POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

[IanTHughes]

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.

As one of those HYPers that I am sure you have in mind, I would only point out, once again, that the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities" board is not the place to voice such criticism. I am fully aware of and indeed interested in constructive criticism of my chosen investment strategy, but please, post on the appropriate board. I might also point out that most of the criticism that is incorrectly posted on the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities" board is not constructive.

Throw in the fact that there is another HY board with a similar (to many) remit

The “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities" board is specifically set up for the discussion of the practicalities of following what is a well-defined strategy. You can continue denying this, but your denials will not change the facts.

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.

But of course you are. Your continued reference to: “Two HY boards” or “Two HYP boards”, as you did earlier in this thread, could be construed as a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue. At the very least, it is an error that you should try harder to avoid.

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.

I believe you mean “is non-zero”. But why do you feel that any board set up for the discussion of a specific Investing Strategy, whether that be Income or Capital Gain, would be deliberately abused by posters that disagreed with that Strategy? Or are you finally accepting that that is what does indeed happen on the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities" board?


Ian

[mc2fool]

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.

Well it doesn't serve this self. As I said in another thread recently, I haven't followed HYP-P (or HYSS) since the move to TLF as the volume of posts there didn't match my (now) more Dorisian demeanor. What I didn't do is launch into a campaign to try to get the posters on HYP-P to change and post less. I just stopped reading it. I fully acknowledge that HYP-P is a valuable resource for the (vast majority of the) denizens there; it's just no longer for me.

But I didn't intend to start a (yet another) HYP boards debate, per se, but to point out that it's not really newbies posting on the wrong board that's causing the bulk of the moderation, and to say to Clariman that if there are a few persistent offenders that are causing the vast majority of the moderation, perhaps that's where the focus should be (although I'm sure the mods have probably already had a lot of discussion on the matter...)

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 ...

Well if there's a soccer board and others want to talk about rugger I don't see the issue with having two separate boards for the two sports. That seems a much better idea than forcing two unwilling communities into a single "it's all just kicking a ball, so live with it" board.

[IanTHughes]

Well if there's a soccer board and others want to talk about rugger …..

Rugger? I have not seen that word since my days at Prep School


Sorry, I will get my coat


ian

[mc2fool]

Well if there's a soccer board and others want to talk about rugger …..

Rugger? I have not seen that word since my days at Prep School

Prep school?!? Nah, just a good old state grammar school for me...

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

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.

As one of the new board proposers, I can honestly say that I won't be creating any such turmoil. I only came up with the concept of viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13230, since the kinds of questions asked, and discussions had were not particularly well placed on any other board. (I suggest you read the embedded link, if ness, to clarify what I thought the objectives of the board are/were etc.).

My views are like many others here - I really don't know why people get so het up about board-correctness, and indeed some forms of etiquette at times (e.g. smilies), as long as people behave in a respectful way to others.

This place (i.e. the internet forum), and many other similar sites, are just that IMO, free internet forums, and really the idea of wasting time fighting on them is just silly. Better things to do etc.

Matt

[mc2fool]

As one of the new board proposers, I can honestly say that I won't be creating any such turmoil.

And I'll guess that you didn't expect the proposal to generate so much either.

You know what, I think some of the boards here look like they may be right down your street. Yes, it's US based but the concepts around company valuation are the same and US & UK financial statements are pretty similar, and if you really need UK examples to discuss a lot of the bigger UK companies are also listed on US markets and are likely to be familiar to posters there.

[Lootman]

As one of those HYPers that I am sure you have in mind, I would only point out, once again, that the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities" board is not the place to voice such criticism.

No, I do not have you in mind. My point was more that:

1) HYP is the only investment strategy here that carves out for itself a special exemption from criticism via the board structure, and

2) The resultant two HY boards are the only investment boards that, according to this site's sponsor, create a large amount of moderation activity.

So, yes, maybe that is because a determined half dozen interlopers keep causing mischief (and I am pretty sure that I am not one of them) OR there is something in this type of board structure that causes problems.

It is as if on the TA board proponents of point-and-figure charts decide that they do not want to see any other type of TA chart and, moreover, that no criticism of point-and-figure charts should be allowed. Might we expect confusion, conflict and disarray in that case? And if we split the TA board into PAF-Practical and "All other TA" might we reasonably expect a mess?

You tell me. But it takes two to tango. Blaming just one party is disingenuous.

[Lootman]

What I didn't do is launch into a campaign to try to get the posters on HYP-P to change and post less.

I do not think anyone here is suggesting that anyone post less.

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 ...

Well if there's a soccer board and others want to talk about rugger I don't see the issue with having two separate boards for the two sports. That seems a much better idea than forcing two unwilling communities into a single "it's all just kicking a ball, so live with it" board.

An alternative to doubling the number of boards in that situation is simply keeping one board and ignoring the topics on rugby or soccer, as appropriate. It almost seems as if ignoring things that do not interest one is somehow an impossible cognitive skill.

[IanTHughes]

As one of those HYPers that I am sure you have in mind, I would only point out, once again, that the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities" board is not the place to voice such criticism.

No, I do not have you in mind. My point was more that:

1) HYP is the only investment strategy here that carves out for itself a special exemption from criticism via the board structure

No it does not. Constructive criticism of the HYP Strategy is perfectly acceptable and indeed is to be encouraged, just not on the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities" board. And when I say “constructive criticism”, I do not mean simply calling HYPers religious nutters or some such.

The original split on The Motley Fool (TMF), of the one board into two with one specifically dedicated to the HYP Strategy, as originally outlined by Stephen Bland, was done precisely because it had become almost impossible to start a thread asking for comments about an intended HYP selection without the thread being completely taken over by those opposed to the very idea of HYP as an Investment Strategy.

The accusations of religious bigotry and small mindedness were at the milder end of what had become a free for all slanging match and most of the frankly rude interjections were being made by those that had no intention of following HYP and appeared to want the prevention of any such discussion by others. Also, very rarely if ever was a cogent reason provided for such derision.

2) The resultant two HY boards are the only investment boards that, according to this site's sponsor, create a large amount of moderation activity.

I am in no position to know either way but if you are right I can say that, in my opinion, as had happened on TMF ,the majority, if not all, of such moderation is caused by what can only be described as trolling. Constant references to the need for a strategic aim of Capital Growth when that is manifestly not an aim of the HYP Strategy is clear enough evidence of that to my mind. And there are many other instances including that of posters breaking up a thread, started to discuss a poster’s HYP Portfolio, by simply stating that they would not purchase any of the shares. That may be what you call constructive criticism but I do not.

So, yes, maybe that is because a determined half dozen interlopers keep causing mischief (and I am pretty sure that I am not one of them) OR there is something in this type of board structure that causes problems.

I will not embarrass them by name but yes, here on TLF, a small minority of posters persist in banging on about “Capital Growth”, “Taking Profits”, “Taking Money Off the Table” and other such advice, even though they must surely know that such advice is entirely against the HYP Strategy and totally unwanted on the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities" board. Why they do it, only they can say but I for one will ensure that such posts are promptly reported and hopefully removed.

However, to be fair to your contrary view, perhaps you could point to examples of where such moderation came about because of an unprovoked comment from an HYPer? Be aware that I do mean “unprovoked”.

It is as if on the TA board proponents of point-and-figure charts decide that they do not want to see any other type of TA chart and, moreover, that no criticism of point-and-figure charts should be allowed. Might we expect confusion, conflict and disarray in that case? And if we split the TA board into PAF-Practical and "All other TA" might we reasonably expect a mess?

I am not that familiar with TA having dismissed it as a Strategy many years ago but yes, if a particular strategy specifies one kind of chart and not another, I would not upset that TA group by suggesting otherwise. Would you?

You tell me. But it takes two to tango. Blaming just one party is disingenuous.

I disagree. The ructions are almost 100% caused by non-HYPers determined to upset the HYP applecart. Why would I, or any other HYPer, start a rumpus on what is an HYP Strategy specific board? Who would we start it with?


Once again, if a Value Investing or whatever board is requested, and assuming it is set up with a set of clear board rules, I see no reason why it should cause any excessive moderation activity. Of course some posters may accidently post on an incorrect board but who exactly do you think will be the deliberate troublemakers this time?

Ian

[Charlottesquare]

I did not intend to stir any dissent re questioning the two choices, if I did apologies.

I would support a more broad church use of investment analysis than that used re merely Value Shares. (For one thing if Value Shares one then gets arguments that x share is/is not a value share)

I saw a board discussing things like (there will be lots more):

Dividend pricing models (Gordon etc)
Bond and debt instrument valuation; running, redemption, security, ranking etc
Cashflow analysis ,sustainability and crystal ball gazing
Sources of balance sheet funding and suitability to the business (worrying areas like short term funding with long term assets)
Capital asset pricing
Accounts presentation, where some of the gremlins get buried and why. (We have a tax board but no accountancy board, this would be purely looking at published accounts construction)
Broker share recommendations, what are they saying and why?

But to say exclude things like (there will be lots more):

Macroeconomic impacts re valuation (although may be tricky totally excluding re bond valuation)
Sector risks re valuation (gets a bit political, re say utilities and a Labour government)

Being maybe mainly better served under different heads

I suspect I have interest in the former partly re background (accountancy) albeit I have made little use of them in the time between my studies and today so a lot of the theories are long lost.

I saw such a board as a partial teaching aid re analysis, a repository of posts re why a share say got chosen but more concentrated on how one went about the buy, trim and sell decisions, the tools used, understanding accounts. A consideration re the changing metrics that drove decisions, approaches used, methods used by preparers of say published accounts/other information they provide etc

I was thinking more re a board that delved into the how , particularly how share (but also bonds etc) analysis might be done, textbooks are fine but sometimes translating the textbook wisdom into the real world is tricky.


Technical analysis does get a place on Lemon Fool so I sort of hoped the above might be seen as a broad companion area (I have never got my head around tea leaves and goats entrails )

As a positive such a board might reduce my posting in Polite Discussions which for some here might be a relief.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

As one of the new board proposers, I can honestly say that I won't be creating any such turmoil.

And I'll guess that you didn't expect the proposal to generate so much either.

Ha! No, not really. I hope I don't lose my enthusiasm once this exercise is done!

You know what, I think some of the boards here look like they may be right down your street. Yes, it's US based but the concepts around company valuation are the same and US & UK financial statements are pretty similar, and if you really need UK examples to discuss a lot of the bigger UK companies are also listed on US markets and are likely to be familiar to posters there.

Yes, I see what you mean, especially this one.

Matt

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

I saw such a board as a partial teaching aid re analysis, a repository of posts re why a share say got chosen but more concentrated on how one went about the buy, trim and sell decisions, the tools used, understanding accounts. A consideration re the changing metrics that drove decisions, approaches used, methods used by preparers of say published accounts/other information they provide etc

I was thinking more re a board that delved into the how , particularly how share (but also bonds etc) analysis might be done, textbooks are fine but sometimes translating the textbook wisdom into the real world is tricky.

This stuff aligns quite nicely with my proposal, I think, especially the second paragraph I quoted.

[TUK020]

I would support a more broad church use of investment analysis than that used re merely Value Shares. (For one thing if Value Shares one then gets arguments that x share is/is not a value share)

I saw a board discussing things like (there will be lots more):

Dividend pricing models (Gordon etc)
Bond and debt instrument valuation; running, redemption, security, ranking etc
Cashflow analysis ,sustainability and crystal ball gazing
Sources of balance sheet funding and suitability to the business (worrying areas like short term funding with long term assets)
Capital asset pricing
Accounts presentation, where some of the gremlins get buried and why. (We have a tax board but no accountancy board, this would be purely looking at published accounts construction)
Broker share recommendations, what are they saying and why?

Charlottesquare has laid out an interesting and attractive concept of a "Analysis and valuation techniques" board. I have labelled this in such a way to distinguish it from a "Value Shares -Practical" board idea that I have recently posted on in the "Value Board" thread also running. Hope drawing this distinction is helpful to the discussion

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Sorry, I'm not sure whether I was talking out-of-turn when I made this reply:

I saw such a board as a partial teaching aid re analysis, a repository of posts re why a share say got chosen but more concentrated on how one went about the buy, trim and sell decisions, the tools used, understanding accounts. A consideration re the changing metrics that drove decisions, approaches used, methods used by preparers of say published accounts/other information they provide etc

I was thinking more re a board that delved into the how , particularly how share (but also bonds etc) analysis might be done, textbooks are fine but sometimes translating the textbook wisdom into the real world is tricky.

This stuff aligns quite nicely with my proposal, I think, especially the second paragraph I quoted.

It was just when Charlottesquare mentioned "published accounts", and "textbook wisdom into the real world", that my ears pricked up. But when TUK replied with:

I would support a more broad church use of investment analysis than that used re merely Value Shares. (For one thing if Value Shares one then gets arguments that x share is/is not a value share)

I saw a board discussing things like (there will be lots more):

Dividend pricing models (Gordon etc)
Bond and debt instrument valuation; running, redemption, security, ranking etc
Cashflow analysis ,sustainability and crystal ball gazing
Sources of balance sheet funding and suitability to the business (worrying areas like short term funding with long term assets)
Capital asset pricing
Accounts presentation, where some of the gremlins get buried and why. (We have a tax board but no accountancy board, this would be purely looking at published accounts construction)
Broker share recommendations, what are they saying and why?

Charlottesquare has laid out an interesting and attractive concept of a "Analysis and valuation techniques" board. I have labelled this in such a way to distinguish it from a "Value Shares -Practical" board idea that I have recently posted on in the "Value Board" thread also running. Hope drawing this distinction is helpful to the discussion

I got worried that perhaps I'd jumped the gun since I then reread all of CharlotteSquares last post since it mentions several things that I know nothing of. But anyway I'm still confident in what I'm driving at here, as are lots of others (e.g. Geng, mc2fool etc.), and I'm happy for this to be the "broad church" if necessary that was mentioned earlier on.

Matt

[mc2fool]

I would support a more broad church use of investment analysis than that used re merely Value Shares.

Charlottesquare has laid out an interesting and attractive concept of a "Analysis and valuation techniques" board. I have labelled this in such a way to distinguish it from a "Value Shares -Practical" board idea that I have recently posted on in the "Value Board" thread also running. Hope drawing this distinction is helpful to the discussion

Whoa. (AFAIIA) Nobody's talking about a board for investment analysis just used for "value" shares and, although no conflation has come up until now, it's perhaps unfortunate that the two board have been mentioned in the same poll, as perhaps it was inevitable that they could be conflated.

Yes, fundamental analysis seeks, amongst other things, to determine an intrinsic value for a company and, yes, value investing seeks to find and invest in undervalued companies, but fundamental analysis is a tool used for many kinds of investing style, including growth, GARP, LTBH, trading contrarians, (arguably) HYP, as well as value.

And it includes many factors, it's not just about company accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_analysis

[Charlottesquare]

I would support a more broad church use of investment analysis than that used re merely Value Shares.

Charlottesquare has laid out an interesting and attractive concept of a "Analysis and valuation techniques" board. I have labelled this in such a way to distinguish it from a "Value Shares -Practical" board idea that I have recently posted on in the "Value Board" thread also running. Hope drawing this distinction is helpful to the discussion

Whoa. (AFAIIA) Nobody's talking about a board for investment analysis just used for "value" shares and, although no conflation has come up until now, it's perhaps unfortunate that the two board have been mentioned in the same poll, as perhaps it was inevitable that they could be conflated.

Yes, fundamental analysis seeks, amongst other things, to determine an intrinsic value for a company and, yes, value investing seeks to find and invest in undervalued companies, but fundamental analysis is a tool used for many kinds of investing style, including growth, GARP, LTBH, trading contrarians, (arguably) HYP, as well as value.

And it includes many factors, it's not just about company accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_analysis

I never said my thoughts were just re company accounts, the lists I put were not exhaustive (I clearly stated this to be the case) and I pointed out my interests came clearly from my background in accountancy hence the slant re my post.

I just saw bringing in detail re economic analysis and sector /opposition analysis as getting maybe a tad wide , imho sector issues probably ought to be on sector boards and there is an economy board to discuss people's views on same. I was never suggesting these be ignored, more downplayed.

However as I am a late entrant to this discussion then, now that I have thrown in my 10p worth, I will retire from it and will live with the decision of all that are more significantly invested; I certainly do not wish to start an argument re what is/what is not Fundamental Analysis as frankly have seen enough demarcation arguments on both here and Motley Fool, I do not want to participate in yet another.

[mc2fool]

And it includes many factors, it's not just about company accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_analysis

I never said my thoughts were just re company accounts, the lists I put were not exhaustive (I clearly stated this to be the case) and I pointed out my interests came clearly from my background in accountancy hence the slant re my post.

Oh sorry CS, my comment above wasn't directed at your post but re comments earlier in the thread. I was going to write "...includes many factors including most of Charlottesquare's list..." but somehow what I was thinking didn't make it to my fingers

I am in general agreement with your previous post, the only issue I had was the implied conflation of the two boards and that the proposed FA board could be just for analysis used for "value" shares.

[Charlottesquare]

And it includes many factors, it's not just about company accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_analysis

I never said my thoughts were just re company accounts, the lists I put were not exhaustive (I clearly stated this to be the case) and I pointed out my interests came clearly from my background in accountancy hence the slant re my post.

Oh sorry CS, my comment above wasn't directed at your post but re comments earlier in the thread. I was going to write "...includes many factors including most of Charlottesquare's list..." but somehow what I was thinking didn't make it to my fingers

I am in general agreement with your previous post, the only issue I had was the implied conflation of the two boards and that the proposed FA board could be just for analysis used for "value" shares.

Sorry, misunderstood.

My value share comment was more that as it had been suggested we might only get one board (rationing) then I would prefer a wider board that covered a lot of approaches (more FA) that could be applied to both Value shares and Other shares/investments as against just a Value Share board where discussing metrics re non Value shares would likely be frowned upon.

In effect want the contents of the toolbox discussed rather than which project the tools are to be used for.

[Clariman]

** Holding Message ** The closer you can come to reaching a consensus on the requirement, name, definition and scope of each board, then the more likely we will add them. I am a bit behind in reading the posts but will do so over the coming few days. In parallel with these requests, I have been dealing with some Moderation issues and reviewing which Moderators are active and inactive, and that has to take priority. I should get that resolved in the next few days. In the meantime, please continue to discuss the boards here and we'll make decisions by the end of this week.

Thanks for your patience.
Clariman

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

** Holding Message ** The closer you can come to reaching a consensus on the requirement, name, definition and scope of each board, then the more likely we will add them....In the meantime, please continue to discuss the boards here and we'll make decisions by the end of this week.

With that said I suggest we return to discuss titles, subtitles etc. over in the request originating threads, those being for the company analysis one and for the value shares.

Does that sound reasonable?

Matt