Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to MyNameIsUrl,GSVsowhat,johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8, for Donating to support the site

Selection of underperforming shares

General discussions about equity high-yield income strategies
Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3367
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Selection of underperforming shares

#233675

Postby Alaric » July 3rd, 2019, 1:28 pm

If you had a share selection strategy that over a three year period had selected holdings that had seriously underperformed the do nothing of cash, the market in general or an IT regarded as a market proxy, would that lead you to question the logic behind the strategy?

In current conditions, perhaps if not historically, selecting by dividend yield and discarding all those shares with below average yields seems to give a list of under performers. The basic reason being that the yield is high because the price isn't. You do fine if they turn around, but a continued decline or even a wipe out is an appreciable risk.

For an income strategy you don't want Companies that have a policy of retaining earnings and profits and paying no dividends or derisory ones. Companies that both pay and increase dividends you do want. The problem is that everyone else does as well, so the share price moves to a premium with the running dividend yield falling below average. Two better known examples being Diageo and Unilever.

IanTHughes
Lemon Slice
Posts: 771
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 389 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233679

Postby IanTHughes » July 3rd, 2019, 1:42 pm

Alaric wrote:If you had a share selection strategy that over a three year period had selected holdings that had seriously underperformed the do nothing of cash, the market in general or an IT regarded as a market proxy, would that lead you to question the logic behind the strategy?

No, it would lead me to suggest that 3 years is not long enough a period of time over which to measure the success or failure of an Equity Strategy, something that I thought every investor already knew.

Alaric wrote:In current conditions, perhaps if not historically, selecting by dividend yield and discarding all those shares with below average yields seems to give a list of under performers.

You may be right, which is why one should never pick a portfolio of shares based solely on their yield.

Alaric wrote:The basic reason being that the yield is high because the price isn't. You do fine if they turn around, but a continued decline or even a wipe out is an appreciable risk.

No. You do fine if the dividends received are sustainable with the number rising over time, more than compensating for those that fail. And, any Equity Strategy runs the risk of decline or even wipe out. Again, something that I thought every investor already knew.

Alaric wrote:For an income strategy you don't want Companies that have a policy of retaining earnings and profits and paying no dividends or derisory ones. Companies that both pay and increase dividends you do want. The problem is that everyone else does as well, so the share price moves to a premium with the running dividend yield falling below average. Two better known examples being Diageo and Unilever.

Not true, at least not for all good dividend payers. There are plenty within my HYP Portfolio that were all bought at significantly higher yield than either Diageo (DGE) or Unilever (ULVR) and have provided a better overall return over 4, 5, 6 and 7 years. Not every share in my portfolio, of course not, but sufficient to tell me that buying High Yields that are sustainable and rising, is the way to go for me.


Ian

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3367
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233684

Postby Alaric » July 3rd, 2019, 1:56 pm

IanTHughes wrote:No, it would lead me to suggest that 3 years is not long enough a period of time over which to measure the success or failure of an Equity Strategy, something that I thought every investor already knew.


It's more than long enough. It's not an equity v bond/cash comparison but between a specific screened selection of equities versus the average of all of them. In recent years there's a correlation between stocks with continuing price falls and higher dividend yields.

If investing for immediate income, capital value may not matter too much unless you need to sell. I would however suggest that if investing for deferred income, capital values do matter and that the point at which to make a comparison is respective market values immediately AFTER reinvestment. So if you got there with a 6% price growth and a 2% dividend reinvestment, you've done better than with no price growth and 6% dividend reinvestment. In both cases you are fully invested and remain so until such time as you take dividends as cash instead of reinvesting them.

IanTHughes
Lemon Slice
Posts: 771
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 389 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233688

Postby IanTHughes » July 3rd, 2019, 2:10 pm

Alaric wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:No, it would lead me to suggest that 3 years is not long enough a period of time over which to measure the success or failure of an Equity Strategy, something that I thought every investor already knew.
It's more than long enough. It's not an equity v bond/cash comparison but between a specific screened selection of equities versus the average of all of them. In recent years there's a correlation between stocks with continuing price falls and higher dividend yields.

Oh well, I was wrong. Not every investor does know

Alaric wrote:If investing for immediate income, capital value may not matter too much unless you need to sell. I would however suggest that if investing for deferred income, capital values do matter and that the point at which to make a comparison is respective market values immediately AFTER reinvestment. So if you got there with a 6% price growth and a 2% dividend reinvestment, you've done better than with no price growth and 6% dividend reinvestment. In both cases you are fully invested and remain so until such time as you take dividends as cash instead of reinvesting them.

Once again I have to tell you, three years is not long enough to determine the efficacy of any Equity Strategy, whatever the comparator. Maybe I should have made that clear.

If you really want to assess whether HYP as a Strategy is a success or a failure, for Income or Capital, why not use as an example pyad's HYP1? Or maybe any one of the other HYP's that are regularly reported on, on the HYP Practical board? Why do you insist on using the last three years as a your measurement period? Some might conclude that you were deliberately selecting a period of time that, with obvious hindsight knowledge, you already know will fit your previously determined antipathy towards HYP.


Ian

IanTHughes
Lemon Slice
Posts: 771
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 389 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233690

Postby IanTHughes » July 3rd, 2019, 2:33 pm

Alaric wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:No, it would lead me to suggest that 3 years is not long enough a period of time over which to measure the success or failure of an Equity Strategy, something that I thought every investor already knew.

It's more than long enough.

Between February 2012 and February 2015, a period of three years, the Accumulation Units of my HYP rose in value by over 60%. Why not use that 3 year time period, when of course the market was rising, in your investigation into the results of following an Investment Strategy such as HYP?

The answer of course is that 3 years is too short a period for producing any serious conclusions about any Investment Strategy, HYP included.


Ian

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3367
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233694

Postby Alaric » July 3rd, 2019, 2:58 pm

IanTHughes wrote:Why do you insist on using the last three years as a your measurement period?


That's in response to the commentator on the Vodafone board who was noting the sea of red he encounters when looking at his share selection using yield as a metric and how badly it has done by comparison to the relatively "do nothing" plans of holding cash, City of London IT or perhaps a FTSE 100 Tracker.

I would suggest that the two tests to apply are absolute value, holding cash and the relative one of comparison to FTSE 100, market average in other words. The site tools.morningstar gives historic performances. For vodafone over 10 years, you have a total return of 7.97% as opposed to the FTSE 100 of 10.03%. Over 5 years it's -0.92% against 6.22% and 3 years it's -10.73% against 9.13%. Past performance is no guide to the future might be said and in the case of Vodafone you have to hope that's true.
http://tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/stock ... E%24%24ALL

A share I briefly looked at around 6 months ago was Dunelm. The share price had only gone downwards in 5 years and as a consequence the dividend yield had drifted into HYP candidate territory. In practice the yield of six months ago seems to have signalled a recovery stock rather than junk. The yield has dropped back to 2.89% with the price up 80-90%.

http://tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/stock ... E%24%24ALL

10 year return (annualised) 18.28%
5 year return 4.72%
3 year return 7.25%

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5799
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 966 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233696

Postby Lootman » July 3rd, 2019, 3:04 pm

IanTHughes wrote:3 years is too short a period for producing any serious conclusions about any Investment Strategy

Since WW2, the average bear market has lasted 14 months. The longest lasted less than 2 years (2000-2002 and 2007-2009). There have been ten bear markets since WW2 so on average we see one every 7-8 years.(*)

The average bull market lasts 4.5 years although the current one has been going on for over a decade now.

So any rolling 3 year period does not guarantee a gain, but you'd be unlucky to invest for 3 years and spend the entire time in a down market. That hasn't happened since 1929. So any 3-year period since WW2 would have either included periods of both rising and dropping prices, or would have seen only rising prices.

It is impossible to measure HYP as a general strategy since each one is different. There is no fund you can look at that reflects the average returns of a HYP. And any individual can claim anything. My sense in recent years is that it has under-performed the market, because the major increases in market cap have been from growth shares, notably tech names which typically pay no or low dividends. And the lower yielding US market has greatly out-performed the high-yielding UK market. You'd need a reason to believe that will change.

(*)The above numbers are for bear markets (20% decline or more). Corrections (10% decline or more) are of course more frequent but less significant.

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3367
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233700

Postby Alaric » July 3rd, 2019, 3:14 pm

Lootman wrote: There is no fund you can look at that reflects the average returns of a HYP. And any individual can claim anything.


There are any number of equity income funds including those that put income in the title but proceed to invest in unquoted companies in niche market sectors. By and large though, they don't saddle themselves with arcane rules about what stocks can and cannot be included.

In current circumstances, even just investing for income in a FTSE 100 Tracker is "high yield" in comparison to cash, government bonds or even the "better" Corporate Bonds.

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3517
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1156 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233821

Postby tjh290633 » July 3rd, 2019, 11:17 pm

You have to define "underperforming". Do you mean the capital value has fallen? Do you mean that the dividend income has fallen? Do you mean that the total return is negative?

Capital can rise and fall with the market. We all know that dividend income can be variable. Total return is very dependent on the capital performance.

Perhaps I can demonstrate what can happen over the longer term. This is a list of the shares which I currently hold, the IRR for my holding, which may have been topped up or trimmed since first bought, the IRR for a single share held until now, the date on which first bought, and the original yield when first bought:

EPIC   Share                            IRR      IRR       Since       Start yld
ADM Admiral Group plc 13.20% 12.81% 05-Mar-14 6.63%
AV. Aviva plc 5.56% 5.82% 26-Oct-10 6.53%
AZN AstraZeneca plc 15.89% 9.12% 01-Jun-93 4.37%
BA. BAe Systems plc 11.03% 4.89% 26-Nov-99 2.13%
BATS British American Tobacco plc 9.10% 9.44% 19-Feb-10 4.76%
BLND British Land plc 2.39% 6.71% 01-Oct-10 5.50%
BLT BHP Billiton plc 6.14% 3.99% 19-Feb-10 2.86%
BP. BP plc 12.77% 11.10% 09-Nov-79 5.03%
BT.A BT Group plc 11.25% 12.74% 28-Nov-84 5.31%
CPG Compass Group plc 14.03% 9.93% 31-Jan-01 1.18%
DGE Diageo plc 18.16% 18.16% 06-May-09 4.37%
GSK GlaxoSmithKline plc 6.68% 8.52% 28-Sep-10 5.34%
IMI IMI plc 45.18% 9.14% 30-Mar-09 7.82%
IMB Imperial Brands plc 21.59% 14.99% 01-Oct-96 5.71%
KGF Kingfisher plc 3.17% 4.26% 04-Sep-07 3.47%
LGEN Legal & General Group plc 14.12% 14.35% 14-Jun-16 6.72%
LLOY Lloyds Banking Group plc 17.86% 10.46% 22-Dec-88 5.50%
MARS Marstons plc 7.97% 7.62% 17-Feb-11 5.72%
MKS Marks & Spencer plc 9.07% 11.46% 09-Feb-70 2.06%
NG. National Grid Transco plc 13.77% 10.07% 20-Oct-00 4.73%
PSON Pearson plc 3.33% 4.49% 22-Oct-09 4.36%
RB. Reckitt Benckiser Group plc 14.13% 12.83% 21-Mar-11 4.08%
RDSB Royal Dutch Shell plc B 8.93% 7.70% 07-Jun-06 3.77%
RIO Rio Tinto plc 40.44% 35.73% 27-Apr-16 6.08%
S32 South32 Ltd 40.91% 14.76% 18-May-15 3.19%
SGRO Segro plc 8.24% -16.41% 04-Sep-07 4.23%
SMDS DS Smith plc 14.26% 7.73% 08-Feb-07 4.09%
SSE Scottish & Southern Energy plc 6.65% 7.80% 28-Sep-10 6.69%
TATE Tate & Lyle plc 13.18% 3.30% 21-Jul-99 5.46%
TSCO Tesco plc 9.03% 7.24% 19-Jun-97 3.08%
TW Taylor Wimpey plc 4.99% -2.68% 30-Aug-05 4.26%
ULVR Unilever plc 14.02% 14.02% 19-Feb-10 3.72%
UU. United Utilities Group plc 9.59% 8.62% 09-Aug-01 7.12%
VOD Vodafone Group plc 6.44% 7.49% 16-Aug-06 6.09%
WMH William Hill plc 1.31% -3.51% 05-Mar-08 6.20%

You will find quite a lot of variation in that list. You will note that the lowest starting yield was for Marks & Spencer, but that was in 1970 when I inherited them from my mother. BAE Systems was spun off from Marconi at the height of the dot-com boom. A few of the names have changed along the way and I have not updated this spreadsheet.

The second list is the change in share prices so far this year:

Epic     Change 
RIO 33.15%
SGRO 27.69%
MARS 25.47%
DGE 24.60%
BHP 23.79%
ULVR 23.72%
SMDS 23.12%
TSCO 22.99%
LGEN 19.61%
TW. 19.05%
BATS 18.92%
CPG 18.39%
TATE 16.21%
AV. 15.37%
NG. 13.45%
LLOY 12.43%
AZN 12.41%
ADM 12.36%
IMI 11.07%
UU. 10.46%
RDSB 10.28%
BP. 10.15%
GSK 10.06%
BA. 8.19%
SSE 6.98%
RB. 6.52%
KGF 6.41%
WMH 5.61%
BLND 3.71%
S32 -0.92%
PSON -10.00%
MKS -13.71%
VOD -14.05%
BT.A -16.00%
IMB -16.53%

Av.Chg 10.88%

From this you will note that just a few shares have fallen in price, while the vast majority have risen. At any given time there are always some which have risen and some which have fallen. In some years, last year's fallers are this year's risers and vice versa.

The last few years have been anomalous because there were several peaks in the market during those years, and unfortunate timing could have led to individual losses or low performance. A few years is not long enough to judge whether a system works or not.

TJH

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3367
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233825

Postby Alaric » July 3rd, 2019, 11:50 pm

tjh290633 wrote:You have to define "underperforming".


Two fairly obvious definitions.

One is that you didn't invest at all, so performance against cash.
The other is that you just purchase a tracker to get the market average returns. In the UK context either all share or FTSE 100. In the "HYP" context FTSE 100.

The context is that there has been various advocacy of buying shares in Vodafone in preference to those with a dividend yield of below the FTSE 100 average. If you take any notice of its recent capital performance, it's bargepole territory, or at best trying to catch a falling knife.

daveh
Lemon Slice
Posts: 537
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:06 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233854

Postby daveh » July 4th, 2019, 8:51 am

Out of Interest I just calculated the rolling three year returns for my HYPish portfolio on a total return basis every 6 months and a capital return basis annually from my accumulation and income unit values respectively. The returns overall have been pretty decent, but if I'd been starting around the 08 - 10 period the 3 year rolling returns were pretty poor and I could easily have been become disillusioned by HYP investing. Just shows that 3 years is not long enough to determine the success or failure of an equity based investment and that the starting date can be important. Having a few good years can help with the nerves when the returns are not so good.

Date		Acc		Inc
31/12/2006 78% 52%
30/06/2007 74%
31/12/2007 53% 32%
30/06/2008 10%
31/12/2008 -19% -30%
30/06/2009 -29%
31/12/2009 -25% -34%
30/06/2010 -31%
31/12/2010 -13% -24%
30/06/2011 18%
31/12/2011 39% 22%
30/06/2012 52%
31/12/2012 39% 22%
30/06/2013 69%
31/12/2013 50% 32%
30/06/2014 46%
31/12/2014 56% 37%
30/06/2015 63%
31/12/2015 38% 22%
30/06/2016 20%
31/12/2016 22% 7%
30/06/2017 25%
31/12/2017 29% 12%
30/06/2018 20%
31/12/2018 9% -6%
30/06/2019 23%



Note my portfolio was started in earnest in 2000 (with a single mutualisation issue, Norwich Union, purchased in 1987), but I only have unit values back to the end of 2003, hence the first 3year period is to 31st December 2006. The IRR on a total return basis, dividends reinvested is 7.5% pa which I consider reasonable, it was higher but last years performance was poor.

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3517
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1156 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233855

Postby tjh290633 » July 4th, 2019, 8:57 am

Alaric wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:You have to define "underperforming".


Two fairly obvious definitions.

One is that you didn't invest at all, so performance against cash.
The other is that you just purchase a tracker to get the market average returns. In the UK context either all share or FTSE 100. In the "HYP" context FTSE 100.

The context is that there has been various advocacy of buying shares in Vodafone in preference to those with a dividend yield of below the FTSE 100 average. If you take any notice of its recent capital performance, it's bargepole territory, or at best trying to catch a falling knife.

The counter argument to that is that the knife has already fallen.

I've seen experts in the past saying that they might consider buying if the price rose 50% from the depressed level. That's 50% growth foregone.

If you have held a share for 10 or 20 years and are happy with its prospects, then why not top it up? This is different from buying a new holding, which is a point that Wizard on another topic seems unable to grasp.

TJH

StepOne
Lemon Slice
Posts: 547
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:17 am
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233858

Postby StepOne » July 4th, 2019, 9:13 am

Lootman wrote:The average bull market lasts 4.5 years although the current one has been going on for over a decade now.


I think the problem is that this bull market appears to have ignored HYP shares recently. In the last 3 years the capital value of my HYP is down 3%. The FTSE100 is up close to 20%. And I've not held any of the complete basket cases like Carillion. In circumstances like this I can see why people are questioning the strategy.

StepOne

PS. Has the bull market definitely lasted 10 years? FTSE was over 7000 in 2014, and as low as 5700 in 2016. I don't have the exact highs and lows but it was as close to a 20% drop as makes no difference.

88V8
Lemon Slice
Posts: 514
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233862

Postby 88V8 » July 4th, 2019, 9:34 am

tjh290633 wrote:If you have held a share for 10 or 20 years and are happy with its prospects, then why not top it up? This is different from buying a new holding, which is a point that Wizard on another topic seems unable to grasp.


[muse mode] Maybe it's a mental thing.
As I sit here, I'm surrounded by stuff, some of which we've owned 45 years. A good deal of it, if I came across it in a junk shop, I wouldn't buy now. But it's part of our history, so I don't get rid of it.
So there's the Hold mentality.

I have a cassette deck. Bought in 1980. I still play [jazz] cassettes that I've recorded.
Would I buy a new deck now? No. Except then I'd not be able to play the tapes so perhaps I would. I'm locked in.

And indeed, I have bought more tapes in case - unlikely - I decide to record some of my LPs. Yes yes it would be one obsolete format to another and I don't really have the time, but never mind. I might even buy more.
So, there's the top-up.

Logical?
For me, It's a mental thing. We like to stick with what we think we know.
Or at least, I do.

Does the same mentality apply to investment?
There's inertia of course. Easier to top up than go through the process of choosing a new share.
But would I add to something I wasn't happy with?
Suppose my deck was in bits in my workshop, would I buy more tapes for it?
No. Not until I was sure I'd fixed it.

So I guess I'm with Wizard. Why top up a share that seems somewhat suspect.
After all, it's not as if I need VOD to play my tapes or record my LPS. It's just a share. I shouldn't have any attachment to it, and it won't be sad if we part, because it doesn't know I own it.
So I'm with Wizard.
Shares are not like tapes decks or china cats or non-functioning clocks. If I wouldn't buy new, I wouldn't top up.

V8 (not topping up VOD. At least, not for now.)

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3367
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233863

Postby Alaric » July 4th, 2019, 9:35 am

StepOne wrote:I think the problem is that this bull market appears to have ignored HYP shares recently.


The other way round as well. Shares ignored by the bull market, but maintaining dividends will drift into higher yield territory. Some of the larger capitalisations have that profile, which pushes up the dividend yield on the FTSE 100.

What the market does seem to do is place a premium on dividend increases. As a consequence the price of such shares is marked up, with the effect of reducing their running dividend yield. I suggest therefore that the "line in the sand" of the FTSE 100 yield can be and perhaps should be ignored for those looking for dividend income with a view to reinvesting it.

monabri
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2874
Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 311 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233865

Postby monabri » July 4th, 2019, 9:39 am

tjh290633 wrote:.BAE Systems was spun off from Marconi at the height of the dot-com boom.
TJH


According to Wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems

"The company was formed on 30 November 1999 by the £7.7 billion merger of two British companies: Marconi Electronic Systems (MES) – the defence electronics and naval shipbuilding subsidiary of the General Electric Company plc (GEC) – and British Aerospace (BAe) – an aircraft, munitions and naval systems manufacturer."

IanTHughes
Lemon Slice
Posts: 771
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 389 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233880

Postby IanTHughes » July 4th, 2019, 10:39 am

StepOne wrote:
Lootman wrote:The average bull market lasts 4.5 years although the current one has been going on for over a decade now.

I think the problem is that this bull market appears to have ignored HYP shares recently. In the last 3 years the capital value of my HYP is down 3%. The FTSE100 is up close to 20%. And I've not held any of the complete basket cases like Carillion. In circumstances like this I can see why people are questioning the strategy.

Assuming that you are describing the performance of a Portfolio in drawdown, then 3% down may well be about the norm, or close to it, I would say. My Dividend Unit value has decreased by 1.92% since 4 July 2016, and I am sure that we two will not be alone. Furthermore it is true that the FTSE 100 has increased by over 15%. In fact, before this period, which incidentally is before the EU referendum vote occurred, my Dividend Units were performing admirably better than the FTSE 100. Now they have fallen behind! However, 3% down over 3 years for an Equity Investment Strategy is far from unusual and if the Income has been streaming in, why the doom and gloom?

StepOne wrote:Has the bull market definitely lasted 10 years? FTSE was over 7000 in 2014, and as low as 5700 in 2016. I don't have the exact highs and lows but it was as close to a 20% drop as makes no difference.

As I understand it, Lootman was simply being his normal Bearish self. The Bear view is that this current Bull market started in early 2009. To take such a view one must ignore a fairly significant downturn in 2015, when the FTSE 100 slipped some 1,500 points, over 20%! The Bull view is that the decline in 2015 means that since 2009 there have been two Bull markets, separated by a short Bear market, in 2015.

https://www.ukvalueinvestor.com/2018/03 ... rket.html/

What a marvellous demonstration, from both sides by the way, of how one can so easily present the evidence to ensure one's pre-determined conclusions!


Ian

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3517
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1156 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233893

Postby tjh290633 » July 4th, 2019, 11:36 am

IanTHughes wrote:
StepOne wrote:Has the bull market definitely lasted 10 years? FTSE was over 7000 in 2014, and as low as 5700 in 2016. I don't have the exact highs and lows but it was as close to a 20% drop as makes no difference.

As I understand it, Lootman was simply being his normal Bearish self. The Bear view is that this current Bull market started in early 2009. To take such a view one must ignore a fairly significant downturn in 2015, when the FTSE 100 slipped some 1,500 points, over 20%! The Bull view is that the decline in 2015 means that since 2009 there have been two Bull markets, separated by a short Bear market, in 2015.

https://www.ukvalueinvestor.com/2018/03 ... rket.html/

What a marvellous demonstration, from both sides by the way, of how one can so easily present the evidence to ensure one's pre-determined conclusions!


Ian


The FTSE100 hit an all time high closing point of 7877.45 on 22 May 2018, since when it has been lower, currently 3.4% down, despite rising from its low point in recent months.

So it is currently in a correction period.

TJH

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2725
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233900

Postby Wizard » July 4th, 2019, 11:46 am

tjh290633 wrote:If you have held a share for 10 or 20 years and are happy with its prospects, then why not top it up? This is different from buying a new holding, which is a point that Wizard on another topic seems unable to grasp.

Indeed I do not understand the difference, I am happy to admit that. If I am happy investing a pound in a company that I believe has good prospects why does it matter if it is a top up or new investment? I can see there are practical considerations such as wanting to limit the number of shares in a portfolio, but beyond that my simple view is that if it is a good share to top up it is a good share to buy new and vice versa.

I do not think I was the only one struggling to grasp this based on the limited explanation provided, so if you could explain your logic I would be grateful.

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3517
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1156 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#233903

Postby tjh290633 » July 4th, 2019, 11:55 am

Wizard wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:If you have held a share for 10 or 20 years and are happy with its prospects, then why not top it up? This is different from buying a new holding, which is a point that Wizard on another topic seems unable to grasp.

Indeed I do not understand the difference, I am happy to admit that. If I am happy investing a pound in a company that I believe has good prospects why does it matter if it is a top up or new investment? I can see there are practical considerations such as wanting to limit the number of shares in a portfolio, but beyond that my simple view is that if it is a good share to top up it is a good share to buy new and vice versa.

I do not think I was the only one struggling to grasp this based on the limited explanation provided, so if you could explain your logic I would be grateful.

I thought that I had done. I have a share which has fallen in share price and which has reduced its dividend (rebalanced it in financialspeak). In my view it has prospects of growing that dividend in the future. I have it already, the yield is acceptable, so I decide to top it up.

TJH


Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - general”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Reebus and 2 guests