Greene King £8.50 bid - possible income options for proceeds....

[Gengulphus]

I'm not quite sure that I really need 'a better outcome' - I'd really be quite happy with the same outcome, so long as I'm more comfortable in actually getting one outcome over another....

Consider two busses going between the same two stops....

One might be an open-top bus, let's call that the HYP-bus....

The other hasn't got an open-top, and is the normal covered-type on the top deck, let's call that the IT-bus....

Probably unintentionally, you've slipped your own personal judgement about the relative comfort levels of the two buses in there. The wording "let's call" is a contraction for "let us call", and so it implicitly and almost unnoticeably assumes that readers share your judgement that a HYP offers a less certain level of comfort (in both directions) than a portfolio of ITs. But for some (and I'm currently among them), it's the other way around: for me, there are a number of reasons why a portfolio of ITs offers a less certain level of comfort than a HYP - among them, I'm a lot less confident about my ability to select good IT managers than good companies, ITs carry a greater level of uncertainty about how and when the portfolio will be traded, and ITs are less comfortable for me ethically because a fair proportion of their income comes from sources I do not want to use to fund my living expenses.

So for me, it's the IT-bus that is the open-top bus and the HYP-bus that is the normal covered type. I'm not claiming that your characterisation of them is factually wrong - just that it isn't a matter of fact at all, but of opinions, and that opinions on the matter do actually differ in practice. So the consensus assumed by "let's call" isn't actually there...

Apart from that, I agree about being happy with the same outcome, so long as I'm more comfortable about how I get it. And indeed, I'd even be happy with a slightly less good outcome, with the same proviso. A good deal of my spending isn't justified by getting positive financial returns from it, but by being happy to accept a not-strictly-necessary negative financial return (i.e. the price I pay) for the greater comfort whatever I've bought produces for me, and it seems only consistent to apply the same principle to investing...

Gengulphus

[Itsallaguess]

I'm not quite sure that I really need 'a better outcome' - I'd really be quite happy with the same outcome, so long as I'm more comfortable in actually getting one outcome over another....

Consider two busses going between the same two stops....

One might be an open-top bus, let's call that the HYP-bus....

The other hasn't got an open-top, and is the normal covered-type on the top deck, let's call that the IT-bus....

Probably unintentionally, you've slipped your own personal judgement about the relative comfort levels of the two buses in there. The wording "let's call" is a contraction for "let us call", and so it implicitly and almost unnoticeably assumes that readers share your judgement that a HYP offers a less certain level of comfort (in both directions) than a portfolio of ITs. But for some (and I'm currently among them), it's the other way around: for me, there are a number of reasons why a portfolio of ITs offers a less certain level of comfort than a HYP - among them, I'm a lot less confident about my ability to select good IT managers than good companies, ITs carry a greater level of uncertainty about how and when the portfolio will be traded, and ITs are less comfortable for me ethically because a fair proportion of their income comes from sources I do not want to use to fund my living expenses.

So for me, it's the IT-bus that is the open-top bus and the HYP-bus that is the normal covered type. I'm not claiming that your characterisation of them is factually wrong - just that it isn't a matter of fact at all, but of opinions, and that opinions on the matter do actually differ in practice. So the consensus assumed by "let's call" isn't actually there...

Hi Gengulphus,

For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't trying to portray anything at all as 'a matter of fact', and was just expressing a personal opinion based on a few years of using both income-investment approaches...

I had hoped that was clear from my next sentence, which is missing from the above quote of mine, which started 'It seems to me....' - https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=19106#p247305

My use of the words 'let's call that xxx' was to simply allow me to express an idea about two income-investment-busses without having to explain in detail which one was which all the time....

Perhaps there was another way of doing that, but I'm really not sure how what I wrote could be interpreted as some sort of 'matter of fact' to be honest, although clearly you've read it that way in this instance, so thanks for allowing me to clear that up.

Totally agree on your view that sometimes even an outcome that 'isn't the same' can sometimes be palatable so long as there's perhaps a benefit in 'comfort levels', and it's interesting that you find the opposite 'bus' to give you a more pleasant journey.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Gengulphus]

My use of the words 'let's call that xxx' was to simply allow me to express an idea about two income-investment-busses without having to explain in detail which one was which all the time....

Perhaps there was another way of doing that, ...

I'd suggest "I will call that xxx" - says the same basic thing factually, but without the implicit assumption that readers will feel the same way.

By the way, I would normally let such things pass, but when the implicit assumption is (IMHO) the crucial factor that should determine the answer an investor arrives at, I think it needs to be pulled out into the full light of day.

Gengulphus

[Itsallaguess]

My use of the words 'let's call that xxx' was to simply allow me to express an idea about two income-investment-busses without having to explain in detail which one was which all the time....

Perhaps there was another way of doing that, ...

I'd suggest "I will call that xxx" - says the same basic thing factually, but without the implicit assumption that readers will feel the same way.

By the way, I would normally let such things pass, but when the implicit assumption is (IMHO) the crucial factor that should determine the answer an investor arrives at, I think it needs to be pulled out into the full light of day.

I'm sorry Gengulphus, but I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone reading these boards took the phrase 'let's call that xxxx' to allow subsequent 'short-hand' to be used when giving a further personal view on something to be a direct instruction for them to personally have to think the same way, or an implicit assumption that everyone else thinks the same way too....

The post was describing my personal view, and not any sort of investment advice, and I honestly can't imagine many people reading the phrase taking it to be anything else...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[mrbrightside]

I would normally let such things pass but I agree 100% with itsallaguess.

I never interpreted his words any anything else as what he (obviously) intended.

[torata]

I would normally let such things pass but I agree 100% with itsallaguess.

I never interpreted his words any anything else as what he (obviously) intended.

Me too.
As a function, Let's is an expression of suggestion.
Let's call an end to it.

torata