HYP Practical discussions

[StepOne]

I honestly don't think that trying to run the board with a list of prescribed and proscribed shares would be at all useful or even manageable.

So we are okay to discuss Unilever on the HYP Practical board?

Thanks,
StepOne

I don't know how you interpreted my post as saying that but actually I have no idea.

I only stepped onto the board to ask people to stop talking about moderation. It was another mod who said it could not be discussed. It has certainly been discussed in the past.

It's definitely not a 'free for all' where any old share can be discussed though.

Mel

Sorry, Mel, that was me asking a question - I know I said 'we are' rather than 'are we', but that's just me trying to use a chattier style in a (failed!) attempt to try to take the heat out of this discussion.

I never posted on the original thread, and I put all my 'mod' posts on this board, so I'm not sure how I seem to have become the bad guy!

Two Unilever threads (including a completely innocuous one by idpickering) were moved this morning, so it seemed reasonable to seek clarification.

Can any of the mods say whether it's okay to post Unilever threads on the HYP Practical board in the future?

Thanks,
StepOne

[melonfool]

I never posted on the original thread, and I put all my 'mod' posts on this board, so I'm not sure how I seem to have become the bad guy!


Thanks,
StepOne

I didn't say you were! Obviously we are unable to communicate, so I'll stop.

Mel

[Luniversal]

PD,

I saw Luni's included ULVR and was waiting for this obvious inbound for the last few hours. I also noted to myself that he was not purist in his HYPing, by the way he used zones as a concept. His selection of ULVR was as part of a package including eliminating anything where he felt it was too high a yield.

The portfolio was bought in 2011, before I invented zoning. Unilever was yielding 19% more than the All-Share Index then; all 15 stocks were yielding more than the index, and were chosen solely on fundamentals. The LuniHYP100 is probably the most 'purist' instantiation of HYP on these boards.

All this was explained in the OP.

[dspp]

PD,

I saw Luni's included ULVR and was waiting for this obvious inbound for the last few hours. I also noted to myself that he was not purist in his HYPing, by the way he used zones as a concept. His selection of ULVR was as part of a package including eliminating anything where he felt it was too high a yield.

The portfolio was bought in 2011, before I invented zoning. Unilever was yielding 19% more than the All-Share Index then; all 15 stocks were yielding more than the index, and were chosen solely on fundamentals. The LuniHYP100 is probably the most 'purist' instantiation of HYP on these boards.

All this was explained in the OP.

Thank you Luni. I did not recollect that this was from your life before zoning, my apologies. regards, dspp

[scotia]

I shall expand my medal recommendations - not only for Moderators of Polite Discussions, but also for Moderators of HYP (of any variety).

[Lootman]

Unilever was yielding 19% more than the All-Share Index then

Actually even that would not be necessary. Only that at the time of purchase Unilever the yield was sufficiently high to meet one's income goals.

Anyway, the (unprecedented on TLF?) 94% poll result has put this matter beyond question.

[melonfool]

Unilever was yielding 19% more than the All-Share Index then

Actually even that would not be necessary. Only that at the time of purchase Unilever the yield was sufficiently high to meet one's income goals.

Anyway, the (unprecedented on TLF?) 94% poll result has put this matter beyond question.

No it hasn't - please re-read dspp's post.

Mel

[Lootman]

Unilever was yielding 19% more than the All-Share Index then

Actually even that would not be necessary. Only that at the time of purchase Unilever the yield was sufficiently high to meet one's income goals.

Anyway, the (unprecedented on TLF?) 94% poll result has put this matter beyond question.

No it hasn't - please re-read dspp's post.

I read it. His position seemed to be that he favoured the view of what he called a narrow group of purists over the majority. That is a position that he is entitled to take, of course, but if it is too far out of step with the broad majority here then I suspect it will lead to more moderation work in the future.

As noted before it is sufficient that a share has been higher yielding in the past to warrant inclusion in HYPs and discussion here. But there is another aspect to this too. At least in TMF days, it was stated a number of times that it was not necessary for every share in a HYP to be HY itself. But rather that the portfolio as a whole should be.

So it might happen that a HYP share has a low yield because it has done well (in the case of Unilever) but also that a company may have cut or even abolished its dividend, like some of the banks did a decade ago. Nonetheless, shares like RBS and Lloyds were still discussed on the HY boards, even though they paid no dividend and so had a zero yield. Some tinkerers may sell a share that stops paying dividends, but others can quite legitimately retain them. I recall that TJH held onto his Lloyds shares for years and it eventually resumed dividends, perhaps justifying its retention despite the zero yield.

It is not a huge leap from that to argue that some shares may be chosen, even though their yield is lower, because they add diversity, dividend growth, stability, defensiveness, quality, recovery prospects, market share etc. to the portfolio as a whole. Shares are not ultimately chosen in isolation but rather in recognition of their place and value in the overall portfolio, where balance, stability and diversity are key requirements.

[Raptor]

Actually even that would not be necessary. Only that at the time of purchase Unilever the yield was sufficiently high to meet one's income goals.

Anyway, the (unprecedented on TLF?) 94% poll result has put this matter beyond question.

No it hasn't - please re-read dspp's post.

I read it. His position seemed to be that he favoured the view of what he called a narrow group of purists over the majority. That is a position that he is entitled to take, of course, but if it is too far out of step with the broad majority here then I suspect it will lead to more moderation work in the future.

As noted before it is sufficient that a share has been higher yielding in the past to warrant inclusion in HYPs and discussion here. But there is another aspect to this too. At least in TMF days, it was stated a number of times that it was not necessary for every share in a HYP to be HY itself. But rather that the portfolio as a whole should be.

So it might happen that a HYP share has a low yield because it has done well (in the case of Unilever) but also that a company may have cut or even abolished its dividend, like some of the banks did a decade ago. Nonetheless, shares like RBS and Lloyds were still discussed on the HY boards, even though they paid no dividend and so had a zero yield. Some tinkerers may sell a share that stops paying dividends, but others can quite legitimately retain them. I recall that TJH held onto his Lloyds shares for years and it eventually resumed dividends, perhaps justifying its retention despite the zero yield.

It is not a huge leap from that to argue that some shares may be chosen, even though their yield is lower, because they add diversity, dividend growth, stability, defensiveness, quality, recovery prospects, market share etc. to the portfolio as a whole. Shares are not ultimately chosen in isolation but rather in recognition of their place and value in the overall portfolio, where balance, stability and diversity are key requirements.

I kept hold of my Lloyds shares and for a while my Tesco shares. Still have Lloyds and have increased my holding , have some TSCO but sold all those in my "trading" accounts to just about break even.

The "Board Guidance" for HYP Practical have "changed" so that HYP shares have to have fit some "rules", thus now picking shares just for diversity etc do not meet the criteria, they have to meet the current guidelines.

Holding shares in a "HYP" that are no longer "HYP" shares is not a problem, even if they no longer pay a dividend, but "recommending" shares to add to a HYP that do not meet the guidelines is the problem.

Raptor.

[tjh290633]

Moderator Message:
Gentlemen (and ladies). Please go and read the post HYP Guidance at the top of the HYP Practical forum. That tells you what may be and what may not be discussed on that board.

Shares which are or which have been in the past eligible for inclusion in an HYP may be discussed on that board.

TJH

[melonfool]

Ladies are not an afterthought TJH!

Mel

[PinkDalek]

Ladies are not an afterthought TJH!

Mel

I'm assuming Terry felt you and any other Ladies reading this thread were already familiar with the Guidance.

In view of his comments, does this mean the Unilever Results Topic viewtopic.php?f=31&t=12724 will now be moved back from High Yield Shares & Strategies - general to High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical?

Always assuming the posts remain on-topic.

[melonfool]

PD - I would assume I am not the only woman who reads the boards. I may be the only one who has commented but if we get sidelined then I doubt many others are going to comment as it feels a bit like a boys' club sometimes.

Mel

[Lootman]

it feels a bit like a boys' club sometimes.

It's hardly the fault of the males here that (most) females do not appear to be interested in HYP. It's rather like me asking why I never see female trainspotters on stations. HYP is the Trainspotting board on TLF . . .

[melonfool]

it feels a bit like a boys' club sometimes.

It's hardly the fault of the males here that (most) females do not appear to be interested in HYP. It's rather like me asking why I never see female trainspotters on stations. HYP is the Trainspotting board on TLF . . .

I didn't say it was the fault of the males - but it might help to be more inclusive and not put the women in brackets.

If you can't see that, then you ARE part of the problem.

I have no idea what the trainspotting analogy is about, sorry.

There are women who are interested in HYP anyway, I know of at least two who used to post on TMF, run HYPs and don't post here, then there is me, Boulverse (sp?) and a couple of others. I am merely pointing out where something obvious could be improved to stop women feeling unwanted or second-class.

Mel

[dspp]

Folks,

Please be reasonable. ULVR is a low yield share, not a high yield share.

ULVR is doing about 3.05% now, and FTSE-100 is running at about 3.81% *

That is pretty typical for ULVR and FTSE-100. It is not a high yield share, on the contrary it is a low yield share. It is a fantastic low yield share.

Yes occasionally there are aberrations and opportunities, just as with all shares. Yes occasionally some have gone and added it into their portfolios, and they may call their portfolios HYP portfolios. I can even believe that for some it might have been conceivably been a entirely valid HYP pick on that day after they had run through the list of HYP rules. But it is very much unusual if that is the case, exceptional even.

So please do not use the excuse of a rare exception to justify substantially intruding on what is intended as a board that is helpful to those pursuing HYP-Practical portfolios. By all means note en passant brief items about ULVR (or similar), or note it within your overall portfolios, on the HYP-Practical.

But please do not expect to start long discourses about ULVR and not wind up those of your peers who really do not want it cluttering up a HYP-Practical board that is intended for practical discussion of HYP-Practical. They are entitled to their views, and since it is a board for discussing HYP-Practical shares and portfolios their views are reasonable. Please give them the benefit of your tolerance, and move deep discussions about low yield shares, or portfolios including lower yielding shares, somewhere else - there are many other candidates. Otherwise we as Mods are forced to step in as I did on this occasion. Basically if I get an alert from somebody regarding a misplaced share/thread on HYP-Practical then there is roughly a 50/50 chance that I'll look at it and decide they are right to be miffed. So it is best to think about it yourself, in advance, and decide if there is a better place to say what you want to say. Perhaps even use the High Yield General board for discussing the care & maintenance of portfolios that happen to include low yield shares ? Doing that before winding up your fellow investors would be far better from my perspective, rather than crashing on into HYP-Practical and setting off alerts from your peers, that in turn draw one or other Mods to the scene.

Conversely if one examines the view that the historic exceptional buying opportunity that you once encountered means it is fair game to discuss ULVR (or similar) at length all over the HYP-Practical board then please appreciate that a great many FTSE shares will completely swamp the HYP-Practical board, and we as Mods will have no tools to stop it. And then the utility of that board for those of a HYP-Practical mindset will be greatly diminished. And that will lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

And please keep a sense of proportion. The sky has not fallen in because I moved a thread. And ULVR is still a very nice share to own if you can buy it at a good price. And there are many places to discuss it. And it is fantastic glorious weather.

And I am now at risk of having written a post that is as long as G would ...... so best I stop.

regards, dspp



* I'm just using quick google numbers:
http://siblisresearch.com/data/ftse-all ... -dividend/
https://www.dividenddata.co.uk/dividend ... ?epic=ULVR
I'm sure I can find other numbers, but these do illustrate the general point.

[kiloran]

There are women who are interested in HYP anyway
Mel

Are they named Doris?

--kiloran

[Dod101]

Seeing the poll, dspp, however reasonable he sounds, is allowing the tail to wag the dog in no uncertain fashion. I have always regarded Unilever as an honorary member of my HYP as it provides stability and some certainty (as far as a share ever can) to my dividend income.

And I may say if I had been TJH I think I would have used the expression 'Ladies and Gentlemen', not because I am particularly in favour of feminism but simply because it is a time honoured courtesy. I am though equally certain that having read TJH's previous contributions, he meant nothing by his salutation.

Dod

[melonfool]

If ULVR isn't high yield (and I agree, it's not), but is in some HYPs, so can be discussed in the round in that context on HYP-Practical ("note en passant brief items about ULVR"), why would that then mean that deeper discussion of it would be on the HY Strategies board (where it has been moved to)?

If it's not high yield, it needs to just be on share ideas, or portfolio review or somewhere like that, surely?

Mel

[dspp]

Seeing the poll, dspp, however reasonable he sounds, is allowing the tail to wag the dog in no uncertain fashion. I have always regarded Unilever as an honorary member of my HYP as it provides stability and some certainty (as far as a share ever can) to my dividend income.

Dod

Dod,

The HYP-Practical board is the tail, and it is the tail that gets to do the wagging. If you want to play at length with the dog please go to the HY-General.

You full well know this yourself, that is why ULVR is only an 'honorary' member of your portfolio.

(Mel this answers your question as well.)

regards, dspp