The Lemon Fool

Raptor wrote:
Maybe we are also not as pedantic as TMF and will let the discussion flow to see how it goes.

Raptor

Hopefully so although I'm already detecting some overzealousness sometimes. If it aint broke dont fix it.

Ian.

I don't believe there has been anything saying that what's on-topic for this board has changed from what it was on TMF, and so no, you haven't missed any such thing. There have been debates about changing it,

Thank you, Gengulphus, I read the debates, they seemed unresolved. So for now it's up to me or you or anyone else to decide what's on topic and report or not and then let the moderators cast their vote.

Lootman wrote:

Gengulphus wrote:

kempiejon wrote:Did I miss the "on topics" for this board? I understand that trading does not count as per the old TMF HYP FAQs and I read the debates for allowed topics on high yield boards on the Lemon but I thought there's not been a conclusion, could someone share a pointer please.

As far as I am aware, the distinction between what's on-topic for this board and for High Yield - Strategies started off as the same as it was on the similarly-named boards on TMF - it really couldn't have been anything else. And no statement has been made changing it, so it's still the same as it was there.

. .what I am saying is merely what I believe the situation currently is. I.e. that basically, I don't believe there has been anything saying that what's on-topic for this board has changed from what it was on TMF, and so no, you haven't missed any such thing.

I see it differently. In the absence of any definitive statement about scope, which may never arrive anyway, I think people have tended to assume what they personally prefer. So you are clearly assuming that, absent any scope statement, the scope of the two boards is the same as TMF. Whereas I have chosen to assume that the scope is now broader, in line with the fact that boards generally have been reduced in number and therefore inevitably increased in scope.

But as I also said, "Please note that this is not intended to say that I think the topic distinction ought to remain the same as it was on TMF - on the contrary, I think there were "cracks" in that distinction which were only papered over, not dealt with properly."

Just to make that crystal clear: the current topic distinction is not the one I personally prefer. It dealt with the problems back in 2007/8 on TMF, but it's become clear to me over the years that it has problems of its own. If I were to assume that the topic distinction was now as I would prefer it to be, it would be distinctly different from what it currently is - but it's just as unreasonable for me to assume that as it is for you to assume that it is what you would prefer it to be.

The reason I assumed that it is currently the same as it was on TMF is that the structure was copied from TMF, it is not reasonable to assume that anyone other than stooz and Clariman as the site owners can change it unilaterally, and so far stooz and Clariman have neither changed it unilaterally nor by seeking a consensus about what it should be. And since then, Raptor has confirmed that the moderators are currently basically following the TMF guidelines.

Lootman wrote:There is also no "civil discussion" board on TLF where meta-discussion about a board, like this discussion, can take place. So it takes place here - something not allowed on TMF.

Yes, that's a case where the TMF structure has not been copied, so that there is no reasonable assumption we can make about what is intended. On such matters, we just have to muddle our way through until the situation clarifies / is clarified - hopefully some guidance will be added to the rules in due course about what to do if one disagrees with or needs clarification of a moderator decision

Gengulphus

Gengulphus wrote:...hopefully some guidance will be added to the rules in due course about what to do if one disagrees with or needs clarification of a moderator decision

In the meantime my advice would be to use the post reporting mechanism if you (or anyone) has any question regarding the moderation. In that way other moderators can, if they wish, moderate the preceding moderation. It will also trigger a discussion amongst the moderators to clarify how to deal with things. FWIW I think a forum for TLF structure might well be a good addition.

Regards,
Chris

Gengulphus wrote:The reason I assumed that it is currently the same as it was on TMF is that the structure was copied from TMF, it is not reasonable to assume that anyone other than stooz and Clariman as the site owners can change it unilaterally, and so far stooz and Clariman have neither changed it unilaterally nor by seeking a consensus about what it should be.

I think that it an entirely reasonable assumption. I commented only because in your previous statement you didn't say you were making an assumption; you appeared (to me) to be making an absolute statement. You said "no statement has been made changing it, so it's still the same as it was there" rather than "no statement has been made changing it, so it's my assumption that it's still the same as it was there".

Perhaps the "assumption" part was itself to be assumed, in which case I apologise. I just thought that it might have seemed to some that "it's still the same as it was there" was a definitive statement. I think there are other reasonable assumptions that one can make, as kempiejon and I have.

Gengulphus wrote:And since then, Raptor has confirmed that the moderators are currently basically following the TMF guidelines.

Raptor did, although he didn't actually say that the scope and definition of the boards are identical to TMF. What he said was:

"Currently the moderators are following the TMF guidelines" which can be read as a comment about the moderation and not about the scope. And he also added "Maybe we are also not as pedantic as TMF and will let the discussion flow to see how it goes" which rather implies to me that the scope of the two boards can be more flexible, or at least that that interpretation will be tolerated more than it was at TMF.

Note also that the TMF "investing for Income" board doesn't exist on TLF, so some of the topics that would have gone there may end up on a HY board instead.

Lootman wrote: Note also that the TMF "investing for Income" board doesn't exist on TLF...

Beg to differ, been there since at least Dec. 5th... viewforum.php?f=51

Breelander wrote:

Lootman wrote: Note also that the TMF "investing for Income" board doesn't exist on TLF...

Beg to differ, been there since at least Dec. 5th... http://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=51

Oh yes, sorry. I had read somebody complaining that it didn't exist the other day, but didn't bother to check myself.

Just to add that I think the boards are working very well, so credit to everyone involved in that. At this point I really don't miss TMF at all. It's quite an achievement.

JohnnyCyclops wrote:Running XIRR lifetime over the last five and three-quarter years is 7.97%.

kempiejon wrote:I'm running around 10% since 2004

For comparison, the annualised return on my HYP started in late 2003 is 8.8%.

Dave

My total return (including divs) for 2016 is 13.82%.

Since beginning of 2003 my annualised return (IRR) is 7.8%.

From 1987 (when I first started investing) until now IRR is 7.75%

fisher wrote:From 1987 (when I first started investing) until now IRR is 7.75%

Are those investments what you might (perhaps with some qualification) describe as a HYP, or does it include other styles of investment?

A quick note on moderation and board structure, etc. In mid-December I proposed to fellow moderators a series of board "descriptions" (the text that appears in the high-level listing of, say, Investors' Roundtable") and some tweaks re: structure, eg, Investing for Income as its own board.

These discussions concluded before Christmas, albeit with some debate about how much baggage from TMF to carry over to here. In particular, how much of "HYP" should be Pyad-flavour HYP, etc.

I think we are just waiting for Stooz to implement the agreed changes.

I post this to make the point that these boards are not necessarily an exact clone of TMF, and that part of the logic behind that is to be more pragmatic about what is on-topic and what isn't. Moderators are unpaid volunteers with limited time (well, I am, anyway) and so Occam's Razor may often be the tool of choice.

MDW1954

MDW1954 wrote:these boards are not necessarily an exact clone of TMF, and part of the logic behind that is to be more pragmatic about what is on-topic and what isn't. Moderators are unpaid volunteers with limited time (well, I am, anyway) and so Occam's Razor may often be the tool of choice.

Yes, the "keep it simple" approach is surely the best. If a board's guidelines run to several pages then something is fundamentally wrong.

There were a number of "matched pairs" of boards on TMF that divided into "theory" and "practice". Examples were the boards for pensions, legal issues, taxes, debt etc. In each case, one board was for discussing practical topics and the other board was for theories and strategies.

A moderator would only have to decide whether a topic was practical or theoretical/strategic to know which board is right, and that's usually obvious. And if it is a bit of both, it probably doesn't matter either way.

I find that being discriminating and ignoring topics that don't interest me is a natural part of how I read and use these boards anyway, so it isn't a lot of extra effort to ignore something that is off-topic. And if I look in both places, and I do, then I won't miss anything either.

I did not post on the old Fool board and can't immediately find the link to the old FAQ so may be speaking out of turn, but wasn't the original post heading off topic anyway? It started by looking at capital gain and then added in income in order to make a total return comparison. I thought HYP was about income, not capital gain?

Just saying.

Terry.

On critical mass I'm afraid I do not buy either of the suggested definitions. Something at critical mass is self sustaining, i.e. by drawing down from the invested asset it does not reduce it's size when taking accoubt of any additions. Whether those additions are from dividends or new funds injected is not relevant, it's a nice way of seeing progress is being made but has little to do with critical mass. Nor do I think a snap shot gives a true picture.

For me critical mass is achieved when one projects forward to an end point such as death costs and income, if the investment pool covers all costs with income and capital is not depleted by the end point then it has reached critical mass. This allows for anticipated changes in cost base over time and provides a pretty decent buffer in the form of the underlying capital invested.

Terry.

For me critical mass is achieved when one projects forward to an end point such as death costs and income, if the investment pool covers all costs with income and capital is not depleted by the end point then it has reached critical mass.

Hmm, good luck with that one

Deev8 wrote:

fisher wrote:From 1987 (when I first started investing) until now IRR is 7.75%

Are those investments what you might (perhaps with some qualification) describe as a HYP, or does it include other styles of investment?

I started with a lot of Unit Trusts, some Investment Trusts and some Privatisation shares. I added a lot more high yielding shares from 1997 onwards.
I sold most of the Unit Trusts, Investment Trusts in 2003/2004 and moved the proceeds into what had now morphed into a HYP.

It does also contain some speculative disasters such as RBS which have really hurt the overall performance.

So - the more relevant figure for this board is "Since beginning of 2003 my annualised return (IRR) is 7.8%.". This is almost entirely HYP with the addition of disastrous speculative RBS purchases in 2007/2008. Exluding the RBS transactions raises the IRR to 9.02% over the same period.

Deev8 wrote:

JohnnyCyclops wrote:Running XIRR lifetime over the last five and three-quarter years is 7.97%.

kempiejon wrote:I'm running around 10% since 2004

For comparison, the annualised return on my HYP started in late 2003 is 8.8%.

Dave

I do think this sort of data is solid gold. Thanks for posting.
My HYP since 2003 has an IRR of 9.1% with dividends reinvested.

I do think this sort of data is solid gold. Thanks for posting.

I agree! Any more data points from anyone?

MDW1954

MDW1954 wrote:I think we are just waiting for Stooz to implement the agreed changes.

I post this to make those point that these boards are not necessarily an exact clone of TMF, and that part of the logic behind that is to be more pragmatic about what is on-topic and what isn't. ...

Agreed - but until the agreed changes are actually published, all users can really do is work on the basis that it's a clone of TMF. If people instead work on the basis that they think they know what the changes are, there's almost certainly going to be an element of wish-fulfilment in those thoughts - i.e. they'll think that what it's shifted to is what they personally want. And experience on TMF says that what people want varies all the way from "strict pyadic HYP only - the whole works, including 'strategic ignorance', no tinkering, etc" to "any high-yield share strategy at all", so that's bound to result in major conflicts of views about what belongs where.

At present, those conflicts are (I think!) being kept under control by "clone of TMF, somewhat modified by the change of moderation realities" being (mostly) recognised to be a temporary holding position until something more permanent can be put into position. When that "something more permanent" appears, it's pretty certain some people are going to be disappointed...

MDW1954 wrote:... Moderators are unpaid volunteers with limited time (well, I am, anyway) and so Occam's Razor may often be the tool of choice.

Understood - and by the way, I think that is inevitably going to end up meaning that moderators are less patient with persistent rule-breakers than the TMF moderators sometimes were. There will probably be fewer, simpler rules - but also less moderator tolerance of people who, having been told about a rule, nevertheless go ahead and break it again and again.

I should say that that's a prediction about how things will end up, not a statement that I think it's desirable. (FWIW, I think such a development has both good points and bad ones - it's just that the good point of better use of volunteered moderator time will become a more dominant consideration.)

Gengulphus

I agree! Any more data points from anyone?

MDW1954

How many more data points do you want?

This is the progress of my Accumulation unit since successive year ends, with the IRR from each to today's date (3 Jan 17) stated:

Since        Acc Unit      IRR   
31-Dec-98        5.89    8.20%
30-Dec-99        6.85    7.74%
31-Dec-00        6.68    8.41%
31-Dec-01        6.43    9.28%
31-Dec-02        5.23   11.60%
31-Dec-03        6.38   10.84%
31-Dec-04        7.59   10.19%
30-Dec-05        9.69    8.73%
31-Dec-06       12.25    7.11%
31-Dec-07       12.41    7.78%
31-Dec-08        7.41   16.01%
31-Dec-09       10.24   13.17%
31-Dec-10       12.32   12.03%
31-Dec-11       13.45   12.59%
31-Dec-12       15.80   11.43%
31-Dec-13       19.56    7.60%
31-Dec-14       20.34    9.44%
31-Dec-15       21.42   13.65%
31-Dec-16       24.39    4.19%

The last figure is, of course, not to be taken as reliable, being based on a single day. Obviously the starting date matters a lot.

TJH