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

Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

Pull up a chair, have a biscuit - discuss the site and general questions about the LemonFool
IanTHughes
Lemon Slice
Posts: 771
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 389 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206563

Postby IanTHughes » March 9th, 2019, 1:00 am

Moderator Message:
This is not a topic for hyp practical. This discussion ran its course before. Please read the guidelines and keep topics relevant. Raptor.


In a recent thread, it was asserted by Aleric that I "rejected" Unilever PLC (ULVR) as an HYP share.
Alaric wrote:
idpickering"/"Arborbridge wrote:Unilever and Diageo have never been "rejected" by HYPers except in your imagination
I didn't imagine it.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14274&p=175134&hilit=unilever#p175134

in which
IanTHughes wrote:
...do not try to persuade me that ULVR is a choice for an HYP. It is not and never has been, at least not since 2012 when I started my HYP.

The actual post that I wrote was: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14274&hilit=unilever&start=20#p175089
The full quote from the above post is as follows:
IanTHughes wrote:I am happy that it works for you, but please, do not try to persuade me that ULVR is a choice for an HYP. It is not and never has been, at least not since 2012 when I started my HYP.

Aleric, you went to a lot of trouble to find the above quote and according to the search criteria you used, must surely have read through the whole thread in order to find it. In which case the first of my contributions that you would have seen was the following: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14274&hilit=unilever&start=20#p175028
In which I stated:
IanTHughes wrote:The problem is, in order to select as low a yield as is offered by Unilever PLC (ULVR), one first of all has to reject the many "Quality" shares with higher yields on offer. So what you are actually suggesting is the "Rejection of Quality" not its selection, and I will not do that.

Next you would have read this post: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14274&hilit=unilever&start=20#p175062
In which I stated:
IanTHughes wrote:My HYP is not a stamp collection, I do not need to hold everything. But the fact remains that in order to select Unilever PLC (ULVR), I would have to "reject" investing in a perfectly suitable higher yield share. Why would I do that?

Followed by: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14274&hilit=unilever&start=20#p175083
in which I stated:
IanTHughes wrote:ULVR has never qualified for my HYP since start up in 2012 and it still does not qualify. Why has it never qualified? Because it is not and never has been high yield. High Yield is an essential for my High Yield Portfolio (HYP).

Finally, after the post from which you extracted the partial quote, I posted this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14274&hilit=unilever&start=20#p175110
In which I stated:
IanTHughes wrote:Of course there are folks that will have ULVR in their HYP, I have no problem with that. I certainly do not agree that it is a share that "should not be discussed" on this the HYP Practical board. What I do say is that at the moment, and for the last 6 years, an HYPer would only select ULVR if he/she first of all "rejected" other perfectly acceptable higher yield shares.

Now, some people will say that "the higher historical dividend growth rate" makes it an acceptable choice. To that argument I was pointing out that the time period for "catching up" a higher starting yield may be rather longer than an HYPer might want. There are also others that say "an HYP should always include shares like ULVR". That is of course an asinine argument so it does not need a response.

But yes, ULVR is on my watchlist. If it does become high yield, it will be in my HYP, but bought at "High Yield".

Please could you tell me, and indeed this board, at what point during this series of posts, which you must surely have read, did you come to believe that I “rejected” Unilever PLC (ULVR) as an HYP share?

I should also like to know why it is that you feel the need to mislead people in this way?


Ian

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3368
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 687 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - My response to the accusation its rejection

#206564

Postby Alaric » March 9th, 2019, 1:09 am

IanTHughes wrote: Because it is not and never has been high yield.


Diversified Income Portfolio can be a sensible strategy. Rejecting stocks solely because of low yield ignoring their potential for dividend increases lacks common sense, at least in a total return context.

Did it not take moderator or site owner intervention to establish that Unilever could even be discussed on the "HYP" board? That was in the context of "it used to be acceptable" but "it isn't now because the yield is too low given that the price has increased"

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

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - My response to the accusation its rejection

#206627

Postby IanTHughes » March 9th, 2019, 12:12 pm

Alaric wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:Because it is not and never has been high yield.

Diversified Income Portfolio can be a sensible strategy. Rejecting stocks solely because of low yield ignoring their potential for dividend increases lacks common sense, at least in a total return context.

High Yield Portfolio (HYP) is always a sensible strategy. Rejecting stocks solely because of high yield ignoring their potential for dividend increases lacks any sense, common or otherwise, in income, capital and total return contexts.

Of course, my statement about the potential for High Yield with growth is as asinine as your statement about the potential for Low Yield with growth, as both are making an assumption of the future in order to justify the strategy. The only real difference is that I know it while you, apparently, remain in ignorance of that fault.

Alaric wrote:Did it not take moderator or site owner intervention to establish that Unilever could even be discussed on the "HYP" board? That was in the context of "it used to be acceptable" but "it isn't now because the yield is too low given that the price has increased"

I did say:
IanTHughes wrote:I certainly do not agree that it is a share that "should not be discussed" on this the HYP Practical board.

My apologies if you were confused by the double negative.


Ian

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3368
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 687 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206647

Postby Alaric » March 9th, 2019, 1:18 pm

There was a long discussion last year about whether Unilever could be discussed on HYP practical.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13082&p=159435&hilit=unilever#p159435

Those who would exclude it as a potential purchase did so on the grounds of its low yield.

PinkDalek
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4151
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206651

Postby PinkDalek » March 9th, 2019, 1:49 pm

Alaric wrote:There was a long discussion last year about whether Unilever could be discussed on HYP practical.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13082&p=159435&hilit=unilever#p159435




That is one of them where it was under discussion. There was an earlier topic which was eventually locked and the Mod Box was more than clear:

viewtopic.php?p=154891#p154891

The message included (my bold):

Moderator Message:

Ok. Rules are clear Unilever can be discussed on HYP.

I think this discussion has gone on long enough.


We appear to be going over old ground, again.

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

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206653

Postby IanTHughes » March 9th, 2019, 2:07 pm

Alaric wrote:There was a long discussion last year about whether Unilever could be discussed on HYP practical.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13082&p=159435&hilit=unilever#p159435

Those who would exclude it as a potential purchase did so on the grounds of its low yield.

Oh I fondly remember that thread, happy days, happy days! :D

Itsallaguess, whose post you linked to, did not, as far as I know, suggest at any time that discussion of Unilever PLC (ULVR) should be banned from the HYP Practical board. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else.

It is obvious that you do not subscribe to the HYP Strategy and of course there is no problem with your having such an opinion. But do try and find some legitimate argument against it rather than this rather silly tittle tattle, which in any case is simply false.


Ian
Last edited by IanTHughes on March 9th, 2019, 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dod101
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3562
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 687 times
Been thanked: 1261 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206654

Postby Dod101 » March 9th, 2019, 2:11 pm

I assume that the Biscuit Bar is not moderated.

Dod

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3368
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 687 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206656

Postby Alaric » March 9th, 2019, 2:23 pm

IanTHughes wrote:It is obvious that you do not subscribe to the HYP Strategy and of course there is no problem with your having such an opinion.


I am opposed to its quasi-religious and dogmatic elements. It's just a subset of income investing in general and I don't consider it has the right to abduct the words "high" and "yield" for its own special meaning.

What does HYP Strategy mean anyway? That was part of last year's debate. I believe the original idea was that you took a 25% cash sum at retirement, invested in a selection of income producing shares selected using some arbitrary rules and just let it run. You weren't intending to reinvest or spend capital by selling. BAP (Bland Annuity Portfolio) might be a better description than the more general sounding High Yield Portfolio which sounds as if it should allow almost anything producing income. Those OIECs and ITs with "High" and "Income" in their title have such a mandate.

PinkDalek
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4151
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206666

Postby PinkDalek » March 9th, 2019, 2:54 pm

Dod101 wrote:I assume that the Biscuit Bar is not moderated.

Dod


You assume incorrectly. I’ve already linked to just one post on this board where there was both a Mod Box comment and a Topic closure. Your farewell thread was also locked. ;)

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1658
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 307 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206670

Postby Raptor » March 9th, 2019, 3:21 pm

Dod101 wrote:I assume that the Biscuit Bar is not moderated.

Dod


All boards are moderated. But the moderators and rules differ.

Raptor.

Dod101
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3562
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 687 times
Been thanked: 1261 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206675

Postby Dod101 » March 9th, 2019, 4:01 pm

Thanks for the correction.

That being the case, can I say that I am with Alaric on this although it is not worth his while arguing...

Moderator Message:
Disparaging remarks removed - can we keep things polite please? - Itsallaguess


Rather I think it would be wiser of Alaric simply to accept that HYP has for the purposes of this site got a particular meaning. I do not subscribe to its style as will be obvious if Alaric has seen my recently posted High Yield Portfolio (a different matter altogether) I am quite prepared to comment on such shares as meet the definition of being suitable for a HYP but otherwise I will tend not to get involved because I am evidently not a 'true believer' in a HYP.

Dod

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2938
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 1500 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206679

Postby Gengulphus » March 9th, 2019, 4:12 pm

IanTHughes wrote:In a recent thread, it was asserted by Aleric that I "rejected" Unilever PLC (ULVR) as an HYP share.
Alaric wrote:
idpickering"/"Arborbridge wrote:Unilever and Diageo have never been "rejected" by HYPers except in your imagination

I didn't imagine it.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14274&p=175134&hilit=unilever#p175134

in which
IanTHughes wrote:
...do not try to persuade me that ULVR is a choice for an HYP. It is not and never has been, at least not since 2012 when I started my HYP.

It seems entirely clear to me that IanTHughes has rejected Unilever, specifically since 2012 as a share for his HYP to purchase. There is nothing unusual about that - I suspect every HYP candidate share has been rejected by HYPers in the sense that more than one HYPer has rejected it as a share for their own HYPs during some periods, and often for many years at a time. E.g. I and others have rejected the tobacco companies, I saw quite a few comments from HYPers saying that they refused to buy financials for several years following 2008, I've seen similar comments for shorter but still multi-year periods about telecoms, utilities, supermarkets, miners, pharmaceuticals and probably a few others in the past...

But all this is so obvious that I found it totally unbelievable that it's what was meant by "Unilever and Diageo have never been "rejected" by HYPers except in your imagination". So I've tracked the quote down - it was actually written by Arborbridge, in viewtopic.php?f=15&t=16082&start=40#p206293, and a fuller version of it is:

Arborbridge wrote:Unilever and Diageo have never been "rejected" by HYPers except in your imagination - indeed I and several other HYP investors who post here own both shares.

And that makes it reasonably clear that he was only saying that they weren't shares that all or almost all HYPers reject, not that there are no HYPers who reject them. So contrary to what Alaric suggests, IanTHughes's comment saying that he had rejected them for his own HYP only apparently contradicts Arborbridge's comment about them not being "rejected" by HYPers - the contradiction vanishes when you look at the context.

But in turn, Arborbridge's comment about it being in Alaric's imagination doesn't stand up when one looks at it in the context of the comment of Alaric's that it responded to, which was "It's the impression you get from some of the comments. Unilever and Diageo being rejected on the grounds the running yield was too low." The word "some" means what it says - I'm sure that Alaric was perfectly capable of saying "most", "all" or "almost all" instead if that had been what he meant!

I rather suspect that this dispute is a case of "more haste, less speed": there's been rather too many hasty reactions to things that others have said, without considering their context, and as a result the useful discussion has got rather bogged down...

Alaric wrote:Diversified Income Portfolio can be a sensible strategy. ...

Yes, DIP can be a sensible strategy. If you want to discuss running it in practice and you think there are enough others around who want to join you in such a discussion (it seems quite likely to me, though I'm not one of them), please ask the site admins and moderators to consider setting up a DIP Practical board. Or if you don't fancy being called a DIPpy, look for another name / acronym! ;-)

Alaric wrote:Did it not take moderator or site owner intervention to establish that Unilever could even be discussed on the "HYP" board? That was in the context of "it used to be acceptable" but "it isn't now because the yield is too low given that the price has increased"

The only site admin / moderator intervention that I've seen it take was (a) to write and post the HYP Practical board guidance; (b) some sorting out among the moderators of over-enthusiastic moderation, which I think was due to some moderators originally overlooking the "Discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board." part of the guidance; (c) apparently endless trouble dealing with users who seem to have overlooked that same part of the guidance. And only (a) was really intervention to establish that Unilever could be discussed - (b) and (c) are more a matter of making certain that the outcome of that intervention is consistently followed.

That part of the guidance means that discussing Unilever as a share that has been selected in the past and may well still be in people's HYPs is definitely acceptable on the HYP Practical board, because it has quite reasonably been selected in the past for HYPs (it being a reasonable HYP selection only happens quite rarely, and I can easily believe it hasn't happened during IanTHughes's HYPing history, but it has happened). Not "used to be acceptable, but isn't now", but "is acceptable". It is also acceptable for HYPers to reject shares for more-or-less any reason they want - the guidance says "Personal feelings can affect the choice, including ethical considerations. Additional criteria may be used by individuals."

Where I do think the guidance falls short is that I don't find it at all clear about whether it's acceptable to discuss acquiring such shares now (whether by a new purchase, a top-up purchase, or subscribing to a rights issue), as opposed to only discussing them as shares that have been selected in the past (various moderator comments I've seen suggest that they don't find it at all clear either, or they're of somewhat different opinions about it, or both!). That said, it's a difficult area to be clear about, since such a share might be anything from a non-yielder that last seemed a reasonable HYP selection around the turn of the century, to a 4.0% yielder that did qualify only a few months ago. And in addition, the rights-issue case is a rather confusing one for many people (including me until I'd encountered quite a few of them - it isn't now, but that's only because I've had a couple of decades or so of experience with them by now!). So rights issues are a very practical issue that needs to be discussed on the board when they arise - and a discussion of a rights issue that avoids mentioning the option of subscribing to it would be very one-sided!

So I can see why discussing acquiring shares like Unilever now is a grey area in the board guidance. I'd prefer it to be clearer, but it's not an entirely trivial task to do that even partially, and making it completely clear in all circumstances is probably impossible.

Gengulphus

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1658
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 307 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206683

Postby Raptor » March 9th, 2019, 4:35 pm

As a moderator, I take the guidance to mean discussing current low yield shares ( ie those that do not currently meet criteria but have in the past) as a top-up or corporate action is acceptable. Along with their results and current dividend announcements. However, suggesting buying them as a new share for a portfolio is out as they do not meet current guidance.

As to what other mods interpreted it as I would not presume to put words in their mouths.

Raptor.

Btw. We also allow shares obtained by corporate action to be discussed even if they never were a hyp share. It does depend on the discussion in all cases.

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1495
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 311 times
Been thanked: 344 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206686

Postby moorfield » March 9th, 2019, 4:53 pm

Raptor wrote: However, suggesting buying them as a new share for a portfolio is out as they do not meet current guidance.


Even if the overall portfolio yield remains high ?

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3368
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 687 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206694

Postby Alaric » March 9th, 2019, 5:18 pm

moorfield wrote:Even if the overall portfolio yield remains high ?


In the context of an income producing portfolio, buying a share with a running yield of 2% expected to increase at 4% should be as valid as one with a 4% yield expected to increase at 2% or one with a 6% yield not expected to increase at all. It would depend on requirements for level of current income against future income.

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

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206695

Postby IanTHughes » March 9th, 2019, 5:20 pm

Gengulphus wrote:It seems entirely clear to me that IanTHughes has rejected Unilever, specifically since 2012 as a share for his HYP to purchase. There is nothing unusual about that - I suspect every HYP candidate share has been rejected by HYPers in the sense that more than one HYPer has rejected it as a share for their own HYPs during some periods, and often for many years at a time. E.g. I and others have rejected the tobacco companies, I saw quite a few comments from HYPers saying that they refused to buy financials for several years following 2008, I've seen similar comments for shorter but still multi-year periods about telecoms, utilities, supermarkets, miners, pharmaceuticals and probably a few others in the past...

In point of fact, the reason for my saying that I have never rejected Unilever PLC (ULVR) is simply as a result of it never being under consideration when I have been making a purchase. The reason ULVR has never been under consideration for inclusion in my HYP is that it has never been of a high enough yield to merit such consideration. In other words, I only review High Yield shares for inclusion in my HYP. Now, one or two of those that are reviewed may be rejected, but those shares that don't get reviewed in the first place do not get rejected because … well …. they do not get reviewed.


Ian

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

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206696

Postby IanTHughes » March 9th, 2019, 5:27 pm

Alaric wrote:
moorfield wrote:Even if the overall portfolio yield remains high ?


In the context of an income producing portfolio, buying a share with a running yield of 2% expected to increase at 4% should be as valid as one with a 4% yield expected to increase at 2% or one with a 6% yield not expected to increase at all. It would depend on requirements for level of current income against future income.

Where do you get your fortune telling crystal ball from? Or are you simply making guesses as to what will happen in the future?

Seriously, if you do not like HYP as a strategy, because it suggests buying a high yield or for whatever reason, then don't follow it. But please don't pretend that what you are advocating is superior because you know how the future will pan out.


Ian

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1658
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 307 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206701

Postby Raptor » March 9th, 2019, 5:35 pm

moorfield wrote:
Raptor wrote: However, suggesting buying them as a new share for a portfolio is out as they do not meet current guidance.


Even if the overall portfolio yield remains high ?


As we keep pointing out to you. It is the individual share yield that is important.

Raptor.

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3368
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 687 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206705

Postby Alaric » March 9th, 2019, 5:40 pm

IanTHughes wrote:Where do you get your fortune telling crystal ball from? Or are you simply making guesses as to what will happen in the future?


History of share prices is a source of information as is what the Company announces by way of dividend policy and what it discloses in its Report and Accounts.

You are an longer term income seeking investor with the possibility of investing in shares with running yields of 2%, 4% and 6%. Which do you choose and how?

Dod101
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3562
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 687 times
Been thanked: 1261 times

Re: Unilever PLC (ULVR) - Is not "Rejected"

#206709

Postby Dod101 » March 9th, 2019, 5:48 pm

Raptor wrote:As we keep pointing out to you. It is the individual share yield that is important .


Meanwhile in the real world, it is the portfolio yield that is important. After all, we are considering the HYP- Practical Board and even there the portfolio yield is the important but not the individual constituents.

Dod


Return to “Biscuit Bar”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests