Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to richill,monabri,Dod101,Anonymous,Gersemi, for Donating to support the site

Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

Pull up a chair, have a biscuit - discuss the site and general questions about the LemonFool
TUK020
Lemon Slice
Posts: 735
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 331 times

Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188569

Postby TUK020 » December 21st, 2018, 9:48 am

I hope this is perceived as a constructive suggestion. Apologies if it is not, and just seen as 'picking the scab' on an old wound.

Most really insoluble arguments come down to different people using the same words, but meaning completely different things by them.

Example: Gay Marriage. Do you mean 'marriage' as in civil union between two people, or 'marriage' as in sacrament from my church?

Their are some people who want to discuss the portfolio strategy as laid down by PYAD, and understandably get annoyed by people who invade their church, preaching a different religion.
Their are others who want to discuss a slightly more relaxed investment philosophy, who think that PYAD does not have a monopoly on the words High, Yield or Portfolio, and think that those words describe what they do.

Suggestion: Rename "HYP Practical" board to "PYAD HYP".

I want to post issues that are Practical, and relate to my HIGH Yield Portfolio, i.e bumping ITV from the top of my top up list in favour of HFEL IT, but that would infuriate PYAD followers. It would help if the board name reminded where not to stick this.
This fight is more about who is claiming the brand "HYP" than anything else.

mc2fool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1410
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 330 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188575

Postby mc2fool » December 21st, 2018, 10:12 am

TUK020 wrote:Suggestion: Rename "HYP Practical" board to "PYAD HYP".

I think renaming the board is a good idea, for the reasons you cite, however I'd comment that PYAD is not only the handle of the creator but also is a "value" term (PE. Yield, Assets, Debt), and may result in some ex-TMF value types then thinking the board is a revival of the old value board, and HYP can still be thought of standing for any "high yield portfolio".

So, I'd suggest something along the lines of "Bland Annuity Replacement Portfolio Practical" instead. That contains the original purpose and avoids the contentious wording (although I'm sure some will say it introduces others :D)

TUK020
Lemon Slice
Posts: 735
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 331 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188577

Postby TUK020 » December 21st, 2018, 10:19 am

mc2fool wrote:So, I'd suggest something along the lines of "Bland Annuity Replacement Portfolio Practical" instead. That contains the original purpose and avoids the contentious wording (although I'm sure some will say it introduces others :D)


mc2fool,
nice refinement
thanks
tuk020

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3754
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 2812 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188578

Postby dspp » December 21st, 2018, 10:25 am

Thank you both. Those are thoughtful suggestions. I'm not saying whether I agree or not as I personally have not reflected on this yet, but I can see that you mean well.

It would be helpful if you could encourage others - most especially the core users of that board - to give their view on this matter. Clearly to do so here, not there. As you can imagine the last thing anybody wants to do is to rename any board prematurely. And could you be clearer, are you suggesting any change in the "Forum rules: Tight HYP discussions only please - OT please discuss in strategies" ?

I guess the other question is whether renaming would actually change behavior which is the issue we grapple with. Would it ?

regards, dspp

mc2fool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1410
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 330 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188585

Postby mc2fool » December 21st, 2018, 10:43 am

dspp wrote:...are you suggesting any change in the "Forum rules: Tight HYP discussions only please - OT please discuss in strategies" ?

I'm not, but I have to disclose that although I run a HYP I no longer follow the board, so I don't feel I have a part in that decision. Mine was just a naming suggestion, that's all.

dspp wrote:I guess the other question is whether renaming would actually change behavior which is the issue we grapple with. Would it ?

Well, certainly a big part of the issue, from the posts here and in Room 101 and from the days when I was a follower, is (and has always been, even on TMF) the contention between the (relatively narrowly defined) High Yield Portfolio concept and (any) high yield portfolio.

While a HYP (High Yield Portfolio) is a high yield portfolio not all high yield portfolios are HYPs (High Yield Portfolios), so removing those words from the board name would at least remove that perceived ambiguity (I don't expect HYPers to stop referring to their portfolios as HYPs though.)

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1658
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 307 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188662

Postby Raptor » December 21st, 2018, 1:49 pm

I thought that we had actually moved away from PYAD early principles of "HYP" now. So the board guidelines are more flexible to cover the changes since Mr Bland and TMF started along the High Yield route, so why would we want it to be called PYAD or Bland?

If it was a PYAD "board" then, IMO, most of the threads and posts would be deleted as not following the "bible". It has evolved and moved on............

Only my opinion of course.

Raptor.

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5892
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 986 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188666

Postby Lootman » December 21st, 2018, 1:59 pm

mc2fool wrote:
I'd suggest something along the lines of "Bland Annuity Replacement Portfolio Practical" instead. That contains the original purpose and avoids the contentious wording (although I'm sure some will say it introduces others :D)


Raptor wrote:
I thought that we had actually moved away from PYAD early principles of "HYP" now. So the board guidelines are more flexible to cover the changes since Mr Bland and TMF started along the High Yield route, so why would we want it to be called PYAD or Bland?

If it was a PYAD "board" then, IMO, most of the threads and posts would be deleted as not following the "bible". It has evolved and moved on .


I agree with both of you. With mc2fool that the board name should be changed to note the legacy status of this method now that TMF has gone and Bland has almost gone. And with Raptor in that adding Bland or Pyad to the title will enshrine the name of someone who no longer actively sponsors the method, which is now something of an orphan going its own way.

So something like "TMF legacy HYP Board", perhaps? Thereby reflecting the quasi-frozen and somewhat rigid nature of the method. While I am at it why not the rename the HY-Strategies board as "Dividend Investing"?

mc2fool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1410
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 330 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188675

Postby mc2fool » December 21st, 2018, 2:18 pm

Raptor wrote:I thought that we had actually moved away from PYAD early principles of "HYP" now. So the board guidelines are more flexible to cover the changes since Mr Bland and TMF started along the High Yield route, so why would we want it to be called PYAD or Bland?

Whether the name reflects the origin or not, I think the more important bit is to get the words "high yield" out of the board name, as I believe that's one of the main sources for the potential for creating disagreement.

A HYP may be a high yield portfolio but not all high yield portfolios are HYPs.

PinkDalek
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4214
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 987 times
Been thanked: 1126 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188678

Postby PinkDalek » December 21st, 2018, 2:39 pm

mc2fool wrote:
Raptor wrote:I thought that we had actually moved away from PYAD early principles of "HYP" now. So the board guidelines are more flexible to cover the changes since Mr Bland and TMF started along the High Yield route, so why would we want it to be called PYAD or Bland?

Whether the name reflects the origin or not, I think the more important bit is to get the words "high yield" out of the board name, as I believe that's one of the main sources for the potential for creating disagreement.

A HYP may be a high yield portfolio but not all high yield portfolios are HYPs.


"HYP - Practical" would be much simpler but I suggested something along those lines before and met little or no support.

It might also help those who read via a mobile as, at present, what I see in the headers is (in portrait):

High Yield Sha...

High Yield Port...


and it is simple to misread if insufficient care is taken.

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2858
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 2124 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188746

Postby DiamondEcho » December 21st, 2018, 9:29 pm

I believe the spirit of a HYP is that it should and has to evolve and adapt to the times, it is meant to simplify yet stay intelligent and timely; it shouldn't be one permanent set of metrics, 'tablets of stone' stuck in the stone-age when it was created, perhaps the mid/late 90s. As if nothing has changed since that time, when we were supposedly sitting at home getting share prices from our daily newspaper and telephoning orders to our broker. The original concept of simple dividend investing and building, as in HYP, goes back to the 50s, the world has moved on.
Some people like to cling to those tablets of stone, those rules, and can seem to become alarmed when it's suggested the original rules are so out of date as to perhaps no longer be valid. I've been accused by a 'zealot' more than once of not following the pure HYP path, but then such people cannot link or produce a current set of HYP metrics for such a portfolio. So what is a PYADic HYP, something frozen in aspic from 10-20 years ago? IDK, the strategy pre-dates TMF by decades, I've followed it closely at first from the 90s [US] and more loosely since the 10's [UK-centric].
I've previously suggested trying to put heads together and re-think portfolio metrics that might be appropriate for the current times, but... watch this space?

TUK020
Lemon Slice
Posts: 735
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 331 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188758

Postby TUK020 » December 21st, 2018, 10:24 pm

Lootman wrote:
So something like "TMF legacy HYP Board", perhaps? Thereby reflecting the quasi-frozen and somewhat rigid nature of the method. While I am at it why not the rename the HY-Strategies board as "Dividend Investing"?


Dividend Builder?

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3891
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 1377 times
Been thanked: 2426 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188760

Postby Itsallaguess » December 21st, 2018, 10:34 pm

Sticky topics are important. If they weren't important, they wouldn't be sticky....

There's a single sticky topic on HYP Practical, and it's called 'BOARD GUIDANCE'.

I think the single biggest improvement that we could make to the HYP situation would be to keep things exactly as they are, but to also highlight that board-guidance topic much more prominently....

I propose that we should rename the titled HYP Practical Board as follows -

High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical - Please read top 'BOARD GUIDANCE' topic.

Doing this would carry out two very important tasks -

1. It would ensure that it's absolutely clear that the HYP Practical board is SPECIAL in terms of income-investing, and that it has some SPECIAL guidance that needs to be followed...

2. It would ensure that people know where that SPECIAL GUIDANCE is....so they can read it, and try their best to follow it.....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Howard
Lemon Slice
Posts: 660
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188770

Postby Howard » December 22nd, 2018, 12:34 am

I enjoy reading the board and believe that the name and the guidance don’t need changing. The problem is that some posters can’t accept the guidance and try in every way to subvert it.

If there was a “Vegan” board some contributors would try every way to goad vegans by suggesting they eat meat or that bacon is almost a vegetable! :D They would point out the extra proteins from a meat diet. And they would argue that the board’s name should be changed to “Veganish” to allow even more goading. :lol:

The advantage of the HYP practical board is that the investing method is easy to understand. However it does not necessarily lead to the highest investment returns. This, to me is an advantage because, as a reader, I find the HYP disciples are generally posting realistic and pretty honest results for their portfolios. The HYP rules stop “clever dicks” telling us how wonderfully their portfolios have performed and how they bought Amazon at 20 cents. :roll: If there is a tendency to start to do this, sensible moderation stops this one-upmanship.

Personally, whilst not having a pure HYP portfolio I have gained tremendously from being reminded about strategic ignorance and the importance of dividends. It brings a common sense approach to investing.

I very much appreciate the posters who admit that their investment performance sometimes is less than ideal and it is nice to share their success when things go well. It leads to an honest analysis and debate. And this may be the reason that there is a lot of interest in the board and less interest reading other boards.

So as a reader I’d stick with the current definition and name. And thanks to the moderators who make Lemon Fool a quality forum!

regards

Howard

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3453
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 697 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188771

Postby Alaric » December 22nd, 2018, 1:08 am

TUK020 wrote:Dividend Builder?


Investing for dividends perhaps. With changes in the tax rules, that can now be tax inefficient outside of ISAs and SIPPs.

Leaving dividends in the title rules out the strategy of gaining a high yield by investing in junk bonds, even though it rules in the strategy of investing in their equity equivalents.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3754
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 2812 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188813

Postby dspp » December 22nd, 2018, 12:38 pm

Howard wrote:I enjoy reading the board and believe that the name and the guidance don’t need changing. The problem is that some posters can’t accept the guidance and try in every way to subvert it.

If there was a “Vegan” board some contributors would try every way to goad vegans by suggesting they eat meat or that bacon is almost a vegetable! :D They would point out the extra proteins from a meat diet. And they would argue that the board’s name should be changed to “Veganish” to allow even more goading. :lol:

The advantage of the HYP practical board is that the investing method is easy to understand. However it does not necessarily lead to the highest investment returns. This, to me is an advantage because, as a reader, I find the HYP disciples are generally posting realistic and pretty honest results for their portfolios. The HYP rules stop “clever dicks” telling us how wonderfully their portfolios have performed and how they bought Amazon at 20 cents. :roll: If there is a tendency to start to do this, sensible moderation stops this one-upmanship.

Personally, whilst not having a pure HYP portfolio I have gained tremendously from being reminded about strategic ignorance and the importance of dividends. It brings a common sense approach to investing.

I very much appreciate the posters who admit that their investment performance sometimes is less than ideal and it is nice to share their success when things go well. It leads to an honest analysis and debate. And this may be the reason that there is a lot of interest in the board and less interest reading other boards.

So as a reader I’d stick with the current definition and name. And thanks to the moderators who make Lemon Fool a quality forum!

regards

Howard


Thank you Howard. What you are describing is the status quo, and that is what the Mods are applying. Unless there is a very strong consensus for a change that is driven by the relevant users, it is unlikely that a different set of board guidance would be adopted. However by way of threads such as this we do periodically check whether there is a good reason to change.

regards, dspp

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5892
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 986 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188829

Postby Lootman » December 22nd, 2018, 1:59 pm

Alaric wrote:
TUK020 wrote:Dividend Builder?
Investing for dividends perhaps. With changes in the tax rules, that can now be tax inefficient outside of ISAs and SIPPs.

I'm not sure I'd say that investing in dividends is tax-inefficient. True, a 7.5% income tax rate has been introduced so that a basic-rate taxpayer does now have to pay some tax rather than none. But it is hardly onerous and certainly lower than the tax rate on other forms of income.

Alaric wrote:Leaving dividends in the title rules out the strategy of gaining a high yield by investing in junk bonds, even though it rules in the strategy of investing in their equity equivalents.

The use of the word "dividends" might exclude the inclusion of junk bonds. But preference shares, ITs and ETFs all pay dividends and they are excluded from the scope.

Howard wrote:If there was a “Vegan” board some contributors would try every way to goad vegans by suggesting they eat meat or that bacon is almost a vegetable! :D They would point out the extra proteins from a meat diet. And they would argue that the board’s name should be changed to “Veganish” to allow even more goading.

A better analogy might be if TLF had both a vegetarian board and a vegan board. It would probably be confusing for newcomers, and neophyte vegans might post on the vegetarian board "just to be safe" if they perceived moderation of the vegan board to be strict and/or contrived. Then again, as long as the moderators were willing to endlessly sift through posts looking for references to dairy products, then perhaps there is no problem.

PinkDalek
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4214
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 987 times
Been thanked: 1126 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188835

Postby PinkDalek » December 22nd, 2018, 2:48 pm

Lootman wrote:
Alaric wrote:Leaving dividends in the title rules out the strategy of gaining a high yield by investing in junk bonds, even though it rules in the strategy of investing in their equity equivalents.

The use of the word "dividends" might exclude the inclusion of junk bonds. But preference shares, ITs and ETFs all pay dividends and they are excluded from the scope.


Alaric would appear to have been following up on TUK020's Dividend Builder?. That appears to have been in reply to your While I am at it why not the rename the HY-Strategies board as "Dividend Investing"?.

The three of you appear to be talking about renaming High Yield Shares & Strategies - general, where the Guidance includes Securities such as preference shares, PIBs, Investment Trusts, ETFs, etc. can be considered..

Unless I've misunderstood the point your are making.

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3453
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 697 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188837

Postby Alaric » December 22nd, 2018, 3:17 pm

PinkDalek wrote:Unless I've misunderstood the point your are making.


It's probably about dumping the three letter abbreviation HYP.

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3612
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 1200 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188838

Postby tjh290633 » December 22nd, 2018, 3:46 pm

Alaric wrote:
PinkDalek wrote:Unless I've misunderstood the point your are making.


It's probably about dumping the three letter abbreviation HYP.

But that only applies to one board where HYPs are supposed to be the only allowable topics.

TJH

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5892
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 986 times

Re: Labels. The potential for creating disagreement

#188849

Postby Lootman » December 22nd, 2018, 5:47 pm

PinkDalek wrote:The three of you appear to be talking about renaming High Yield Shares & Strategies - general, where the Guidance includes Securities such as preference shares, PIBs, Investment Trusts, ETFs, etc. can be considered..

That's certainly the Board that I was talking about.

My idea for renaming the HYP - Practical Board retained the acronym HYP, along with its specialised meaning.


Return to “Biscuit Bar”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests