Itsallaguess wrote: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?
I would regard it as OK on the "HYP" aspect - it's only suggesting that it can be bought if and when it meets the guidance for HYPs - but a bit dubious on the "Practical" aspect: it's not discussing a current practical situation. It is suggesting that one should "keep an eye" on Unilever, which is a practical course of action - but it's a very low-key one, and I'd be inclined to think of it as too low-key to really qualify. One specific reason for that is that just about
any share might become a HYP share in the future, so if suggesting people "keep an eye" on Unilever is OK, presumably so is the same suggestion about any other share.
On its own, though, "a bit dubious" would not be enough to make me (as a user) report the post, and were I a moderator, I probably wouldn't reckon it was worth even a moderator comment - I'd just keep an eye on how the discussion went. If there were more in the post concerned, though, that might well influence my view - for instance, if a post started by saying that Unilever was not a suitable HYP purchase because of its low yield, and then went on to say the above, that would seem fine to me - the poster might even be attempting to forestall comments about inconsistency if they'd said elsewhere that their HYP contained Unilever. On the other hand, if it said the above as a springboard for an extensive analysis of Unilever, emphasising all of its good points and downplaying its low yield, that would definitely not be OK!
That's only about the "posted," part of your question - the "and discussed," part is another matter. My feeling is that most discussion of it wouldn't be OK - it would be far too likely to go into extensive analysis of Unilever, or strategic generalities not especially relevant to the practical situation with regard to Unilever, or opinions about what should or shouldn't be allowed on the board (i.e. basically moderation matters), or other off-topic areas. I.e. normally, I don't think much
on-topic discussion is likely to result from it - there really isn't much I can think of to say other than "Yes, keeping an eye on candidates that are close to qualifying may be a good idea, at least for those who are still making purchases for their HYPs". So I suspect that either little discussion would result or it would soon need moderator intervention. But that can't be judged properly without knowing the nature of the subsequent discussion, and I can certainly imagine circumstances (albeit highly unlikely ones IMHO) in which extensive subsequent discussion was entirely OK. (E.g. the following day Unilever announces a major accounting issue, its price drops 25% and its yield increases by a factor of 4/3, so people reply saying "The opportunity those who are doing this were waiting for has arrived", others disagree saying that the accounting issue has made the dividend unsafe, and so it goes on...)
Gengulphus
ortfolio - but EVERY and referred to as a 'stalwart', but not on the basis of YIELD which is what the board is about. And all of that is really strategy discussion, not 'practical'.
