Yes indeed!Gengulphus wrote:...but it's good to have (hopefully) sorted it out!
Regards,
Chris
Thanks to Wasron,jfgw,Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly, for Donating to support the site
Yes indeed!Gengulphus wrote:...but it's good to have (hopefully) sorted it out!
tjh290633 wrote:Gengulphus wrote:* Discussions about practical purchase decisions of shares for a HYP. Candidate shares should have a dividend yield above the average for the FTSE100 index and be drawn from the constituents of the FTSE 350 index.
You have omitted the requirement for at least 5 years of dividend payments, ideally rising each year, but not having been reduced, which was always in the criteria.
Gengulphus wrote:But all that TMF's guidance says about an increasing dividend record is "[i]... and safety factors that suggest that their dividend income is sustainable and will hopefully grow.s
Lootman wrote:Gengulphus wrote:Lootman wrote:Rather than parsing what the words might mean, we should instead perhaps discuss whether the potential of a share to be a valid HY candidate is something we'd like to able to discuss. Personally I think we need a reason to disallow it. That reason may well exist but at least we should have that discussion.
Simple: just about every share under the sun has the potential to become a valid HYP candidate, given sufficient time and luck.
Well, it is in the rules right now so I don't think that a blanket assertion that it should not be is too helpful, without at least trying to understand both the value of discussing potential shares and what would be reasonable criteria for allowing or denying them. The fact you personally don't want that is interesting but you are only one vote and clearly the rule-writers saw the value of it.
Gengulphus wrote:Lootman wrote:Gengulphus wrote:Simple: just about every share under the sun has the potential to become a valid HYP candidate, given sufficient time and luck.
Well, it is in the rules right now so I don't think that a blanket assertion that it should not be is too helpful, without at least trying to understand both the value of discussing potential shares and what would be reasonable criteria for allowing or denying them. The fact you personally don't want that is interesting but you are only one vote and clearly the rule-writers saw the value of it.
I'm afraid that response is a complete non sequitur from the words of mine that you have quoted. They don't say anything that is in the rules right now, the blanket assertion that they make is about something that is, not something that should not be, and they don't say anything about what I personally do or don't want.
Cutting quotes down to what you're responding to is a good principle (as long as you don't cut so far as to remove important context, but that's not the problem here). But cutting them down to what you're not responding to is not - it simply makes it impossible for a discussion to proceed rationally!
Gengulphus wrote:Agreed with your conclusion, but you're bringing your personal rules about when to consider complete disposal and when not to into a discussion about what is (or should be) allowed on the HYP Practical board. Nothing against them as personal rules, but I would object if they got enshrined into the HYP Practical board guidance and (for instance) people started having posts treated as off-topic because they were discussing selling a share whose yield had dropped to 60% of the market yield!
Gengulphus
tjh290633 wrote:Gengulphus wrote:Agreed with your conclusion, but you're bringing your personal rules about when to consider complete disposal and when not to into a discussion about what is (or should be) allowed on the HYP Practical board. Nothing against them as personal rules, but I would object if they got enshrined into the HYP Practical board guidance and (for instance) people started having posts treated as off-topic because they were discussing selling a share whose yield had dropped to 60% of the market yield!
Gengulphus
Why would that be off-topic? What is magic about 40%, 50% or 60%. All they are doing is disposing of a share which no longer meets their needs.
As I said above, selling is optional, and when and how a sale is made is up to the investor.
Lootman wrote:Gengulphus wrote:But all that TMF's guidance says about an increasing dividend record is "... and safety factors that suggest that their dividend income is sustainable and will hopefully grow.
This is not TMF so why would that matter? I never read the TMF guidelines and never felt any need to. I think Terry is correct here - for a share to be a good HYP candidate it should at least have some kind of dividend record, UNLESS it is being presented as a "potential" HY candidate, as allowed by HY rules, in which case other arguments must be convincingly made.
Gengulphus wrote:With a minor error in a nested quote corrected, that I've only just noticed because it happened to mess up the formatting of this reply:Lootman wrote:Gengulphus wrote:But all that TMF's guidance says about an increasing dividend record is "... and safety factors that suggest that their dividend income is sustainable and will hopefully grow.
This is not TMF so why would that matter? I never read the TMF guidelines and never felt any need to. I think Terry is correct here - for a share to be a good HYP candidate it should at least have some kind of dividend record, UNLESS it is being presented as a "potential" HY candidate, as allowed by HY rules, in which case other arguments must be convincingly made.
So you presumably take the "always" in tjh290633's assertion that "You have omitted the requirement for at least 5 years of dividend payments, ideally rising each year, but not having been reduced, which was always in the criteria." as meaning "ever since the TLF HYP Practical board was created", and only need what I said about TLF's guidance to establish to your satisfaction that that assertion (which is not just that "it should at least have some kind of dividend record") is not true. And so for you, what I said about TMF's guidance and pyad's original HYP articles is irrelevant.
Fine - but I'm not writing purely (or mainly, or even anywhere near mainly) for your benefit. Others will consider that "always" to mean something longer term, and they are likely to consider what I said about TMF's guidance and pyad's original HYP articles relevant.
In short, I cannot make what I post contain all relevant arguments and no irrelevant ones in the eyes of all readers. So I'm not even going to try - and if you don't like it, tough!
Gengulphus wrote:I'm clearly wasting my time, as that's another complete non sequitur from the words of mine that you quote. So I'll stop.
Lootman wrote:Gengulphus wrote:Lootman wrote:Well, it is in the rules right now so I don't think that a blanket assertion that it should not be is too helpful, without at least trying to understand both the value of discussing potential shares and what would be reasonable criteria for allowing or denying them. The fact you personally don't want that is interesting but you are only one vote and clearly the rule-writers saw the value of it.
I'm afraid that response is a complete non sequitur from the words of mine that you have quoted. They don't say anything that is in the rules right now, the blanket assertion that they make is about something that is, not something that should not be, and they don't say anything about what I personally do or don't want.
Cutting quotes down to what you're responding to is a good principle (as long as you don't cut so far as to remove important context, but that's not the problem here). But cutting them down to what you're not responding to is not - it simply makes it impossible for a discussion to proceed rationally!
Disagree. The rules clearly state that discussion of potential HY shares is allowed as Chris and I have explained to you. If you want that changed you need to make your case. I trust the Mods to make the necessary judgments. Do you not?
melonfool wrote:It is highly unlikely, in fact I would say vanishingly unlikely, we are going to be making any changes to the HYP guidelines.
tjh290633 wrote:Gengulphus wrote:Agreed with your conclusion, but you're bringing your personal rules about when to consider complete disposal and when not to into a discussion about what is (or should be) allowed on the HYP Practical board. Nothing against them as personal rules, but I would object if they got enshrined into the HYP Practical board guidance and (for instance) people started having posts treated as off-topic because they were discussing selling a share whose yield had dropped to 60% of the market yield!
Why would that be off-topic? What is magic about 40%, 50% or 60%. All they are doing is disposing of a share which no longer meets their needs.
Gengulphus wrote:melonfool wrote:It is highly unlikely, in fact I would say vanishingly unlikely, we are going to be making any changes to the HYP guidelines.
If that's the case, it is likely, in fact I would say overwhelmingly likely, that you will continue getting this sort of debate about what they mean.
Gengulphus
Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests