Investment Trust dividends - where next?

[88V8]

Hang on, what's all this PC fuss about 'advice'. Pyad didn't even say 'advice'.
We all come here for 'advice' don't we?
Or offer it sometimes.
Give it a rest.

V8

[IanTHughes]

Bloody hell pyad - you've found a single income-IT that's cut it's [sic] dividend by 25%...

I'm not sure how you're imagining things, but I think anyone with an interest in using Investment Trusts as part of their income-strategy is likely to come through this year and into the next couple of years fairing [sic]pretty well, all things considered...

It wasn't me who noticed the Temple Bar hit, I don't follow it, but I saw the thread below which featured the div cut and it struck me that it contrasted glaringly with the claim that started this thread about equity income IT divs. I'm guessing that Temple Bar's cut must have been a shock to holders who thought that div increases would go on forever, given its long history of doing so.

No, it was I. viewtopic.php?p=358142#p358142

My following of Temple Bar Investment Trust (TMPL) is part of an investigation of mine to compare: the income, capital and overall results of HYP1, with what might otherwise have been achieved by simply buying into one or more Investment Trusts.

HYP is represented by HYP1, as reported here: viewtopic.php?p=356551#p356551.

The Investment Trust investment is so far represented by:

Bankers Investment Trust Plc (BNKR)
Edinburgh Investment Trust Plc (EDIN)
F&C Investment Trust (FCIT)
Henderson High Income Trust (HHI)
JPMorgan Claverhouse Investment Trust Plc (JCH)
Murray Income Trust Plc (MUT)
Temple Bar Investment Trust Plc (TMPL)
The City of London Investment Trust Plc (CTY)
The Merchants Trust Plc (MRCH)

It should be noted the yields on offer at the time of HYP1 set up were:

HHI - 5.54%
MRCH - 4.32%
TMPL - 3.53%
CTY - 3.12%
MUT - 3.09%
EDIN - 2.17%
BNKR - 2.06%
JCH - 1.49%
FCIT - 1.16%

I am not convinced that an Income seeker would have gone below 3.00%. Nonetheless, I have investigated the returns of all of them.

The investigation is not yet complete, and I do need to properly double-check the data which, for comparison with HYP1, must go back 20 years. That being said, so far HYP1 is holding up very well:

- Ahead of all bar one (HHI) with regard to “Overall Income”, but not beaten by much
- Ahead of all bar two (BNKR, FCIT) with regard to “Current Value”.
- Ahead of all bar one (BNKR) with regard to “Overall Return”, as measured by XIRR, but not beaten by much

Perhaps what lay behind my message is that ITs are not the near-infallible investment that some naive people might believe and the whole IT sector has had a fair amount of scandals and poor performance over the years including quite recently too. (Woodford?)

Amen to that!

Yes, placing one’s faith in Investment Trusts is of course simpler than starting an HYP, with probably no further work required once the investment has been made. Furthermore, the income received will, in all probability, not be nearly as volatile year-on-year, as that experienced when invested in an HYP. However, what cannot be said with any confidence in my view, is that Investment Trusts will provide more income over time, or even a better overall result.

Anyone who claims the contrary view, should really advise which Investment Trust(s) they have investigated to come up with such a view, and over what period of time.


Ian

[monabri]

My following of Temple Bar Investment Trust (TMPL) is part of an investigation of mine to compare: the income, capital and overall results of HYP1, with what might otherwise have been achieved by simply buying into one or more Investment Trusts.

Ian

I did a similar exercise based on L'uni's various baskets earlier this year, comparing HYP1, 06,B7,B8 and C5 and C10 baskets. There are several tables, graphs and valuation of the portfolios.

viewtopic.php?p=281496#p281496

[Itsallaguess]

My following of Temple Bar Investment Trust (TMPL) is part of an investigation of mine to compare: the income, capital and overall results of HYP1, with what might otherwise have been achieved by simply buying into one or more Investment Trusts.

HYP is represented by HYP1, as reported here: viewtopic.php?p=356551#p356551.

The Investment Trust investment is so far represented by:

Bankers Investment Trust Plc (BNKR)
Edinburgh Investment Trust Plc (EDIN)
F&C Investment Trust (FCIT)
Henderson High Income Trust (HHI)
JPMorgan Claverhouse Investment Trust Plc (JCH)
Murray Income Trust Plc (MUT)
Temple Bar Investment Trust Plc (TMPL)
The City of London Investment Trust Plc (CTY)
The Merchants Trust Plc (MRCH)

The investigation is not yet complete, and I do need to properly double-check the data which, for comparison with HYP1, must go back 20 years. That being said, so far HYP1 is holding up very well:

- Ahead of all bar one (HHI) with regard to “Overall Income”, but not beaten by much
- Ahead of all bar two (BNKR, FCIT) with regard to “Current Value”.
- Ahead of all bar one (BNKR) with regard to “Overall Return”, as measured by XIRR, but not beaten by much

I think the main clash of approaches there Ian, is that you seem to wish to concentrate on 'quantitative' metrics for comparison purposes, where some other income-investors might be quite willing to forgo an amount of those 'quantitative' metrics, and quite happily replace them with more 'qualitative' ones, such as income-predictability and reliability. I won't try to speak for others, but I will certainly put myself in that second category of income-investors..

I fully appreciate why you might want to carry out your comparisons in the way that you do, but the main problem is that you don't seem to want to give any acknowledgement at all to those that might wish to look beyond pure 'value metrics', and I think that's the main reason why, even if you do double-check your data and 'prove' to yourself that HYP1 has in some way 'won' in your above comparison, that result is really not likely to convince those of us who are simply not using those metrics to measure the 'success' or otherwise of their own income-strategies...

I'm sure there's a HYP/IT equivalent of the 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' quote in there somewhere, but I just wanted to let you know that your investigation really is unlikely to convince anyone but yourself, because some income-investors don't quantify 'success' purely in the types of metrics that you're measuring there, and what they *are* often looking for is not to necessarily jump the highest bar, but just to get somewhere near it smoothly and predictably, which should come as no surprise really, considering that we're often talking about subsidising retirement income here, and some people like 'smooth' and 'predictable' retirement earnings...and I'm sorry, but when we're talking about potentially comparing HYP1 with a portfolio of income-IT's, all I can say is that we've yet to hear from anyone who might be using income-IT's as a major part of their income-strategy reporting a near 50% drop in their dividend-income this year...

Simply put Ian - your 'better' is not the same as every other income-investors 'better'....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Padders72]

Anyone who claims the contrary view, should really advise which Investment Trust(s) they have investigated to come up with such a view, and over what period of time.


Ian

Over the past 8 months? A basket of the higher yielding ITs including those name checked most regularly on here would massively outperform any pre-Covid intricately chosen HYP selection of individual FTSE shares from an income POV.

But I guess you already knew that.

[IanTHughes]

Anyone who claims the contrary view, should really advise which Investment Trust(s) they have investigated to come up with such a view, and over what period of time.

Over the past 8 months? A basket of the higher yielding ITs including those name checked most regularly on here would massively outperform any pre-Covid intricately chosen HYP selection of individual FTSE shares from an income POV.

But I guess you already knew that.

8 months? Are you seriously suggesting that one should measure success or otherwise of any investment strategy over only 8 months? During a period of time when there has been a global pandemic? With "lockdowns" virtually closing parts of the economy? What about over 20 years? What I am suggesting is that, over the past 20 years since HYP1 was set up, the HYP1 portfolio has held its own with what might have been achieved with certain Investment Trusts. Nothing else.

By the way, the roughly 50.00% drop in HYP1's income this year, still leaves the annual income ahead of where it would have been for six of the Investment Trusts mentioned in my post!


Ian

[Padders72]

Anyone who claims the contrary view, should really advise which Investment Trust(s) they have investigated to come up with such a view, and over what period of time.

Over the past 8 months? A basket of the higher yielding ITs including those name checked most regularly on here would massively outperform any pre-Covid intricately chosen HYP selection of individual FTSE shares from an income POV.

But I guess you already knew that.

8 months? Are you seriously suggesting that one should measure success or otherwise of any investment strategy over only 8 months? During a period of time when there has been a global pandemic? With "lockdowns" virtually closing parts of the economy? What about over 20 years? What I am suggesting is that, over the past 20 years since HYP1 was set up, the HYP1 portfolio has held its own with what might have been achieved with certain Investment Trusts. Nothing else.

By the way, the roughly 50.00% drop in HYP1's income this year, still leaves the annual income ahead of where it would have been for six of the Investment Trusts mentioned in my post!


Ian

I wasn't really suggesting anything, but if you like I'll opine that it has always seemed to me ridiculous to follow a blinkered rigid fundamentalist philosophy which tied ones hands and had periodic catastrophic failure hard baked in. I don't really care what happened over the past 20 years since very few will have invested at exactly that point. I care that I have preserved or increased my capital by diversifying into Fixed Income, bonds, equities, International instruments, funds and more recently ITs.

I find it risible that anyone would at this point try to defend a currently indefensible approach to wealth preservation based solely on UK 'high yielding' equities. Good luck with that. Yes HYP has had good times but face it, this is not one of those times and in any event its insular approach has always been limiting.

[IanTHughes]

I think the main clash of approaches there Ian, is that you seem to wish to concentrate on 'quantitative' metrics for comparison purposes, where some other income-investors might be quite willing to forgo an amount of those 'quantitative' metrics, and quite happily replace them with more 'qualitative' ones, such as income-predictability and reliability. I won't try to speak for others, but I will certainly put myself in that second category of income-investors..

I fully appreciate why you might want to carry out your comparisons in the way that you do, but the main problem is that you don't seem to want to give any acknowledgement at all to those that might wish to look beyond pure 'value metrics', and I think that's the main reason why, even if you do double-check your data and 'prove' to yourself that HYP1 has in some way 'won' in your above comparison, that result is really not likely to convince those of us who are simply not using those metrics to measure the 'success' or otherwise of their own income-strategies...

I'm sure there's a HYP/IT equivalent of the 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' quote in there somewhere, but I just wanted to let you know that your investigation really is unlikely to convince anyone but yourself, because some income-investors don't quantify 'success' purely in the types of metrics that you're measuring there, and what they *are* often looking for is not to necessarily jump the highest bar, but just to get somewhere near it smoothly and predictably, which should come as no surprise really, considering that we're often talking about subsidising retirement income here, and some people like 'smooth' and 'predictable' retirement earnings...and I'm sorry, but when we're talking about potentially comparing HYP1 with a portfolio of income-IT's, all I can say is that we've yet to hear from anyone who might be using income-IT's as a major part of their income-strategy reporting a near 50% drop in their dividend-income this year...

Simply put Ian - your 'better' is not the same as every other income-investors 'better'....

I thought that I had made it clear .....

Yes, placing one’s faith in Investment Trusts is of course simpler than starting an HYP, with probably no further work required once the investment has been made. Furthermore, the income received will, in all probability, not be nearly as volatile year-on-year, as that experienced when invested in an HYP.

Obviously not clear enough!

Also, I am not trying to prove anything to myself, or anyone else for that matter. The exercise is designed to give me data from which I just might be able to make better investment decisions and better statements than:

We abandoned investing in individual Cos many years ago, as there was not much point from our point of view We could get just as good an overall portfolios performance

Sorry OldPlodder, I am not trying to pick on you, it is just an example of what a number of people post on here. Some even suggest that Investment Trusts will provide a better return. Have any of those posters actually looked at the data? Have you?

All I am saying is that over the past 20 years, using the example of HYP1, the idea that Investments Trusts would have provided a better result, or even a similar result, is not necessarily borne out by the facts!


Ian

[IanTHughes]

Over the past 8 months? A basket of the higher yielding ITs including those name checked most regularly on here would massively outperform any pre-Covid intricately chosen HYP selection of individual FTSE shares from an income POV.

But I guess you already knew that.

8 months? Are you seriously suggesting that one should measure success or otherwise of any investment strategy over only 8 months? During a period of time when there has been a global pandemic? With "lockdowns" virtually closing parts of the economy? What about over 20 years? What I am suggesting is that, over the past 20 years since HYP1 was set up, the HYP1 portfolio has held its own with what might have been achieved with certain Investment Trusts. Nothing else.

By the way, the roughly 50.00% drop in HYP1's income this year, still leaves the annual income ahead of where it would have been for six of the Investment Trusts mentioned in my post!

I wasn't really suggesting anything, but if you like I'll opine that it has always seemed to me ridiculous to follow a blinkered rigid fundamentalist philosophy which tied ones hands and had periodic catastrophic failure hard baked in.

You mean, putting one's faith in Investment Trusts so that one generates less income over 20 years than with HYP1 and even a smaller current annual income than HYP1 is achieving after a 50.00% cut,

I don't really care what happened over the past 20 years since very few will have invested at exactly that point. I care that I have preserved or increased my capital by diversifying into Fixed Income, bonds, equities, International instruments, funds and more recently ITs.

All I was doing was comparing the results achieved by HYP1 with what might have been achieved if the same amount had been invested with various Investment Trusts. If you want a comparison with "Fixed Income", "Bonds", "International Instruments", or whatever, you will have to do the investigative donkey work yourself. I will not hold my breath though! Also, I fail to understand how it changes the Investment Trust data that I have investigated?

I find it risible that anyone would at this point try to defend a currently indefensible approach to wealth preservation based solely on UK 'high yielding' equities. Good luck with that. Yes HYP has had good times but face it, this is not one of those times and in any event its insular approach has always been limiting.

Well I find it more than risible that anyone would claim that HYP was a "wealth preservation" strategy! As you appear not to understand, HYP is of course an Income Strategy! Mind you, when you state that the HYP strategy is "currently indefensible", without even bothering to back up such a claim, that is simply par for the course around here. It simply tells me that such a a poster has nothing sensible to add to the discussion.


Ian

[Padders72]

Any strategy that loses a massive proportion of its capital isn't much of an income strategy since in subsequent years that income isn't remotely sustainable. In any event HYP hasn't sustained income this year, ignoring for the moment the capital. I believe you have a ring fenced playground to chat with abandon about your religion, why bother the infidels?

[IanTHughes]

Don't be obtuse. Any strategy that loses a massive proportion of its capital isn't much of an income strategy since in subsequent years that income isn't remotely sustainable. In any event HYP hasn't sustained income either this year, ignoring the massive reduction in capital.

The capital value of HYP1 has increased by just short of 100%! And, assuming you are back to your 8 months only view, Investment Trusts have lost significant capital value over that period as well!

Or do you dispute that?

I believe you have a ring fenced playground to chat with abandon about your religion, why bother the infidels?

I had thought that some of those "infidels" would have been interested in some facts showing up a comparison between HYP1 and Investment Trusts.

Obviously with some posters, I was wrong. Some are apparently only interested in discussing their own chosen strategy and will only listen to their own opinion. Another reason to dismiss anything stated by such posters!


Ian

[Padders72]

Don't be obtuse. Any strategy that loses a massive proportion of its capital isn't much of an income strategy since in subsequent years that income isn't remotely sustainable. In any event HYP hasn't sustained income either this year, ignoring the massive reduction in capital. I believe you have a ring fenced playground to chat with abandon about your religion, why bother the infidels?

The capital value of HYP1 has increased by just short of 100%! And, assuming you are back to your 8 months only view, Investment Trusts have lost significant capital value over that period as well!

Or do you dispute that?


Ian

What I dispute is that it is common sense to tie oneself to a philosophy espoused by someone trying to sell a tip-sheet and hanging on to the grim death despite abundant evidence that it is a hamstrung plan. In happy times, FTSE high yield shares were a safe bet, but to ignore the wider investing world was pure folly. Any sensible investor will have a finger in many pies and wont be rolling the spreadsheet dice to try and justify such a one dimensional unimaginative approach. Would you dispute that the UK market has been one of those showing the least growth in the past 5 years? Yield doesn't come in isolation, it comes from healthy profitable companies. I bet it hurts when you see the likes of SMT double in value. It sure hurts me since I invested far too little.

My strategy includes your strategy. Its just I have a plan B and C.

[IanTHughes]

Don't be obtuse. Any strategy that loses a massive proportion of its capital isn't much of an income strategy since in subsequent years that income isn't remotely sustainable. In any event HYP hasn't sustained income either this year, ignoring the massive reduction in capital. I believe you have a ring fenced playground to chat with abandon about your religion, why bother the infidels?

The capital value of HYP1 has increased by just short of 100%! And, assuming you are back to your 8 months only view, Investment Trusts have lost significant capital value over that period as well!

Or do you dispute that?

What I dispute is that it is common sense to tie oneself to a philosophy espoused by someone trying to sell a tip-sheet and hanging on to the grim death despite abundant evidence that it is a hamstrung plan. In happy times, FTSE high yield shares were a safe bet, but to ignore the wider investing world was pure folly. Any sensible investor will have a finger in many pies and wont be rolling the spreadsheet dice to try and justify such a one dimensional unimaginative approach. Would you dispute that the UK market has been one of those showing the least growth in the past 5 years? Yield doesn't come in isolation, it comes from healthy profitable companies. I bet it hurts when you see the likes of SMT double in value. It sure hurts me since I invested far too little.

My strategy includes your strategy. Its just I have a plan B and C.

I did try to explain, twice in fact, that all I was attempting to show was a comparison between the results achieved by HYP1 and what a similar investment in various Investment Trusts might have achieved. At no point did I suggest that HYP should be one's only investment strategy, or that one should "ignore the wider investing world"! As I said, I can only believe that you decided to go down that route because you had nothing sensible to add to the actual discussion, comparing HYP1 to Investment Trusts over the past 20 years!

I am sorry that was not plain enough for you to properly understand but, even after wracking my brain and going back to all those years spent abroad explaining more difficult concepts to non-english speakers, I cannot think of any clearer way to explain it such that you might understand.

I give up!


Ian

[Itsallaguess]

Some [posters] even suggest that Investment Trusts will provide a better return.

Have any of those posters actually looked at the data? Have you?

All I am saying is that over the past 20 years, using the example of HYP1, the idea that Investments Trusts would have provided a better result, or even a similar result, is not necessarily borne out by the facts!

Again though Ian, I think it's your own continued use of the word 'better' that's perhaps causing most of the issues with these types of regular disagreements...

Your use of the word 'better' is purely around quantitative values, and I think ignoring the qualitative side of things, especially when we're talking about potential investment strategies that are supposed to be providing for retirement income, is very likely to persist in putting your own protestations at odds with many other income-investors...

Pyad said the following abut HYP all the way back in November 2000 -

Anyone with a lump sum available to invest for income upon which they depend must therefore try and find a source that will grow that income and also offer some easy access to the capital.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140219210446/http://news.fool.co.uk/news/foolseyeview/2000/fev001106c.htm

I think the key words there are 'upon which they depend', so let's look at how the Oxford Dictionary defines the word 'dependable' -



Source - https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/dependable

So given the above, I think the simplest way to now demonstrate the ongoing clash between your continued quantitative use of the word 'better', and perhaps some other income-investors which might be using a different definition of the word (and I'd put myself into that second group of income-investors..), is to show you the following simplified chart using data from monabri's great post from earlier this year, where he was charting income-comparisons between a number of different well-known income-portfolios -

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=281496#p281496

In the chart below, I've pulled out data from the above post just comparing income from HYP1 and Luni's Basket of Seven -



Now I think that single chart more or less describes the clash we've got here between your use of the word 'better', and perhaps some other income-investors who might be looking for an income-strategy to help provide regular and dependable retirement income.

I think it describes the issue very well because of that single pair of 2019 data-points, where HYP1, for the very first time since 2007, actually manages to be providing a 'better' result (by your more quantitative approach to the use of the word...) than the Basket of Seven at that precise point in time...

But I think anyone holding HYP1 aloft at that point in 2019, and loudly claiming some sort of 'victory' would be ignoring both the original plan for the strategy, and the previous 12 year-record of actually delivering to that plan...

Remember, the original HYP wording said 'upon which they depend', and I would like to think that it's quite clear from the above chart which of the two income-strategies is 'dependable', and which one is not, and that's before we might wish to look at a separate real-life income-unit comparison that Arb is running, between his HYP portfolio and a separately-owned portfolio of income-IT's -

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=26214&start=120#p358283

So, given these two charted examples, I would like you to imagine that we go and pluck a random retired gentleman off the street, and ask him to read pyad's original phrase -

Anyone with a lump sum available to invest for income upon which they depend must therefore try and find a source that will grow that income and also offer some easy access to the capital.

Then ask him to look at the above chart comparing HYP1 to the Basket of Seven, and also Arb's comparison chart, and ask that retired gentleman to describe the portfolios that he thinks are actually delivering on that premise...

I would like to think we've got a good idea regarding most of the answers we'd get, and I hope that answer clearly shows why your own purely-quantitative use of the word 'better' will continue to be at odds with many of us looking for a reliable real-world solution to our long-term income-requirements...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[IanTHughes]

Jesus!

I never once mentioned the original wording of one of pyad,s articles, whether to support or criticise it. Neither did I once state anything related to any so-called basket of 7 or 8 or whatever number you choose.

All I said was that, based on my research so far conducted, it is clear to me that, over the past 20 years, HYP1 has outperformed many possible Investment Trust alternatives. I further stated that, anyone who wished to challenge such a conclusion, should really make sure that they laid out the evidence that led to such a challenge

A difficult language English!


Ian

[Bagger46]

Jesus!

I never once mentioned the original wording of one of pyad,s articles, whether to support or criticise it. Neither did I once state anything related to any so-called basket of 7 or 8 or whatever number you choose.

All I said was that, based on my research so far conducted, it is clear to me that, over the past 20 years, HYP1 has outperformed many possible Investment Trust alternatives.

A difficult language English!


Ian

Your research is faulty. I personally know seven persons whose IT only portfolios have bettered HYP over the last twenty years, including my wife’s( and she has also substantially outperformed your demo ‘ à la pyad’ HYP). However, none of these people were daft enough to subscribe to LTBH or ‘the time to buy is now’, or just invest in the FTSE, etc...because there is a world of investment out there, markets are inefficient and turbulent and things change, so they made changes as they saw fit when opportunities came along. Over the life of the conveniently abandoned GDHYP, which represented the combined wisdom of the HYP board(!) even plain old CTY absolutely trumped it, both in capital, by a lot, and income, by a fair bit.

For your average retiree on tightish means, hence can’t have bags of reserves, ITs and the odd pref is a much better route, imho.

For a young pot builder, going forward, pure HYP is nothing but poison, imho. He or she would be missing a vast proportion of the sweets.

Bagger

Moderator Message:
One sentence making a personal reference removed. -- MDW1954

[monabri]

B7 has been smoother in terms of income delivery but HYP1 has returned ( 2019 data) ~£75k in "income" whereas B7 was £46k ( 2007 to 2019). The 2020 income from B7 will most likely the same as 2019 or at least very similar whereas , to quote Pyad in his recent summary of HYP1, income in 2020 has been "trashed". The HYP1 2020 income amount of £5533 however would still be similar (higher, possibly) to that of B7 (B7 delivered £4941 of income in 2019).

viewtopic.php?p=281584#p281584

What concerns me about HYP1 is whether I would have chosen the handful of shares that have delivered said income. What would have happened if I had chosen the likes of Carillion ( or Interserve, or Provident or all of these high yielders...) in my HYP?

( Equally, I might have chosen Woodford's WEIF fund for income.)

[moorfield]

For your average retiree on tightish means, hence can’t have bags of reserves, ITs and the odd pref is a much better route, imho.

For a young pot builder, going forward, pure HYP is nothing but poison, imho. He or she would be missing a vast proportion of the sweets.

Using XIRR as a method for analyzing your claim, I don't agree. I recently computed that of HYP1 to be 8.0%, dividends not reinvested. (ie, Suppose a young pot builder using HYP1 has parked those dividends in a zero-interest savings account and they have £148k of equities and £101k of cash after twenty years for their initial £75k outlay. In practice a pot builder would likely have been reinvesting those dividends, or seeking a greater than zero savings rate.)

As a comparison: https://www.ig.com/uk/trading-strategie ... 00--200529

Over the last 25 years the total return for the FTSE 100 was +380.52% with dividends reinvested, or a 6.47% annualised return. This is despite annual returns being mixed, with a range from a low of -28.33% to a high of +28.68%.

So it rather depends what you mean by "poison" Bagger - can you elaborate?

I do agree with the odd pref, I've long advocated using these in HYP and indeed they can now be included to some extent under the Breelander Convention.

[moorfield]

In the chart below, I've pulled out data from the above post just comparing income from HYP1 and Luni's Basket of Seven -

... but Pyad's income comparisons were always versus inflation, not a basket of ITs, weren't they?

See viewtopic.php?p=180374#p180374 (that's up to 2018 and sorry the embedded graph has dropped off now)

[IanTHughes]

Jesus!

I never once mentioned the original wording of one of pyad,s articles, whether to support or criticise it. Neither did I once state anything related to any so-called basket of 7 or 8 or whatever number you choose.

All I said was that, based on my research so far conducted, it is clear to me that, over the past 20 years, HYP1 has outperformed many possible Investment Trust alternatives.

Your research is faulty.

Faulty? In which case, I should be ever so grateful if you would point out which of the Investment Trusts that I have so far researched have provided a superior return to that provided by HYP1? Any dividend history that you could point to would naturally be extremely helpful, but so would any price details relating to the timeline since the set-up of HYP1.

In other words, can you provide the details of the research which you must surely have done to bring you to the conclusion that my research is faulty!

I personally know seven persons whose IT only portfolios have bettered HYP over the last twenty years, including my wife’s( and she has also substantially outperformed your demo ‘ à la pyad’ HYP). However, none of these people were daft enough to subscribe to LTBH or ‘the time to buy is now’, or just invest in the FTSE, etc...because there is a world of investment out there, markets are inefficient and turbulent and things change, so they made changes as they saw fit when opportunities came along.

I also have friends like that!

Of course, the HYP Strategy was not designed for such people. Rather it was designed for those who do not possess the ability, the confidence, or maybe simply the time required, to "trade" their way to a bigger retirement income or retirement pot!

Over the life of the conveniently abandoned GDHYP, which represented the combined wisdom of the HYP board(!) even plain old CTY absolutely trumped it, both in capital, by a lot, and income, by a fair bit.

Wonderful! This is just the kind of information that any research into the efficacy of HYP needs. Can you perhaps provide or maybe point to any detailed evidence?

For your average retiree on tightish means, hence can’t have bags of reserves, ITs and the odd pref is a much better route, imho.

Fine! I respect your "ever so humble opinion". All I would state is that, "in my humble opinion", HYP may have a place for some retirees.

Can you seriously not accept that?

For a young pot builder, going forward, pure HYP is nothing but poison, imho. He or she would be missing a vast proportion of the sweets.

I am sorry but you will have to explain your use of the word “poison”. Could you also explain what strategy such a person should use in place of HYP, a strategy that is not “poison”? But please remember that any such alternative strategy must be designed so that it is usable by those that: "do not possess the ability, the confidence, or maybe simply the time required, to "trade" their way to a bigger retirement income or retirement pot!".


Ian