Dod's farewell.

[PinkDalek]

The line in the rules is: "Discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board." - seems really simple to me.


Mel

I'm having trouble reconciling that with what you posted the other day:

melonfool wrote:
If *your* portfolio includes some low yielders (mine does) then those are not part of the HYP, either you split the portfolio (in name) or you accept it's not an HYP, but either way you don't raise those shares on the HYP board. ...

My guess is Mel was talking about shares which have always been low yield, do not belong in a High Yield Portfolio and shouldn't be discussed until they potentially fit the TLF guidance.

I didn't feel particularly confused until I noticed this thread

If you want to be further confused, try reading this one and related links, which you may well have missed:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=12749

I'm not a HYPster but do read the board in question and as sure as eggs are eggs, this Topic will blow over in time, as have so many in the past.

Until there's yet another one.

[Arborbridge]

If you want to be further confused, try reading this one and related links, which you may well have missed:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=12749

I'm not a HYPster but do read the board in question and as sure as eggs are eggs, this Topic will blow over in time, as have so many in the past.

Until there's yet another one.

Thanks for that link which I'd never seen. I've not been in the habit of looking in this "bisuit bar" thing, so it's all been invisible to me. However, it all looks pretty heavy and picky, so I'm not missing much which will help my investing - or peace of mind

I'll stay mainly on the HYP practical board, as usual - it's a more relevant and peaceful environment, I'd say

Anyhow, PD, thanks again.

Arb.

[Lootman]

is someone allowed to discuss a 'potential' share that *doesn't* meet the current HYP Practical 'criteria', but the rule is that it cannot be promoted as an option to *purchase* it for a HYP, as it currently does not *meet* the criteria?

How might such a conversation go?

The way the guideline reads to me at the moment, to break it down further, is that a share may be discussed if:

1) It currently qualifies on yield criteria, OR

2) It currently does not qualify on yield criteria but has done at some point in the past, even if for just one day, OR

3) It currently doesn't qualify on yield criteria and moreover never has. But there are good reasons to believe that it soon will.

If (3) is in fact not allowed then the reference to "potential shares" adds no meaning or value and should be removed. I am not saying they should be discussed only that at the moment the guidelines allow it.

Presumably as the discussion runs its course it will become apparent whether it really does have that potential or not. The author proposing the potential share has the burden of proof for demonstrating its suitability. Examples might be statements by management about its intentions or published news or results.

[melonfool]

is someone allowed to discuss a 'potential' share that *doesn't* meet the current HYP Practical 'criteria', but the rule is that it cannot be promoted as an option to *purchase* it for a HYP, as it currently does not *meet* the criteria?

How might such a conversation go?

The way the guideline reads to me at the moment, to break it down further, is that a share may be discussed if:

1) It currently qualifies on yield criteria, OR

2) It currently does not qualify on yield criteria but has done at some point in the past, even if for just one day, OR

3) It currently doesn't qualify on yield criteria and moreover never has. But there are good reasons to believe that it soon will.

If (3) is in fact not allowed then the reference to "potential shares" adds no meaning or value and should be removed. I am not saying they should be discussed only that at the moment the guidelines allow it.

Presumably as the discussion runs its course it will become apparent whether it really does have that potential or not. The author proposing the potential share has the burden of proof for demonstrating its suitability. Examples might be statements by management about its intentions or published news or results.

Yes, 3 is fine and, importantly, already happens ALL THE TIME.

But, re all of them, it's not just the yield criteria, they have to be within the rest I quoted - ordinary share, in the ftse350.

There is no 'burden of proof', it's just a discussion board, not a court.

The rules don't need anything added nor interpretation, there do not need to be examples of what 'evidence' people might provide - this all works fine as it is, see the link I posted to a current discussion on the same grounds.

Mel

[Itsallaguess]

The rules don't need anything added nor interpretation

OK Mel - I certainly don't want to labour the point - and I agree that the majority of time there is little cause for concern, but given that when there *are* issues, they tend to blow up into the same old long discussions, then I thought it might be worth trying to see if the guidance wording might warrant some improvements to try to head some of those issues off from the outset.

I still think the specific use of the word 'potential', with no clearer definition, is one example of this, but of course this is just my view.

Cheers,

It'sallaguess

[jackdaww]

If you want to be further confused, try reading this one and related links, which you may well have missed:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=12749

I'm not a HYPster but do read the board in question and as sure as eggs are eggs, this Topic will blow over in time, as have so many in the past.

Until there's yet another one.

Thanks for that link which I'd never seen. I've not been in the habit of looking in this "bisuit bar" thing, so it's all been invisible to me. However, it all looks pretty heavy and picky, so I'm not missing much which will help my investing - or peace of mind

I'll stay mainly on the HYP practical board, as usual - it's a more relevant and peaceful environment, I'd say

Anyhow, PD, thanks again.

Arb.

=======================

peaceful ?? i find it awful.

[Arborbridge]

=======================

peaceful ?? i find it awful.

Yep. Peaceful - certainly in the main. No hundred post long threads about angels dancing on pinheads, but HYPers discussing share and performances of their HYPs. That's why we had a separation of the boards on TMF, if you remember. It leaves HYPers in one place (which, incdentally, seems to be one of the most popular boards) and all the airy-fairy stuff on the other.

Arb.

[tjh290633]

I view potential HYP shares as falling into two categories.

First, shares which qualify but have never been selected for whatever reason.

Second, shares which are on the cusp and which might qualify, given a good following wind. That could be a substantial increase in dividend, not accompanied by an equally substantial rise in SP.

Previously selected shares could fall into the second category.

TJH

[PinkDalek]

Thanks for that link which I'd never seen. I've not been in the habit of looking in this "bisuit bar" thing, so it's all been invisible to me. However, it all looks pretty heavy and picky, so I'm not missing much which will help my investing - or peace of mind

I'll stay mainly on the HYP practical board, as usual - it's a more relevant and peaceful environment, I'd say

Anyhow, PD, thanks again.

Arb.

=======================

peaceful ?? i find it awful.

There's a simple solution.

[jackdaww]

Thanks for that link which I'd never seen. I've not been in the habit of looking in this "bisuit bar" thing, so it's all been invisible to me. However, it all looks pretty heavy and picky, so I'm not missing much which will help my investing - or peace of mind

I'll stay mainly on the HYP practical board, as usual - it's a more relevant and peaceful environment, I'd say

Anyhow, PD, thanks again.

Arb.

=======================

peaceful ?? i find it awful.

There's a simple solution.

=====

thanks - already done.

[melonfool]

It's certainly not peaceful, but if board users think it is peaceful then I would say that is in large part due to the moderation that happens - spats frequently break out which are deleted or nipped in the bud.

Left to its own devices it would most certainly not be peaceful and a not insignificant number of posters would stop posting at all.

Mel

[Lootman]

I view potential HYP shares as falling into two categories.

First, shares which qualify but have never been selected for whatever reason.

Second, shares which are on the cusp and which might qualify, given a good following wind. That could be a substantial increase in dividend, not accompanied by an equally substantial rise in SP.

Previously selected shares could fall into the second category.

The first category there is surely covered by the ability to discus shares that have qualified in the past. It is not necessary that anyone actually selected it - only that they could have done at a time when it did qualify. Since there is no way to know if a poster actually owns a share or not, that cannot be a reasonable basis for moderation. So in practice any share that could have been validly bought in the past is included.

Your second category is how I read the term "potential shares". It does not qualify and never has. But there are good reasons for believing that it soon might. Newly published news might be a factor for believing that the dividend will be increased significantly. That said, and as you note, if that good news is accompanied by a rise in share price then the yield might not move.

We don't discuss share price movements, of course. But yield is a function of price and so, in a sense, we have to for this type of situation. We might say, for instance, that with the announced rise in dividends, it will have an above-market yield if the share price falls below 600p.

[PinkDalek]

… We don't discuss share price movements, of course. ...

You might not but there are hundreds of posts on the subject board which do just that, then saying they don't or words to that effect. Some appear a few minutes after an RNS has been posted there.

Maybe such discussion is nowadays allowable (not that it wasn't under the previous guise, iirc), using Additional criteria may be used by individuals, although that's under the selection criteria paragraph, and/or The construction, management and performance of HYPs is acceptable, if performance includes share price matters, such as in the recent Carillion debacle.

[Wizard]

Personally I read the now much discussed "potential" to be a reference to shares that could potentially be added to an individual investor's portfolio. They would have to already qualify, but just not have been selected before. I guess that just confirms the word would benefit from more definition... or... alternatively, just discuss shares that do not qualify on HYP Practical on High Yield Shares and Strategies? Don't own Unilever but want to add it to your portfolio to add growth potential to a portfolio already giving a high enough yield now? Can't do that on HYP practical, but you can on High Yield Shares and Strategies.

Why, oh why, oh why are people so obsessed with refining the HYP Practical rules when they can discuss what they want to on the High Yield Shares and Strategies board?!?

Terry.

[Itsallaguess]

Personally I read the now much discussed "potential" to be a reference to shares that could potentially be added to an individual investor's portfolio.

They would have to already qualify, but just not have been selected before.

I guess that just confirms the word would benefit from more definition...

Thanks Terry - that was the point I've been trying to make.

If you can read the guidelines in a completely different way to the intended meaning, as we've shown here where the author of the words and also a moderator on the HYP Practical board interprets them differently to you, then they are likely to continue to cause confusion without a clearer definition being provided.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[melonfool]

Not sure why you'd discuss Unilever on HYS&S, it's not high yield by most definitions.

But, noone will complain if you do, so if doesn't really matter I guess.

Mel

[Arborbridge]

But I think it is important that potential shares can be discussed on HYP. I'm not sure why it needs changing or how it can be misinterpreted. It's just shares that look like they might start high yielding or which are starting to reach the point where they have had a steady Divi for a number of years.

The board users can discuss how relevant the suggestion is. It needs to meet the other criteria, like being a ftse350 share etc

Mel

I take your point, but the trouble is that it relies on a value judgement, and some people will suggest a low yielding share and argue that black is white to justify doing so. And having a steady dividend in itself does not give someone a reason for saying a share complies with being "potentially" a HYP share - it still needs to be HY or at least bordering on being HY.
It puts the mods in an awkward position because the word "potential" is wide open to interpretation.

[Wizard]

Not sure why you'd discuss Unilever on HYS&S, it's not high yield by most definitions.

But, noone will complain if you do, so if doesn't really matter I guess.

Mel

Mel

The point I was trying to make was that the guidelines on HYP Practical (to me at least) say you can discuss shares that are currently above FTSE 100 average yield for additions (new or top up) of shares that previously were and are part of an existing HYP. But what I do not think you can discuss is adding a share (new or top up) that is currently not above FTSE 100 average yield. Yet some want to adopt a strategy that creates a portfolio which has an average yield above a certain benchmark and will therefore want to discuss adding a share which is not itself above that benchmark, but adds another dimension to the portfolio, such as consistent dividend growth e.g. Unilever. IMHO such an approach is not consistent with the guidelines for HYP Practical and so should not be discussed, but can be discussed without dispute on High Yield Shares and Strategies.

Terry.

[melonfool]

Personally I read the now much discussed "potential" to be a reference to shares that could potentially be added to an individual investor's portfolio.

They would have to already qualify, but just not have been selected before.

I guess that just confirms the word would benefit from more definition...

Thanks Terry - that was the point I've been trying to make.

If you can read the guidelines in a completely different way to the intended meaning, as we've shown here where the author of the words and also a moderator on the HYP Practical board interprets them differently to you, then they are likely to continue to cause confusion without a clearer definition being provided.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

But why does that matter?

Person A interprets it such that s/he thinks it means a share s/he is proposing to buy, and discusses that;
Person B interprets it such that it means any shares that might, conceivably, become HYP shares, and discusses that.

Both are acceptable. Person A is not missing out with their interpretation. Person B could not, unless they were very odd, think it meant prospective HYP shares but only if s/he was NOT thinking of adding them to their portfolio, in his/her interpretation it matters not a jot whether they are considering them for their own portfolio or not.

Both interpretations are fine and can be supported on the board within the current rules. If Person A, or a n other person gets miffed that they did not realise there was the second interpretation, well, they can either see on the board that this is discussed (as it currently is, with no problem) or they can start a thread here and be pointed to this and lo, merely four thousand posts later they will be clear.

Mel

[PinkDalek]

…

The point I was trying to make was that the guidelines on HYP Practical (to me at least) say you can discuss shares that are currently above FTSE 100 average yield ...

Ignoring the perceived ambiguity of "potential" for the moment, the Guidance has near the start:

If selected, such shares should have a dividend yield above the average for the FTSE100 index and be drawn from the constituents of the FTSE 350 index.

Should not must.

Selection criteria may include the yield, the dividend record and a history of increases. ... Personal feelings can affect the choice, … . Additional criteria may be used by individuals.

May not must.

I'm not linguistically perfect, far from it, but, for me at least, the Guidance gives plenty of scope.