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

HYP Focus

General discussions about equity high-yield income strategies
SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

HYP Focus

#234707

Postby SentimentRules » July 7th, 2019, 8:38 pm

"Discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board"

Rules are not suggesting ... only discuss if bullish and pro HYP

Itsallaguess wrote:
SentimentRules wrote:
Well first you say 'it is' and then chastise as if it isn't. Which is it ?


It's Vodafone specifc, but it's a post on the HYP Practical board, which has specific guidance as to the themes and topics allowed to be discussed....


Itsallaguess


So when page one discusses div yields and expectations etc, why is my forecast of 0% against the rules?

I have a feeling this is HYP defence rather than rules or opinions.

Anyway thanks for the help.
Moderator Message:
These posts have been moved out of HYP Practical to a more appropriate place.

Some quotes are from this topic on HYP-P. - Chris
Last edited by SentimentRules on July 7th, 2019, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234709

Postby SentimentRules » July 7th, 2019, 8:42 pm

Lastly. Il find that journal on HYP with all the case studies over periods of 5,10 and 13 years applied .

Hope you all enjoy iit. Il post link when retrieve it

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234711

Postby SentimentRules » July 7th, 2019, 8:52 pm


Leither
Lemon Slice
Posts: 268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:30 pm
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234712

Postby Leither » July 7th, 2019, 8:54 pm

SentimentRules wrote:Thus far, the great Ardbeg whiskey recommended by Dod and co. Not much else yet but il keep you posted....

However if you have learned much from all others here, that ultimately, is my aim too.


If it’s Ardbeg, it’s whisky, not whiskey.

Regards,

Leither.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234715

Postby SentimentRules » July 7th, 2019, 8:56 pm

Thank you Leither.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18685
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234759

Postby Lootman » July 8th, 2019, 1:52 am

SentimentRules wrote:"Lecturing from day one" What lecture ?

"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

Lao Tzu

idpickering
The full Lemon
Posts: 11276
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 2468 times
Been thanked: 5763 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234768

Postby idpickering » July 8th, 2019, 6:06 am

Lootman wrote:"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."

Lao Tzu


Spot on Lootman. I've been reading this thread with some distain. It has wandered all over the place, venturing well off topic, the subject of this thread, and HYP Practical, as it does so.

Ian.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234851

Postby SentimentRules » July 8th, 2019, 12:00 pm

Is HYP the focus here as in discuss the methodology?

In my view HYP is a poor system. Anyone list some institutions that were in this style 2006? Some big names gone maybe?

And any recent ones?

Let me know

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234865

Postby tjh290633 » July 8th, 2019, 12:20 pm

Here is a list of shares that I have disposed of since 2006:

BG.    BG Group plc                 07-Jun-06*
BOC BOC Group plc 07-Jun-06
MAB Mitchells and Butler plc 10-Oct-06*
WTB Whitbread plc 31-Oct-06*
SPW Scottish Power plc 08-Feb-07
HNS Hanson plc 30-May-07
SCTN Scottish & Newcastle plc 23-Nov-07
ICI Imp.Chem.Ind.plc 02-Jan-08
SGC Stagecoach Holdings plc 05-Mar-08*
CBRY Cadbury Schweppes plc 04-Apr-08
HBOS HBOS plc 05-Jun-08
THUS Thus Group plc 15-Oct-08
MAY Mapeley Ltd 20-Mar-09*
DSGI DSG International plc 06-May-09*
TNI Trinity Mirror plc 22-Oct-09*
AAL Anglo American plc 19-Feb-10*
PFD Premier Foods plc 19-Feb-10*
RTO Rentokil Initial plc 19-Feb-10*
PRU Prudential Corp plc 18-May-10*
ITV ITV plc 28-Sep-10*
YULC Yule Catto plc 28-Sep-10*
TOMK Tomkins plc 01-Oct-10
BRE Brit Insurance Holdings NV 26-Oct-10
NFDS Northern Foods plc 17-Feb-11
CTT Cattles plc 16-Mar-11
RSA RSA Insurance Group plc 05-Mar-14*
REX Rexam plc 27-Apr-16
PFL Premier Farnell plc 14-Jun-16
CLLN Carillion plc 25-Jun-18
INDV Indivior plc 25-Jun-18*

They are a mixture of take-over, delisting, and sold because of low yield*.

TJH

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234879

Postby Gengulphus » July 8th, 2019, 1:04 pm

SentimentRules wrote:"Discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board"

Rules are not suggesting ... only discuss if bullish and pro HYP

You seem to be failing to find the most relevant bit:

"A long term buy and hold (LTBH) of these shares is envisaged."

Shorting is about as far from LTBH as one can get, and while the board doesn't go to the "buy and hold forever" extreme of LTBH, it doesn't allow anywhere remotely close to that much deviation from it.

But as regards being "pro HYP" or "anti HYP", neither of them is encouraged. "Anti HYP" comments are discouraged more strongly, I believe because they're more likely to provoke off-topic arguments and people here are therefore more likely to report "anti HYP" posts. But basically, this is not supposed to be the board for those who want to debate the merits or otherwise of HYP strategies - those debates should instead go to the High Yield Shares & Strategies board, or the Investment Strategies board for even less of a focus on high yield. This board is supposed to be for those who have already decided about those merits, have come to the decision that they want to run a HYP and now want to get on with the practical business of actually running it - decisions about which shares to buy, whether to sell a share (with at least a fairly strong bias against doing so, otherwise the supposed HYP strategy won't actually be LTBH in practice), how to deal with a corporate action, etc. Reporting on how one's HYP has turned out in practice is also accepted (provided not done too often - I'd recommend no more than when needed as background for a practical decision one is asking about, plus at most an annual report on its progress), and comments about being satisfied or dissatisfied with its performance are fine. But not advocacy either for or against owning a HYP - i.e. actively trying to persuade others to own one or not own one rather than just letting them see your satisfaction / dissatisfaction and leaving them to decide for themsel

And there's a good reason for that: to have a proper debate about something, it needs to be on a level playing field that all sides of the debate can use equally. If someone wants to argue that HYP strategies are no good and people should be using strategy X instead, they should be able to describe strategy X without being cut short by a moderator - and if they want to argue that HYP strategies are no good without suggesting any alternative, they should not have an "I could, but I won't because it's off-topic" cop-out when challenged to suggest something better.

I.e. this board is unsuitable for "are HYP strategies good or not?" debates for basically the same reason that if one wants to have a good political debate about the relative merits of the different parties' policies, one should not try to start it in a meeting of any of those parties: you need somewhere where all of the arguments both for and against all of those policies can be gone into properly without being cut off for being disruptive...

Gengulphus

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234882

Postby SentimentRules » July 8th, 2019, 1:12 pm

A very reasonable, fair and appreciated post . All taken onboard .

I did miss the bit where it had to be a LTH buy. I jumped in with LTH short. Thank you for highlighting my error on that.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234884

Postby SentimentRules » July 8th, 2019, 1:16 pm

Re 'something better strategy'

Having read this more, I realise my type of strategy is of little interest here. I study the sectors fundamentally and technically, but then target the constituent weakness and strength technically only, for selection . I don't think it's the cup of tea required here

My voice on the HYP strategy was really just a suggestion to study past case studies. Not knocking people per se

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18685
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: HYP Focus

#234940

Postby Lootman » July 8th, 2019, 4:41 pm

Gengulphus wrote:I.e. this board is unsuitable for "are HYP strategies good or not?" debates for basically the same reason that if one wants to have a good political debate about the relative merits of the different parties' policies, one should not try to start it in a meeting of any of those parties: you need somewhere where all of the arguments both for and against all of those policies can be gone into properly without being cut off for being disruptive...

That's an interesting analogy but I'm not sure it's quite the same thing. For instance, suppose that I am a supporter of the Labour Party but dislike its position on Brexit and antisemitism, and wish to discuss that? I could of course have that discussion on a general politics discussion board, if such a thing exists. But it seems to me that it would be better to have that discussion on a Labour Party board, if one exists. The reason is that anyone who isn't a Labour supporter will probably hate all kinds of things about Labour anyway, and the discussion will soon become too broad or hostile. Better to have that discussioon on the Labour Party Board.

Likewise if I want to discuss why Spurs always falter on the brink of success, I could talk about that on the Football Board. But if there is a Board just for Spurs then I can hopefully avoid the "Well, Spurs are crap, innit?" mob and instead find like-minded fans who lament the failure rather than laugh at it (as amusing as it is).

Now with the TLF investment boards, in almost every case there is just one board for the topic. If I want to criticise some aspect of Technical Analysis or Investment Trusts, there is a place for that. HYP is the outlier because it has two boards, which of course leads to endless debates about which one to use, along with topics being shunted back and forth, sometimes confusingly. No other class of Lemons get this kind of immmunity. So it doesnt surprise me that the OP here, who is new to TLF, finds it all a bit baffling. I've been here for years and I sometimes find it baffling as well.

It's as if we have carved out a safe space for adherents of HYP because, unlike the advocates of all other investment strategies, they must be protected at all costs from ever seeing anything critical of their preferred system. This can strike people as something of a snowflake mentality, rather as if The Labour Party Board banned any criticism of Corbyn and banished people who did, much like of course various socialist and commuist regimes have done in practice by censoring the media and so on. Criticism will not be broached in these corridors!

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: HYP Focus

#235134

Postby Gengulphus » July 9th, 2019, 11:43 am

Lootman wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:I.e. this board [the HYP Practical board] is unsuitable for "are HYP strategies good or not?" debates for basically the same reason that if one wants to have a good political debate about the relative merits of the different parties' policies, one should not try to start it in a meeting of any of those parties: you need somewhere where all of the arguments both for and against all of those policies can be gone into properly without being cut off for being disruptive...

That's an interesting analogy but I'm not sure it's quite the same thing. For instance, suppose that I am a supporter of the Labour Party but dislike its position on Brexit and antisemitism, and wish to discuss that? I could of course have that discussion on a general politics discussion board, if such a thing exists. But it seems to me that it would be better to have that discussion on a Labour Party board, if one exists. The reason is that anyone who isn't a Labour supporter will probably hate all kinds of things about Labour anyway, and the discussion will soon become too broad or hostile. Better to have that discussioon on the Labour Party Board.

That's a political debate about Labour party policy, rather than a "political debate about the relative merits of the different parties' policies", and so not what I was talking about in my analogy.

The HYP Practical equivalent of it is debates about questions such as "is a tinkering HYP strategy better or worse than a non-tinkering HYP strategy?", not "are HYP strategies good or bad?". I'm saying that the HYP Practical board is clearly an unsuitable forum for the latter type of debate, as it's not a level playing field between those who favour HYP strategies and those who favour non-HYP strategies. It is a level playing field between those who favour tinkering HYP strategies and those who favour non-tinkering HYP strategies, so there's no argument along the same lines that it's clearly unsuitable for the former type of debate. (And just to be clear, I'm saying nothing about any other type of argument about its suitability for the former type of debate, and so in particular am not saying that it is suitable for them, nor that it is unsuitable for them. Nor am I going to in this thread - I've bent what is said about discussing the scope of boards in viewtopic.php?f=21&t=13514 in the interests of helping SentimentRules understand how things stand about as far as I am willing to.)

Gengulphus

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: HYP Focus

#235205

Postby Gengulphus » July 9th, 2019, 2:17 pm

Lootman wrote:Now with the TLF investment boards, in almost every case there is just one board for the topic. If I want to criticise some aspect of Technical Analysis or Investment Trusts, there is a place for that. HYP is the outlier because it has two boards, ...

Not so much of an outlier - "technical analysis" is both a description of some techniques to analyse possible investments and a description of a type of investment strategy that uses such techniques to analyse its investments. So there are at least two places for it - the Technical Analysis board and the Investment Strategies board. And if for example one wanted to have a proper "Fundamental Analysis vs Technical Analysis" debate, the latter would be the better place, since the Technical Analysis board is a very obvious non-level playing field for such a debate!

Also, HYP doesn't "have" two boards in any sort of exclusive ownership sense, because discussions of other types of high-yield strategy are also welcome here. E.g. I've mentioned before (possibly on TMF rather than TLF) that I ran a high-yield trading strategy from 2000 to 2002. It produced decent returns, especially in 2000, but I dropped it because I'd come to the conclusion that it didn't suit me - basically because it needed more of my time and effort to run it properly than I was prepared to give it long-term.

And HYP "has" three boards rather than two in a non-exclusive ownership sense, because it's a type of investment strategy and so lies within the remit of the Investment Strategies board as well as the HYP Practical board and this board. Discussions purely about HYP don't fit there, due to its "Investment strategy discussions not dealt with elsewhere." subtitle, but if one wanted e.g. to compare the merits of a HYP strategy and a high-yield bond strategy, Investment Strategies would IMHO be the place - here is less than ideal, since this board's guidance says "The High Yield Share Strategies board is intended for wide-ranging discussions of ways to obtain high yields from equities." and bonds are not equities.

Gengulphus


Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TahiPanasDua and 14 guests