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

Selection of underperforming shares

General discussions about equity high-yield income strategies
Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#235147

Postby Gengulphus » July 9th, 2019, 12:21 pm

ReformedCharacter wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:Another example of the same 'logic': the statement "death is a consequence of swallowing significant amounts of potassium cyanide" is obviously complete rubbish, because plenty of people have died who have never swallowed significant amounts of potassium cyanide.

I am loath to question someone who so frequently demonstrates impeccable logic, but I have to say that I find your example difficult to understand. ...

Try reading my post in the context of the quote I gave, and with some thought about why I used the quote marks...

SentimentRules had said that the comment "Total return is a consequence of the generation of income" was complete rubbish because he'd got total return in the absence of income generation. That's essentially an argument that "X is a consequence of Y" can be demonstrated to be complete rubbish by an example of getting X in the absence of Y, applied to the specific case X = "total return" and Y = "income generation". Now instead substitute X = "death" and Y = "swallowing significant amounts of potassium cyanide", and you get the argument I stated - which shows just how utterly ridiculous that 'logic' is!

Gengulphus

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6031
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#237648

Postby Alaric » July 18th, 2019, 9:15 pm

On a thread about BT it was written

If you invest in any share there is the possibility that its price may rise or fall. Whether its yield is high or low has little effect. What does have an effect is market sentiment, which can be very fickle.


Is there not a correlation that if market sentiment is against a share, then its price falls and thus its dividend yield increases? Selecting by dividend yield with little regard to recent price falls could be good as a search for recovery prospects. Less convincing perhaps as a search for long term dividend payers and dividend increases and for that matter to avoid shares where the price continues to fall.

PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#237684

Postby PinkDalek » July 19th, 2019, 12:19 am

Alaric wrote:On a thread about BT it was written

If you invest in any share there is the possibility that its price may rise or fall. Whether its yield is high or low has little effect. What does have an effect is market sentiment, which can be very fickle.


Presumably there’s (once again) a reason for you not to state the author’s name, for that partial quote, nor provide a link to the quote.

I’ll help (to put it in context):

tjh290633 wrote:@jackdaww, since you do not run an HYP yourself, how can you make disparaging remarks about the performance of HYPs run by others?

All you are doing is regurgitating your own prejudices. If you invest in any share there is the possibility that its price may rise or fall. Whether its yield is high or low has little effect. What does have an effect is market sentiment, which can be very fickle. If you can post facts about BT.A to support your views, then do so. If not, then take your comments to a more suitable board or topic.

TJH


viewtopic.php?p=237614#p237614

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5766
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4096 times
Been thanked: 2558 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#237718

Postby 88V8 » July 19th, 2019, 10:35 am

Personally, I don't mind the debates about the efficacy of HYP.
I'm sure we all have our own variations anyway.

And more importantly it may save us from Groupthink.

V8

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6031
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#237724

Postby Alaric » July 19th, 2019, 10:55 am

88V8 wrote:Personally, I don't mind the debates about the efficacy of HYP.


The "problem" is that they don't like them taking place on the HYP - practical board.

If you don't associate any particular tenets of belief with that three letter acronym and assume it refers to income investing in general, it seems natural to use a board with "Practical" in the title to discuss the merits of individual shares and a board with "Strategies - general" in the title to discuss more generic issues. If however you wish to suggest that for those investing for deferred income, those looking to retire many years in the future, that stocks with a lower current yield but a higher dividend growth rate might be as suitable, if not more so, than those with a higher current dividend but little growth prospect, discussions of possibly suitable shares are not allowed on the "Practical" board

daveh
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2190
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:06 am
Has thanked: 409 times
Been thanked: 807 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#237725

Postby daveh » July 19th, 2019, 10:58 am

88V8 wrote:Personally, I don't mind the debates about the efficacy of HYP.
I'm sure we all have our own variations anyway.

And more importantly it may save us from Groupthink.

V8

Yes, but they should be here (the strategies board) not on the Practical Board.

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6031
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239405

Postby Alaric » July 26th, 2019, 12:48 am

IanTHughes wrote:British Aerospace (BA) had a yield of around 6.00% at that time (November 2011) so why buy such a low yield as part of an HYP? Was it perhaps part of your "avoid dangerous high yields" strategy? Just curious.


One might chose a share with a 3% running dividend yield in preference to one with a 6% running dividend yield if you had a perception or belief that the share with a 3% yield would have a share price at least 3% higher than the 6% yield in a year's time. That's also assuming the quoted dividend yields are achieved in practice, in other words that the dividend isn't cancelled.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239407

Postby IanTHughes » July 26th, 2019, 1:06 am

Alaric wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:British Aerospace (BA) had a yield of around 6.00% at that time (November 2011) so why buy such a low yield as part of an HYP? Was it perhaps part of your "avoid dangerous high yields" strategy? Just curious.

One might chose a share with a 3% running dividend yield in preference to one with a 6% running dividend yield if you had a perception or belief that the share with a 3% yield would have a share price at least 3% higher than the 6% yield in a year's time.

Only in the event that Income was not your first and only priority.

As you are responding to a post of mine on the HYP Practical board, based on those who follow the HYP Strategy, I would have thought that was obvious. Was it not obvious to you?

With some people, even if one makes things clear, one can still be accused of not making things simple!

How much simpler would you like the explanation to be, so that even you would understand?


Ian

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6031
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239409

Postby Alaric » July 26th, 2019, 1:13 am

IanTHughes wrote:How much simpler would you like the explanation to be, so that even you would understand?


You were asking the question as to why an investor might prefer a 3% yield to a 6% yield. If you haven't figured it out, it's that the market as a whole, in other words most investors, don't buy into the distortion of ignoring capital performance.

Given the hostile reception likely on the "HYP practical" board that any critical comment is off topic, I post elsewhere.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239410

Postby IanTHughes » July 26th, 2019, 1:32 am

Alaric wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:How much simpler would you like the explanation to be, so that even you would understand?

You were asking the question as to why an investor might prefer a 3% yield to a 6% yield. If you haven't figured it out, it's that the market as a whole, in other words most investors, don't buy into the distortion of ignoring capital performance.

the market as a whole, in other words most investors

Oh dear! LoL :)
Sorry but I have to ask: Is it the "market as a whole" or "most investors"? Your post was not definite on that point? :)

However, in order to answer your question: HYPers DO buy into the HYP Strategy! All we HYPers ask is that the likes of you, who apparently do not buy into the HYP Strategy, respect that we HYPers disagree! Is that so hard for you to understand?

Really?


Ian

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6031
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239447

Postby Alaric » July 26th, 2019, 10:50 am

IanTHughes wrote:However, in order to answer your question: HYPers DO buy into the HYP Strategy!


I suppose they might if they knew what it was. Empirically part of it appears to search for the highest yielding stock. Given that dividends are relatively stable and market prices aren't, that resolves itself to a strategy of searching for stocks with the bigger recent falls. But then you deny that is the strategy.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239451

Postby IanTHughes » July 26th, 2019, 11:15 am

Alaric wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:However, in order to answer your question: HYPers DO buy into the HYP Strategy! All we HYPers ask is that the likes of you, who apparently do not buy into the HYP Strategy, respect that we HYPers disagree! Is that so hard for you to understand?

Really?

I suppose they might if they knew what it was. Empirically part of it appears to search for the highest yielding stock. Given that dividends are relatively stable and market prices aren't, that resolves itself to a strategy of searching for stocks with the bigger recent falls. But then you deny that is the strategy.


Is that a yes?


Ian

TahiPanasDua
Lemon Slice
Posts: 322
Joined: June 4th, 2017, 6:51 pm
Has thanked: 399 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239488

Postby TahiPanasDua » July 26th, 2019, 2:04 pm

Port Vale 7- Accrington Stanley 6.5

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

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239962

Postby Gengulphus » July 28th, 2019, 5:42 pm

Alaric wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:However, in order to answer your question: HYPers DO buy into the HYP Strategy!

I suppose they might if they knew what it was. Empirically part of it appears to search for the highest yielding stock. Given that dividends are relatively stable and market prices aren't, that resolves itself to a strategy of searching for stocks with the bigger recent falls. But then you deny that is the strategy.

No, on several counts:

First, the HYP Practical board is not about "the HYP Strategy" (singular), it is about HYP strategies (plural). You just need to read the board guidance to see that while it places several limitations on the strategy used, it does not specify it entirely, and so there is a fair variety of different HYP strategies. Or you can look at the strategies used by pyad running HYP1 and by tjh290633 running his HYP, and see that the board accepts them both as HYP strategies, despite obvious quite big differences between them - e.g. HYP1 has 15 holdings while tjh290633's has more than twice as many, HYP1 almost never voluntarily sells while tjh290633's tends to trim one or two holdings per year. For some reason that I don't understand, Ian persists in ignoring this and talking about "the HYP Strategy" as though there's only one - and so whatever it is exactly that he means by the phrase, it's a good bet that most HYPers don't buy into it. (On the other hand, all HYPers buy into HYP strategies, as a simple matter of what the word "HYPer" means...)

Secondly, HYP strategies aim for a sufficiently diversified portfolio of high-yielding shares with sufficiently safe dividends: all three of the emboldened components are important. Empirically, one can look at the highest-yielding share, see whether it is sufficiently diversified with one's existing portfolio and has a sufficiently safe dividend (by one's own standards for those things - they vary between HYPers), and only buy it if the answers to both of those are "Yes", otherwise move on to the next highest-yielding share and try again. That in practice is a reasonably good tactic for finding suitable shares - but it is not an essential ingredient for following any HYP strategy.

Thirdly, no, there is no direct connection between having a high yield and having suffered a big fall recently. If shares A and B both have dividends of 10p, and share A currently has a price of 200p which has fallen from 250p over the last year (or whatever other period you wish to regard as "recently") while share B currently has a price of 500p which has fallen from 1000p over the last year, then share A has the higher yield (5% compared with 2%) but share B has had the bigger recent fall (it's fallen by 50% rather than 20%).

Fourthly, one can only really describe dividends as "relatively stable" if one is fairly certain that they are safe - so even if it were valid mathematically, your argument for "highest yield = largest recent falls" is failing to mention that it's assuming the dividends have been checked for safety (in whatever way the HYPer feels they best can).

Fifthly, even if your empirical observation that part of a HYP strategy is to search for the highest-yielding share were correct and your subsequent argument were also correct, there would be no contradiction to justify the "But" in "But then you deny that is the strategy." It makes about as much sense as empirically observing that the screen is front of me is part of my computer, hearing me deny that that screen is my computer, and thinking that there is some conflict between the two.

Gengulphus

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6031
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#239971

Postby Alaric » July 28th, 2019, 6:29 pm

Gengulphus wrote:Thirdly, no, there is no direct connection between having a high yield and having suffered a big fall recently. If shares A and B both have dividends of 10p, and share A currently has a price of 200p which has fallen from 250p over the last year (or whatever other period you wish to regard as "recently") while share B currently has a price of 500p which has fallen from 1000p over the last year, then share A has the higher yield (5% compared with 2%) but share B has had the bigger recent fall (it's fallen by 50% rather than 20%).


They are both share price losers though.

The impression I get when reviewing the past performance of shares that people suggest they are about to buy as top ups or new shares is that the recent share prices have been disappointing. Is it not obvious that if a share yielding 3% is "too low" for HYP but one yielding 6% is "on the list", they can be the same Company not so many months apart if the price has just halved? Similarly if your one time 6% yielder is now only yielding 3% without a dividend cut, why be upset? The price has doubled.

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

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#240148

Postby Gengulphus » July 29th, 2019, 12:50 pm

Alaric wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:Thirdly, no, there is no direct connection between having a high yield and having suffered a big fall recently. If shares A and B both have dividends of 10p, and share A currently has a price of 200p which has fallen from 250p over the last year (or whatever other period you wish to regard as "recently") while share B currently has a price of 500p which has fallen from 1000p over the last year, then share A has the higher yield (5% compared with 2%) but share B has had the bigger recent fall (it's fallen by 50% rather than 20%).

They are both share price losers though.

Yes, but that's really shorthand for a comparison between the present and the past, which is a bit obscured by the present tense of "are": a less shorthand statement would be "They have both been share price losers over the last year." While what one would like to have (but cannot without a working crystal ball) is a comparison between the present and the future... To make "They are both share price losers though." relevant to one's investment decisions, you have to establish an exploitable relationship between the past price movement that you know and the future price movement that you want. And while there are a whole lot of ideas around about how to do that (known generally as "technical analysis", for the benefit of any readers who don't know), it's certainly not an easy relationship to discover or exploit (unsurprisingly, because if it were easy, it would already have been exploited to destruction...).

Alaric wrote:The impression I get when reviewing the past performance of shares that people suggest they are about to buy as top ups or new shares is that the recent share prices have been disappointing. Is it not obvious that if a share yielding 3% is "too low" for HYP but one yielding 6% is "on the list", they can be the same Company not so many months apart if the price has just halved? Similarly if your one time 6% yielder is now only yielding 3% without a dividend cut, why be upset? The price has doubled.

Has any HYPer said that they're upset by such an occurrence??? If not, your comment is a straw man; if so, I can't answer for them about why they're upset, but only say that I certainly wouldn't be upset!

What I might be a bit upset about is if I'd seen the company when it was on a 6% yield and "on the list", not bought it then for some reason, and looked at it a few months later and seen that its price had doubled and its yield was consequently now only 3%. But in that case, it's not my 6% yielder - it's not my anything, because I don't own it! I'm certainly not pleased with the company, since neither its dividend nor its price rise have been of any benefit to me whatsoever, but neither am I upset with it, because they haven't cost me anything either - but I might have some reason to be upset with myself, in particular about my poor decision-making! (Though I would be wise to bear in mind that no-one gets them all right, and that there's no use crying over spilt milk...)

If I did own the shares, what I might be upset about is if the yield drop from 6% to 3% was not due to the price doubling, but to the dividend halving. But what I'd actually be upset by in that alternative scenario is the dividend cut - the yield drop would simply be a consequence of that, not a cause of my upset. And there are intermediate positions, such as dividend cut by 30% but price up by 40%, where the HYPer faces a bit of a conflict between being upset by the income drop but pleased with the capital rise - how that balances out depends on the HYPer, and in particular on how much more highly they rate a HYP's primary income goal than its secondary capital goal.

A crucial point to realise is that the yield is basically only a calculation shortcut that is useful at the point of trading the share. If I'm spending £10k on a 6% yielder, that yield is telling me that I can expect dividend income of 6% of £10k from the shares I buy (ignoring the small effect of trading costs), and similarly if I sell £10k worth of a 3% yielder, the yield tells me I'm giving up £300 of the dividend income I was previously expecting. In each case, I could divide the £10k by the share price to get the number of shares I'll trade and then multiply by the dividend per share, but just multiplying by the yield is quicker and easier. At all other times, I already know how many shares I've got and the share price won't change it - so I just need to multiply by the dividend per share and the yield is a complete distraction...

In short: HYPers should care about what the yield is at the times when they buy or sell shares, and only with regard to the shares they're buying or selling (using the terms loosely, e.g. taking up rights in a rights issue counts as buying, although technically it isn't buying). For all other purposes, they should instead care about what happens to the dividend, not the yield.

Gengulphus

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6031
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1398 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#240154

Postby Alaric » July 29th, 2019, 1:07 pm

Gengulphus wrote:Has any HYPer said that they're upset by such an occurrence?


Im sure I've seen comments that the yield was so low, therefore it wasn't a HYP, so they had to sell. That makes sense for a "high yield" savings account, but not for shares. Saying that xxx has done well, therefore it can be sold at a profit and reinvested in something with a higher current yield to increase income is a decent enough strategy for an income seeker.

Gengulphus wrote: For all other purposes, they should instead care about what happens to the dividend, not the yield.


Why then are "they" so opposed to looking at stocks with yields below the average of the FTSE, but where the dividends have a history of growing strongly?

Vodafone might yet come good with its "Masts" IPO, but for most of the last ten years, investors in Unilever, Compass, Diageo and even just FTSE 100 trackers would have done much better than VOD investors despite the higher yield of the latter.

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5766
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4096 times
Been thanked: 2558 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#240189

Postby 88V8 » July 29th, 2019, 2:56 pm

Alaric wrote:Why then are "they" so opposed to looking at stocks with yields below the average of the FTSE, but where the dividends have a history of growing strongly?


It depends.
Some will look at them, sometimes.

Occasionally these shares have been on offer at decent yields, and HYPers who have bought them at such times tend to hang onto them even when the yield drops, they hang on for the reason you mention, the growthiness.

But no one building an HYP, which after all is supposed to produce an above average yield, is likely to buy such shares at times when their yield is low.

Then again, once one has built, if one is able and willing to afford a few low yielders, one may purchase growthiness sturdies such as these.

It depends.

V8

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8206
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#240207

Postby tjh290633 » July 29th, 2019, 3:47 pm

Alaric wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:Has any HYPer said that they're upset by such an occurrence?


Im sure I've seen comments that the yield was so low, therefore it wasn't a HYP, so they had to sell. That makes sense for a "high yield" savings account, but not for shares. Saying that xxx has done well, therefore it can be sold at a profit and reinvested in something with a higher current yield to increase income is a decent enough strategy for an income seeker.

Gengulphus wrote: For all other purposes, they should instead care about what happens to the dividend, not the yield.


Why then are "they" so opposed to looking at stocks with yields below the average of the FTSE, but where the dividends have a history of growing strongly?

Vodafone might yet come good with its "Masts" IPO, but for most of the last ten years, investors in Unilever, Compass, Diageo and even just FTSE 100 trackers would have done much better than VOD investors despite the higher yield of the latter.

I have certainly sold shares, when the price has risen so much that the yield was very low. Whitbread, BG Group, iIntercontinental Hotels are examples. Currently Compass and Diageo are under risk.

That is distinct from selling when they have stopped paying dividends.

TJH

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

Re: Selection of underperforming shares

#240271

Postby Gengulphus » July 29th, 2019, 6:30 pm

Alaric wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:Has any HYPer said that they're upset by such an occurrence?

Im sure I've seen comments that the yield was so low, therefore it wasn't a HYP, so they had to sell. ...

Not an answer to my question, I'm afraid. They may have said they had to sell (*), but did they say they were upset by having to sell? I've certainly sold part or all of a HYP holding in similar circumstances - probably the most extreme example is Halma, which I originally bought in late 2003 on a historical yield of about 4.1% and topped up on various occasions over the next few years at similar yields. Since then, its capital value has increased a bit under fifteen-fold and its dividend a bit under three-fold, with the result that its yield is now about 0.8%, and I've top-sliced it on six occasions since 2008, as a result of which I only have about a quarter of my peak number of shares. What's left is still one of the larger holdings in my HYP at about 1.4 times average size and about 3.0 times the total amount I invested in the original purchase and top-ups, and the sales proceeds I've had from the top-slicing are about 1.7 times that total amount - and of course I've had the dividends as well.

So while I've certainly sold a large part of my holding, I'm equally certainly happy with that outcome, not upset!

(*) Which should obviously be taken in the sense that their strategy's rules said they should sell, not literally having to sell - that does happen, but generally only as a result of legal action such as bankruptcy, compulsory purchase at the end of a successful traditional takeover offer, etc.

Alaric wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:In short: HYPers should care about what the yield is at the times when they buy or sell shares, and only with regard to the shares they're buying or selling (using the terms loosely, e.g. taking up rights in a rights issue counts as buying, although technically it isn't buying). For all other purposes, they should instead care about what happens to the dividend, not the yield.

Why then are "they" so opposed to looking at stocks with yields below the average of the FTSE, but where the dividends have a history of growing strongly?

[Note: the italicised bit of your quote of what I said is context I've restored to make it easily apparent from the quote what I meant by "all other purposes".]

Are you talking about being opposed to looking at stocks with yields below the average of the FTSE with regard to possibly buying them for their HYP? If so, what I wrote with the context restored makes it clear that that's not one of the "all other purposes" that the bit you did quote is talking about, i.e. I said that HYPers should care about the yield in that case.

Or are you talking about being opposed to looking at stocks with yields below the average of the FTSE that are already in their HYP and that they're wondering whether to sell. In that case, again it's the edited-out context that applies, i.e. I said that HYPers should care about the yield in that case.

Or are you talking about being opposed to looking at stocks with yields below the average of the FTSE that are already in their HYP and that they're neither contemplating buying nor selling? In that case, the bit you quoted does apply and I stick to it: the HYPer has no need to look at the share's yield and what's happening to it, until and unless they contemplate adding to the holding or selling part or all of it.

Note also that the restored context makes it clear that by "they", I meant HYPers. The HYP Practical board guidance is written by Clariman, who AFAIAA is not a HYPer, and so the rule that it contains about the yield of a HYP share being above that of the FTSE 100, and is probably set by him and stooz (who also AFAIAA is not a HYPer) as owners of the site after discussion with the moderators. It also has the exception implied by "Discussion of potential shares, and of shares which have been selected in the past, is acceptable on the HYP Practical Board." - so the share that is already in one's HYP, having been bought on a yield of 6% and now having a yield of 3% as a result of its price doubling, is not excluded from being discussed there.

So the HYP Practical board rule is not terribly good evidence of what HYPers in general think should be the rule for HYPs, more of what the owners and moderators of the site think is a workable rule for the board, and I would be fairly certain that some HYPers think it too loose a restriction, some think it about right and some think it too tight. About all that you can reasonably deduce from the HYP Practical rule about the HYPers who use the board is that they are not too unhappy with it and are willing to live with it. That leaves quite a lot of room for differing opinions about what it ideally should be! (Though note I'm not trying to start a discussion about that here - the place for such a discussion is on the Biscuit Bar, and here I'm just saying that the existing rule does not imply that HYPers are generally "so opposed" to shares that don't meet it. At a guess, it's probably more that moderators are "so opposed" to having a rule that requires a lot of work to check up on if a post is reported...)

Gengulphus


Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests