I am sorry to burst a bubble but Dod101 and Itsallaguess are nowhere near the only two people to notice that HYP1's income and capital is less diversified than when starting out. To coin a phrase "it is bleeding obvious"!Dod101 wrote:Meaning therefore that HYP1 as it stands is a failure.Arborbridge wrote: That is unrealistic for anyone living off their dividends but no one except me and maybe IAAG seems to recognise that.
I think you are wrong there. Many of the current HYPers here recognise the problem and have applied practical ways around it. This was all discussed a decade ago (and more) on TMF and various limits and mitigations were proposed by posters such as BSD, Gengulphus and TJH. TJH and myself are very clear and publish changes as they happen, and why.
So the net of practical people recognising this problem is far wider than you and IAAG - ironically neither of whom attempt to run a HYP. AFAIK.
However, Dod101 and Itsallaguess can lay claim to being two of the most vociferous staters of "the bleeding obvious" whilst studiously ignoring the success that HYP1 has achieved in its primary aim - the production of income!
HYP1 was set up to show whether a simple "buy and forget" portfolio, comprising individual High Yield shares, could create a hIgh and rising income
Over the now 22 years the income received, even while starting at a high yield, has increased at an average of 5.99% per year! At the same time it has produced a far superior overall income result than might have been achieved by many other possible investment alternatives.
Only the truly blinkered would claim HYP1, set up as it was to provide a high and rising income, has been a failure. Which of course they do!
Ian