FAQ

[jackdaww]

The HYP practical board, was created primarily to discuss HYP (which is a specific term coined by Pyad) and its near cousins, has now spawned a group of Alt-HYers who want to take it over.

Can we allow this when there is a ready made board for them in HY Strategy? Why do such folk want two boards? and why can't they just accept what was the status quo rather than wrecking it for others who are perfectly happy to discuss HYP Practical matters centred around Stephen Bland's ideas. I suspect simple resentment towards someone who was such an inspiring writer.


Arb.

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

HYP practical is a well followed board , but having a title which does not convey its particular specialised system (A Stephen Bland HYP).

I think it should continue much the same as it is, with lighter moderation , and with an appropriate title and FAQ and sticky post explaining itself.

the HYSS board is simply a creature of some HYPP followers to facilitate the removal of heretics from THEIR board , and is little followed , and could be discontinued.

There could be a NEW board for discussion of ALL ASPECTS of high yielding shares .

Or we can just use the existing SHARES IDEAS BOARD to discuss all aspects of any shares , for income, annuity or total returns purposes.

.

[kempiejon]

Arb,

I think you might be unfair to some friendly posters who don't know any better and are just trying to help by pointing out the shortcomings in the HYP strategy. It seems explaining the ideas and the reasoning behind the specific thing you and I understand by HYP isn't getting the point across satisfactorily. I have no idea why that is, again I think perhaps those out of the loop are trying to broaden our understanding.

Like you I think there's a perfectly good board for the broader discussions of other things high yielding, the HY strategies board and that this board HYP Practical could be for that specific subsection of HYPing as per the pyad articles and close cousins like the TMF Practical board FAQs but if this new board with new owners and posters want to talk about something else perhaps Stooze and Clairman would let the traditionalists have their own space? Or perhaps, more friendly, would be headings or titles that pointed readers in the right direction.

[Gengulphus]

Fundamentally though, I would simply like to get away from the idea that pyad's HYP guidance be followed as the only true path.

You quite simply won't get away from that idea. Some people on the TMF board had it and expressed it, despite the board having a significantly wider topic. The same will happen on whatever these boards end up being - unless those people are hounded off these boards, which I at least don't want to see happen any more than I want to see those that want to discuss high-yield portfolios in general hounded off these boards.

What I do want to see is what the TMF High Yield - Share Strategies and High Yield - HYP Practical boards were originally supposed to be: the former a place where people could discuss general strategic issues such as what type of high-yield strategy to run, how much voluntary trading to do, what aspects of a company are worth paying attention to, etc. And the latter a place where people with practical problems running their HYPs could come for suggested answers to those problems, without being obliged to wade through the strategic discussions to get those suggested answers, nor through lots of advice based on radically different strategies.

As an example of the former, for instance, yes, I believe I should review my HYP strategy every so often, and open myself up to being "challenged" about it - but I quite simply don't want to be "challenged" about it every time I have a practical decision to make about it. Basically, it should be my decision when I review my strategy, not the decision of other people who think it's good for me to be "challenged" to broaden my horizons. And frankly, it's not just a question of "don't want": I won't be put into a position where e.g. every time I run a GDHYP selection, I have to endure a barrage of attacks on its strategy that aren't easily disentangled from the practicalities. I don't think that TLF will do that - but I'm not entirely sure about it, and if it turns out that that happens and their moderation policy won't do anything effective about it, I'll look elsewhere.

On the latter, it is in theory possible for someone running a non-tinkering HYP and someone running a trading high-yield share portfolio aimed at using the high yield as a Value indicator to come to the same forum for practical advice and everybody to recognise which type of strategy each of them is running and ignore the threads they don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable about - I would ignore the ones about high-yield share trading, for example. In practice, though, I suspect that in such a forum, too many OPs wouldn't make it clear what type of strategy they're running, and too many replies would be based either on an incorrect assumption about that or on a belief that the poster should be "challenged" for their own good. I'd much prefer there was e.g. a "HYP Practical" forum and a "HY Trading Practical" forum to cater for the two different groups.

Or to be precise, sub-forums: I'm coming around to the view that the correct organisation is a "High Yield Equities" forum with sub-forums for specialist uses. "HYP Practical" would be such a sub-forum for those with questions about running their HYPs in practice; other sub-forums such as "HY Trading Practical" would be possible additions if sufficient interest emerges in them; anything else belongs in the main forum.

The other thing I do want to see is us speaking the same language: we already had repeated misunderstandings (and worse, unnecessary, unproductive arguments based on them) caused by some people on the TMF High Yield - HYP Practical board using "HYP" in a very narrow pyadic sense and others in the much broader sense given in the board's FAQ. The idea that adding a third, much broader meaning will solve those problems is IMHO a pipe dream: I think it will exacerbate them. Especially with 15+ years of old material using the old definitions around for the foreseeable future...

Gengulphus

[Dod1010]

Gengulphus

I am sure I have been criticised by you and possibly others for stating what I would like to see. You are now falling into the same trap.

Second paragraph 'What I do want to see...............' . I think it is a matter of finding common ground, failing which I have no doubt we will lose some posters.

Dod

[melonfool]

I think it is a matter of finding common ground, failing which I have no doubt we will lose some posters.

Dod

It's where we lose them to that is the issue!

If we lose the 'wider' HYP discussion to another HYP discussion board here, then that's good. If we lose the 'oh, you don't want to be doing it that way'-brigade to the High Yield Strategy Board, that's good too.

If we lose them completely, that's bad. We just need to work out where each conversation can fit and the idea of a 'High Yield Equities' area with narrower sub fora seems good to me.

It seems unlikely we can fit all those different discussions on one board as it would be too busy.

Mel

[Gengulphus]

Should this thread be made sticky? ...

No!

... Or maybe a cut down version of it?

I stopped looking at it once it started going over the same old ground, but it does cover a lot of arguments which were done to death in the past. Having it in a more prominent position might stop it being a perpetual point of dissent.

I'd say it's pretty clear a more prominent position will simply attract more arguments about it - i.e. more dissent, not less. And the increased prominence is likely to irritate those who have seen what they want of it and want to get away from it...

There's an argument for making a cut-down version of it sticky. But really, that cut-down version should either record the resolution of the issues (which we haven't got yet) or say "these issues are unresolved - we expect to be able to resolve then at such-and-such a time - in the meantime, please bear with us". And either way, I think it should also be locked - otherwise, it will simply turn into another thread similar to this one, that needs re-summarising in due course, and so it goes on...

That is an option, by the way: if someone's prepared to do it and if they can be impartial about it (*), a summary of where we've got to that is used as the start of a new, replacement thread is reasonable, and that exercise could be repeated periodically to try to keep the discussion flowing forward. But there's no reason I can see to make such a continued discussion sticky.

(*) Emboldened because a biased summary is an absolutely sure-fire way of inflaming the disagreements! And before anyone suggests that I do it, I have strong enough views on the subject that I would struggle to be impartial, and I'm afraid that I can do without any more struggles at present!

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

the HYSS board is simply a creature of some HYPP followers to facilitate the removal of heretics from THEIR board , and is little followed , and could be discontinued.

That quite simply wasn't true on TMF: it was the HYPP board that was the "creature". The HYSS board was the continuation of the old High Yield Portfolio board, with a broadened topic - and the reason for the changed name and the broadened topic was precisely to make it unambiguous that those who were interested in other high-yield strategies were welcome there.

I.e. the "HYPP followers" went off and created a board about their own speciality for their own use - which is a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do in my book. Yes, "heretics" (a biased term if ever I saw one) weren't wanted on that board - but that's no more unreasonable than e.g. a cricket club insisting that some football players can't use the cricket club's pitches for a game of football!

And on TLF, the two boards were set up in direct imitation of the TMF boards - whether you count them as "creatures" is a good question, but either they both are or neither is, and if they are, they are stooz's and Clariman's "creatures" rather than anyone else's!

Quite possibly they're not / no longer the right solution, and I'm sure stooz and Clariman will put a better solution into effect if we can agree on one. But getting that agreement is not helped by inaccurate descriptions of the origins of the two boards, especially those that impute discreditable motives to those one disagrees with.

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

I am sure I have been criticised by you ... for stating what I would like to see.

Maybe - if so, and if you'll exhibit it, I'll apologise.

What I certainly have done is respond to wording (maybe from you, maybe others - I don't remember) expressing something stronger than "I would like to see X", such as "I cannot accept that NOT(X)". The first is letting people know what you're aiming for in a compromise; the second is a blanket refusal to compromise...

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

The other thing I do want to see is us speaking the same language: we already had repeated misunderstandings (and worse, unnecessary, unproductive arguments based on them) caused by some people on the TMF High Yield - HYP Practical board using "HYP" in a very narrow pyadic sense and others in the much broader sense given in the board's FAQ. The idea that adding a third, much broader meaning will solve those problems is IMHO a pipe dream: I think it will exacerbate them. Especially with 15+ years of old material using the old definitions around for the foreseeable future...

I've just noticed I managed to type a different word to the one I intended there - a 'thinko' rather than a typo, as it's clearly the result of wires getting crossed in my brain rather than my fingers! What I intended was (with the changed word emboldened to point it out):

The other thing I do want to see is us speaking the same language: we already had repeated misunderstandings (and worse, unnecessary, unproductive arguments based on them) caused by some people on the TMF High Yield - HYP Practical board using "HYP" in a very narrow pyadic sense and others in the somewhat broader sense given in the board's FAQ. The idea that adding a third, much broader meaning will solve those problems is IMHO a pipe dream: I think it will exacerbate them. Especially with 15+ years of old material using the old definitions around for the foreseeable future...

Gengulphus

[toofast2live]

The HYP practical board, was created primarily to discuss HYP (which is a specific term coined by Pyad)

Er, so why was "tinkering" in all its trading glory allowed? PYAD was crystal clear, you choose your shares (once off or over time) and then you do NOTHING, unless a corporate action arises.

Let's get back to a board that discusses HY candidates, and HY portfolios. Not trading strategies for when shares get above a value hurdle or below a yield hurdle.

You buy. You keep. End of.

[Breelander]

...why was "tinkering" in all its trading glory allowed? PYAD was crystal clear, you choose your shares (once off or over time) and then you do NOTHING, unless a corporate action arises. ...You buy. You keep. End of.

Or is it? Should there not be some room for other related ideas?

Here's an interesting variation on the value investing theme that I've been reading about lately, which may be of interest to a wider audience here. It's a sort of hybrid between running a high-yield portfolio (HYP) and value trading. Broadly an income strategy, but with a sale of the share in mind should certain events occur, so as to score a potential capital gain and enable reinvestment in a new high yielder to boost income.

http://news.fool.co.uk/news/investing/2 ... stors.aspx

[jackdaww]

the HYSS board is simply a creature of some HYPP followers to facilitate the removal of heretics from THEIR board , and is little followed , and could be discontinued.

That quite simply wasn't true on TMF: it was the HYPP board that was the "creature". The HYSS board was the continuation of the old High Yield Portfolio board, with a broadened topic - and the reason for the changed name and the broadened topic was precisely to make it unambiguous that those who were interested in other high-yield strategies were welcome there.

Gengulphus

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

thanks for putting the record straight.

i could rephrase --

the HYSS board was used by some HYPP followers to facilitate the removal of critics from THEIR board ...

ie go and play over there out of our way , you are not a fully paid up member ..

repeating the more positive , and less critical , points of my post --

I think it (HYPP) should continue much the same as it is, with lighter moderation , and with an appropriate title and FAQ and sticky post explaining itself.

There could be a NEW board for discussion of ALL ASPECTS of high yielding shares .

Or we can just use the existing SHARES IDEAS BOARD to discuss all aspects of any shares , for income, annuity or total returns purposes.

.

[88V8]

You buy. You keep. End of.

You may.
On the whole, we don't. As I think a poll would make clear.

We buy.
We have second thoughts.
Or stuff happens and we react.
Or we tinker.

We admire the pyad principle. It's like an Established religion. We sort of feel we belong. We turn up a couple of times a year and participate tunelessly, mumble darkly about the new hymns and the 'wrong' words to the prayers. But day-to-day... hmmm.

V8

[Lootman]

We admire the pyad principle. It's like an Established religion. We sort of feel we belong. We turn up a couple of times a year and participate tunelessly, mumble darkly about the new hymns and the 'wrong' words to the prayers. But day-to-day... hmmm.

Yes, it's when things start to sound cultish that I get put off. Pyad came up with his stuff about 17 years ago (from memory) and the idea that it hasn't been improved or customised by others since then seems highly unlikely.

Like any topic, people contribute good ideas over time, not all in one go, and a sound strategy is not fixed in stone but rather evolves as our collective mind discusses it and, of course, tries it in the real world.

If HYPP is strict Pyad and HYSS is "everything else vaguely HY" then there is a gap. Where do we discuss where the principles behind pyadic HYPs fail and can/should be changed and improved? If discussed on HYSS then the HYPP-only people may miss it. But if on HYPP then the strict folks will cry "off topic" because it questions the stone tablets. (And no, I'm not suggesting a third HY board).

If we can just see HYP as a constantly evolving process of discovery rather than something handed down which is rigid and timeless, won't we all be better off?

[Dod1010]

V8 and Lootman have got my thoughts pretty much summed up and I doubt that they are too hard for anyone to grasp or accept. In fact the quote under Stephen Bland's name is only a modest variation on the same thing.

I am mostly LTBH but there are times when I will sell and I have explained these on here from time to time.

Of course we are only able to indulge ourselves with this long thread because there is not a lot happening in the corporate world at this time of year. Nevertheless I have found it helpful and useful.

[Gengulphus]

Er, so why was "tinkering" in all its trading glory allowed? PYAD was crystal clear, you choose your shares (once off or over time) and then you do NOTHING, unless a corporate action arises.

Perhaps because he wasn't quite as crystal clear as you think? E.g. about a month after he wrote the initial HYP articles, he wrote https://web.archive.org/web/20161124154536/http://boards.fool.co.uk/is-there-a-recommended-exit-strategy-ie-what-6304619.aspx...

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

If HYPP is strict Pyad ...

Once again, it wasn't. For instance, tjh290633's posts about running his strategy were as welcome there as any (nobody pleases every poster!) and that strategy most definitely isn't "strict Pyad".

And it isn't now - things haven't become tighter with regard to what is actually discussed since the move here. What has happened is that there has been more discussion of what the rules should be, but they haven't changed yet, and I very much doubt that they're any more strictly enforced here than on TMF.

... and HYSS is "everything else vaguely HY" then there is a gap. Where do we discuss where the principles behind pyadic HYPs fail and can/should be changed and improved? If discussed on HYSS then the HYPP-only people may miss it. But if on HYPP then the strict folks will cry "off topic" because it questions the stone tablets. (And no, I'm not suggesting a third HY board).

No, they cry "off topic" because it isn't about running a HYP in practice.

You post it on HYSS. The HYP-practical-matters-only people will miss it because that's the choice they made when they chose to read only that board. HYP-only people who are interested in strategic matters about the strategy and so aren't HYP-practical-matters-only people read both boards, or at least ought to: they've only themselves to blame if they fail to read a board which is the correct place for what they're interested in. Those like me who are more-or-less interested in the practical matters all the time and occasionally want to review the strategy read HYPP all the time and turn reading HYSS on and off as appropriate.

And if there are any who think that questioning the stone tablets shouldn't be allowed anywhere, they are sadly disappointed.

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

there has been more discussion of what the rules should be, but they haven't changed yet, and I very much doubt that they're any more strictly enforced here than on TMF.

It's not that the rules haven't changed yet but rather that there are no rules (on TLF) yet. That's why we are having this long discussion - as part of the process of determining what those rules should and will be.

Now, there may be some who are assuming that the rules will be identical to TMF. But clearly there are others who are assuming otherwise.

I agree with you that moderation here is less strict, and likely to stay that way. But that argues for less strict rules as well, since strict rules with light moderation seems futile.

No, they cry "off topic" because it isn't about running a HYP in practice. You post it on HYSS.

There's still a gap. Take your example of TJH. He is definitely talking about his practical running of a portfolio, but implicit in that is the idea that the Pyadic principles can and should be improved upon. I don't think one can conceptually resolve that dilemma perfectly. But certainly in my view, I want to see practical real-life demonstrations of how Pyad's principles can be improved on HYPP, rather than mixed up with all the talk about preference shares, ITs, ETFs, Zeroes, options selling and whatever else on HYSS.

Put simply, I believe that the value of presenting such alternative but related practices on HYPP exceeds the downside of some people having to make the marginal effort of ignoring topics that don't interest them.

[tjh290633]

i could rephrase --

the HYSS board was used by some HYPP followers to facilitate the removal of critics from THEIR board ...

As it happens it was the other way round. The HYPP board was the new one and the old HYP Board continued as the HYSS board.

A quick look at the dates of the first posts on each will confirm that.

TJH

[jackdaww]

i could rephrase --

the HYSS board was used by some HYPP followers to facilitate the removal of critics from THEIR board ...

As it happens it was the other way round. The HYPP board was the new one and the old HYP Board continued as the HYSS board.

A quick look at the dates of the first posts on each will confirm that.

TJH

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

confusinger and confusinger ......

but thanks anyway .

i'm not too bothered about the history of these boards (convenient having got it comprehensively wrong) .

i think the future matters more - i suggest --

simplify , add flexibility , subtract status quo.

.