Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

Formerly "Lemon Fool - Improve the Recipe" repurposed as Room 102 (see above).
Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438315

Postby Dod101 » August 30th, 2021, 12:58 am

Could I suggest that we make it a convention of these Boards that EPICs (or the use of the London Stock Exchange codes for shares) are only used after the full name for a particular security has been used the first time? So for example, if a poster refers to Scottish Investment Trust, he/she adds (SCIN) after the name and thereafter may use the SCIN reference. I know I have posted as a bitter lemon on this topic but I am being perfectly serious. Some of us at least, do not carry all of these codes in our heads, and so, especially if we get an unusual code we can sometimes have no idea what the poster is referring to.

That means a lot of research to get the answer and sometimes that means that the point is lost.

Dod

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438329

Postby BobbyD » August 30th, 2021, 8:46 am

Dod101 wrote:Could I suggest that we make it a convention of these Boards that EPICs (or the use of the London Stock Exchange codes for shares) are only used after the full name for a particular security has been used the first time?


Are you really going to type 'The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBA)' everytime you want to talk about HSBA?

Generally speaking what you request is good practice, but on an investment board I don't think the EPICs for say FTSE100 companies could be considered specialist knowledge. If you spot one that isn't familiar it takes under a second to highlight it, right click on it and instigate a web search from the drop down menu. Quicker to type, quicker to read, easy to look up if you aren't familiar, and better for precise identification of the company involved than any non-standardised method of abbreviation. How many people use the entire name of a company even when quoting the name longform? How many posts is your 'Longform(EPIC)' good for? If you used it on page one of a thread, is it still good when you rejoin on page 3, page 5, page 7 ...or are we proposing to type 'The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBA)' in every post in which we are going to mention that particular bank, which I suggest won't be very often if we are...

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438335

Postby Dod101 » August 30th, 2021, 9:24 am

As I said on the other thread, the parent name is HSBC Holdings plc.

Dod

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438336

Postby Itsallaguess » August 30th, 2021, 9:27 am

I do have some sympathy with Dod's view on this, although I also think that trying to force some sort of 'TLF convention' into this area of the discussion boards is probably just going to get people on both sides of the issue wound up over it, so whilst that 'convention' discussion is ongoing (and good luck with it Dod..), I just thought I'd try to describe in a bit more detail just how the simple browser-related solution mentioned by BobbyD in an earlier post actually works in practice, because it's quite a simple solution to this issue, all things considered...

In Dod's opening post on this thread, he uses the SCIN ticker, so the screen-shot below shows what happens in most modern browsers where someone double-clicks on the SCIN ticker, where it will usually become highlighted on the page, and then the user right-clicks the mouse to reveal the right-click context menu, where there's usually a clear option to 'Search Google' using the highlighted ticker (or generally any other word or phrase, of course..).

The additional screen-shot below on the right is then the Google search page returned for that particular ticker, which opens up in a new, separate tab on my Firefox browser, and we can see that it's captured the correct 'Scottish Investment Trust' details quite adequately -


Image

Source - https://www.google.com/search?q=SCIN

The above process will usually work for the great bulk of UK-based equities, but sometimes there's odd tickers that defy it (and I think Dod quite rightly highlighted one yesterday in a separate discussion on this topic), and in those cases, the solution is usually found by simply adding the word 'LON' to the returned Google search page, as shown in the example search-box entry below, and this will then drive the Google search to concentrate on LONdon markets for the returned search results -

Image

Source - https://www.google.com/search?q=SCIN+LON

Out of interest, I would ask Dod if he can remember the ticker that he used yesterday as an example that didn't work with the first process, and try it with the second process above, adding the word 'LON' to the Google search box - I tried it yesterday and it worked fine for me on that slightly more awkward example...

So yes, I suppose in an ideal world there would never be any ambiguity where people are using EPIC codes in their posts, and I'll happily observe how this thread develops into trying to find a 'convention' that everyone is happy to work under, but in the meantime, if people find themselves struggling to find out just which company people are talking about, then I'd suggest giving the above processes a go and seeing just how simple and quick it is to normally find a solution to the problem using tools that are usually already available in most modern browsers...

Finally, I suppose we should also recognise that if all else fails, and people find themselves taking an interest in a thread where EPICS are being used that are alien to them, there's always the option of asking the people involved to please just name the company...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10367
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3601 times
Been thanked: 5227 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438338

Postby Arborbridge » August 30th, 2021, 9:30 am

BobbyD wrote:
Dod101 wrote:Could I suggest that we make it a convention of these Boards that EPICs (or the use of the London Stock Exchange codes for shares) are only used after the full name for a particular security has been used the first time?


Are you really going to type 'The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBA)' everytime you want to talk about HSBA?

Generally speaking what you request is good practice, but on an investment board I don't think the EPICs for say FTSE100 companies could be considered specialist knowledge. If you spot one that isn't familiar it takes under a second to highlight it, right click on it and instigate a web search from the drop down menu. Quicker to type, quicker to read, easy to look up if you aren't familiar, and better for precise identification of the company involved than any non-standardised method of abbreviation. How many people use the entire name of a company even when quoting the name longform? How many posts is your 'Longform(EPIC)' good for? If you used it on page one of a thread, is it still good when you rejoin on page 3, page 5, page 7 ...or are we proposing to type 'The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBA)' in every post in which we are going to mention that particular bank, which I suggest won't be very often if we are...


If these thread do nothing else, they educate me: - right click on it and instigate a web search from the drop down menu
I had, after all these decades, never realised one could do that! so thanks Bobby D for advice and Dod for the post.

Arb.

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438342

Postby Dod101 » August 30th, 2021, 9:42 am

Thanks for that IAAG. I do not remember which EPIC I used yesterday and I think the post has been deleted. Wait...... was it MTE for Montanaro European Smaller Cos that you were thinking of? I had never heard of it or of the management house.

Dod

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438344

Postby Itsallaguess » August 30th, 2021, 9:45 am

Dod101 wrote:
Thanks for that IAAG.

I do not remember which EPIC I used yesterday and I think the post has been deleted.

Wait...... was it MTE for Montanaro European Smaller Cos that you were thinking of?

I had never heard of it or of the management house.


Thanks Dod - I think it was, and using the link below we can see that adding the additional 'LON' to the MTE search term does indeed bring back the company being discussed (MTE - Montanaro European Smaller Co.s Trust) -

https://www.google.com/search?q=MTE+LON

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438345

Postby swill453 » August 30th, 2021, 9:47 am

Similarly, on a tablet or phone, long-pressing on a word on a web page usually highlights it, and when you release one of the options should be "web search" or similar.

Scott.

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438348

Postby Dod101 » August 30th, 2021, 9:50 am

Itsallaguess wrote:
Dod101 wrote:
Thanks for that IAAG.

I do not remember which EPIC I used yesterday and I think the post has been deleted.

Wait...... was it MTE for Montanaro European Smaller Cos that you were thinking of?

I had never heard of it or of the management house.


Thanks Dod - I think it was, and using the link below we can see that adding the additional 'LON' to the MTE search term does indeed bring back the company being discussed (MTE - Montanaro European Smaller Co.s Trust) -

https://www.google.com/search?q=MTE+LON

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


How very interesting. Thanks Itsallaguess. Will try that, not that it changes my proposal mind you.

Dod

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438350

Postby Itsallaguess » August 30th, 2021, 9:54 am

Dod101 wrote:
How very interesting. Thanks Itsallaguess.

Will try that, not that it changes my proposal mind you.


Well I didn't think it would, and it wasn't really trying to, but hopefully it adds a couple of quick and useful tools whilst the, erm, 'agreements' around your proposed convention are hammered out...

:O)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438352

Postby XFool » August 30th, 2021, 9:57 am

Dod101 wrote:Could I suggest that we make it a convention of these Boards that EPICs (or the use of the London Stock Exchange codes for shares) are only used after the full name for a particular security has been used the first time? So for example, if a poster refers to Scottish Investment Trust, he/she adds (SCIN) after the name and thereafter may use the SCIN reference. I know I have posted as a bitter lemon on this topic but I am being perfectly serious. Some of us at least, do not carry all of these codes in our heads, and so, especially if we get an unusual code we can sometimes have no idea what the poster is referring to.

Sounds sensible to me. I believe it is what I have intended doing myself and can only hope I have always done this in practice.

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438354

Postby mc2fool » August 30th, 2021, 10:07 am

Talk of "simple browser solutions" miss the point. This is about consideration. It's like holding the door open for someone, and for the vast majority of cases only takes a second or two, if that. It's something courteous for minuscule effort.

I support the idea, at least for the first mention of a company/IT/ETF/etc in a thread.

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4097 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438363

Postby 88V8 » August 30th, 2021, 10:37 am

Arborbridge wrote:If these thread do nothing else, they educate me: - right click on it and instigate a web search from the drop down menu
I had, after all these decades, never realised one could do that! so thanks Bobby D for advice and Dod for the post.

Likewise.
In the case of SCIN for instance I would never have known that Scinderin is a protein that in humans is encoded by the SCIN gene, but the right click told me so.

My perhaps more reliable go-to for EPICs is LSE which is saved in my Firefox favourites, I can call up the site type in the epic and have an answer in eight seconds from a standing start. Or the AIC site although that takes about ten seconds as I don't have the Company Search page saved.

I do have sympathy with Dod, but if for instance a poster is asking for a list of suggestions to add to their portfolio, all that typing would become tedious and a put off. It's not as if we have to get up walk to a bookcase find a book look in an index go to the page then look for our reading glasses... all that is done for us by Google or in my case The Duck in just eight seconds, excluding of course the glasses.

So while I might sometimes type out the full name, it would have to be something obscure, really.

In fact if I have an occasional grump, it's the opposite, it's someone mentioning a security or more usually a bond without the EPIC which in some cases can be surprisingly hard to find.

V8

77ss
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1271
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:42 am
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 414 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438366

Postby 77ss » August 30th, 2021, 10:46 am

Itsallaguess wrote:
Dod101 wrote:
Thanks for that IAAG.

I do not remember which EPIC I used yesterday and I think the post has been deleted.

Wait...... was it MTE for Montanaro European Smaller Cos that you were thinking of?

I had never heard of it or of the management house.


Thanks Dod - I think it was, and using the link below we can see that adding the additional 'LON' to the MTE search term does indeed bring back the company being discussed (MTE - Montanaro European Smaller Co.s Trust) -

https://www.google.com/search?q=MTE+LON

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


One can of course always use the above trick. But I think there is an easier/more general method.

Is someone uses an EPIC that I am unfamiliar with (and if the post is of interest to me) I just plug the EPIC into investegate. Works fine for MTE and of course, takes one directly to the company's announcements as well, if one wants to check out the company.

CryptoPlankton
Lemon Slice
Posts: 786
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 873 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438367

Postby CryptoPlankton » August 30th, 2021, 10:49 am

From the "Abandoned HYPs..." thread on HYP Practical two days ago:

Dod101 wrote:Fortunately most of the rest of my portfolio has done well (with the exception of HFEL, another story) I should probably have cut back on them at some point when they were high but what is that saying about running your profits?


As far as I can see, this was the first mention of Henderson Far East Income Ltd (HFEL) on the thread. Are some EPICs (perhaps the ones Dod is already familiar with) to be exempt? :)

But, seriously, I think introducing less widely discussed companies by name is a very reasonable request - in fact, it wouldn't occur to me not to. I doubt the likes of HSBA are really an issue. All we can reasonably expect is a little consideration and common sense by people in the context of their posts. A "convention" is probably asking too much!

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1194 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438369

Postby richfool » August 30th, 2021, 10:51 am

I can and do see both sides of this argument, and I have historically sought to give the full name of IT's and their particular tickers, however, I feel that some people are trying to take it to an extreme and are being pedantic about the situation.

If I may make the following points:

1. Often the name of the IT has already been given a few posts above in the thread, if the poster was to look.

2. It is very quick and easy to find the full name of a single IT, but more time consuming for a poster to have to look up and type in many.

3. As said, I usually have sought to list the full names of trusts, when detailing my "postage stamp collection of IT's", (as I think Dod called it, only for Dod himself to then quibble about one single spelling mistake in a long list (of c 30 trusts), where I had mistakenly put an extra "n" in Dunedin (I had put Dunendin)!

4. Quite honestly, I really don't remember the full names of many of the trusts. I remember them by their tickers. (And It's not uncommon for trusts to change their names). Therefore I find myself having to look up the correct full names of multiple holdings when posting a list of holdings, which is frustrating and time consuming, particularly when most posters, who are really interested in that trust or sector will know them anyway.

So, I end up having to open a HL tab and type in the ticker in and look up the full names, often for a significant number of IT's, simply in order to make my post, which is time consuming when doing so for multiple holdings/trusts. For example, look at the JP Morgan stable - e.g. JAGI or MATE, even though I know exactly what trusts I am referring to and I'm sure most readers will too, I have to look up the full name of those: JAGI - JP Morgan Asian Growth & Income trust, or is it JP Morgan Asian Income and Growth trust. If I get it the wrong way round, I know Dod will be there waiting in the wings to correct me, as he did with Dunedin.

Or take another example, EGL, - that's how I remember it. I am not sure of its full name. I think it is Ecofin Global Infrastructure trust, or is it Ecofin Global Infrastructure and Utilities trust. I really don't know off the top of my head, but I do know what trust it is, in the same way I know what ULVR, SMT, or JGGI are. I have decided that to look them all up is an imposition that I really don't want, and as said, I think anyone who is really interested is likely to know the trust, or if it is one they don't know, it isn't too onerous to look that one up.

5. I would be the first to put the full name in, if it was an obscure trust that I was referring to, one which others were unlikely to know, as after all I am seeking views on the trust. But as said it is very time consuming to have to look them all up myself, when most posters know them already.

6. The irony of Dod's posts about EPIC's on the thread: "Candidates for adding to IT portfolio" thread, was that the full names of the trusts had already been given further up the thread, had he bothered to read the preceding posts. Instead, he just jumped in with his comment about tickers: "Talking in code again. Enjoy!". No attempt to respond to the actual post or question within the post. I had to ask myself, did he have any real interest in the topic at all, or was he simply taking advantage of the opportunity of banging that particular drum again. The subject at that time was about "Debt -Loans and Bonds" trusts (and what protection they might give if equity markets fell). The result of his comment was then to take the thread off-topic into an argument about the use of EPIC's and where to look them up. This sort of thing happens all too often where someone quibbles about some side point and ends up taking a thread off-topic. I am pleased to see that Dod has at least now raised the EPIC topic on this separate thread.

7. If in a post I see an EPIC I don't know, I generally view it that it is my lack of knowledge and so look it up, and then I decide whether it interests me.

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438375

Postby Itsallaguess » August 30th, 2021, 11:11 am

mc2fool wrote:
Talk of "simple browser solutions" miss the point. This is about consideration.

It's like holding the door open for someone, and for the vast majority of cases only takes a second or two, if that. It's something courteous for minuscule effort.

I support the idea, at least for the first mention of a company/IT/ETF/etc in a thread.


For the avoidance of doubt, I support it as well, in terms of posters hopefully considering that not everyone will know every EPIC that's potentially being discussed, but sticking with your door analogy, it seems that some people were struggling to see the door-handles they might be able to quickly and simply use themselves, on the odd occasion that people might sometimes forget to open it for them...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438376

Postby Dod101 » August 30th, 2021, 11:15 am

CryptoPlankton wrote:From the "Abandoned HYPs..." thread on HYP Practical two days ago:

Dod101 wrote:Fortunately most of the rest of my portfolio has done well (with the exception of HFEL, another story) I should probably have cut back on them at some point when they were high but what is that saying about running your profits?


As far as I can see, this was the first mention of Henderson Far East Income Ltd (HFEL) on the thread. Are some EPICs (perhaps the ones Dod is already familiar with) to be exempt? :)

But, seriously, I think introducing less widely discussed companies by name is a very reasonable request - in fact, it wouldn't occur to me not to. I doubt the likes of HSBA are really an issue. All we can reasonably expect is a little consideration and common sense by people in the context of their posts. A "convention" is probably asking too much!


I take your point but actually I did not realise that HFEL was the EPIC. I assumed that it was just shorthand for the full name. Unlike many EPICs it is very close to a natural abbreviation, a bit like my use of SIT for Scottish Investment Trust, whereas the EPIC as I now know is SCIN.

Dod

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438408

Postby MDW1954 » August 30th, 2021, 1:04 pm

Having checked the now-deleted post, I can confirm that it was MTE. And I hadn't heard of it either.

What Dod proposes was attempted before, back on TMF, and didn't work.

My own view is that many posters know most of the FTSE 100, and quite a few from the FTSE 250. REITs can be a bit more problematic, as can mid-sized ITs.

MDW1954

uspaul666
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 232
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:35 am
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 111 times

Re: EPICs and the use (Or not) of them

#438422

Postby uspaul666 » August 30th, 2021, 1:33 pm

It may seem bizarre but when I think about a company in or for my HYP, I usually refer to it in my mind by epic rather than the company name, indeed I am sometimes surprised to hear or read the fully company name. This was the case when I worked in investment banks too.
A possible technical solution would be to ask the site devs if they could automatically spot epic codes and replace it with a link or a borderless tiny pop up showing the full name on hover?


Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests