Wizard wrote: We have this board for those who would further modify the 'historic strategy', but for whatever reason it has never really gained traction. The split should work, but it never has.
You're right, the split should work but it never has.
But the reason is quite simple. Those who you say apparently want to modify the strategy aren't actually satisfied with modifying the strategy - if that was their interest, like you say, this board (strategies) is perfectly fine for them.
The reason it doesn't work is because those 'who want to modify the historic strategy' as you call it, seem more interested in arguing with those who do want to run the historic strategy and seem unable to live and let live.
When they find that those who do want to run the strategy don't pop over here to have the arguments with those who don't run the strategy, those who don't run the strategy feel a bit lonely and so they can't help themselves and take the argument over to those who do run the strategy.
I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for one or two people who were determined to argue with people on the HYP Practical board that their approach is wrong, the HYP practical board could be a little more relaxed and tolerate more flexibility
as long as it kept to the spirit of the original concept.
The issue is that just one or two unfortunately very persistent and vocal posters, seem to want to vary it far beyond what most people would still consider in line with the original spirit, and then they try to argue around that.
It then ends up with their posts being pulled, at which point they then spit their dummy out of the pram and start playing games with the moderators demanding to know what they can and can't post, which then forces the moderators to put in narrow, prescriptive guidelines that then enforce a very narrow scope (because the moderators don't (yet) have the power to bar individuals from just specific boards).
To be clear - when I talk of tolerating flexibility, scope, etc, I very much mean mean just that - but it still has to be something recognisable as the core concept.
I mean, I personally can't see why high yield foreign shares couldn't be accepted ... not necessarily used by all, but I don't see why some people on the board couldn't use them in their HYP and still be considered part of the family... as long as they don't try to tell those who are happy sticking with UK only shares that they are wrong not to use foreign shares - all provided the foreign shares would be HYPable if they were in the UK.
And I also don't see why using high yield ETFs as a convenient way of achieving a diversified portfolio couldn't be permitted either... I mean, it would be reasonable to point out the advantages (trade like a share, and you get many in one) and disadvantages (they have an ongoing cost)... but surely they are still in the spirit of both diversification and keeping it simple for Doris - the original HYP concept was about having a portfolio of high yield shares, so I'm not sure why buying a pre-packaged version with IUKD or an equivalent foreign ETF, shouldn't also be within the spirit.
But I think they key guide should be that any variation should still be close enough to the original HYP concept that someone choosing to use the variation, shouldn't consider that it makes the original wrong, or is so far different that the variation can be considered 'good' and the original 'wrong'.
If the variation is so far different that an advocate for the differences could claim theirs to be a 'good' strategy while the original is 'wrong', then that's probably an indication that it's too far from cricket to still be considered cricket.
In other words, there shouldn't be any grounds for argument as a result of the variation. Discussion, yes, but they should not be so far different that the discussion should become argument over which is right.
I use high yield ETFs, not because I think it will give a better total return (I don't think they will); I use them because with a larger portfolio I just feel a lot more comfortable now with more diversification, and ETFs give that in a convenient package where I don't need to track 50, 100, 1500+ additional stocks and have the individual costs associated with them.
I use foreign high yield ETFs not because I think there's anything inherently different in terms of total return (I don't think there will be), but again just because I want the country diversification because of the size my portfolio has got to. I still consider it an HYP in the spirit of the original ... based on high yield, long term buy and hold and diversification. I don't think my modifications make it any better or worse in terms of total return, etc.
My modifications are solely to lessen the risk of individual catastrophes - and lets be clear, the original HYP advocated holding a reasonable number of shares just for that reason - it clearly distinguished itself from e.g. value investing, where an investor might focus on fewer stocks - so I still believe my portfolio is absolutely in the spirit of the original. I certainly don't feel any grounds to argue against the original or claim it has failed or whatever, and that somehow my modifications are better. I don't think they are 'better' in terms of total return or characteristic, etc
Crucially, I still think it's an HYP, and wouldn't think to argue that it's any better than an HYP... how could it be better than an HYP, when to me it is just an HYP!
And I certainly don't feel any need to convince others that they need to have these modifications - on the contrary, I see these modifications as just being to suit my own individual circumstances and personality. If the 25yr old me still wanted to have a 15 share portfolio, limited to direct holdings in the UK, I wouldn't try to convince my 25yr old me to do what I'm doing now.
As long as the 25yr old me respects that now with a bigger portfolio and more career behind rather than in front of me that the present day me needs to be a bit more cautious against large individual failures... then the present day me can respect that the 25yr old me is fine to take the (slightly) higher risks while their portfolio is smaller and they have more career opportunity to rebuild after an individual catastrophe.
But I think both the 25yr old me and the present day me, could both sit side by side on the same board without either of us claiming the other is wrong, or their approach flawed. We can both recognise that we are both investing on the same high yield, diversification and long term buy and hold principles that identify us as HYPers.
The present day me doesn't feel like I've abandoned HYP or changed my mind in relation to HYP ... I still feel that my portfolio is as much an HYP as it's always been... I've just extended some of the core principles (diversification) a bit further to suit my attitude towards (taking even less) risk.
And that's the key thing... to me my portfolio is an HYP just like the rest ... so I don't feel the need to go onto the HYP practical board and tell them their strategy is wrong and that there are better ways, or that they should be looking at total return or whatever.
To me, I am just running a HYP, and the HYP practical board feels like it should still be my spiritual home
That's if it weren't for the narrowly prescribed rules that have been forced upon that board by one or two people who tried to push the envelope too far by constantly arguing with HYPers telling them that their approach is flawed or failed, etc, and complaining about it having a poor total return or whatever.