POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

[Charlottesquare]

Share Valuation for Investment Purposes- Techniques,Methods and Approaches

Does this add anything or is too wide or too narrow?

[vrdiver]

Share Valuation for Investment Purposes- Techniques,Methods and Approaches

Does this add anything or is too wide or too narrow?

Reading the proposed board title, it looks like it covers both TA and FA, as well as any "new investor" type posts.

Could get messy if posters want to restrict their thread to one subset and others don't, but on the plus side, it would be very interesting if say, an FA discussion of a real share was also looked at from a TA viewpoint at the same time - the risk then becoming that the thread would morph from the share being used as an example of the technique into a discussion of the share itself

[Charlottesquare]

Share Valuation for Investment Purposes- Techniques,Methods and Approaches

Does this add anything or is too wide or too narrow?

Reading the proposed board title, it looks like it covers both TA and FA, as well as any "new investor" type posts.

Could get messy if posters want to restrict their thread to one subset and others don't, but on the plus side, it would be very interesting if say, an FA discussion of a real share was also looked at from a TA viewpoint at the same time - the risk then becoming that the thread would morph from the share being used as an example of the technique into a discussion of the share itself

The catch is there is already a TA Board.

One could always, in true market indice fashion, have,

Share Valuation for Investment Purposes- Techniques,Methods and Approaches (Ex TA)

(My wife used to be a Quant Analysts whose team prepared bespoke benchmark indices for their institutional clients)

[Clariman]

Thanks for all the input. The ideas of new people like Mel and Matt who do not have the Motley Fool (TMF) baggage are very useful, as are those of seasoned campaigners such as Geng and Lootman (and the rest of you).

Mel/Matt made some interesting comments about board sequence and asked about what the objectives of the site are, so let me try to answer those a bit. As you may have worked out, Stooz and I (Clariman) created TLF when The Motley Fool announced it was closing its UK discussion boards. Such a vibrant and knowledgeable community was about to be lost forever so we stepped in to maintain or recreate it. That was the main objective at the time and it has done a pretty good job at it. However, we wanted to keep it as simple as possible but consulted widely on requested boards which led us to what we have today. In addition, we wanted to lose some of the more argumentative and unpleasant discussions that sometimes occurred on TMF which is why we thought long and hard about having a board for political discussions ... and it is why we call that board "Polite Discussions" and why respectful behaviour to others is part of the Rules for the site as a whole. In short, we wanted to bring the best of TMF and drop some of the less attractive aspects that sometimes arose.

In terms of what are our objectives now? It is still about maintaining the community but we would certainly like it to be attractive and useful to new members like yourselves. One MAJOR difference between this site and TMF is that the former was a limited company and was aimed at making money. TLF, by contrast, is run on a shoe-string and is not for profit. It is run by Stooz and me with support from Moderators and the good will of all posters. The Ads cover our costs and we sometimes make a few quid in a month each, but that is not the raison d'etre.

Although Stooz and I were active members of TMF, neither of us are heavily into investment - perhaps ironically. My main area of activity was in sensible day to day money management, budgeting, helping with debt issues and some of the more social areas of TMF. We both had a very good knowledge of credit cards and the term Stoozing is named after Stooz (and is in the dictionary). I wrote the first online FAQ about How to Stooz. The point here being that we really rely on the community to help guide us on what Investing Boards we have, because it is not our area of expertise.

And this is where the challenge comes in. When there is so much debate and a lack of consensus among users, about whether to create these new boards, then we either stick with the status quo or we take the risk of creating changes and adding more complexity to the site. We are very mindful that the Moderators look after this site in their own free time for no reward, so we need to be careful about their workload. Nobody enjoys having to deal with the arguments about what is on or off topic for boards like HYP where members have differing views about what is allowable and what is not. To be honest, I don't understand why people get so het up about it. If there is a post that is a little off-topic, nobody is going to die. So the last thing we want to do is to create more of that, yet we want to be responsive to users' requirements.

That is the challenge we have. I would like users to come to a consensus about whether these boards are required and agree on respective definitions. My gut feel having read this discussion a few times is that a Fundamental Analysis board might be useful and the separate topic on that has gone some way to defining it (thanks). The Value Shares seems to have places where that can be discussed already so I'm currently inclined to leave that one. The jury is out on both, but feel free to continue with concluding arguments. I'm not rushing to a decision.

Oh yes, about the order of boards. Yes I agree that the chatty Lemon stuff would be better low down. I'd also have the Managing Finances section above the investing ones but that's my interest area and I think of wider interest in the outside world.

Hope this helps explain the history and challenges, as well as the lack of decision at this point.

Thanks
Clariman

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Share Valuation for Investment Purposes- Techniques,Methods and Approaches

Does this add anything or is too wide or too narrow?

I think that's not far off the mark, but to be honest, you'd need to drop the word "share" and replace it with "company", since the sort of analysis we'd had in mind, amongst several things, could include review of indebtedness etc. and hence also cover how much you like the idea of purchasing any of the firm's bonds.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

In anticipation of the new boards I would make one request / suggestion. On the recent Dod's farewell mega thread one suggestion was to put HYP Practical, as a specialist board, lower down the menu of boards to avoid instinctive posting on it when the more general High Yield Shares and Strategies may be a better home. I do not recall any afguing against this (forgive me if I have forgotten such comments), but as yet nothing has happened about this. If new boards are created can it be used to have a fresh look at the ordering of boards in the menu, with the more general in scope boards nearer the top and the more specialist boards lower down?

Thanks for this Terry, that was an earlier point of mine. Some kind of hierarchy would improve matters for newbies and gurus alike, IMO.

Matt and Mel

[Charlottesquare]

Share Valuation for Investment Purposes- Techniques,Methods and Approaches

Does this add anything or is too wide or too narrow?

I think that's not far off the mark, but to be honest, you'd need to drop the word "share" and replace it with "company", since the sort of analysis we'd had in mind, amongst several things, could include review of indebtedness etc. and hence also cover how much you like the idea of purchasing any of the firm's bonds.

I do see your point , afraid I glanced at my bookcase and saw a couple of share valuation textbooks which have nothing to do with quoted investment and that possibly impacted my choice of words.

Strictly you then get to say;

Quoted Company Valuation for Investment Purposes-Techniques, Methods and Approaches (Ex TA)

I think such a board is a good idea and am not hung up on the label except re how it encourages or deters people posting.

[TUK020]

As you may have worked out, Stooz and I (Clariman) created TLF when The Motley Fool announced it was closing its UK discussion boards. Such a vibrant and knowledgeable community was about to be lost forever so we stepped in to maintain or recreate it. That was the main objective at the time and it has done a pretty good job at it. However, we wanted to keep it as simple as possible but consulted widely on requested boards which led us to what we have today. In addition, we wanted to lose some of the more argumentative and unpleasant discussions that sometimes occurred on TMF which is why we thought long and hard about having a board for political discussions ... and it is why we call that board "Polite Discussions" and why respectful behaviour to others is part of the Rules for the site as a whole. In short, we wanted to bring the best of TMF and drop some of the less attractive aspects that sometimes arose.

Some feedback:
- think you have done a grand job in keeping the 'community' together
- in particular, key changes have been preceded by open consultation. You obviously mean it, and show that you listen
- work of mods is much appreciated. They don't always get it 100% right, but obviously intent is good. Also appreciate that this is volunteer work.

Congratulations are in order.

[PinkDalek]

Strictly you then get to say;

Quoted Company Valuation for Investment Purposes-Techniques, Methods and Approaches (Ex TA)

I think such a board is a good idea and am not hung up on the label except re how it encourages or deters people posting.

Some might be put off that name, thinking it would exclude the discussion of Unquoted companies, such as those on AIM.

Yes, I know and you know that’s really only for IHT purposes.

[mc2fool]

When there is so much debate and a lack of consensus among users, about whether to create these new boards...

A lack of consensus?!? At the moment of writing six times as many people have voted in favour of a Value board as voted against, 42:7, and almost five times have voted in favour of a FA board, 38:8.

Ignoring don't cares that's 86% pro a Value board and 83% pro a FA board. By most counts that's overwhelming. How much of a consensus do you want?

Don't confuse the chattering of a few posters with the consensus of those more silent folks that voted.

[Lootman]

Don't confuse the chattering of a few posters with the consensus of those more silent folks that voted.

We had the vote first and then the discussion. The usual process is the other way around and there is not a way of changing a vote once it is cast, even if you are persuaded by the commentary to do so.

I suspect that Lemons will always vote for more boards. Everyone wants their own sandpit to play in. But the site sponsors have to consider the workload of themselves and the moderators in deciding whether to proliferate or not, and I for one understand their reluctance.

So I think Clariman has this right. Maybe create one of the two and not the other. That way any extra workload can be measured and assess with less risk.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Don't confuse the chattering of a few posters with the consensus of those more silent folks that voted.

We had the vote first and then the discussion. The usual process is the other way around and there is not a way of changing a vote once it is cast, even if you are persuaded by the commentary to do so.

I suspect that Lemons will always vote for more boards. Everyone wants their own sandpit to play in. But the site sponsors have to consider the workload of themselves and the moderators in deciding whether to proliferate or not, and I for one understand their reluctance.

So I think Clariman has this right. Maybe create one of the two and not the other. That way any extra workload can be measured and assess with less risk.

I don't think it would be right to rule out either of the proposed boards, when the Forum already has:

"Laughing lemons"
"Computers and phones"
"Building and DIY"
"Cycling"
"Photography"

etc. etc. Really?

If I want specialised info. on several of the subjects above, I'd just join a dedicated forum. It would seem a little frivolous to me, to rule out two boards, which have already been debated as having value for investors (of varying outlooks), but to host several other superfluous boards which could be grouped together into "diy", "miscellaneous", "humour" and so on.

I'm not actually against having the above boards, BTW....and as mentioned earlier a multitude of general and specialised boards can be catered for in a clear and accessible way with a little more consideration toward hierarchy.

Matt

[mc2fool]

We had the vote first and then the discussion.

Clariman will remember differently methinks... viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13388

[Clariman]

When there is so much debate and a lack of consensus among users, about whether to create these new boards...

A lack of consensus?!? At the moment of writing six times as many people have voted in favour of a Value board as voted against, 42:7, and almost five times have voted in favour of a FA board, 38:8

I'd call that a strong majority rather than a consensus (but I am a pedantic person )

How much of a consensus do you want?

That's a fair question. The level of consensus that I would like is ...

• A consensus that these boards do no overlap with others and, therefore, will not cause harm or more work for the Mods.
• A consensus on its Board Title
• A consensus on its Subtitle
• A clear definition of what is on-topic and off-topic for the board
• A clear definition of its relationship to other boards

I am regarding the poll as advisory (I know that's a dangerous term to use with a vote ). Maybe a better way of looking at it ... the poll is quantitative and the discussion is qualitative.

Clariman

[Clariman]

I don't think it would be right to rule out either of the proposed boards, when the Forum already has:

"Laughing lemons"
"Computers and phones"
"Building and DIY"
"Cycling"
"Photography"

etc. etc. Really?

If I want specialised info. on several of the subjects above, I'd just join a dedicated forum. It would seem a little frivolous to me, to rule out two boards, which have already been debated as having value for investors (of varying outlooks), but to host several other superfluous boards which could be grouped together into "diy", "miscellaneous", "humour" and so on.
Matt

Nobody is ruling out the two suggested boards. Indeed, as I mentioned above, my gut feeling is the one that you suggested seems to be better defined and contained than the other one.

I understand why you see the others as superfluous. One of the joys of The Motley Fool was its broad church, sense of community, and the amazing level of collective knowledge on all sorts of subjects. These boards were popular and were requested by many when the LemonFool was set up. You should see how many requested ones didn't make the cut!

[tjh290633]

I feel that, were I not starting from here, I would have a section called "Share Evaluation", with forums/boards inside like "Technical Analysis" and "Financial Analysis", plus "Feelings in my water" or something similar for the more intuitive comments.

"Investment Strategies" could be another section, with "Value", "Total Return", "HYP", "Income Strategies", "AIM shares", etc., covering the various options.

Finally I would have "Shares A-Z".

E&OE, of course.

TJH

[mc2fool]

I'd call that a strong majority rather than a consensus (but I am a pedantic person )

Well being pedantic, a consensus is "a general agreement" (certainly not a unanimous one) and, honestly, 80%+ is about as general an agreement as you're going to get -- on more or less anything!

How much of a consensus do you want?

That's a fair question. The level of consensus that I would like is ...

• A consensus that these boards do no overlap with others and, therefore, will not cause harm or more work for the Mods.
• A consensus on its Board Title
• A consensus on its Subtitle
• A clear definition of what is on-topic and off-topic for the board
• A clear definition of its relationship to other boards

Well I thought the board title and subtitle for the FA board at least had been well discussed and generally agreed in the other thread.

On the others, while fine ideals I think there's a strong risk of making the perfect the enemy of the good here. Of course there will be overlaps: shares, companies, techniques, etc, etc do not fit cleanly and inseparably into neat little boxes, and what's on-topic for one board may also be so for other boards. Are any posts on banks going to be restricted to the Banking Sector board, etc? Or is TLF going to deem that, say, HSBC is a Value share and can only be discussed on the Value board? Of course not.

On the matter of work for mods, on something said earlier:

The problem I see is that both HYP and Value were very strictly defined in their scope by the Motley Fool writers. Anyone from TMF should know that. But to a newcomer, it isn't at all obvious, and perhaps not very clear where the definitions come from. And it seems to me that scope is the cause of most of the arguments on HYP, and could be on Value too.

While I might agree that more clarity for newcomers may be good, from my experience on TMF and from what I've read here (BB) the problem with the HYP Practical board isn't from newbies unknowingly posting in the wrong place but from oldies who don't agree with the core tenets of HYP and don't seem to be willing to let those that do get on with it in peace (and I'm not talking about "fine" disagreements like ULVR). E.g. If you look through the recent "Dod's Farewell" thread and check up you'll see that some of the most vociferous attackers against HYP, HYP Practical and HYPers have also posted lots on the HYP board.

Personally I don't get that. Ok, maybe you're a rugby fan and don't like soccer, and you might even make the odd joke about soccer in the pub, but you don't waltz into the local FA team's clubhouse and start telling all and sundry that the basic rules are all wrong, and you want to play but only if they allow you to pick up the ball, and then labeling them all religious zealots or the like when they say that's not soccer, do you? If you don't like soccer you just don't watch or play any soccer, simple as that. For most people at least.

It's been said here that the vast majority of moderation is caused by a small number of posters and I'd suggest to you that the vast majority of the denizens of these new (indeed, any) boards will use them appropriately. It'd be a shame if fear of a few persistent offenders spoilt that opportunity for them.

[IanTHughes]

On the matter of work for mods, on something said earlier:

The problem I see is that both HYP and Value were very strictly defined in their scope by the Motley Fool writers. Anyone from TMF should know that. But to a newcomer, it isn't at all obvious, and perhaps not very clear where the definitions come from. And it seems to me that scope is the cause of most of the arguments on HYP, and could be on Value too.

While I might agree that more clarity for newcomers may be good, from my experience on TMF and from what I've read here (BB) the problem with the HYP Practical board isn't from newbies unknowingly posting in the wrong place but from oldies who don't agree with the core tenets of HYP and don't seem to be willing to let those that do get on with it in peace (and I'm not talking about "fine" disagreements like ULVR). E.g. If you look through the recent "Dod's Farewell" thread and check up you'll see that some of the most vociferous attackers against HYP, HYP Practical and HYPers have also posted lots on the HYP board.

You have my agreement entirely!

And, when the error of their ways is pointed out, those anti-HYP attackers invariably respond with: “Capital Value should be the aim of any strategy” or some such repudiation of the basic aims and tenets of the HYP Strategy, which they know full well is off topic for that particular board.

Unilever Plc (ULVR), or indeed any share, is not off limits for the HYP board. However, discussing it as a "Value Investment" with the aim of Capital Gain is. I would have thought that was simple to understand but on so many occasions that board restriction is wilfully ignored.

Personally I don't get that. Ok, maybe you're a rugby fan and don't like soccer, and you might even make the odd joke about soccer in the pub, but you don't waltz into the local FA team's clubhouse and start telling all and sundry that the basic rules are all wrong, and you want to play but only if they allow you to pick up the ball, and then labelling them all religious zealots or the like when they say that's not soccer, do you? If you don't like soccer you just don't watch or play any soccer, simple as that. For most people at least.

Agreed again. The constant reference to HYP being some sort of religion is wearying to say the least How would they respond to being labelled as the Spanish Inquisition, which they do resemble to a remarkable degree?

It's been said here that the vast majority of moderation is caused by a small number of posters and I'd suggest to you that the vast majority of the denizens of these new (indeed, any) boards will use them appropriately. It'd be a shame if fear of a few persistent offenders spoilt that opportunity for them.

No need to say more.


I would however suggest one refinement for the board name. I believe it should be “HYP Strategy – Practical Implementation” or some such. In other words take out the words “High Yield”. Newcomers would more likely be minded to check what the HYP Strategy was before posting, and any Oldies bent on causing trouble or wishing to rubbish HYP as a strategy, would not be able to claim confusion as a reason for their failure to stick to the board rules.

I similarly believe that any other well defined strategy, whether its aims be Capital Gain or Income, should be given its own board, assuming of course there is sufficient demand. Luniversal’s basket of funds or PYAD Value Investing might be candidates, but there may well be others. Any discussion within such a board would be limited to the particular strategy, whatever the share or investment being discussed

Ian

p.s. whatever the decision with regard to more or different boards, I should like to add my gratitude to the Clariman Stooz and course all the volunteer moderators for making this site possible

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Nobody is ruling out the two suggested boards. Indeed, as I mentioned above, my gut feeling is the one that you suggested seems to be better defined and contained than the other one.

Indeed. My post was intended mainly in reply to :

So I think Clariman has this right. Maybe create one of the two and not the other. That way any extra workload can be measured and assess with less risk.

I understand why you see the others as superfluous. One of the joys of The Motley Fool was its broad church, sense of community, and the amazing level of collective knowledge on all sorts of subjects. These boards were popular and were requested by many when the LemonFool was set up. You should see how many requested ones didn't make the cut!

Don't worry - I agree with you, on the utility of the other boards. Many folk may not wish the aggro of joining another forum to post the occasional PC (or whatever) type question if they know that someone on TLF will have the answer. I only mentioned the other boards, just to contrast their multitude, against any possible reservation towards the creation of other investment-specific boards - particularly, as mentioned prior, enough thought toward design has been made to steer newbies and gurus as necessary, which will go a long towards the mitigation of any moderation effort, I feel.

Matt

[Lootman]

While I might agree that more clarity for newcomers may be good, from my experience on TMF and from what I've read here (BB) the problem with the HYP Practical board isn't from newbies unknowingly posting in the wrong place but from oldies who don't agree with the core tenets of HYP and don't seem to be willing to let those that do get on with it in peace (and I'm not talking about "fine" disagreements like ULVR). E.g. If you look through the recent "Dod's Farewell" thread and check up you'll see that some of the most vociferous attackers against HYP, HYP Practical and HYPers have also posted lots on the HYP board.

Personally I don't get that. Ok, maybe you're a rugby fan and don't like soccer, and you might even make the odd joke about soccer in the pub, but you don't waltz into the local FA team's clubhouse and start telling all and sundry that the basic rules are all wrong, and you want to play but only if they allow you to pick up the ball, and then labeling them all religious zealots or the like when they say that's not soccer, do you? If you don't like soccer you just don't watch or play any soccer, simple as that. For most people at least.

That gets said a lot but it strikes me as just a little too convenient. The idea that any problem the HY boards have "is 100% the fault of the other mob" seems rather self-serving. My own view would be more balanced i.e. there are people who probably post on HYP-P with topics or remarks that they know, or should have known, are out of scope there. But likewise there is a group of folks within that board who are perhaps a little too sensitive about criticism, and perhaps a little too precious about the topic, to live and let live and adopt some flexibility as to what they want to read and what they can instead merely scan over.

A better sports analogy would be that the football board is geared towards association football, but then people come along and start talking about rugby football, and then the AF folks demand another board for that as they can't stand any kind of football other than AF and don't even want to see a post on it. Is that an attitude we should encourage more of here?

Throw in the fact that there is another HY board with a similar (to many) remit and the fact that, at least on TMF, the guidelines were lengthy and rather unintuitive, and you have a recipe for a problem. I don't think that everything can be laid at the door of just one constituency or just one behaviour. Rather there is a structural problem, which is why the same issues have been around for a decade or more with no real sign of going away.

And I am not trying to steer this topic back towards yet another belly-gazing, soul-searching discourse on the malaise of the HY boards. Only to say that we are here contemplating setting up another pair (or trio) of overlapping boards, and the risk of turmoil is not non-zero.