HYP Practical discussions

[StepOne]

HI folks,

I wondered if it was acceptable to place a poll here about the HYP Practical board and what shares can be discussed there, following the recent Unilever threads being moved. First time I've done a poll, so hopefully this works....

Cheers,
StepOne

[dspp]

HI folks,

I wondered if it was acceptable to place a poll here about the HYP Practical board and what shares can be discussed there, following the recent Unilever threads being moved. First time I've done a poll, so hopefully this works....

Cheers,
StepOne

StepOne,

IMHO you can put as many polls as you like, however it is unlikely to change our approach as Mods in this area, and your posting polls is basically counterproductive as it chews up our bandwidth repeatedly on the same topic. Please appreciate:

1. We Mods really don't care that much as individuals about what constitutes a HYP share;
2. But quite a few Fools do care very much about what constitutes a HYP share; indeed they guard the purity of the HYP faith vigorously;
3. And as a result we have learnt that we Mods collectively need to be alert as otherwise an almighty shindig gets kicked off that is basically a religious war between narrow HYP purists and HY broad church. (note subtle difference).

You personally may well be a broad church kind of guy/gal, but believe me I saw alerts from the narrow faithful when I logged on this morning, hence my acting quickly.

I once had a professor called Ed Crawley, who in his first class set out his rules. One of which was "no whingeing" as he was in charge and if he set an assignment then it was there to be done for a reason. He was generally right, and the alternative was unmanageable. That is where we are as Mods.

regards, dspp

ps. I've deleted your x-post about a poll.

[melonfool]

It would be totally pointless to have a list of shares that can and cannot be discussed on HYP.

I was asked at work yesterday for firm instructions on how to apply manager's discretion to potential compassionate leave situations* - I explained why that is not possible.

And the same is true here.

Those in or out change. If it gets moved to another board, really - so what? Just post there, we usually leave a shadow so you can still see it in the original place.

The problem with Unilever (disclaimer - I hold!) was really that, it being a fairly low yielding share, there was then a lot of discussion about whether it was a HYP share and whether the people who held it were 'really' running an HYP, and people get het up when that sort of talk starts. So, if you want to discuss 'is it, isn't it, does it fit this strategy, or shall I have different guidelines, or here are the guidelines I use' - it goes on the other board.

I am also aware this means not much gets left for the HYP board, but again, so what? Loads of boards have very few posts.

Mel

*this is what happens when you work with engineers!

[dspp]

It would be totally pointless to have a list of shares that can and cannot be discussed on HYP.

I was asked at work yesterday for firm instructions on how to apply manager's discretion to potential compassionate leave situations* -.....

Mel

*this is what happens when you work with engineers!

Mel,
Us engineers apply our engineering judgement all the time. Otherwise we would be called physicists. Just sayin ......
regards,
dspp

[melonfool]

I know!

I was discussing the phenomenon with our summer placement student yesterday and telling him about how our new biscuit tin developed its own messaging system within a day of me providing it. I went in the kitchen and thought 'why is the biscuit tin lid on upside down?' - find out it's empty. Yup, engineers - it's code so you don't have to walk any further than the door to find out whether there are any left.

I am currently recruiting to replace myself and it is these types of quirks that someone needs to understand!



Mel

[PinkDalek]

Those in or out change. If it gets moved to another board, really - so what? Just post there, we usually leave a shadow so you can still see it in the original place.

In this instance there is no shadow (maybe it was a time availability issue but the Mod who moved the Topic has found the time to be active on this thread). Without the shadow, those who only read High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical may not know there is an issue.

There's a further issue. For example, a recent portfolio update has been posted on Practical. It has also been linked to from Portfolio Management & Review by someone who has also posted If ULVR was ever a HYP candidate then it can only have been for a blink of an eye and so does not really count. The portfolio includes Unilever and has done for many a year. Should every mention of Unilever over there carry a warning that the current yield is not to be discussed? Including whenever the latest rns or similar is posted over there?

The problem with Unilever (disclaimer - I hold!) was really that, it being a fairly low yielding share, there was then a lot of discussion about whether it was a HYP share and whether the people who held it were 'really' running an HYP, and people get het up when that sort of talk starts. So, if you want to discuss 'is it, isn't it, does it fit this strategy, or shall I have different guidelines, or here are the guidelines I use' - it goes on the other board.

The other board being High Yield Shares & Strategies - general as someone said elsewhere, before it went.

Fully understood about the biscuits and tea btw. I'm merely be contrary and I don't drink tea.

[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. But I excercised my judgement in leaving his annual review on the HYP board.

I figure that HYPers are quite capable of reading the HY board. Hence not cluttering up the place with shadows & etc more than necessary.

regards, dspp

[StepOne]

It would be totally pointless to have a list of shares that can and cannot be discussed on HYP.

Hi Mel,

If there is no list of shares that cannot be discussed, then why are Unilever posts not being allowed? The poll was to see if many people were in favour of tweaking the criteria. What is the problem with that ? I thought I went about it the right way by posting on this board.

If you are genuinely telling me that the users of the boards are not to get involved in setting the guidelines, then I find that very disappointing. I was trying to do the right thing, and genuinely want to make these boards better, but I now feel like a naughty schoolkid who has been told off.

I appreciate the efforts of the mods, but I think that the users should be allowed input on how the boards are to be run, and I think the right thing to do this morning would have been to lock the Unilever thread as it had strayed off topic.

Cheers
StepOne

[StepOne]

IMHO you can put as many polls as you like, however it is unlikely to change our approach as Mods in this area, and your posting polls is basically counterproductive as it chews up our bandwidth repeatedly on the same topic. Please appreciate:

1. We Mods really don't care that much as individuals about what constitutes a HYP share;
2. But quite a few Fools do care very much about what constitutes a HYP share; indeed they guard the purity of the HYP faith vigorously;
3. And as a result we have learnt that we Mods collectively need to be alert as otherwise an almighty shindig gets kicked off that is basically a religious war between narrow HYP purists and HY broad church. (note subtle difference).

You personally may well be a broad church kind of guy/gal, but believe me I saw alerts from the narrow faithful when I logged on this morning, hence my acting quickly.

I once had a professor called Ed Crawley, who in his first class set out his rules. One of which was "no whingeing" as he was in charge and if he set an assignment then it was there to be done for a reason. He was generally right, and the alternative was unmanageable. That is where we are as Mods.

regards, dspp

Hi dspp,

All I did was post a poll about a potential tweak to guidelines. The people chewing up bandwidth now are you and Mel telling me why I was wrong, and forcing my hand to reply to defend myself.

If you are telling me that the board owners and mods need no feedback about how the boards are being run, then I find that disappointing. Surely there is room for improvement everywhere?

Your story about Ed Crawley, strikes a chord, as I said in my reply to Mel, I feel like an admonished schoolchild!!!

Cheers,
StepOne

[PinkDalek]

…

I figure that HYPers are quite capable of reading the HY board. Hence not cluttering up the place with shadows & etc more than necessary.

Thank you for your reply. Yes all the public boards are available to be read. I still don't follow why the Topic was moved to High Yield General, rather than to, say, Share Ideas, if it had to be moved at all, rather than be culled or locked.

It doesn't matter to me btw, I read all three.

As for the Luni Topic, I hope you don't think I was suggesting it was in the wrong zone.

[csearle]

If you are telling me that the board owners and mods need no feedback about how the boards are being run, then I find that disappointing. Surely there is room for improvement everywhere?

Hi StepOne, there is a history in this regard. There has already been an almighty difference of opinion, both between various posters and between various mods. There was a thread called "BOARD USE" that attracted 126 replies discussing this whole issue. The discussions did become a bit circular. It was locked and soft-deleted. Even that turned out to be contentious.

So after a long discussion amongst the mods (that include passionate devotees of both ends of the HYP spectrum) we finally agreed on the text under the thread BOARD GUIDANCE. I do not think there is much appetite for a re-run of all this.

Regards,
Chris

[melonfool]

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. But I excercised my judgement in leaving his annual review on the HYP board.


regards, dspp

Me too - I also looked at that post, wondered whether to move it, decided *on balance* to leave it.

Mel

[melonfool]

It would be totally pointless to have a list of shares that can and cannot be discussed on HYP.

Hi Mel,

If there is no list of shares that cannot be discussed, then why are Unilever posts not being allowed? The poll was to see if many people were in favour of tweaking the criteria. What is the problem with that ? I thought I went about it the right way by posting on this board.

If you are genuinely telling me that the users of the boards are not to get involved in setting the guidelines, then I find that very disappointing. I was trying to do the right thing, and genuinely want to make these boards better, but I now feel like a naughty schoolkid who has been told off.

I appreciate the efforts of the mods, but I think that the users should be allowed input on how the boards are to be run, and I think the right thing to do this morning would have been to lock the Unilever thread as it had strayed off topic.

Cheers
StepOne

Well, you said you wondered if it would be acceptable to have a poll and I said it would be pointless.

Why ask if you don't want people to answer (mods are users too).

We have taken on a lot of feedback about this board and changed it several times, it was running reasonably well actually. But as soon as one post gets moved, it's up in arms again!

Mel

[StepOne]

... as soon as one post gets moved, it's up in arms again!Mel

I think it was the statement that Unilever was not to be considered an HYP share that caused the problem. The thread had definitely strayed off topic, and it would have been completely fine to lock it, or even move it, but to say that we can't discuss ULVR on the HYP board seemed an extreme interpretation of the rules, and a lot of people were upset by it. We should be allowed to express that somewhere, and I thought Biscuit Bar seemed like the correct place.

Sorry if I over-stepped the mark.
StpOne

[melonfool]

It is the correct place to express it, no-one is stopping you.

But be prepared that people have different opinions. If we all had the same opinion, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place!

You say it upset a lot of people, but you didn't see the other side, which was the people who chose not to post but reported the posts. Leaving it as was upset of OTHER people.

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. Everything is a judgement call. As you see, both dspp and I considered Luni's portfolio post and whether it should say and we both, independently, decided it was OK to stay there, however for me it is certainly borderline.

Nothing is black and white. Not even the HYP criteria!

Mel

[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

[melonfool]

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

[Gengulphus]

I've read the HYP Practical "Unilever results" thread and this one with total bemusement.

Why? Because I reported a post in the "Unilever results" thread this morning, and it looks likely from the timings that the movement of the HYP Practical thread and dspp's post saying that Unilever is not a suitable subject for the HYP Practical board resulted from my report. But my report said nothing whatsoever about Unilever not being a HYP share! On the contrary, I think that Unilever has been a suitable HYP choice at times in the past, it's in my own HYP and plenty of other people's, and I have absolutely no objections to it being discussed on the HYP Practical board. And I am certain that it has been over the FTSE 100 yield (for more than "blink of an eye" periods) in the past - examples include:

* 2000, when the FTSE 100 yield was in the 2.0-2.2% range for all or of most of the year, its historical dividend was 23.78p up to May 2000 and then 27.78p, and its share price was mostly below 1100p;

* the first half of 2011, when the FTSE 100 yield was in the range 3.0%-3.2% for all or of most of the period, its historical dividend was 71.41p from March 2011 (*), and its share price was mostly below 2000p.

That's not the result of an extended 'trawl', by the way: I just looked at a couple of historical periods when my experience suggested that it might have been above the FTSE 100 yield-wise, and the facts are mostly garnered by eyeballing charts. A thorough 'trawl' would probably find more. And note that it's very well-established that HYPers can use forecast yields, which at least for Unilever will always or almost always have been noticeably above historical yields and so produce further periods when it was above the FTSE 100 yield.

What my report was about was an attack on somebody's HYP strategy and/or their adherence to it on the grounds that it had led to them not having Unilever in it. That had already started an argument about strategies which IMHO belonged on the High Yield Shares & Strategies board and looked likely to escalate further (and did before my report could be dealt with). I expected an "if you want to discuss your strategies rather than the Unilever results, take it to High Yield Shares & Strategies" moderator comment, maybe accompanied by some deletions, not for the whole thread to be moved there!

And by the way, the problem with such arguments is not that they happen, but that they 'hijack' the thread. Any existing HYPer who has Unilever in their HYP and wants to see comments on their results (but not to have to wade through such arguments to find them) will be helped by banishing the argument to another board, but not by moving the whole lot to another board!

Gengulphus

[melonfool]

And by the way, the problem with such arguments is not that they happen, but that they 'hijack' the thread. Any existing HYPer who has Unilever in their HYP and wants to see comments on their results (but not to have to wade through such arguments to find them) will be helped by banishing the argument to another board, but not by moving the whole lot to another board!

Gengulphus

I agree, same with moderation discussion (except here).

Mel

[Gengulphus]

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. ...

FWIW, I don't think that makes Luni non-"purist" - having dividend safety checks has always been part of HYP strategies. His "zones" concept is basically a "yield too high to be safe" check - a rather unusual one, but a dividend safety check nevertheless. I have been critical of it in the past (on TMF, as he has only recently resurfaced on TLF), but that's been on the grounds of whether it's a good, effective dividend safety check in practice, not that he's not running a HYP strategy.

Gengulphus