HYP1 is 17 - comments not permitted on HYP Practical

[Dod101]

I must say I am bemused to read this thread. Why do some say ITs must not be included in a HYP? We all know that there is a separate thread for discussion of ITs and other collectives and so their merits or otherwise will not be discussed on the HYP Practical thread. It is simply not an issue. We all know what we are aiming for with our HYPs, a high and growing income. If we like to call Unilever or for that matter Henry Boot a HYP constituent that is for the individual to decide, but on the whole most will find out the hard way what sort of share will materially contribute to that high and growing income. No issue that I can see.

Trying to lay down hard and fast rules is IMHO silly. Surely we can get back to what used to be good discussions on the merits or otherwise of individual shares and similar matters.

Dod

[moorfield]

Interesting to read in City of London IT small print that its investment policy permits investment in debt/fixed income securities when deemed appropriate. https://www.janushenderson.com/ukpi/fun ... -trust-plc . As many of you know I've always felt HYP needn't exclude holding preference shares (although for tier 1 purposes these are equity not debt).

[tjh290633]

Interesting to read in City of London IT small print that its investment policy permits investment in debt/fixed income securities when deemed appropriate. https://www.janushenderson.com/ukpi/fun ... -trust-plc . As many of you know I've always felt HYP needn't exclude holding preference shares (although for tier 1 purposes these are equity not debt).

Another reason why ITs have no place in an HYP.

Keep and account for them separately. They have a different philosophy.

TJH

[Wizard]

Interesting to read in City of London IT small print that its investment policy permits investment in debt/fixed income securities when deemed appropriate. https://www.janushenderson.com/ukpi/fun ... -trust-plc . As many of you know I've always felt HYP needn't exclude holding preference shares (although for tier 1 purposes these are equity not debt).

Another reason why ITs have no place in an HYP.

Keep and account for them separately. They have a different philosophy.

TJH

TJH

As this topic seems to have strayed away from HYP1 I wonder if you can help clarify. Assuming somebody does not agree that they should track their ITs and preference shares separately, as you clearly do, how should they approach TLF boards. Is this approach in line with the mod's preference:
- their high yield equities on HYP Practical
- their ITs on the Investment and Unit Trust board
- their preference shares on the relevant sector board for the entity that issues them as there does not appear to be a board for preference shares*
- their overall approach on this board (high yield strategy)

Or would it be acceptable to cover all aspects of their whole portfolio on this board (high yield strategy)?

Thanks for your guidance,
Terry.

* if this approach is right where would, for example AV.A be discussed as there is not a board for insurance companies?

[Wizard]

Mods - where is the policy statement referenced a few weeks ago which was going to make things clear?

Unless I have missed it I do not think onslow's question to the Mod's has ever been answered. The answer may be "tomorrow", "next week" or "never, as we have changed our minds". But surely it is not unreasonable to look for an answer to the question to be provided.

Terry.

[tjh290633]

Wizard, you ask good questions.

You know my views on what should go on the HYP Practical board. ITs ought to be discussed on the dedicated board, and if there are high yield connotations, then a pointer from this board would be appropriate.

Preference shares are a conundrum. Here? Investment Strategies? Share Ideas? Retirement Investing? A sector board? I confess that I don't know.

I reported your post above to try to get some action.

TJH

[Wizard]

Wizard, you ask good questions.

You know my views on what should go on the HYP Practical board. ITs ought to be discussed on the dedicated board, and if there are high yield connotations, then a pointer from this board would be appropriate.

Preference shares are a conundrum. Here? Investment Strategies? Share Ideas? Retirement Investing? A sector board? I confess that I don't know.

I reported your post above to try to get some action.

TJH

Thank you TJH, your efforts to help are much appreciated.

Terry.

[jackdaww]

DAK if there has been any progress/news on the "DECISION" that was to be taken , i think some weeks ago -

regarding the structure / naming of these high yield boards ??

thanks.

[Wizard]

I was interested to see where HYP1 had made its gains, given the capital in my HYP equities heading in the opposite direction. I thought others may be interested in the table I created.

I determined the number of shares held from the 10th November 2017 price and the value quoted by PYAD, then applied this to the November 11th 2016 share price to give me the start point for each share. May not be perfect but as the change ties to PYAD's quoted 12.2% it can't be far out. The final column simply shows how much of the overall 12.2% increase was generated by each share, a function of performance and relative size of each holding.

Terry.

[Wizard]

DAK if there has been any progress/news on the "DECISION" that was to be taken , i think some weeks ago -

regarding the structure / naming of these high yield boards ??

thanks.

No jackdaww, nothing I am aware of, there appears to be tumbleweed blowing through TLF on that one.

Terry.

[vrdiver]

DAK if there has been any progress/news on the "DECISION" that was to be taken , i think some weeks ago -

regarding the structure / naming of these high yield boards ??

thanks.

No jackdaww, nothing I am aware of, there appears to be tumbleweed blowing through TLF on that one.

Terry.

You could always write an initial draft and see what responses you got....

[jackdaww]

DAK if there has been any progress/news on the "DECISION" that was to be taken , i think some weeks ago -

regarding the structure / naming of these high yield boards ??

thanks.

No jackdaww, nothing I am aware of, there appears to be tumbleweed blowing through TLF on that one.

Terry.

You could always write an initial draft and see what responses you got....

=============================

a simple substitution of the word "discussion" for restrictive prescriptive "strategies" would be fine for me .

keep the practical board exactly as it is.

[Wizard]

DAK if there has been any progress/news on the "DECISION" that was to be taken , i think some weeks ago -

regarding the structure / naming of these high yield boards ??

thanks.

No jackdaww, nothing I am aware of, there appears to be tumbleweed blowing through TLF on that one.

Terry.

You could always write an initial draft and see what responses you got....

I could, but that would no doubt then just restart the Board Use thread from HYP Practical, which eventually achieved nothing. The point is that what we were told would happen was that an Admin / Mod written definitive answer would be provided and that would be it, no debate. That would then be the basis for future moderation, whether everybody liked every part of it or not at least it would be clear and end the regular lengthy debates on what is and is not OK to post.

Terry.

[vrdiver]

You could always write an initial draft and see what responses you got....

I could, but that would no doubt then just restart the Board Use thread from HYP Practical, which eventually achieved nothing. The point is that what we were told would happen was that an Admin / Mod written definitive answer would be provided and that would be it, no debate. That would then be the basis for future moderation, whether everybody liked every part of it or not at least it would be clear and end the regular lengthy debates on what is and is not OK to post.

Terry.[/quote]

Apologies, but could you post the link to that discussion (specifically the proposed resolution)? It's been a while and I have probably forgotten most of it!

[Gengulphus]

You could always write an initial draft and see what responses you got....

I could, but that would no doubt then just restart the Board Use thread from HYP Practical, which eventually achieved nothing. The point is that what we were told would happen was that an Admin / Mod written definitive answer would be provided and that would be it, no debate. That would then be the basis for future moderation, whether everybody liked every part of it or not at least it would be clear and end the regular lengthy debates on what is and is not OK to post.

Terry.

Apologies, but could you post the link to that discussion (specifically the proposed resolution)? It's been a while and I have probably forgotten most of it!

(with quotes corrected)

Here you are: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6513

Gengulphus

[vrdiver]

I could, but that would no doubt then just restart the Board Use thread from HYP Practical, which eventually achieved nothing. The point is that what we were told would happen was that an Admin / Mod written definitive answer would be provided and that would be it, no debate. That would then be the basis for future moderation, whether everybody liked every part of it or not at least it would be clear and end the regular lengthy debates on what is and is not OK to post.

Terry.

Apologies, but could you post the link to that discussion (specifically the proposed resolution)? It's been a while and I have probably forgotten most of it!

(with quotes corrected)

Here you are: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6513

Gengulphus

Thanks for that.

I've had a quick read through the thread and don't seem to be able to find a "promise" of a definitive answer to be provided by a mod. There were lots of discussions from non-mods, but from the mods themselves, suggestions about self-policing, OPs taking a bit more responsibility (e.g. asking people to stay on topic etc) but nothing that implied an iron clad rulebook on how to use the HYP boards. Of course, my skim reading may have missed such a statement, so I'd be happy if somebody were to reply with a quote (from a relevant mod) and link to the original that did say such a thing.

FWIW, my personal view is that I'm more than happy to keep the rules vague, with soft boundaries, as some infringements that would necessarily occur in the advent of tightly defined rules would limit potentially interesting discussions. I prefer the "play on" approach where the ref has some flexibility over whether to allow continuance or to halt the game...

[Wizard]

Apologies, but could you post the link to that discussion (specifically the proposed resolution)? It's been a while and I have probably forgotten most of it!

(with quotes corrected)

Here you are: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6513

Gengulphus

Thanks for that.

I've had a quick read through the thread and don't seem to be able to find a "promise" of a definitive answer to be provided by a mod. There were lots of discussions from non-mods, but from the mods themselves, suggestions about self-policing, OPs taking a bit more responsibility (e.g. asking people to stay on topic etc) but nothing that implied an iron clad rulebook on how to use the HYP boards. Of course, my skim reading may have missed such a statement, so I'd be happy if somebody were to reply with a quote (from a relevant mod) and link to the original that did say such a thing.

FWIW, my personal view is that I'm more than happy to keep the rules vague, with soft boundaries, as some infringements that would necessarily occur in the advent of tightly defined rules would limit potentially interesting discussions. I prefer the "play on" approach where the ref has some flexibility over whether to allow continuance or to halt the game...

Another discussion broke out on an unrelated thread some time after that thread was closed and the promise of an admin / mod defined solution was made, but I do not immediately recall which thread it was.

Terry.

[Wizard]

I've had a quick read through the thread and don't seem to be able to find a "promise" of a definitive answer to be provided by a mod. There were lots of discussions from non-mods, but from the mods themselves, suggestions about self-policing, OPs taking a bit more responsibility (e.g. asking people to stay on topic etc) but nothing that implied an iron clad rulebook on how to use the HYP boards. Of course, my skim reading may have missed such a statement, so I'd be happy if somebody were to reply with a quote (from a relevant mod) and link to the original that did say such a thing.

As requested, link...

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8078&start=80

And the quote from Raptor in the last post on 30th October...

Moderator Message:
I think we get the point. No more discussions on board structure and return to discussing HYP Prtactical please. We (admin and moderators) will make a decision. Stooz & Clariman will make the initial decision and allow "all" moderators to input. The final decision on what the structure is will be down to the administrators. Once that is in place, moderators will "moderate" based on their decision.

Moderator Message:
Any further posts on this will be deemed off topic and deleted.

Terry.

[vrdiver]

Thanks Terry,

Three weeks doesn't seem so long to wait for a decision on structure (they may not even have had a monthly review to discover it's an action yet!).

Based on the previous kerfuffles this topic has engendered I'd expect to keep posting, sans decision, for quite a few more months yet, possibly just so that the mods can build a bigger picture whilst thinking through the issue.

In the meantime, I hope to read more of your posts and perhaps inflict a few of mine on the board!

[Wizard]

Three weeks doesn't seem so long to wait for a decision on structure (they may not even have had a monthly review to discover it's an action yet!).

You may well be right, but I did just ask for an update on when it may arrive. I can't see it being that hard to just say something like "this will take some time, we will update you in... [insert chosen time period]". But even a mod (tjh290633) reporting my post a couple of days ago to "try to get some action" has not yielded anything yet.

Terry.