also being referred to as "junk bonds".

You might be happy with that extra risk, e.g. because you want a geared bet on market performnce. Or you might be OK with inferior capital performance if you get more jam today. But it seems that even the most fervent of HYPers here (and they don't come any more fervent than Ian) seem to accept the elevated risk profile of owning a relatively small number of high yielding shares.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Look at your own portfolio and compute the beta of it by using the beta of each constituent and then weight it by the size of each holding.

PS: Incidentally your use of the word "again" there is not helpful. You may believe that I misread you. Or you may not understand sometimes how your words can be read or that they may be ambiguous. But seeking to imply generalisations about others here when defending a point could be seen as "playing the man, not the ball".

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8178
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 4079 times

Re: Dividend zoning ("danger zones" etc) e.g. as previously explored by Luniversal

#224160

Postby tjh290633 » May 24th, 2019, 9:36 am

Moderator Message:
I think it is time you two stopped this private tiff and took it off-line. There are several points of contention, but none are worth this extended argument.

Put your toys back in your respective prams, kiss and make up, or there will be tears before bedtime.

TJH


Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests