HYP Practical discussions

[Dod101]

Well I agree that the Guidance disallows Unilever from the HYP Practical Board but surely the Boards are for the benefit of the posters not the other way round and if the posters agree on Unilever being discussed on this Board (or most of those who bothered to respond anyway) it should not be disbarred because one or two pedants have complained. Anyway it is not my Board but there is no doubt that the moderation on TLF is much stricter than it ever was on TMF, for why I know not.

A more positive stance would be to consider amending the Guidance for the HYP Practical Board to something along the lines of 'This Board is for the discussion of shares suitable for a HYP which means they will generally yield more than the FTSE100 average.' Something as simple as that would allow Unilever a free passage. After all the spirit of the matter is discussion of a High Yield Portfolio not of High Yield shares. Ironically enough Unilever is welcomed on the High Yield Shares and Strategies Board but not the High Yield Portfolio Board. That makes no sense.

Dod

[mc2fool]

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.

So then why did you move the thread on it to the High Yield Shares & Strategies - general board?!?

[dspp]

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.

So then why did you move the thread on it to the High Yield Shares & Strategies - general board?!?

Because I was trying to be reasonable and tolerant of the fact that a lot of you hold it as part of a portfolio, that is generally comprised of higher yielding shares, even though this particular share (ULVR) is a lower yielding share.

That set of people with a broader but still highish portfolio which might have some oddities is exactly what the HY-General board is for, whereas the HYP-Practical board is for the more purists.

The problem from a Mod perspective is that one group want to be both hare & hound, whilst another group want hares and hounds to be kept quite separate. And some of you keep questioning the referee.

If you want I can ask the Gods of Stooz & Clariman to set up a Low Yield Shares board and stick ULVR into that .......

regards, dspp

[melonfool]

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.

So then why did you move the thread on it to the High Yield Shares & Strategies - general board?!?

Because I was trying to be reasonable and tolerant of the fact that a lot of you hold it as part of a portfolio, that is generally comprised of higher yielding shares, even though this particular share (ULVR) is a lower yielding share.

That set of people with a broader but still highish portfolio which might have some oddities is exactly what the HY-General board is for, whereas the HYP-Practical board is for the more purists.

The problem from a Mod perspective is that one group want to be both hare & hound, whilst another group want hares and hounds to be kept quite separate. And some of you keep questioning the referee.

If you want I can ask the Gods of Stooz & Clariman to set up a Low Yield Shares board and stick ULVR into that .......

regards, dspp

*This* answers my question post number #154356 did not - probably because I couldn't make sense of your stuff about dogs and tails.

So, clearly a case of "can't do right for doing wrong"!

Mel

[mc2fool]

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.

So then why did you move the thread on it to the High Yield Shares & Strategies - general board?!?

Because I was trying to be reasonable and tolerant of the fact that a lot of you hold it as part of a portfolio, that is generally comprised of higher yielding shares, even though this particular share (ULVR) is a lower yielding share.

That set of people with a broader but still highish portfolio which might have some oddities is exactly what the HY-General board is for, whereas the HYP-Practical board is for the more purists.

The problem from a Mod perspective is that one group want to be both hare & hound, whilst another group want hares and hounds to be kept quite separate. And some of you keep questioning the referee.

If you want I can ask the Gods of Stooz & Clariman to set up a Low Yield Shares board and stick ULVR into that .......

FYI, the "you" you refer to above doesn't include me. I don't follow either the HYP Practical or High Yield Shares & Strategies boards. I was just bemused that given your insistence that ULVR is a low yield share, not a high yield share (agreed) that you'd moved it to the other High Yield board.

[PinkDalek]

... And some of you keep questioning the referee. ...

Would mention of VAR be appropriate?

I think what some are suggesting is that maybe the referee could have a rethink, bearing in mind what another referee has said on this very Topic:

viewtopic.php?p=154289#p154289

[StepOne]

Hi dspp,

Nobody is suggesting the sky has fallen in. It has only been suggested that the discussion of Unilever should be allowed on the HYP Practical board. It's a fairly minor request.

And when you refer to the

peers who really do not want it cluttering up a HYP-Practical board

, it seems to me that they are a tiny minority and the mods are ignoring the majority.

If you did get an 'alert' about the original post, then it was probably more to do with the fact that it had veered off into a discussion on what should/shouldn't be in an HYP, rather than the post specifically being about Unilever.

Cheers,
StepOne

[melonfool]

And when you refer to the

peers who really do not want it cluttering up a HYP-Practical board

,

it seems to me that they are a tiny minority and the mods are ignoring the majority.

Well, not really, we have no idea who has voted in this poll or what their motivations may be - there are people who have commented on this thread who have previously said they don't follow the HYP strategy at all, they may well have voted too but what value do their votes have?

If you did get an 'alert' about the original post, then it was probably more to do with the fact that it had veered off into a discussion on what should/shouldn't be in an HYP, rather than the post specifically being about Unilever.

Cheers,
StepOne

Gengulphus has said he reported a post, and why.

Mel

[tjh290633]

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

To be quite honest, (and ladies) was an afterthought, as my instincts were and still are that this argy-bargy is exclusively a male affair. I suppose that I could use Gentlemen with the caveat that references to males includes females and vice versa. Indeed, these days with all sorts of LBGTXQ etc. one is never quite sure who is which or what.

Maybe the Y-all beloved in the southern states might be a better form of address, perhaps Y-all Y-all to be certain.

Y-all come back, now.

TJH

[Gengulphus]

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.

That was stated a number of times, certainly (*) - but the fact that something was stated does not necessarily make it true! And it wasn't true on TMF - the relevant passage from TMF's guidance read "The type of strategy discussed on this board invests in shares: ... • With high dividend yields, ...", which says clearly that the shares (not the portfolio) have high dividend yields.

More to the point, it's not true here either, as TLF's guidance says "For the HYP Practical board we define an HYP as a portfolio comprised exclusively of ordinary shares. If selected, such shares should have a dividend yield above the average for the FTSE100 index ...", which is again clearly about the shares, not the portfolio. And the additional case allowed by "Discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board." is also about the shares rather than the portfolio.

One might try to get that guidance changed. The way to do that that is reasonably friendly to the moderators is to make a proposal as to what the guidance should say and argue it out here, making suitable adjustments for any objections that are raised. No promises that the site owners and moderators will accept whatever that comes up with, but they're reasonable people and if presented with a well-thought-out and reviewed suggestion, will probably adopt it (with one important condition, that I'll get on to below).

The way NOT to go about it is to simply stating that how one thinks things ought to be is how they are when it isn't. Regardless of whether one thinks that it's enough for the portfolio yield to be high, posting as though that's the case while the guidelines say that the share yields must be (or have been for past purchases) high simply creates unnecessary work for the moderators - both when dealing with one's own posts and when dealing with posts by other users whose thinking about what belongs on the board has been modified. Similarly, stating that a "... 94% poll result has put this matter beyond question" when it quite clearly hasn't is just a pointless waste of time - one might fairly reasonably (**) think that it ought to have put the matter beyond question, but not that it has done so.

If you intend what you're saying as basically a proposal that the guidance is changed to say just that the portfolio yield should be high rather than that the individual share yields should be high, there is a simple objection to that. Any share at all can be in a portfolio that has a high portfolio yield: if I produce a portfolio consisting of equal weights of 19 shares with yields well above the FTSE 100 yield and any 20th share at all (even one with a zero yield), that portfolio will have a portfolio yield above the FTSE 100 yield, i.e. a high one. But if any share at all can be discussed on the HYP Practical board, it becomes indistinguishable from the Share Ideas board, and having both of them just becomes a nuisance for users and moderators alike... Basically, the purpose of the HYP Practical board is to serve those who want (rightly or wrongly) to get on with running a HYP strategy in practice, so a change that takes it too far from that purpose destroys the point of having it at all - and a guidance change that permits any share at all to be discussed on it is pretty clearly such a change.

To be clear, I am not saying that I think the board guidance is perfect at the moment. IMHO it most definitely isn't: I find it too rigid in a number of respects, including the exact test "above FTSE 100 yield" test of a share's yield, the requirement for FTSE 350 membership as essentially a 'dividend safety factor', and its statement that the portfolio must consist exclusively of shares that meet its criteria. If I look at the TMF guidance (specifically, at its question 6, which basically contains all it says about what makes a HYP a HYP), I find that it doesn't have any of those rigidities: it just says that the yield must be "high" without specifying the exact test, it says that there must be dividend safety factors but explicitly leaves it up to the HYPer which they use, it explicitly allows a HYP to deviate in minor ways from what it says.

I'm not saying those rigidities are fatal flaws with the TLF guidance: they can be (and I believe are) softened quite effectively by moderators using their discretion. And of course, the less rigid TMF guidance also needed use of moderator discretion - basically, they had to decide when someone was making reasonable judgements about yields being high, dividends being safe, portfolios being sufficiently close to 100% in line with the guidance and when they were showing total disregard for the guidance (whether by just deciding they weren't going to bother with it, or more actively trying to change it by repeatedly and deliberately pushing at its boundaries, or even deliberately taking the mick).

But although not fatal flaws, they are flaws with the TLF guidance IMHO. Probably not so much because of moderators being excessively rigid (though I think that does occasionally happen), but because it encourages users who are that way inclined to be excessively rigid and report things that are entirely reasonable. So I'd like to see them fixed - but not with fixes that basically say "any share at all can be discussed on the HYP Practical board". And I think they probably can be with suitable changes to the guidance.

And finally, that important condition that I mentioned. It's that those who put forward the suggested guidance changes show that they are willing to pay attention to the guidance! If they simply ignore the existing guidance and demonstrate ignorance of what it actually is, why should anyone think that they will learn what the revised guidance is and pay attention to it? If they get a decent amount of what they want, they'll probably end up abiding by it accidentally more often - but equally others who are in the habit of just ignoring the guidance will probably end up abiding by it less often.

(*) And for the benefit of pedants, that number was not zero or even one! ;-)

(**) But not entirely reasonably, because it ignores the fact that TLF is not a democracy, but a hopefully-benevolent oligarchy with two self-selected people in charge. The only type of vote that ultimately has any power at all here is the one you can perform with your feet...

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

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.

It isn't that unusual. I think the point you're missing is that "that day after they had run through the list of HYP rules" is not a single day. It is indeed very much unusual for Unilever to qualify as a HYP share by the board guidance on any particular day - I'd guess the chance of it happening is only a few percent. But if like me you've been running your HYP for over 15 years and looking for a share to purchase maybe half a dozen times a year on average, it would actually have been very much unusual for it not to qualify on a handful of the ~100 occasions it's had a chance to! And the LTBH nature of HYPs (which is also part of the board guidance) says that it just needs to be selected once and it's probably there to stay...

Because of that "it only needs to qualify once and it gets many chances" effect, it is actually quite common for an existing HYP to contain currently-low-yielding shares. E.g. I've just looked at a spreadsheet showing my HYP's share's forecast yields a couple of months ago (the last time I updated the spreadsheet). The FTSE100 yield on that day was 3.80% according to the FT, and 10 out of 38 shares were below it (the number would probably have been higher for historical yields, but that particular spreadsheet doesn't track them). Also, look through people's posted HYPs and I'm sure you'll find plenty that contain Unilever...

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 so are those of us with existing holdings in currently-low-yielding shares! Having such holdings is not a "rare exception" other than in quite recently-constructed HYPs. And there are plenty of practical situations involving HYP shares that can use "long discourses" besides purchases - the DS Smith rights issue is a fairly current example involving a share currently on a yield similar to Unilever's, and that is also one of the 10 shares in my HYP on a below-FTSE100 yield.

The key thing that needs to be avoided on HYP Practical about discussing currently-low-yield shares is discussing them as potential purchases (or as mischievous distractions from the board's business). Blocking discussion of them beyond that - even quite extensive discussion when relevant to a practical situation - interferes with the board's intended purpose rather than helping it. Hopefully that's what you intended - but what you actually said sounds rather more draconian than that!

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

Is that about historical or forecast post length? ;-)

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

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.

That was stated a number of times, certainly (*) - but the fact that something was stated does not necessarily make it true!

Well, there is a theory that says that if something is said enough times then it becomes true regardless of whether it is or not. Maybe we are all guilty of remembering what we want to remember, and I am certainly not going to trawl through ancient TMF posts in order to verify or falsify your claim. Suffice to say I recall it was a conventional wisdom at the time.

But what I will say is that many HYP portfolios do tend to end up with shares that yield nothing, without invalidating any claim by that portfolio owner that it has ceased to be a HYP. So any quibbling about that is more about what is discussed here rather than what is reality.

stating that a "... 94% poll result has put this matter beyond question" when it quite clearly hasn't

OK, let me rephrase. I would not want to run a site or board where 94% of my users were unhappy. I might be able to get away with it. But I am not sure why I would want to, absent compelling legal or other vital reasons.

[csearle]

Well I agree that the Guidance disallows Unilever from the HYP Practical Board ...

I don't. C.

[Itsallaguess]

I'm struggling to keep up with the current position regarding Unilever on the HYP Practical Board, but can I just check that if the following was posted, and discussed, would it be allowed?

"I own Unilever in my HYP. I bought it when it was yielding a suitable 'HYP-qualifying' yield. I think it's a sufficiently good company, with such a good long-term record of steadily increasing dividends, that I would advocate that people perhaps keep an eye on it, and maybe consider it for purchase if the yield ever re-enters the 'HYP-qualifying' yield zone. Whilst it might never yield a huge percentage-return when compared to some of the higher-yielding HYP options, I think the company deserves it's place in a diversified HYP as a good 'portfolio-ballast candidate' if it can be purchased at the right yield."

Would there be anything controversial in the above statement that would disqualify such a post being made on the HYP Practical Board?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess (owns Unilever in his High Yield Portfolio....)

[Raptor]

I'm struggling to keep up with the current position regarding Unilever on the HYP Practical Board, but can I just check that if the following was posted, and discussed, would it be allowed?

"I own Unilever in my HYP. I bought it when it was yielding a suitable 'HYP-qualifying' yield. I think it's a sufficiently good company, with such a good long-term record of steadily increasing dividends, that I would advocate that people perhaps keep an eye on it, and maybe consider it for purchase if the yield ever re-enters the 'HYP-qualifying' yield zone. Whilst it might never yield a huge percentage-return when compared to some of the higher-yielding HYP options, I think the company deserves it's place in a diversified HYP as a good 'portfolio-ballast candidate' if it can be purchased at the right yield."

Would there be anything controversial in the above statement that would disqualify such a post being made on the HYP Practical Board?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess (owns Unilever in his High Yield Portfolio....)

Tough one. The 2nd part advising looking at may cause concern. I would add mod box, move it to strategy and leave a shadow. That way I would curtail following posts from going down the route we are currently going.

Raptor

[PinkDalek]

Tough one. The 2nd part advising looking at may cause concern. I would add mod box, move it to strategy and leave a shadow. That way I would curtail following posts from going down the route we are currently going.

Raptor

At the risk of getting repetitive, you'd move it to High Yield Shares & Strategies - general?

[csearle]

...but can I just check that if the following was posted, and discussed, would it be allowed?

"I own Unilever in my HYP...".

Well in this scenario you bought it as part of your HYP. Thus it is allowed to be discussed in accordance with our board guidance.

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

Advocating it or suggesting the sale of it, or anything really, is part and parcel of discussion. So from my point of view I would not bat an eylid at such a discussion.

But as you know Its, it is up to the particular moderator that reads/fields-a-report as to how they react. Actually I think this is quite good as if one individual (like me, or any other moderator) had the last say on these things then they would go mad with their God-like powers.

Cheers,
Chris

[Dod101]

But Chris as I know, individual mods do have the last say and these two posts from different mods illustrate the problem. If you mods cannot agree amongst yourselves, what hope have we posters got of getting it right? I know this is asking the obvious but it illustrates the problem.

As PD has said, what is the logic in moving a discussion on a low yielding share from HYP Practical to High Yielding Shares and Strategies?

My 154365 of today could I think solve the problem because on the Practical Board we are discussing HYPs, at least that is what it says in its title.

Dod

[csearle]

But Chris as I know, individual mods do have the last say and these two posts from different mods illustrate the problem. If you mods cannot agree amongst yourselves, what hope have we posters got of getting it right? I know this is asking the obvious but it illustrates the problem.

Hi Dod, yes I agree that as well as the guidance you have to contend with each moderator's interpretation of that guidance. The only hope I have that this mlght be mitigated against is that we all discuss these things behind the scenes and, hopefully, reach a consensus.

As PD has said, what is the logic in moving a discussion on a low yielding share from HYP Practical to High Yielding Shares and Strategies?

I don't know. Human error?

My 154365 of today could I think solve the problem because on the Practical Board we are discussing HYPs, at least that is what it says in its title.

Well your suggestion of that post (adjusting the guidance) is I feel not necessary in the case of Unilever because many people have chosen it in the past for their HYPs. (myself included). Such cases are explicitly allowed for discussion in the guidelines.

Regards,
Chris

[Raptor]

Tough one. The 2nd part advising looking at may cause concern. I would add mod box, move it to strategy and leave a shadow. That way I would curtail following posts from going down the route we are currently going.

Raptor

At the risk of getting repetitive, you'd move it to High Yield Shares & Strategies - general?

I blame the sun and the beer . Of course you right we are discussing a share that is not currently HY so shares would be a choiçe but a tough choice really as the wording would lead to op saying keep an eye on it for a rising yield that meets hyp and buy.

I suppose most mods would leave it and see how it flows. I think I would have as well until this thread.

Raptor