Dod's farewell.

[Breelander]

You clearly didn't see the hilarious lettuce thread on Beerpig's Snug then!

No, apparently not. There are just too many boards to follow them all (though less so than on TMF). In fact, I'm only partaking of biscuits as this thread got moved here (hence never having heard of the ULVR poll until now).

Must go off and explore...

[melonfool]

I may have oversold it.....

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=12981&p=157686#p157686

Mel

[Breelander]

I'm more of a LoOTP'ian myself, though I never got LoST...

[Arborbridge]

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

Am I misreading this? (the part I put in italics) - because I've never come the thought that emerging "low yielders" are not allowed in a HYP, or that one should split them off, or that if some accumulate it is no longer a HYP. All of those thoughts seem contrary to what we have practised for the passed decade.

Naturally, one needs to define "low" and if too many low yielders are resident, then one could argue the HYP is no longer a HYP. But this would indeed be an exceptional circumstance and I've little doubt that most of us set limits on the lowest yield we can tolerate and adjust our holding accordingly. No way am I splitting off any low yielders just to accommodate this notion above, nor am I ceasing to discuss my HYP because of it. That would be contrary to HYP as codified by Stephen Bland who devised and wrote up the idea in the first place.

Are further more, "you don't raise those shares on the HYP board" is certainly not correct. We are perfectly entitled to discuss shares which were previously high yield, but no longer are - the example people keep coming up with being Unilever - and we clearly do discuss them.

Arb.

PS I popped here to see a discussion about Dod and found this extraordinary thread. It seems people love making mountains out of mole hills. The concept of the HYP practical board is very simple to understand, and I can't see why so much fuss is made of sticking to a few rules - or why there was any alterations from the guidelines of TMF.

[melonfool]

PS I popped here to see a discussion about Dod and found this extraordinary thread. It seems people love making mountains out of mole hills. The concept of the HYP practical board is very simple to understand, and I can't see why so much fuss is made of sticking to a few rules - or why there was any alterations from the guidelines of TMF.

Bizarre, considering:

Am I misreading this? (the part I put in italics) - because I've never come the thought that emerging "low yielders" are not allowed in a HYP, or that one should split them off, or that if some accumulate it is no longer a HYP. All of those thoughts seem contrary to what we have practised for the passed decade.

I didn't say 'emerging', so don't know where you got that from.

But, quite simply, I would refer you to the board rules, and the context of my comments.

As for why did we alter from the TMF guidelines - that's history, you're welcome to read it all here and on the HYP board, but it is what it is and there's no point keep harking back to the past.

Mel

[Lootman]

by definition a share with a low yield is not a candidate for inclusion in an HYP. Nevertheless shares which have qualified in the past, and which have been selected for inclusion in an HYP, may have lower yields for various reasons. Having a low yield does not mean compulsory expulsion from the portfolio.

Also, as we discussed a couple of days ago on this very thread, there is a third category of share allowed by the board guidelines: "potential HYP shares". These shares might currently have a lower yield but news or announcements or changes indicate that it has a good chance of becoming higher yield within a reasonable timeframe.

[Raptor]

by definition a share with a low yield is not a candidate for inclusion in an HYP. Nevertheless shares which have qualified in the past, and which have been selected for inclusion in an HYP, may have lower yields for various reasons. Having a low yield does not mean compulsory expulsion from the portfolio.

Also, as we discussed a couple of days ago on this very thread, there is a third category of share allowed by the board guidelines: "potential HYP shares". These shares might currently have a lower yield but news or announcements or changes indicate that it has a good chance of becoming higher yield within a reasonable timeframe.

I thought we had decided "potential" shares still had to meet the criteria. That is how l interprete it. So a share with a forecast yield that meets the guidelines could be discusssed as a posible addition to a HYP, even if this forecast does not come about (due to stock movements). So it has to have at least a forecast of a yield that meets guidelines.

Raptor

[Lootman]

by definition a share with a low yield is not a candidate for inclusion in an HYP. Nevertheless shares which have qualified in the past, and which have been selected for inclusion in an HYP, may have lower yields for various reasons. Having a low yield does not mean compulsory expulsion from the portfolio.

Also, as we discussed a couple of days ago on this very thread, there is a third category of share allowed by the board guidelines: "potential HYP shares". These shares might currently have a lower yield but news or announcements or changes indicate that it has a good chance of becoming higher yield within a reasonable timeframe.

I thought we had decided "potential" shares still had to meet the criteria. That is how l interprete it. So a share with a forecast yield that meets the guidelines could be discusssed as a posible addition to a HYP, even if this forecast does not come about (due to stock movements). So it has to have at least a forecast of a yield that meets guidelines.

Then the words "potential shares" would be redundant because that share would already qualify on grounds of current or forecast yield. If it only means a "forecast yield that qualifies" then it should say that.

Either "potential shares" has to mean a share that would not otherwise qualify OR the words do not add any meaning or value.

An example might be a share yielding a little under the average but that has just announced a big earnings increase which is expected to lead to a hiked or special dividend. Or a policy announcement that the company expects to return much more cash to shareholders. That type of thing.

[MDW1954]

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.

Maybe not, but if you Google "High Yield Portfolio", the third and fourth items are articles on TMF. Then comes one from a Damian Cannon and one from Seeking Alpha before TLF is mentioned. I suspect that the first two are promoted entries and can be ignored.

The point about Mel's comment is that by definition a share with a low yield is not a candidate for inclusion in an HYP. Nevertheless shares which have qualified in the past, and which have been selected for inclusion in an HYP, may have lower yields for various reasons. Having a low yield does not mean compulsory expulsion from the portfolio.

TJH

Absolutley. If the share price of a HYP share doubles, then its yield halves. But as far as I'm concerned, it's still a HYP share, because it was when I bought it.

MDW1954

[Breelander]

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.

Am I misreading this? (the part I put in italics) - because I've never come the thought that emerging "low yielders" are not allowed in a HYP, or that one should split them off, or that if some accumulate it is no longer a HYP. All of those thoughts seem contrary to what we have practised for the passed decade.

I didn't say 'emerging', so don't know where you got that from..

No, Arb added that to distinguish between two possible reasons a share in a HYP may have a low yield.

Obviously a share that was deliberately bought at a low yield and put into a HYP is in no way a HYP share and should be removed forthwith before discussing that portfolio on HYP Practical.

However, your statement could also be read (and apparently was by Arb) as saying that you should immediately expel a perfectly acceptable (at the time) HYP purchase that still has an increasing dividend record, but has now 'emerged' as low yielder because the share price has risen faster than the dividends.

That, I think, was what Arb wanted you to clarify...

[Arborbridge]

Bizarre, considering:

Am I misreading this? (the part I put in italics) - because I've never come the thought that emerging "low yielders" are not allowed in a HYP, or that one should split them off, or that if some accumulate it is no longer a HYP. All of those thoughts seem contrary to what we have practised for the passed decade.

I didn't say 'emerging', so don't know where you got that from.

But, quite simply, I would refer you to the board rules, and the context of my comments.

As for why did we alter from the TMF guidelines - that's history, you're welcome to read it all here and on the HYP board, but it is what it is and there's no point keep harking back to the past.

Mel

Bizarre? I don't get that - some are making the HYP practical board ridiculously complex and put up argument where none should exist. HYPing is really quite simple - even with the few tweaks people have added - so to look into a thread about Dod's Farewell and find a huge argumentative thread about the HYP practical is quite a surprise.

I used the word "emerging" to distinguish from shares which are low yield to start with (I didn't say you had used it, but thought the distinction should be made). Some shares develop into low yielders and these may still be held within HYPs and are still subject to discussion on the board. Clearly, it is not acceptable to promote such candidates as new purchases. This is the way it has always been on the board, but some people chose to ignore it. So to say such shares are "not allow" in a HYP or should be split off is way off the mark. Of course, you can do it if you want to, but don't expect me to. To say this would no longer be a HYP is just plain false.
I'm not sure what you mean by "harking back to the past". The HYP board was intended to be a continuation of the TMF HYP board and as far as I know it is. I've been posting here since the beginning using the same criteria and am not aware of any difference. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain what is "harking back to the past" in what I have written?

Arb.

[tjh290633]

This all reminded me of the "waiting for Vodafone to fall to £1" saga. It got there briefly during one day. I bought mine at about 105p while he was still waiting.

TJH

[Itsallaguess]

Either "potential shares" has to mean a share that would not otherwise qualify OR the words do not add any meaning or value.

I do agree that the wording in the current HYP Practical guidance is confusing in this specific area, and is likely to result in people innocently submitting posts on that board that do not comply with the *intended* meaning of the word 'potential' in this case.

Here's the specific line of the HYP Practical guidance in question -

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

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8651

Either the word 'potential' needs more clearly defining in the HYP Practical guidance, or it needs removing completely, and more specific wording used that is less likely to be misinterpreted.

To give a recent example - using the above guidance as it stands, Unilever *could* be classed as a 'potential' HYP Practical candidate, if it's share price was to drop from it's current position, and hence raise it's yield into 'proper' HYP Practical territory......

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Arborbridge]

To give a recent example - using the above guidance as it stands, Unilever *could* be classed as a 'potential' HYP Practical candidate, if it's share price was to drop from it's current position, and hence raise it's yield into 'proper' HYP Practical territory......

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Unilvever also qualifies as a share which has been selected in the past. For some to express the view recently that discussion of such a share is not allowable or should be "split" from a HYP is incorrect.

Arb.

[Itsallaguess]

To give a recent example - using the above guidance as it stands, Unilever *could* be classed as a 'potential' HYP Practical candidate, if it's share price was to drop from it's current position, and hence raise it's yield into 'proper' HYP Practical territory......

Unilvever also qualifies as a share which has been selected in the past. For some to express the view recently that discussion of such a share is not allowable or should be "split" from a HYP is incorrect.

Fully understand that Arb, but I also think the word 'potential' could be interpreted to mean that it could be discussed as a purchase *today* as well, because it *might have the potential* to be a HYP share in the future....

That interpretation of the word 'potential' could more or less then include *any* dividend-paying share....

I think the line in the guidance using the word 'potential' needs further clarification if we're to avoid any future misinterpretation of the word.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[melonfool]

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

[gryffron]

The concept of the HYP practical board is very simple to understand, and I can't see why so much fuss is made of sticking to a few rules - or why there was any alterations from the guidelines of TMF.

Whilst there may be subtle differences in the defintion, TLF is not TMF. HYP-Practical was also one of the busiest boards on TMF, as it is here. I'm pretty sure it was amongst the most modded boards on TMF too.

Gryff

[Itsallaguess]

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

Just to be clear then Mel, 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?

"You might want to keep an eye on Share-X, but to be clear I am *not* recommending that you purchase it now, as that would be against the rules"??

Similarly a share can be discussed if it's met the HYP Practical guidance in the past, but it's not clear if those discussing such a share need to currently have such a share in their own portfolio. If someone doesn't currently own such a 'legacy' share, are they not allowed to enter into the discussion?

For the avoidance of doubt, I do have some sympathy if people say they are confused by these areas of the HYP Practical rules.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[melonfool]

I don't think anyone should ever 'recommend' that anyone purchase anything - and I generally think people steer clear of that sort of language.

There are loads of threads on there about potential shares, they seem to go perfectly fine - and as this has not been raised as a problem at all I'm confused as to why it keeps being brought up.

Here's a perfectly good recent and ongoing thread that talks of potential shares, and starts with the phrase: "I was wondering if anybody had spotted a share that had drifted into the HYP selection criteria recently that isn't one of the usual suspects." viewtopic.php?f=15&t=12785

This is all perfectly normal and happens all the time with no problem at all.

Just to be clear then Mel, 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?

Well, I didn't say anything about 'promoted' so I don't really understand your question. I don't think we want the board to suddenly be discussing foreign shares, for example, as we agreed years ago that it was UK shares only - these are the criteria I mean, they cannot suddenly NOT be foreign shares, can they? I suppose if they did (a reverse Unilever) then yes, that would be fine to discuss how they might fare as an HYP pick when they get into the Ftse. But we might as well count hens' teeth as discuss that!

The vast majority of the posters seem to do fine on there and seem able to understand it, just some people want to pick the rules apart until they are totally meaningless.

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.

If a share is an IT, or foreign, or an ETF - then it, by definition, can never be a potential HYP share. If it pays no divi, then it's not an HYP share unless it was in the past (Tesco, Lloyds....though I know they are paying out again now) but can be discussed (there is no 'promoted' nor 'recommendations to buy' etc) .

For potential then it needs to meet, or potentially be about to meet, the other criteria: "a portfolio comprised exclusively of ordinary shares. 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."

If it doesn't do any of that then it's not a potential HYP share at all. Course, it might not be obvious whether it will and I would say discussing if a share looks like it might come into the criteria is a valid discussion (as long as it doesn't veer off into discussions about what the criteria should be, what the strategy is and whether it works in the first place etc etc - that can go on the other board).

Mel

[Arborbridge]

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.


You don't raise those shares on the HYP board? But now you say we can - and at the same time complain that people seem confused.

I didn't feel particularly confused until I noticed this thread As I mentioned before, there are people who love making a simple thing complicated, and HYP is really quite simple. So should the board be.

You mentioned that I was guilty of "harking back" and though I don't know what you meant by this, it does occur to me that HYP is a decade or more old and hasn't changed. All that happened was that some folk put in place some sensible practical modifications, but the basics stayed the same. If my trying to stay with those original ideas is harking back, them I'm guilty as charged.

Arb.