In praise of the HYPochondriac Board

[Howard]

I am writing as a supporter of the HYP board and of the moderators who do a superb job. I have a number of HYP shares and am very grateful for the sage analysis provided by many of the posters on the board on TLF and its predecessor over the last 18 years.

Part of the joy of reading the HYP board is the fun of observing how many regular posters stray in a very British way from the absolute definition of HYP.

If you will forgive a medical analogy, I wonder if HYP should actually stand for HYPochondriac . The reason for this is as I understand it, Dr Bland re-assured his patients that if they eat a sensible diet and excercise well and relax they would live to a ripe old age. He gave broad examples of how to do this. For example: eat lots of vegetables and not too much cake. Having accepted this advice some have adopted it and carried it out for years without worrying and are happy and healthy and may never come back to read another thread.

However others (the HYPochondriacs) are tempted by "cake". Even though they are perfectly healthy, every time a RNS is published or a critical article written by a journalist (who may know a lot less than they pretend) about a HYP company, the HYPochondriacs print a link and worry. They completely forget Dr Bland’s advice about being relaxed and start posting: should I eat more cake? Should I eat less cake? Will it damage my health? Should I give up chocolate cake altogether?

This gives a chance for other Doctors and Quacks (who Dr Bland may have crossed in the past) to start interfering and extolling the health virtues of eating more and more cake and sweets and chocolate ……….. until the moderators step in.

It is interesting to read the discussions, so long as they stick roughly to the original advice about eating well, and especially, relaxing. We all know that Dr Bland wasn’t giving advice to youngsters who want to excel at athletics and who might need lots more calories to run fast, so should read other boards. And we know that he was advising Doris who was most unlikely to take up the investing equivalent of bungee jumping.

So thanks again to posters and moderators of the HYP board. It provides entertaining reading, we enjoy your hand-wringing about Unilever (who make cake mix) but we mustn’t take it too seriously. We mustn’t encourage Dr Bland’s opponents too much.

And personally I’m trying to follow that advice about relaxing.

regards

Howard

[kiloran]

HYPochondriac..... Love it

--kiloran

[CryptoPlankton]

HYPochondriac..... Love it

--kiloran

Ahem:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10229&p=119522&hilit=hypochondria#p119522

Nice post though

[Itsallaguess]

Part of the joy of reading the HYP board is the fun of observing how many regular posters stray in a very British way from the absolute definition of HYP.

It's certainly the case that for such a simple strategy, it doesn't half create a great deal of noise......

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Howard]

HYPochondriac..... Love it

--kiloran

Ahem:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10229&p=119522&hilit=hypochondria#p119522

Nice post though

Hat tip! You were there first.

kind regards

Howard

[DiamondEcho]

Part of the joy of reading the HYP board is the fun of observing how many regular posters stray in a very British way from the absolute definition of HYP.

It's certainly the case that for such a simple strategy, it doesn't half create a great deal of noise...Cheers, Itsallaguess

Can someone point me to a link of what the 'HYP rules' are? I previously set out to try and 'Wiki' them together with other HYPers but IIRC didn't get very far. There was a link to articles by Pyad on TMF outling in words the approach, but I don't ever recall seeking the bare metrics laid out in one place*. It's ironic that a board regarded as so simple/clear, in fact appears to have no published boundaries regarding it's purpose. If I'm correct in saying this, it can't be surprising that people post off-topic/according to their own definition.

* I used to have them written down, and used them when sifting for new shares but don't recall seeing them on this forum.
For example there were a set of about 4-5 main hurdles, Yield%, Capitalisation, 3/+ years of growing dividends, and so on. Those highlighted the candidates, which you could go and have a dig-around in to make your choices. The last version I saw dated from the 1990s!

[Lootman]

Can someone point me to a link of what the 'HYP rules' are? I previously set out to try and 'Wiki' them together with other HYPers but IIRC didn't get very far. There was a link to articles by Pyad on TMF outling in words the approach, but I don't ever recall seeking the bare metrics laid out in one place*. It's ironic that a board regarded as so simple/clear, in fact appears to have no published boundaries regarding it's purpose. If I'm correct in saying this, it can't be surprising that people post off-topic/according to their own definition.

I have observed before that a part of the problem is that HYP has little or no life outside of TMF and TLF. So it isn't the kind of thing you can just google or wiki to resolve questions. There are effectively no external references to it because it is a home-brewed investment method. All you have is these writings which, as you note, can date back 20 years.

There is another danger there if the method becomes frozen in time, then the passage of time may render it less appropriate. For example it was almost destroyed as a concept in 2008 but got bailed out, along with the rest of us. An investing strategy that does not grow, develop and change is in danger of becoming sclerotic.

And that trend can be made worse if no criticism is allowed, reflecting the central thesis of Popper's book on the danger of a closed system that allows no criticism. The challenge is how we learn from its failures and improve it, rather than merely relying on it being some kind of eternal set of truths.

And that is what I claim we see here - an endless war between "purists" who regard the original Coke as the best, versus those who believe and expect that any methodology that does not grow, must die. And in that sense the endless debates are perhaps a good thing, even if it requires double the number of moderators.

[mc2fool]

Can someone point me to a link of what the 'HYP rules' are? I previously set out to try and 'Wiki' them together with other HYPers but IIRC didn't get very far. There was a link to articles by Pyad on TMF outling in words the approach, but I don't ever recall seeking the bare metrics laid out in one place*.

Are you referring to the TMF HYP Practical FAQ, item 6? https://web.archive.org/web/20161020175901/http://boards.fool.co.uk:80/faq-the-purpose-of-this-board-12648855.aspx

(The archived original Stephen Bland articles can be found by following the links in 1 in the above FAQ.)

* I used to have them written down, and used them when sifting for new shares but don't recall seeing them on this forum.
For example there were a set of about 4-5 main hurdles, Yield%, Capitalisation, 3/+ years of growing dividends, and so on. Those highlighted the candidates, which you could go and have a dig-around in to make your choices.

Yield%: High. Capitalisation: Big. Years of growing dividends: usually at least 5. Dividend cover: Plenty.

If you're looking for hard numbers you can pop into a screener, there were none, every HYPer had their own, but all (well, most) followed the "rules" above.

The last version I saw dated from the 1990s!

As HYP didn't come into existence until November 2000 I think that's unlikely.

[Lootman]

Can someone point me to a link of what the 'HYP rules' are? I previously set out to try and 'Wiki' them together with other HYPers but IIRC didn't get very far. There was a link to articles by Pyad on TMF outling in words the approach, but I don't ever recall seeking the bare metrics laid out in one place*.

Are you referring to the TMF HYP Practical FAQ, item 6? https://web.archive.org/web/20161020175901/http://boards.fool.co.uk:80/faq-the-purpose-of-this-board-12648855.aspx

I doubt that DE is referring to that since that is a list of rules about what can be discussed on that particular board, whereas DE was asking about a definition of what the methodology itself is. They will overlap, of course. But in any event those rules are obsolete with the passing of TMF, and there are new and somewhat different rules here.

The last version I saw dated from the 1990s!

As HYP didn't come into existence until November 2000 I think that's unlikely.

No, I think DE is correct. Just, anyway. I became a Fool in October 1998 (almost 20 years, bar a month) and Pyad was already there. As I recall we had a few discussions and disagreements about his embryonic HYP idea back then. It was probably not a fully formed methodology then, but the basics were in place.

And didn't his first public HYP portfolio date from 1999 and not 2000?

There is a problem with ascribing the only valid form of a methodology to just one person, since over time any individual will change their mind or contradict themselves. Given he has largely abandoned posting here the responsibility for defining the method lies with the consensus of the community now, and not with just one ageing tax accountant!

[mc2fool]

Are you referring to the TMF HYP Practical FAQ, item 6? https://web.archive.org/web/20161020175901/http://boards.fool.co.uk:80/faq-the-purpose-of-this-board-12648855.aspx

I doubt that DE is referring to that since that is a list of rules about what can be discussed on that particular board, whereas DE was asking about a definition of what the methodology itself is.

DE can speak for himself, but item 6 defines (albeit loosely) the methodology, in particular "Typical safety factors ... of high market capitalisation, good dividend cover, a good record of dividend growth, and low gearing", which was the sort of thing he was asking about, hence my asking if that's what he was referring to.

As HYP didn't come into existence until November 2000 I think that's unlikely.

And didn't his first public HYP portfolio date from 1999 and not 2000?

Nope. As I said, November 2000. 13 November 2000.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160605224455/http://news.fool.co.uk//news/foolseyeview/2000/fev001113c.htm, and as a follow on from his article of a few days before.

[Lootman]

Are you referring to the TMF HYP Practical FAQ, item 6? https://web.archive.org/web/20161020175901/http://boards.fool.co.uk:80/faq-the-purpose-of-this-board-12648855.aspx

I doubt that DE is referring to that since that is a list of rules about what can be discussed on that particular board, whereas DE was asking about a definition of what the methodology itself is.

DE can speak for himself, but item 6 defines (albeit loosely) the methodology, in particular "Typical safety factors ... of high market capitalisation, good dividend cover, a good record of dividend growth, and low gearing", which was the sort of thing he was asking about, hence my asking if that's what he was referring to.

I'd agree that is a very high level description of the method, but it lacks the kind of detail one would need to actually "define" the method, which was what DE was asking for. And of course it was written by another Fool in support of the splitting of the HYP boards. I think what we have done is define the scope of the board very precisely whilst being much more vague about the underlying method. Much of it seems to be hearsay, folklore and half-remembered discussions.

Like DE I am not aware of any formal definition. And maybe we don't need one, except for the endless "That's not HYP; yes it is" type arguments.

[DiamondEcho]

...And didn't his first public HYP portfolio date from 1999 and not 2000?
There is a problem with ascribing the only valid form of a methodology to just one person, since over time any individual will change their mind or contradict themselves. Given he has largely abandoned posting here the responsibility for defining the method lies with the consensus of the community now, and not with just one ageing tax accountant!

I was following fool.com from about the mid-90's; I wasn't aware that fool.co.uk existed until the mid/late 90's when I moved back to this country. Either way what we discuss now as the HYP was borne out of fool.com, but that itself was just a re-working of a dividend re-investing strategy, that's been around from before the 1960s. There used to be a 'HYPTUSS' spreadsheet that helped you find and track candidates, it included a stock-screener, with hurdles vs metrics. It used to be quite widely followed, giving direction, but I haven't seen it mentioned in recent memory. But presumably someone input sift metrics into it, based upon some broadly uncontroversial ground-rules?

To put it in simple terms [as it used to be done], can anyone post a top-20 list of current HYP candidates?

[kiloran]

There used to be a 'HYPTUSS' spreadsheet that helped you find and track candidates, it included a stock-screener, with hurdles vs metrics. It used to be quite widely followed, giving direction, but I haven't seen it mentioned in recent memory. But presumably someone input sift metrics into it, based upon some broadly uncontroversial ground-rules?

To put it in simple terms [as it used to be done], can anyone post a top-20 list of current HYP candidates?

Have a look at this: http://lemonfoolfinancialsoftware.weebl ... se350.html

--kiloran

[mc2fool]

There used to be a 'HYPTUSS' spreadsheet that helped you find and track candidates, it included a stock-screener, with hurdles vs metrics. It used to be quite widely followed, giving direction, but I haven't seen it mentioned in recent memory.

HYPTUSS is still available, on the Lemon Fool Financial Software site, and is discussed on the Financial Software board. However it's not and I don't believe ever has been what you think you remember it as; you must be thinking of something else.

To put it in simple terms [as it used to be done], can anyone post a top-20 list of current HYP candidates?

Best asked on the HYP Practical board methinks

[DiamondEcho]

BTW Loot, I was interested to see your earlier mention of the philosopher Karl Popper; I remember reading his 'Philosophy of Science' whilst studying science at uni. It seemed dazzling back them [in an uncontroversial way that you might be unlikely to find today], I wonder what I'd make of it if I re-read it today

[Lootman]

BTW Loot, I was interested to see your earlier mention of the philosopher Karl Popper; I remember reading his 'Philosophy of Science' whilst studying science at uni. It seemed dazzling back them [in an uncontroversial way that you might be unlikely to find today], I wonder what I'd make of it if I re-read it today

It was dazzling; can't speak about now. From what I recall whilst at LSE he developed his "falsifiability thesis" when considering the problem of induction. It basically states that if you cannot define an experiment that could refute an assertion then that assertion is not science. Either it is a priori and tautological, like the fields of logic and maths which are true by convention rather than empirical investigation. Or they were assertions of politics, morals, religion or some other kind of subjective assertion. The book was the "Logic of Scientific Discovery" and was a counter to the then prevailing "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.

It is where the black swan idea originally came from, since popularised by Taleb. The dicovery of a black swan falsified the theory that all swans were white. Scientific theories can never be proven 100% but they can always be falsified. If something cannot be falsified then it is not science.

Popper then took the same idea and applied it to politics in his other classic - "The Open Societies and its Enemies". Here he argued that closed non-democratic systems of governments would fail because they lacked any ability to learn from criticism. Debate was suppressed to defend the overarching idea. I thought of HYP and its board here as an example of that. Criticism is banished to the "other board" which means that the system lacks the crucial ingredient that drives change and progress - informed critical examination.

[csearle]

Criticism is banished to the "other board" which means that the system lacks the crucial ingredient that drives change and progress - informed critical examination.

Really? Banished to another board is not the same as the debate being suppressed*.

Regards,
Chris

* Having said that I have just deleted one of your posts there (and the follow-ups) for discussing the board's guidelines in the wrong place. That's what I call suppression! I would have just moved it to the right place but I've explained why I didn't in the mod box.

[Lootman]

Criticism is banished to the "other board" which means that the system lacks the crucial ingredient that drives change and progress - informed critical examination.

Really? Banished to another board is not the same as the debate being suppressed*.

Regards,, Chris

* Having said that I have just deleted one of your posts there (and the follow-ups) for discussing the board's guidelines in the wrong place. That's what I call suppression! I would have just moved it to the right place but I've explained why I didn't in the mod box.

Yes, that is true. However my point (continuing with the Popperian theme if anyone is interested) was that such criticisms are then not read by practitioners of the method, which I was arguing was the driver of change and progress.

You're right that some of this discussion may belong in the Biscuit place. I struggled a little with that myself. But since I was not suggesting any change to TLF, nor its usage or board structure, I felt it belonged on a HY board more. Happy to be told otherwise and in fact my point to mc2fool earlier is that there is a distinction between discussing the method and discussing the scope of a board about the method.

I have some other thoughts about the "definition" that DE was asking about but am not sure yet I want to go down that route if there is a question about where that discussion belongs or about whether it is too remote from the OP, so will leave it there for now.