Clarification on shares that did, but do not now qualify, as HYP

[Wizard]

As requested, so as not to be off topic on another thread:

moorfield wrote:
Sorry I'm being thick and have obviously missed something. I don't want to drift O/T, but what's wrong with IBM please?



It HAS NEVER BEEN in the FTSE350.

Neither is Marstons. But I am sure it is in a few HYPs

Moderator Message:
As per guidelines (please refresh your understanding of them) we can discuss shares that have met the criteria in the past. I have highlighted a change in Quote above.

Raptor.

Based on my understanding Raptor's statement in the mod box is not completely correct. I did not understand it to be the case that just because a share had in the past qualified as HYP it could be fully discussed when it no longer qualified. In such circumstances I had understood it to be the case that management of existing holdings was on topic, but discussion of new purchases (including top ups) were off topic for this board. I believe that position was reached after lengthy discussion about Unilever.

Is my understanding correct?

Terry.

[Walrus]

I long gave up trying to understand all of the rules. I'd be very surprised if starting this thread will help you

Best of luck though

[Raptor]

Correct. "New Shares" need to meet the criteria. Top-ups, company news, etc of Shares that have been HYP in the past or have been obtained as part of Corporate Action, ie Verizon and S32 are valid topics.

Raptor.

[Wizard]

Correct. "New Shares" need to meet the criteria. Top-ups, company news, etc of Shares that have been HYP in the past or have been obtained as part of Corporate Action, ie Verizon and S32 are valid topics.

Raptor.

Sorry Raptor, I am not being difficult, but you say correct, then say something slightly different to what I said. Are top ups of shares which do not meet the guidelines for qualifying shares permitted? The obvious example is Unilever, but it also seems Marstons is in that position.

Completely appreciate news on such shares is important for those that hold, so the posts (mainly by Ian) of results, RNSs are most hlepful and very welcome even for shares not currently qualifying as some may have them in their portfolios. It was my error for not mentioning this initially in my opening post.

Terry.

[Raptor]

Correct. "New Shares" need to meet the criteria. Top-ups, company news, etc of Shares that have been HYP in the past or have been obtained as part of Corporate Action, ie Verizon and S32 are valid topics.

Raptor.

Sorry Raptor, I am not being difficult, but you say correct, then say something slightly different to what I said. Are top ups of shares which do not meet the guidelines for qualifying shares permitted? The obvious example is Unilever, but it also seems Marstons is in that position.

Completely appreciate news on such shares is important for those that hold, so the posts (mainly by Ian) of results, RNSs are most hlepful and very welcome even for shares not currently qualifying as some may have them in their portfolios. It was my error for not mentioning this initially in my opening post.

Terry.

If the top-ups meet your own criteria then I do not see any problems. Interesting as saw MARS being mentioned and checked my HYP top-up list and MARS would be the choice for my HYP (if I had any money that is). If I was to buy it I would possibly post an update to my portfolio showing where it stands after the purchase and "maybe" show where it was on my list of top-ups and why any above it were precluded, but that is only my own personal option.

Raptor.

[MDW1954]

FWIW, I have topped up Marston's twice in recent weeks. An 8% historic yield signals an element of risk, I grant you, but I continue to like the business and its products. I may well buy some more.

MDW1954

[tjh290633]

Correct. "New Shares" need to meet the criteria. Top-ups, company news, etc of Shares that have been HYP in the past or have been obtained as part of Corporate Action, ie Verizon and S32 are valid topics.

Raptor.

Sorry Raptor, I am not being difficult, but you say correct, then say something slightly different to what I said. Are top ups of shares which do not meet the guidelines for qualifying shares permitted? The obvious example is Unilever, but it also seems Marstons is in that position.

In a word, yes.

I hold both Marston's and S32 and have topped up both. In the case of S32 it was done in the first place to make the holding more marketable. It was also topped up subsequently because it was the top ranking share at the time.

The situation of shares which have a London quote and which would qualify for inclusion in the FTSE100 or 250, were it not for their domicile, is anomalous. Certain Irish companies fall into this category.

Remember that the guidelines say "should" not "must". There is a reason for that.

TJH

[PinkDalek]

Remember that the guidelines say "should" not "must". There is a reason for that.

The Board Guidance does contain "should" in a number of places:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8651

No should or must appears in the following sentence but acceptable does:

Discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board.


The opening paragraph commences:

Please do not comment or discuss on either of the High Yield boards.

Is that a must not or should not?

[Raptor]

Moderator Message:
I believe that posters question has been answered. Locking topic. Any further discussion can take place on "biscuit bar". Raptor.

[Wizard]

I appreciate you do not want further discussion which is fine. But to be blunt I think it is so confusing I will go back to my past approach of putting all my posts on Strategies.

Terry.

[idpickering]

I appreciate you do not want further discussion which is fine. But to be blunt I think it is so confusing I will go back to my past approach of putting all my posts on Strategies.

Terry.

That is a shame if so Terry. You have a lot to offer here.

Ian

[csearle]

That is a shame if so Terry. You have a lot to offer here.

I'm completely convinced this is true Ian but if a moderator considers that something in particular is best suited to another board it really doesn't help having other posters encouraging the OP to ignore it. C.

[MDW1954]

And perhaps more of us regulars on HYP Practical should join Terry there, as well as here?

The two High Yield boards are not alternatives, simply a way of more appropriately apportioning subject matter.

A poster lost to HYP Practical is not a poster lost to high-yield discussions or non-HYP Practical discussions in general.

MDW1954