New Guidance & 'Rules' for High Yield Discussion Boards

[CryptoPlankton]

I do think the names of the two boards could be tweaked to make their purposes clearer, and maybe the guidelines aren't perfect, but surely it isn't that difficult to apply a little common sense? Does anyone seriously believe they would get pulled up for talking about Unilever in the context of a high yield portfolio? Or that they would be told they can't contribute because they have a preference share or only 14 sectors in their HYP?

I thought Polite Discussions was the most likely board to disappear, but I wouldn't blame Clariman and Stooz if they decided the high yield boards weren't worth all this hassle. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas...

[dspp]

I don't tend to look in here but something Clariman said caused me to take a peek. I am doing my best to keep out of the public HYP Practical debate both because it is not an area I moderate, and because I have my own thoughts regarding the HYP strategy.

However if it helps any of you, with regard to individual shares, or sectors, you are all welcome to post to your hearts content on "Sectors & General Shares" (viewforum.php?f=3). Within that if there is a 'missing' sub-sector that you want and feel would attract enough traffic to warrant it then sub-sectors can be set up (just PM me to ask and I will discuss with the Gods if I think there is merit). If not then there is the catch-all of "Sectors & General Shares / Share Ideas".

I am one of the moderators for this area. It is quite clear that you can discuss pretty much any share and sector in that area without feeling constrained by needing to adhere to any particular investment strategy. So you can (for example) discuss Unilever in the round - both as a growth stock and as a yield stock; both for going long and for shorting; both as an individual stock and as a sectoral approach; or whatever takes your fancy.

I appreciate however that people like to go where the voices are. If so then there is certainly hubub in other places. But you do have other options if you wish to use them which include Sectors & General Shares, and many others. Not every peg needs to get jammed into the one hole.

regards, dspp

[melonfool]

If we want to talk about say Unilever then, since it is not a HYP share, it must be discussed elsewhere. Whether it would be acceptable to discuss it on the HYP Strategies Board I do not know because if it is not a HYP share how could it be?

Dod

There is no "HYP Strategies Board" - that's the point.

If you want to talk about the High Yield Portfolio and practical matters around that, do it on the High Yield Portfolios (HYP) - Practical.
If you want to talk about any other high yield strategy, do it on the High Yield Share Strategies - General board.
In fact, if you want to talk about strategic issues you may have around your HYP, or whether HYP is the right strategy for you, you can *also* do that on the High Yield Share Strategies - General board.

If you want to talk about other investment strategies, there is a board for that - Investment Strategies
If you want to talk about a wide-ranging portfolio, there is a board for that - Portfolio Management & Review
Then there is a general sectors board.

Unilever has been a HY share, favoured by the HYP, at times in the past so can be discussed at HYP. The problem comes when people put random shares in and say they are HYP, because they meet *some other* criteria the poster has decided on, and then the board simply becomes an unusable free for all.

Mel

[Dod101]

Wow. Soon we will need a degree in semantics. This is all getting a bit silly and over complicated, although there is probably a rule to disallow this sort of comment as well.

I had not appreciated that High Yield Strategies was not the same thing as HYP Strategies. In practice there is not going to be a great difference.

Dod

[melonfool]

Wow. Soon we will need a degree in semantics. This is all getting a bit silly and over complicated, although there is probably a rule to disallow this sort of comment as well.

I had not appreciated that High Yield Strategies was not the same thing as HYP Strategies. In practice there is not going to be a great difference.

Dod

We specifically made it different for exactly this reason. There's not much we can do if people don't look at the board descriptions.

Mel

[Wizard]

Before I saw this thread I asked for clarification on shares no longer yielding more than FTSE100 average, but which had previously done so / are in existing HYPs, I used Unilever as an example. The clarification said that such a share could be covered on HYP Practical in terms of portfolio management and top-ups, but not as a new purchase given the yield.

Hope that helps,
Terry.

[TUK020]

There was a lot of argument on the boards about what should be posted where, some of it quite heated.
This culminated in a lot of demands that the moderators publish rules/guidelines.
They consulted widely, and then came up with some.
Not exactly as I would have written them, but I think I can probably live with the results.

Thank you to the moderators for listening and responding. Thank you also for volunteering for this role, and thank for putting up with the occasional bout of bad grace from disgruntled posters.
Doing a grand job, and keeping this site worth visiting and contributing to. Please keep at it.

Tuk020

[Clariman]

I have twice suggested or implied that we should all calm down. Nobody has died. There are plenty of places here to discuss what you want to discuss. It may be different to TMF - but life moves on - get over it.

I have also said twice that Moderators will use common sense. That may sometimes lead to a little inconsistency in approach because we are all different, but it means we should be able to accommodate most things. The guidelines should help to make things more consistent.

C

[CryptoPlankton]

Wow. Soon we will need a degree in semantics. This is all getting a bit silly and over complicated, although there is probably a rule to disallow this sort of comment as well.

I had not appreciated that High Yield Strategies was not the same thing as HYP Strategies.

Dod

No blame attached, but if Stephen Bland had come up with a different name in the first place it would probably have helped to avoid some of this confusion (though I really think basic English comprehension is all that's needed, rather than a degree). "HYP" isn't an acronym anyone would use as a word if it hadn't been coined for this method, but because "high yield portfolio" is such a generic term it seems some people feel HYP should encompass more wide-ranging ideas and investments. If he had called it something like the "Simple High Income Portfolio" method, perhaps people would have found it intuitively easier to accept that IT's etc don't belong to the specific strategy - and the providers of this resource would consequently have found it easier to run a tight SHIP...

[Lootman]

I have twice suggested or implied that we should all calm down. Nobody has died. There are plenty of places here to discuss what you want to discuss. It may be different to TMF - but life moves on - get over it.

I admire your intent here but I have to say that you may be digging a hole for yourself. In the 19 years that I have been reading and contributing on TMF and here, I've never seen an investment board with so many arguments as HY (to use the most generic term). Generally speaking the investment boards are well behaved and it is the politics, religion, football and some of the "help" boards that seem to be volatile and troubled. But for some reason HY topics cause endless friction.

And the worst part is that every attempt to fix that ends up making the problem worse. The most obvious example being the split into two boards a decade or so ago, which may have stopped some problems but opened up a whole new set of opportunities for argument, along the lines of "this topic should be over there, not over here". I recall at one point on TMF it was even suggested that the solution to that was creating a third board! Madness. While the TMF Guidelines for the HY boards was several pages of dense text, with the inevitable result that nobody read them.

It seems the more we try and define tight rules, the more problems are created. So as noble and honourable as your intent is, I fear you are setting yourself up for more problems down the line.

If it were me, I'd have just one board called "HY investing" or "dividend investing" with a minimal definition, and let people get on with it. This really should not be like trying to draft the American Constitution.

[Clariman]

I admire your intent here but I have to say that you may be digging a hole for yourself. In the 19 years that I have been reading and contributing on TMF and here, I've never seen an investment board with so many arguments as HY (to use the most generic term)....

Indeed, and we are trying to improve on the legacy that we have inherited from TMF.

And the worst part is that every attempt to fix that ends up making the problem worse. The most obvious example being the split into two boards a decade or so ago ...

Well you can hardly blame the Lemon Fool for something that was done 10 years ago, can you!

It seems the more we try and define tight rules, the more problems are created. So as noble and honourable as your intent is, I fear you are setting yourself up for more problems down the line.

Ref the rules being tight, please see my comments on earlier posts about the use of inverted commas around the word rules and those about Moderator common sense.

If it were me, I'd have just one board called "HY investing" or "dividend investing" with a minimal definition, and let people get on with it. This really should not be like trying to draft the American Constitution.

Perhaps but that would just get other people worked up.

Since running the TLF I have learned that what a wise man once said was absolutely true:

You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time

I'm going to settle for pleasing most of the people most of the time

[Lootman]

And the worst part is that every attempt to fix that ends up making the problem worse. The most obvious example being the split into two boards a decade or so ago ...

Well you can hardly blame the Lemon Fool for something that was done 10 years ago, can you!

I wasn't blaming TLF in the slightest. Just giving that incident as an example of how increasing the complexity of the structure and rules to solve a problem can lead to more problems, much like every fix to the tax code seems to add another loophole. The danger is that such legislating never ends, consuming more and more time, effort and goodwill.

HYP has been likened to a cult or a religion, which I think is at the heart of the wars here. I hope your efforts are successful; I would have given up long ago.

[Clariman]

HYP has been likened to a cult or a religion, which I think is at the heart of the wars here. I hope your efforts are successful; I would have given up long ago.

Fascinating you should say that, because I was thinking exactly the same thing this morning. For reasons I won't bore you with, I have been reading about Church history recently, with all its factions and schisms - and how churches have argued and split over minor points when they share so much more fundamental stuff in common.

Returning to HYP. I think this is the first set of detailed Guidance we have ever provided for it on TLF. I am hoping it will be the last - at least for a while. Neither Stooz nor I ever frequented the HYP boards on TMF, but many moderators did. So we are trying to make it better for the common good rather than for our own personal salvation

[tjh290633]

As has been mentioned above, we were asked for guidelines and an example was posted on the boards, comments on which have been incorporated. Now we find that a lot of people do not like the guidelines. Well, you asked for them, you got them, and that is it. They are not hard to follow. If you have an odd share that does not fit, move it into another jamjar or teapot and concentrate on the part that fits the guidelines. Otherwise post on the strategies board.

Having fits of tantrums and flouncing off will not work. You have got what was asked for.

TJH

[Breelander]

If you have an odd share that does not fit, move it into another jamjar or teapot and concentrate on the part that fits the guidelines....

I repeat...

Have you ever tried retrospectively recalculating eight years of unitisation?

...Otherwise post on the strategies board.

As I follow 'Dorisian/Pyadic' principles in the main I would not welcome wide-ranging discussion that would inevitably follow reporting my 'HYP' on the strategies board (or any other). ... Sadly I feel nowhere is appropriate for further reports.

[melonfool]

If you have an odd share that does not fit, move it into another jamjar or teapot and concentrate on the part that fits the guidelines....

I repeat...

Have you ever tried retrospectively recalculating eight years of unitisation?

...Otherwise post on the strategies board.

As I follow 'Dorisian/Pyadic' principles in the main I would not welcome wide-ranging discussion that would inevitably follow reporting my 'HYP' on the strategies board (or any other). ... Sadly I feel nowhere is appropriate for further reports.

Bit of an overreaction, frankly.

Mel

[Breelander]

Bit of an overreaction, frankly.

Not really. Retrospective unitisation is incredibly difficult - I know, I've done it once already.

the records I have kept made it a relatively trivial (if time consuming) exercise to roll back the unitisation to the start of my portfolio.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120314180 ... 69453.aspx
It's mind-numbingly tedious work. Based on the time it took me last time round I estimate it would take about six months work to remove the one share a Mod has taken exception to from my HYP unitisation. Besides, it would then invalidate comparisons with all my previously published data from 2012 to date.

[Wizard]

I must put my hand up and say I was somebody who wanted some guidance on the HYP Practical board. I did not spend years reading the TMF equivalent board building up a knowledge of the subtle nuances of acceptable posting and as a newcomer I found it impossible to understand what was and was not permitted on the TLF HYP Practical board. In the end I got so sick of being 'moderated' that I simply stopped posting on the board. After the lengthy debates on the topic of scope we were told that we would be given greater clarity and then be moderated against that, I for one am grateful for the guidance and happy to be moderated on that basis as I now know what is and is not within scope. I am now happy to post on the HYP Practical board again.

Some time back one of the moderators explicitly said that not all posters on that board are equal and I think a number of us have observed that the 'old hands' seem to be cut a fair bit more slack than newcomers like me. Human nature being what it is I suspect this will continue to be the case. So before anyone (especially those with a lengthy and valued track record) stop posting on the HYP Board maybe they should just post and see what the moderators' response is?

I am sure pragmatism will have to prevail. Has anyone else noticed that HYP1 no longer qualifies as an HYP as two of its fifteen shares are in the Travel and Leisure sector. Anybody want to volunteer to tell PYAD

Terry.

[csearle]

...So before anyone (especially those with a lengthy and valued track record) stop posting on the HYP Board maybe they should just post and see what the moderators' response is?

I am sure pragmatism will have to prevail...

I agree with this.

@Bree I am thinking that if you added the caveat "The odd constituent of my HYP does not fall within the HYP guidelines as defined but is there for historical reasons" then you might ward off any concerns. I suspect common sense would prevail. I don't get the feeling that the moderators of that (or any) board are trying to wind anyone up.

Regards,
Chris

[tjh290633]

I repeat...

Have you ever tried retrospectively recalculating eight years of unitisation?

Yes, I have. In 2008 when I amalgamated my ISA and my PEP I had to merge two cash flows, one from 1999 and the other from 1987, it gave me 21 years of new calculations. It helped having a reasonable cash flow for each, but I only worked on month-end figures.

TJH