Strategy or Startegies?

[Arborbridge]

Wizard,
Inclusion of ITs to a high yield portfolio is probably more beneficial from reducing sectoral risk than a geographic one.


tuk020

etc, etc, TUK020: a excellent summary of the various pros & cons and concerns which many of us ruminate upon.

Arb.

[Wizard]

"Are your high yield investments limited to UK companies and/or overwhelmingly UK focussed ITs?"

This seems a muddled question, a concatenation of two questions in one.

Still, I answered "no" for want of anything closer to the truth.

Arb.

How would you suggest better rephrasing it?

I suggest that depends on what you are interested in finding out, but I think you need several questions instead of one to receive unambiguous answers.

Arb.

I was hoping to find out how what proportion of people who read this board only invest in UK listed companies, either via direct purchase of UK listed shares or purchase of ITs that only invest in UK listed shares. Does that help with any suggestions for better phrasing?

[Arborbridge]

I was hoping to find out how what proportion of people who read this board only invest in UK listed companies, either via direct purchase of UK listed shares or purchase of ITs that only invest in UK listed shares. Does that help with any suggestions for better phrasing?

I see now, Maybe I was confused by the and/or - but then I never did like filling in forms with questions on!

How about:-

"Are your high yield investments mainly limited to the UK - whether directly or in ITs."
Or "overwhelmingly" if you want to make it more pointed.
Or "Are your high yield investments mainly limited to the UK - consider both ITs and direct shareholdings in your answer"

Or you could make it more exact with some multiple choices of percentages for the percentage of portfolio invested in the UK. Admittedly much more tedious for folk to answer!

Arb.

[Wizard]

I was hoping to find out how what proportion of people who read this board only invest in UK listed companies, either via direct purchase of UK listed shares or purchase of ITs that only invest in UK listed shares. Does that help with any suggestions for better phrasing?

I see now, Maybe I was confused by the and/or - but then I never did like filling in forms with questions on!

How about:-

"Are your high yield investments mainly limited to the UK - whether directly or in ITs."
Or "overwhelmingly" if you want to make it more pointed.
Or "Are your high yield investments mainly limited to the UK - consider both ITs and direct shareholdings in your answer"

Or you could make it more exact with some multiple choices of percentages for the percentage of portfolio invested in the UK. Admittedly much more tedious for folk to answer!

Arb.

Thank you, most helpful. I plan to have at least one follow-up poll to try and drill down a bit and will take onboard the format of question as per the examples above.

Edit: having reread the question I now see your point, or at least what I think it is. The "overwhelmingly" was intended to apply to the focus of the ITs, but it can also be read as applying to the individual poster's investments, as in are your investments overwhelmingly in ITs. Penny dropped, at last

[monabri]

Q1 Does your current portfolio consist mainly ( over 50%) of UK focused shares, held individually or in collective investments?

The percentage figure can be tweaked but I chose "over 50%."

Alternatively ( simpler?) , you might make the assumption that the reader is predominantly invested in UK holdings and then ask

"Do you plan to introduce or to increase the percentage of foreign shares in your portfolio and, if so, will this be by (1) investment trusts, (2) ETFs, (3)individual shares, (4) all options or , (5) no, no plans to buy foreign "

[77ss]

.....

Do like TUK's summation, btw.
However, he missed an important Plus of HYP - the scope for Excel hobbyists

88V8

Not to mention the pleasure of arguing about trivia!

[baldchap]

I voted NO, and would agree about IT's providing both geographical and sectoral cover. With the trading options now available, there is really no reason to remain UK centric, unless you believe the UK will outperform.

My portfolio x-ray shows :- UK/Europe 37%, Americas 29%, Asia 34%.
I am bullish about Asia (not overly keen on China, so only 8%) and would like to maintain that at 1/3rd, but the UK/Europe exposure is far too much and I am starting to feel that the ITs in this geographical sector can be dispensed with.
My reasoning for this being that the quality UK & European companies I like are adequately invested in by the Global IT's, which tend be over invested in the UK anyway if we use the MSCI ACWI as a guide.

In a year I would like the x-ray to show only 15-20% UK and Europe.
Without the UK/Europe & Resource IT's, portfolio dividend yield would drop back to about 4%. Maybe not high enough for some.

[Lootman]

Really can't help yourself, can you? I'm sure there's a word for the way you always post so disparagingly about the person in question. (Apart from "risky", of course!)

If I am wrong then it would be trivially easy for you to prove that by providing a counter-example.

I have absolutely no interest in whether it is true or not. (However, I believe the onus would be on you to verify any potentially defamatory statement of "fact" should it ever come to it.) I was simply pointing out that this apparent need to express your disdain at every opportunity is very thinly disguised and might run the risk of eventually leading to some unwelcome repercussions.

I made a factual statement. I obviously cannot prove a negative and you know that.

If you disagree with the stated opinion then you should demonstrate why it is false. Evidently you can't, so the statement stands as written.

[CryptoPlankton]

If I am wrong then it would be trivially easy for you to prove that by providing a counter-example.

I have absolutely no interest in whether it is true or not. (However, I believe the onus would be on you to verify any potentially defamatory statement of "fact" should it ever come to it.) I was simply pointing out that this apparent need to express your disdain at every opportunity is very thinly disguised and might run the risk of eventually leading to some unwelcome repercussions.

I made a factual statement. I obviously cannot prove a negative and you know that.

Er, so how do you know it was a factual statement? (And is "the person who promoted HYP only knew UK shares" really a negative?)

If you disagree with the stated opinion then you should demonstrate why it is false.

As previously stated, I have no interest in the veracity or otherwise of the stated opinion (incidentally, why has it suddenly been downgraded to opinion from fact?) so why on earth would I bother?

Evidently you can't, so the statement stands as written.

Such faulty logical inference does suggest it's pretty futile to try to engage in any meaningful exchange so I will just make three points (again) and then leave it at that:

1) I am not, and have no interest in, defending the object of your derision.
2) Your long-term endeavour to insidiously debunk this person appears (from where I'm looking, at least) a little obsessive and, dare I say, slightly creepy.
3) This may eventually lead to you leaving yourself open to some form of legal action - whether or not that is of any concern is entirely up to you.

And that really is all. If I hadn't been desperate for something to do while suffering from insomnia, I wouldn't have bothered to say anything!

(In anticipation of another tangential reply, let me say I won't be wasting my time further - you can only help those who want to be helped...)

[Lootman]

I made a factual statement. I obviously cannot prove a negative and you know that.

Er, so how do you know it was a factual statement?

Because if you had bothered to actually read my statement you would know that. I never said he has never made a knowledgeable statement about foreign shares. I said I have never seen him make one. As a factual statement about what I have never seen, you are not in any position to know. You could of course give an example of his alleged erudition in this area, but readers can now plainly see that you cannot.

If you disagree with the stated opinion then you should demonstrate why it is false.

As previously stated, I have no interest in the veracity or otherwise of the stated opinion

For someone who claims to have no interest in this topic, you are sure investing a lot of effort into this. I wonder why that is?

[CryptoPlankton]

I made a factual statement. I obviously cannot prove a negative and you know that.

Er, so how do you know it was a factual statement?

Because if you had bothered to actually read my statement you would know that. I never said he has never made a knowledgeable statement about foreign shares. I said I have never seen him make one. As a factual statement about what I have never seen, you are not in any position to know. You could of course give an example of his alleged erudition in this area, but readers can now plainly see that you cannot.

If you disagree with the stated opinion then you should demonstrate why it is false.

As previously stated, I have no interest in the veracity or otherwise of the stated opinion

For someone who claims to have no interest in this topic, you are sure investing a lot of effort into this. I wonder why that is?

Strategically edited quotes, misrepresentation of what I have said, exaggeration of my interest and effort (do you really want to go there with your 1 in every 42 posts in a community of over 5000?) - there really is no point in wasting my time engaging further...

(And that was 2 minutes I'll never get back!)

[Lootman]

there really is no point in wasting my time engaging further...

I am glad you now realise that. The point stands.

[tjh290633]

Moderator Message:
That's enough bickering between you two. If you want to carry on like that do it through Private Messages. The rest of us do not wish to or need to watch private squabbles.

TJH