proposed TR - total returns - strategies board

[jackdaww]

Investment Strategies!

yes , with a TITLE change to include TR .

Eh? Don't you mean in the description strap line? A whole bunch of mine (and others!) earlier posts cautioned against this, and I'm pretty sure that my posts "received thanks" from you as a result!

Anyway I'm currently a bit busy at the moment to spend too much time on debating this one much further. I think I've said enough for now!

Matt

no i DONT mean the strapline , its not enough to distinguish it from the more specialised growth and income boards.

ps . i have given a thank to almost all posts on here to recognise a contribution - doesnt mean i agree !

although i have rather liked yours !

[tjh290633]

jackdaww wrote:

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:
Investment Strategies!




yes , with a TITLE change to include TR .

jackdaww, please stop replying to posts using "" for your comments. It makes a total mess of the message. That looks as if TheMotorcycleBoy wrote what is evidently your comment.

Use the " button to get the quote from the one to which you are replying, and put your comments after the "/quote" tag at the end, not before it.

TJH

[jackdaww]

jackdaww wrote:

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:
Investment Strategies!




yes , with a TITLE change to include TR .

jackdaww, please stop replying to posts using "" for your comments. It makes a total mess of the message. That looks as if TheMotorcycleBoy wrote what is evidently your comment.

Use the " button to get the quote from the one to which you are replying, and put your comments after the "/quote" tag at the end, not before it.

TJH

ok -- like this ?

[1nvest]

the HYP practical board not infrequently alludes to "capital doesn't matter " , and mention of the TR word often invokes the OT word.

That's just Ostrich head in the sand philosophy. Historically many asset allocations have endured bad 10 year periods, and the only way to check that is to look at total return (accumulation). In gross total return terms, excluding costs/taxes/spreads/fees 50% declines have occurred in real (after inflation) terms. If you're drawing a income (and paying costs/taxes) on top of that then the drawdown would have been deeper, in some cases critically so. Even out to 20 years and beyond have seen cases of barely breaking even in gross accumulation terms.

The HYP belief is that spending most/all of dividends (maybe reinvesting some of dividends) alone will see you through, but that only works if you might at times accept a severe cut in spending (income). Again historically and dividend declines in real terms of over 70% have occurred (and at a time when stock prices were down -50% in real terms).

A alternative is to use SWR, where you take a percentage of the initial portfolio value and uplift that £ amount each year by inflation as your withdrawal amount in subsequent years. That at least provides a inflation adjusted/stable income. When so, you'll generally find that stock heavy or all-stock isn't the best choice of asset allocation. Yes on average all-stock might provide a higher average reward, but when you have enough to retire then additional growth that might benefit heirs might be considered as a uncompensated risk for oneself.

Some opt to load up a ladder of inflation bonds (index linked gilts), as a liability matched type income provision. Guaranteed to exhaust/spend all of that money (unless you die earlier) but better assures income. For example someone about to retire with a £7K/year state pension perhaps supplemented with another £7K of occupational pension, and where their spending is £20K/year might in anticipation/hope of living 30 years into retirement load 30 years x £6K/year into a 30 rung index linked gilt ladder. Anything above that £180K (assuming inflation pacing, more in present day terms due to negative real yields, less in past years when real yields were positive) can be invested however they desire (often stocks).

I suspect many retired HYP investors own their own home and have both state and occupational benefits such that dividends are in addition to having most/all of their spending covered. No rent to find/pay, basic living expenses covered by pensions, HYP income for additional niceties/luxuries events have occurred.

[tjh290633]

jackdaww wrote:

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:
Investment Strategies!




yes , with a TITLE change to include TR .

jackdaww, please stop replying to posts using "" for your comments. It makes a total mess of the message. That looks as if TheMotorcycleBoy wrote what is evidently your comment.

Use the " button to get the quote from the one to which you are replying, and put your comments after the "/quote" tag at the end, not before it.

TJH

ok -- like this ?

Exactly. Thanks.

TJH

[jackdaww]

the HYP practical board not infrequently alludes to "capital doesn't matter " , and mention of the TR word often invokes the OT word.

That's just Ostrich head in the sand philosophy. Historically many asset allocations have endured bad 10 year periods, and the only way to check that is to look at total return (accumulation). In gross total return terms, excluding costs/taxes/spreads/fees 50% declines have occurred in real (after inflation) terms. If you're drawing a income (and paying costs/taxes) on top of that then the drawdown would have been deeper, in some cases critically so. Even out to 20 years and beyond have seen cases of barely breaking even in gross accumulation terms.

The HYP belief is that spending most/all of dividends (maybe reinvesting some of dividends) alone will see you through, but that only works if you might at times accept a severe cut in spending (income). Again historically and dividend declines in real terms of over 70% have occurred (and at a time when stock prices were down -50% in real terms).

A alternative is to use SWR, where you take a percentage of the initial portfolio value and uplift that £ amount each year by inflation as your withdrawal amount in subsequent years. That at least provides a inflation adjusted/stable income. When so, you'll generally find that stock heavy or all-stock isn't the best choice of asset allocation. Yes on average all-stock might provide a higher average reward, but when you have enough to retire then additional growth that might benefit heirs might be considered as a uncompensated risk for oneself.

Some opt to load up a ladder of inflation bonds (index linked gilts), as a liability matched type income provision. Guaranteed to exhaust/spend all of that money (unless you die earlier) but better assures income. For example someone about to retire with a £7K/year state pension perhaps supplemented with another £7K of occupational pension, and where their spending is £20K/year might in anticipation/hope of living 30 years into retirement load 30 years x £6K/year into a 30 rung index linked gilt ladder. Anything above that £180K (assuming inflation pacing, more in present day terms due to negative real yields, less in past years when real yields were positive) can be invested however they desire (often stocks).

I suspect many retired HYP investors own their own home and have both state and occupational benefits such that dividends are in addition to having most/all of their spending covered. No rent to find/pay, basic living expenses covered by pensions, HYP income for additional niceties/luxuries events have occurred.

============================

i'm sorry to say that comprehension of your post is just beyond me.

i will say that my proposal is NOT about HYP .

i believe there is a clear case for a general and flexible TR board , for free and open investment discussions , invoking less off topic moderation , and encourage new and existing posters , who might feel more comfortable there .

[Gengulphus]

i believe there is a clear case for a general and flexible TR board , for free and open investment discussions , invoking less off topic moderation , and encourage new and existing posters , who might feel more comfortable there .

How do you want TR strategies to be distinguished from non-TR strategies?

One possible answer is that there are no non-TR strategies, and so no need to distinguish TR strategies from them. In that case, every strategy is a TR strategy, so every strategy can be freely and openly discussed on your "TR board", and TLF have already agreed that there is a case for such a board and supplied it: it's called "Investment Strategies".

Otherwise, there are some non-TR strategies and those strategies would be off-topic on your "TR board". How should users recognise those strategies, so that they can avoid posting about them on the board?

Gengulphus

[88V8]

Some people aver that HYP is a religion.
It seems from the length of this thread that TR might be another one.

If HYP is Protestant maybe even Calvinist, then TR would be more Catholic including the robes, incense, and of course Latin.
Perhaps Latin could be the default language of the TR Board, and all figures shewn in Roman numerals.
A suitable motto for the Board might be Caput refert (which I hope means Capital Does Matter)

V8

[dealtn]

i believe there is a clear case for a general and flexible TR board , for free and open investment discussions , invoking less off topic moderation , and encourage new and existing posters , who might feel more comfortable there .

How do you want TR strategies to be distinguished from non-TR strategies?

One possible answer is that there are no non-TR strategies, and so no need to distinguish TR strategies from them. In that case, every strategy is a TR strategy, so every strategy can be freely and openly discussed on your "TR board", and TLF have already agreed that there is a case for such a board and supplied it: it's called "Investment Strategies".

Otherwise, there are some non-TR strategies and those strategies would be off-topic on your "TR board". How should users recognise those strategies, so that they can avoid posting about them on the board?

Gengulphus

Those who follow strategies that are fairly clear to not be Total Returns strategies, that already have their own Board shouldn't have a problem I would think. But for other strategies that might be problematic.

You would hope tolerance would allow such posters to make such mistakes. You would hope this wouldn't escalate into serial arguments over what was on, or off, topic. Ultimately you would rely on moderation, or at an extreme a simplification of the Board structure such that all investment strategies could be discussed in one place.

Or if all strategies are considered Total Return strategies, yet some sub-set strategies are allocated a Board for discussion, then the proposed TR strategies Board is "named" Other Strategies "Not X , Not Y, Not Z ..." which is cumbersome. (where X, Y, Z might be HYP, Property, Growth ...)

It's not clear what a TR Board would bring that couldn't be discussed on Growth Strategies, or Investment Strategies. It seems the desire for such a Board is as much motivated by a "they have one, so we should have one" form of logic (where presumably "they" is HYP). Were such a Board to be introduced I wonder at what point the number of posts there would exceed that on this thread asking for, and discussing the merits of, such a Board.

Not easy.

[Alaric]

It's not clear what a TR Board would bring that couldn't be discussed on Growth Strategies, or Investment Strategies.

As already has been suggested, moving the tags around could be possible.

Investment Strategies tag line is currently

Stocks and Shares ISA , Choosing funds for ISA's, risk factors for funds etc
Investment strategy discussions not dealt with elsewhere.

So "Stocks and Shares ISA" goes to Brokers and Share Dealing on the grounds that selecting an ISA is initially about selection of a platform before you move on to the investment choices.

"Choosing funds for ISA's, risk factors for funds etc" goes to Investment Trusts and Unit Trusts.

That leaves the tag line as

Investment Strategies
Investment strategy discussions not dealt with elsewhere.

Optionally include the words "including Total Return"

Investing in CFDs is presumably an Investment Strategy. Unless it goes alongside "Peer to Peer" in Other Investing, it doesn't have much of a home.

[Stonge]

Didn't know there's an investment strategy board. Thanks I'll have butcher's.

[Stonge]

Ah couldn't find any investment strategies there.

Oh well, I'll get me coat.

[jackdaww]

Didn't know there's an investment strategy board. Thanks I'll have butcher's.

=====================

i didnt know either - it must need a kickstart.

[jackdaww]

Ah couldn't find any investment strategies there.

Oh well, I'll get me coat.

============================

i wonder about this focus on the "strategies" word..

there is more to investing discussions then that ?

[1nvest]

Didn't know there's an investment strategy board. Thanks I'll have butcher's.

i didnt know either - it must need a kickstart.

Gave it a kick viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23594

[csearle]

I think it is a bit of a presumption to insist that all strategies are Total Return (TR) strategies. For example if you run an HYP (see guidelines) then you don't really give a monkey's was the capital does, well you might, but you should really be focussed on the income, so in that example TR is at least, er, unimportant.

It follows then that Total Return is not so general as to include all strategies. So why not allow a board that abstracts the importance of Total Return?

I think that it is worth a punt. What is the worse that can happen: we have to shut it down again through lack of use? Big deal! On the other hand it could be the new favourite place to post?

Let's just try it?

We are all fond of this site and would like it to be popular, right?

Chris

[mc2fool]

Didn't know there's an investment strategy board. Thanks I'll have butcher's.

=====================

i didnt know either

And yet you've been posting on it since 2016.

it must need a kickstart.

No need, it's already one of the most posted on boards in the Investors' Roundtable. Of course, it may not stay so if you get your way to narrow its focus....

[PinkDalek]

No need, it's already one of the most posted on boards in the Investors' Roundtable.

One of those boards with most new topics but I’ve no idea of the number of replies there; at least those stats aren’t showing on this machine.

[mc2fool]

No need, it's already one of the most posted on boards in the Investors' Roundtable.

One of those boards with most new topics but I’ve no idea of the number of replies there; at least those stats aren’t showing on this machine.

Eh? 369 Topics 6936 Posts.

[Gengulphus]

I think it is a bit of a presumption to insist that all strategies are Total Return (TR) strategies. For example if you run an HYP (see guidelines) then you don't really give a monkey's was the capital does, well you might, but you should really be focussed on the income, so in that example TR is at least, er, unimportant.

Not necessarily. Doubtless some HYPers don't care about capital, but equally some reckon that focusing on a high level of dividend income from a HYP and reinvesting it is the best way they have to try to achieve good capital growth over the long term. Basically, someone's long-term objective need not be the same thing as what their tactics to try to achieve it focus on.

It follows then that Total Return is not so general as to include all strategies. So why not allow a board that abstracts the importance of Total Return?

I think that it is worth a punt. What is the worse that can happen: we have to shut it down again through lack of use? Big deal! On the other hand it could be the new favourite place to post?

No, something worse than that which can happen is that all strategies get brought up there (including the strategy of running a HYP with dividend reinvestment), and it ends up being a duplicate of Investment Strategies and therefore fragmenting discussions between Investment Strategies and itself. Or even worse, people start reporting discussions that take place on it as off-topic because they "really belong" on Investment Strategies, or vice versa. For the sake of the sanity of users trying to decide where to post, and of moderators needing to adjudicate on such reports, there need to be criteria to help them decide where a post belongs - preferably at least partially objective criteria, as ones that just involve a poster stating that they think what they're saying is likely to result in superior TR are liable to result in unending "it's obvious that it will / will not" arguments.

Let's just try it?

To be clear: I'm fine with it being tried, but my advice is that it's likely to cause trouble if the new board ends up indistinguishable in practice from an existing board. And so I would suggest that preferably, those proposing it should come up with a way of distinguishing it from Investment Strategies in practice. It's only if they cannot do that that I start to doubt that it will work well in practice. And before anyone suggests that I ought to suggest a way of distinguishing it from Investment Strategies in practice, sorry, I'm not proposing it - I'm in favour of it because I want other Lemons to get the boards they want provided they're workable in practice, but I cannot decide for them what they want, and as far as me wanting it for my own use is concerned, I don't...

Gengulphus