SHARPE INCOME … 2016 Ends … 2017 Begins

Posted on Jan 2 2017 - 11:02am by Dan

The original Sharpe Income post that explains this project can be found here.

The Sharpe Income category be found by clicking on that red ‘Sharpe Income’ tag next to this post title, or by clicking here.

We continue the discussion from the last entry.


We began this project with only $500. All in an effort to help out the small retail investor who doesn’t have a lot of money, understand the importance of growing an income account, as opposed to a trading account. The following numbers are taken from our PDF that is attached below. Remember that the numbers are computed off of Friday’s close …

Total Sharpe Income Balance: $3,266.75
Total Sharpe Income YTD Return: + 0.00 %
Sharpe Income YTD Paid Yield on Cost: + 0.00 %
Total Sharpe Income YTD Maximum Draw-down: – 0.00 %
iShares Barclay’s IEF Return: + 0.00 %
S&P 500 Index YTD Return: + 0.00 %
S&P 500 Index YTD Maximum Draw-down: – 0.00 %


A few things to cover this week. So let’s first cover our basic house-keeping.

For our ‘Income Assets’, we received a Union Pacific (UNP) dividend on December 29th, 2016.  This has been recorded, and raises our yield on cost for Union Pacific (UNP) up to +3.02%.  Not too bad.  This dividend when placed in the “Income Assets” category has been allocated to another purchase of Medtronic (MDT).  So you will note on the PDF that the amount allocated for a purchase of Medtronic (MDT) has risen slightly. 

For our ‘Capital Gains’ strategy, there are two problems that we have worked to correct.  As you will note on the spreadsheet, we use the GoogleFinance code to pull in live updates on the prices of the instruments we are using.  For example, to pull the current price of TLT, the code is =GOOGLEFINANCE(“TLT”)   But there is a problem.  For the last several days, Google has been pulling the same price.  $117.83.  Whereas the actual price at the moment, is $119.13.  So I have had to ‘hard-code’ the price at times, to get an accurate measure of how we are doing.  That’s the first problem I am working at correcting.

The second problem, was actually an oversight on my part.  PCY paid a dividend on November 30th, and I forgot to record that dividend.  That oversight has been corrected.  Also, PCY paid a dividend this week on December 30th, and this has been recorded.

And thus we arrive at the end of 2016, and begin 2017.

You will note, that we have two PDF’s this week.  One records the final numbers for 2016.  And one, is for today.  The fresh start, as we begin 2017.  So as it is 2017?

Let’s get to work, and move our way forward in the project to greater income …

The link to the Google Drive Spreadsheet that you can view, that we will edit, build upon and refer to over time can be found at this link.

We continue the Sharpe Income project with this next entry.

The Sharpe Income PDF breakdown for Week 109.5 can be found here (numbers computed off of Friday’s close) …

The Sharpe Income PDF breakdown for Week 110 can be found here (numbers computed off of Friday’s close) …

2 Comments so far. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. Anonymous January 2, 2017 at 12:11 pm - Reply

    Dan,

    In the article, you point to a link on Investopedia for Yield on Cost when you state the Union Pacific Yield on Cost is now up to 3.02%.

    As per Investopedia, yield on cost is the annual dividend rate divided by the actual cost of the investment. Annual dividend rate is what a company pays out per share per year. So, by this definition, what you are referring to as Yield on Cost is incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong, what you are actually referring to as yield on cost is actually “Dividend Payback”.

    Dividend Payback would be the actual total amount of dividends received divided by actual cost of investment expressed as a percentage. I think read that in a book from Phil Town.

    • Dan January 6, 2017 at 8:43 am - Reply

      That very well could be. Investopedia’s funny. I’ve found some stuff that I absolutely KNOW FOR A FACT is wrong there. Other stuff is bang on. I think there was one guy that had to get a hold of them, and correct an article they wrote, because it was just factually incorrect. Other stuff, Investopedia has corrected my tthinking on. It honestly could be either way with this one. Myself, I’ve always used that term “Yield on Cost” for the yield, I have, for the cost of what I paid. It’s sort of a … “I like it, and it makes sense in my mind and I’ve heard a few others use it that way” sort of thing … 🙂 But hey, I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.

      D

Leave A Response