Dod's farewell.

[OZYU]

Like a moth to a light, I've been irresistibly drawn to this thread, despite my best efforts to keep out of it.

A wise person (my dad?) once said: "Few things in life matter very much, and most things simply don't matter at all"

Yet here we are in an obscure discussion group on the outer edges of the internet, discussing at absurd length how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the precise etymology of words, what is or is not HYP, whether the rules should change and getting paranoid about whether the mods are out to get us.

It does not matter.

Change the rules? Who on earth ever reads the T&Cs?
Stop the moderation? There lies chaos.

How about applying a bit a tolerance and taking a chill pill? OK, so a mod moves a post to a different board, or takes exception to a disparaging word, or interprets the rules differently. Does it really, really matter? Really? Is it really such an affront that someone might hold a different view to your own? Do you really have to insist on having the last word to reinforce your own importance? Just shrug your shoulders, count to 10 and have a nice cup of tea, then get on with your life. Then continue contributing to TLF.

Clariman, Stooz and mods... carry on, don't change anything, we really appreciate your efforts.

--kiloran

Well, Kiloran, I had you at a little younger, since your Dad appears to be Arthur Balfour.


And it matters a great deal, because the highly restrictive nature of the HYP board is lessening considerably the joy, ease of usage, quality of content and value of TLF for many HY investors. It makes no difference to me at all, but in as much as it affects future younger users, it does.

What you think should happen will most probably happen, I am realistic enough to see that, but it does not make it the best way forward imho.

Ozyu

[idpickering]

3. HYP Practical has very clear guidelines provided, what I don't get is why people have not migrated most traffic to the HYP Strategies and Shares General board where a broader discussion can be had.

And *this* is the question that never seems to be answered by those unhappy about the HYP Practical board.

If HYP Practical isn't what you *want* it to be, go and make High Yield Shares & Strategies into the board you think it *should* be.

There is *nothing* to stop you doing that.....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Because it is ridiculous to split it in the first place. Most of the relevant RNSs, which should lead to proper investing discussions rather than semantics and the boring harking backs which must keep an army of potential new posters away, are on the HYP board, your way leads to unnecessary gymnastics. HY investing is very simple, it needs ONE board imho, and for the mods, it would then be a doddle, none of this ridiculous 'this is allowed, this is not' lark, and a few bullies/self appointed gendarme telling us where to post.

Ozyu

Well said Ozyu. Enough said.

Ian

[melonfool]

But if someone wants to discuss a non-HYP share as part of their wider portfolio income-strategy, why not do it on the High Yield Shares & Strategies - General?

You misunderstood my point I think. I was referring to discussion of low-yielders in HYPs, not "non-HYP" shares (eg. preference shares).

In fact I've just remembered that gryffon has already told us Unilever can be discussed on HYP (viewtopic.php?p=154891#p154891). By extension I take it that also permits discussion of others such as JMAT, SGE, WTB, DGE etc., so I was labouring my point (again) - apologies.

I don't know what those shares are, but I can say there is no such thing as a low-yielding HYP share. It makes zero sense. 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.

But, the rules are clear on what can be discussed and they have been posted on this thread several times. So, we're not going to start rewriting them now and we have previously said we won't be having a list of shares that are OK to discuss and ones that are not.

Mel

[idpickering]

Your suggestion to change the 'High Yield Shares & Strategies' to 'High Yield Investing' would actually then leave shares like Unilever perhaps not being seen as appropriate for *either* board, which is likely to cause more problems than it solves....

Personally, I think something like 'Investing for income' would be more appropriate than 'High Yield Shares & Strategies', as it would then clearly be more widely-scoped than a board with an obviously contentious 'High Yield' title from the outset.

Very good point Itsallaguess and I agree that 'Investing for income' is a much better name, it would allow discussion of pretty much anything income related - which is what a lot of us are interested in afterall.


regards,
Darka

General income investing board seems a good idea to me

I disagree with this idea. You’ll have bond investors and equity investors fighting for seniority and space.

Ian.

[scotia]

Like a moth to a light, I've been irresistibly drawn to this thread, despite my best efforts to keep out of it.

A wise person (my dad?) once said: "Few things in life matter very much, and most things simply don't matter at all"

Yet here we are in an obscure discussion group on the outer edges of the internet, discussing at absurd length how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the precise etymology of words, what is or is not HYP, whether the rules should change and getting paranoid about whether the mods are out to get us.

It does not matter.

Change the rules? Who on earth ever reads the T&Cs?
Stop the moderation? There lies chaos.

How about applying a bit a tolerance and taking a chill pill? OK, so a mod moves a post to a different board, or takes exception to a disparaging word, or interprets the rules differently. Does it really, really matter? Really? Is it really such an affront that someone might hold a different view to your own? Do you really have to insist on having the last word to reinforce your own importance? Just shrug your shoulders, count to 10 and have a nice cup of tea, then get on with your life. Then continue contributing to TLF.

Clariman, Stooz and mods... carry on, don't change anything, we really appreciate your efforts.

--kiloran

You literally took the words out of my mouth - or to be more precise from my key board. I thought about quoting the angels on the pinhead, but decided to be a little less contentious. Well said! I strongly agree with all of your sentiments.

[Alaric]

I can say there is no such thing as a low-yielding HYP share.

In the wider world outside of TMF and TLF, there is no such thing as a HYP share.

[melonfool]

Because it is ridiculous to split it in the first place. Most of the relevant RNSs, which should lead to proper investing discussions rather than semantics and the boring harking backs which must keep an army of potential new posters away, are on the HYP board, your way leads to unnecessary gymnastics. HY investing is very simple, it needs ONE board imho, and for the mods, it would then be a doddle, none of this ridiculous 'this is allowed, this is not' lark, and a few bullies/self appointed gendarme telling us where to post.

Ozyu

Well said Ozyu. Enough said.

Ian

Except TLF does not post the RNS's and it is up to that poster who posts them, or any poster at all, where they post them - and if they posted them on a general investing board it would make a lot more sense anyway.

I assume it is this which is leading to the perception that shares like Shell can only be discussed on HYP? Which is not the case at all. If people want to discuss these shares and don't liek the HYP rules/etc, then post the RNS for those shares yourself wherever else makes sense.

I think arguing about whether it should ever have been split is unnecessary (talking of boring harking backs) - it was split, about ten years ago, NOT by TLF. So, if we go with TLF only, we have two boards. There has been NO SPLIT. We have two boards that cover HY. That's all there is to it.

It's not fair to take away the very specific HYP board that some users want and use successfully and peacefully because a few people can't get to grips with it but somehow still want to play there and tell everyone else how they play. Those posters who dislike the HYP board/HYP itself, its ethos, history, rules, moderation - what board do YOU want created in addition? Where would YOU post the RNS (given that you will probably have to stop relying on someone else)?

Mel

[melonfool]

I can say there is no such thing as a low-yielding HYP share.

In the wider world outside of TMF and TLF, there is no such thing as a HYP share.

EXACTLY!

Now you're starting to understand. This is ONE very specific way of investing, if you don't like it, don't do it - but don't go demanding that people who like it and do it, do it differently to the way they have agreed.

Mel

[Itsallaguess]

General income investing board seems a good idea to me

I disagree with this idea. You’ll have bond investors and equity investors fighting for seniority and space.

Why would a 'HYP Practical' practitioner care about what happens on any other 'investing for income' type board, Ian?

But even ignoring that, what does 'fighting for seniority and space' actually mean? It would be a board where wider approaches to investing for income could be discussed, where those discussions might fall outside of the much stricter remit of the HYP Practical guidelines. What would be the specific issues regarding that approach?

Those wider approaches might include Investment Trusts. It might include Unilever on a yield that doesn't qualify it as a HYP Practical selection. It might include *anything* that could be classed as a component of a portfolio or strategy that is designed to provide income from investments. If one of those components *happened* to be a bond, what would the problem really be in that situation?

To be clear, I don't think there's anything to stop income-investors discussing bonds *as part of a wider high-yield income-strategy* on the *current* High Yield Shares & Strategies board anyway, although it seems to attract very little attention in that area, so I'm really not sure that your point is all that relevant to the specific HYP Practical issues being discussed.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Alaric]

This is ONE very specific way of investing, if you don't like it, don't do it - but don't go demanding that people who like it and do it, do it differently to the way they have agreed.

I think the request is that the board be labelled to indicate that it's toxic and any posts there are liable to create moderation issues and extensive flame wars as evidenced by this thread.

Perhaps it should be boycotted by all posters disinterested in the theology. That means in practice that the RNS announcements that seem its staple should be elsewhere.

[idpickering]

It's not fair to take away the very specific HYP board that some users want and use successfully and peacefully because a few people can't get to grips with it but somehow still want to play there and tell everyone else how they play. Those posters who dislike the HYP board/HYP itself, its ethos, history, rules, moderation - what board do YOU want created in addition? Where would YOU post the RNS (given that you will probably have to stop relying on someone else)?

Thank you for that melonfool. I mainly come to TLF for the HYP Practical Board chat, and if it ceased to be, I’d certainly follow Dods lead.

Ian

[idpickering]

I can say there is no such thing as a low-yielding HYP share.

In the wider world outside of TMF and TLF, there is no such thing as a HYP share.

EXACTLY!

Now you're starting to understand. This is ONE very specific way of investing, if you don't like it, don't do it - but don't go demanding that people who like it and do it, do it differently to the way they have agreed.

Mel

Well said melonfool. Have a rec.

Iian

[melonfool]

This is ONE very specific way of investing, if you don't like it, don't do it - but don't go demanding that people who like it and do it, do it differently to the way they have agreed.

I think the request is that the board be labelled to indicate that it's toxic and any posts there are liable to create moderation issues and extensive flame wars as evidenced by this thread.

Perhaps it should be boycotted by all posters disinterested in the theology. That means in practice that the RNS announcements that seem its staple should be elsewhere.

It's not 'toxic' and your language is starting to move away from hyperbole into the ridiculous, the rules are there for everyone to read. There are no 'flame wars'.

And yes, those not interested in it should not read it or post there - I don't understand why they would want to (again, 'boycott', really!?) and this is what I have said about six times now on this thread.

It's up to the person who posts RNS where they post them. If YOU want an RNS on another board, YOU post it. You seem to be implying the TLF have somehow decreed that the RNS will be posted on HYP, they have not.

Mel

[idpickering]

As an early bird in the morning, I’m always up for the RNS items, and am interested in announcements regarding my holdings in my 32 share HYP. I know others hold similar shares to me, which is why I put the links to the RNS on the HYP Practical Board, for my fellow HYPers to see. I’ve received no complaints thus far, and my doing so seems to be well received. If a reader doesn’t want to look at them, then don’t.

Ian.

[jackdaww]

Wouldn't a simple renaming of the boards help - I know this has been suggested before so maybe a poll should be held?

High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical becomes something like Pyadic High Yield Portfolio

and High Yield Shares & Strategies - general becomes High Yield Investing maybe?

I would of course prefer a single board as when I post about my portfolio in the current HYP board I have to remember to not mention my Investment Trusts, which do form part of my overall High Yield portfolio.... but two renamed boards would be a good compromise instead of combining.

For newer members it's currently far too confusing, especially those of them that weren't around the Fool.

regards,

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

something along these lines has been suggested many times, by myself an others .

HYP is a very narrow stock screen , so IMHO very risky , and dangerous for inexperienced investors who get sucked in the the cosy chat.

[Walrus]

As an early bird in the morning, I’m always up for the RNS items, and am interested in announcements regarding my holdings in my 32 share HYP. I know others hold similar shares to me, which is why I put the links to the RNS on the HYP Practical Board, for my fellow HYPers to see. I’ve received no complaints thus far, and my doing so seems to be well received. If a reader doesn’t want to look at them, then don’t.

Ian.

They are very much appreciated Ian, and have a wider audience than HYP in its strict form. They often start a conversation, however seemingly because of where they are posted, comments related to the information are subject to a higher degree of moderation seems to be what I have gleaned from this whole set of messages.

[Alaric]

They often start a conversation, however seemingly because of where they are posted, comments related to the information are subject to a higher degree of moderation seems to be what I have gleaned from this whole set of messages.

That's exactly the point. Someone wishing to comment that xxx had a very similar business model to yyy (supposedly a HYP share) would be unable to if it transpired that xxx had a dividend yield which fell outside arbitrary guidelines.

[melonfool]

As an early bird in the morning, I’m always up for the RNS items, and am interested in announcements regarding my holdings in my 32 share HYP. I know others hold similar shares to me, which is why I put the links to the RNS on the HYP Practical Board, for my fellow HYPers to see. I’ve received no complaints thus far, and my doing so seems to be well received. If a reader doesn’t want to look at them, then don’t.

Ian.

They are very much appreciated Ian, and have a wider audience than HYP in its strict form. They often start a conversation, however seemingly because of where they are posted, comments related to the information are subject to a higher degree of moderation seems to be what I have gleaned from this whole set of messages.

Not a higher degree of moderation, exactly the same moderation just an extra set of rules.

Mel

[csearle]

Perhaps it [C: High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical] should be boycotted by all posters disinterested in the theology. That means in practice that the RNS announcements that seem its staple should be elsewhere.

I agree with this, although I'd have used less colourful words. IMO most of the RNS announcements posted there would be far better on company-specific boards. In the absence of such boards (and providing the companies mentioned can conceivably be part of a high yield strategy) most of them would be far more on-topic on the High Yield Shares & Strategies - general board. (Or a future Investing for Income board.)

In that way the general chat about such companies could continue without it hijacking a board deliberately set up for a particular strategy*.

Regards,
Chris
*A strategy that does not attach huge value to following every twist and turn of a company's business transactions.

[idpickering]

As an early bird in the morning, I’m always up for the RNS items, and am interested in announcements regarding my holdings in my 32 share HYP. I know others hold similar shares to me, which is why I put the links to the RNS on the HYP Practical Board, for my fellow HYPers to see. I’ve received no complaints thus far, and my doing so seems to be well received. If a reader doesn’t want to look at them, then don’t.

Ian.

They are very much appreciated Ian, and have a wider audience than HYP in its strict form. They often start a conversation, however seemingly because of where they are posted, comments related to the information are subject to a higher degree of moderation seems to be what I have gleaned from this whole set of messages.

Thank you Walrus. I must admit that I do try to generate some chat regarding the contents of any given RNS, which I find informative. I don’t recall any posts telling me to take them elsewhere.

Ian.