Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to MyNameIsUrl,6Tricia,staffordian,Anonymous,Sussexlad, for Donating to support the site

A whinge

For questions or input on how the site works or improvement you would like to see.
absolutezero
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1044
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 225 times
Been thanked: 318 times

Re: A whinge

#441294

Postby absolutezero » September 10th, 2021, 3:47 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:
absolutezero wrote:
What's happened now is people are conflating several issues.


If you're looking for any sympathy for you losing track of the multiple streams of disruption that you've been causing recently, then I would politely ask you to look elsewhere...

Don't forget the apology...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

If by 'disruption' you mean opening a thread questioning the logic behind dividend investing on Strategies (my main point in this thread) and the HYP purists getting upset about that, then no apology will be forthcoming as I have done nothing wrong. As one mod said, that is the correct place for that discussion.

WRT to the 'there's no money left' comment, we've moved on from that. It was never part of my discussion in this thread.

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1619
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 276 times
Been thanked: 573 times

Re: A whinge

#441297

Postby MDW1954 » September 10th, 2021, 3:49 pm

Moderator Message:
You were complaining about the use of the word "sanctions", and your posts being deleted.

That thread was on HYP-P.

Your initial thread title was felt by the admin who deleted it to be inappropriately referring to the title of a thread celebrating the life, and mourning the death, of a much-loved Fool. If you don't like the present thread title I'll change it to something else -- feel free to come up with an appropriate suggestion. --MDW1954

absolutezero
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1044
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 225 times
Been thanked: 318 times

Re: A whinge

#441305

Postby absolutezero » September 10th, 2021, 4:13 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
Moderator Message:
You were complaining about the use of the word "sanctions", and your posts being deleted.

That thread was on HYP-P.

Your initial thread title was felt by the admin who deleted it to be inappropriately referring to the title of a thread celebrating the life, and mourning the death, of a much-loved Fool. If you don't like the present thread title I'll change it to something else -- feel free to come up with an appropriate suggestion. --MDW1954

I would like to know which mod changed the title in the first place and why they chose this specific title (as opposed to any of the billions of other things they could have chosen).
I do have my suspicions.

Leave the title as it is. I have commented on it and changing it will alter the meanings of previous posts referring to it.

As far as my complaint is concerned, I have sent messages to Stooz and I will let him/her make the enquiries they have promised and then I will decided how to proceed from there.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4191
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2522 times

Re: A whinge

#441313

Postby Gengulphus » September 10th, 2021, 4:46 pm

XFool wrote:Specifically wrt HYP troubles -

I hope I can be forgiven for sticking my oar into this nest of vipers!

I am not a HYP investor, this could be both an advantage and a disadvantage. I am genuinely disinterested - that I am not a HYP investor means nothing about by attitude or opinion of HYP investment or posters. I have no opinion either way, for or against. OTOH, not being involved means my understanding of the issues could be quite naive. Anyway, here goes...

I noticed mention of problematical discussions on "total return" and how a statement: "capital doesn't matter" was ridiculous, or somesuch. This intrigued me.

Outsider I may be, but I still remember HYP's origins on UK TMF. I remember the original suggestion came from poster Pyad on that site. As I remember it was to use a fixed capital sum to buy a portfolio of individual, dividend paying company shares from the FTSE-100. Big, reliable companies unlikely to go bust, likely to continue paying out dividends. The purpose of such a HYP was to act long term as an addition/alternative to/replacement for an annuity (very likely a pension annuity).

In that original context "capital doesn't matter" seems to make sense (provided the idea works out long term!). For, just like an annuity, the original capital has been foregone following purchase. What matters - the only thing that matters - is the continuing income stream.

Let me supply that original context. It's an article by TMFPyad (as he was then, due to being a TMF staff member at the time), an archived copy of which can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20140219210 ... 01106c.htm. If you read it, you'll find that it neither says "capital doesn't matter" nor contains the idea that capital doesn't matter. On the contrary, it puts forward the continued availability of the capital as one of the advantages of the strategy, e.g. by saying "Anyone with a lump sum available to invest for income upon which they depend must therefore try and find a source that will grow that income and also offer some easy access to the capital. Inflation is the obvious reason that it is essential, for those that do depend heavily on the income, to try and ensure that it will grow. Having the capital available may be important at some future point if, for example, you have to go into a care home."

What it does say is "Do not worry about the fluctuations in the underlying capital value of your shares that are certain to occur". If one wants a short, pithy way of expressing that, "Pay no attention to capital" is considerably more accurate than "Capital doesn't matter", though not quite as brief. Unfortunately (IMHO), the latter is the one that has become associated with the strategy...

I'm not saying that your "What matters - the only thing that matters - is the continuing income stream" summary is deliberately misrepresenting the original proposal - it's exactly what I think my memory would have morphed into under exposure to "Capital doesn't matter" if I hadn't looked at the original proposal again quite a few times over the years! But to represent it reasonably accurately, something like "What primarily matters is the continuing income stream; the capital is still available and may end up mattering, but don't pay attention to it" is needed.

It may also be worth noting that what that proposal actually suggests a HYP as an addition/alternative to/replacement for is "some kind of insurance company product such as guaranteed income bonds or the like". Under the pension rules of the time, buying a pension annuity with the bulk (75%) of one's pension was compulsory, so that just about the last thing most sensible pensioners wanted to do with their 25% tax-free lump sum was buy another all-income/no-capital investment! So it seems to me that your summary of the purpose of a HYP in the original proposal can be shortened to "to act long term as an addition/alternative to an annuity (very likely a pension annuity)", dropping "replacement for".

All readers: please note that I'm saying the above just to help XFool (and anyone else who is interested) get an accurate idea of what pyad's original proposal actually said - not to express support for what it said. And as fair warning, IMHO any arguments either in favour of or against what it said would be thoroughly off-topic both for this thread and this board - if anyone wants to put forward such arguments, I'd suggest High Yield Share Strategies as the best place.

XFool wrote:After this original Pyadic HYP idea was floated, if I remember correctly (I may not) two things happened. Possibly the most significant in the current context is that some took the original HYP idea and ran with it (suitably modified) as a long term investment portfolio strategy. Which AFAICS is not what the original idea of HYP was about. Again, I make no comment and have no opinion as to the virtue or otherwise of such an investment approach, other than to point out it was very different from the original HYP conception.

It's probably worth pointing out that the "some" who did that included pyad himself - an archived copy of an article he wrote about it in February 2007 can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20071231131 ... avers.aspx (and I'm pretty certain that he wrote posts on the subject from time to time as well, though the chances of any of those surviving the loss of the TMF boards are low, and chances of any that might have survived being findable even lower). You're quite right that it wasn't the original idea, but it was quite a mainstream development of that idea - which might not be the impression readers will get from your use of "some".

XFool wrote:As an aside, on TMF over time, HYP was subjected to modifications of the original (suggested) 'rules', both in the case of the original Pyadic HYP and its transition by some into a general investment strategy (necessarily so in the latter case).

The original proposal (linked to above) was a fairly specific strategy, though not one with every last detail tied down - e.g. "You don't want excessive debt, for example." leaves some scope for even HYPers who are trying to follow that proposal precisely to have different views on how much debt is "excessive". When the original High Yield Portfolio discussion board was set up on TMF, discussion naturally branched out from that in multiple directions, and eventually it branched out so far that major "should use HYP" vs "shouldn't use HYP" arguments erupted on the board. Those arguments interfered badly with some uses people wanted to make of the board - e.g. "I'm running a HYP and need to decide how to deal with this rights issue from one of my shares" would get a response along the lines of "Running a HYP is your mistake, so deal with it by selling your entire HYP and running something else instead", which would be closely followed by rapid "Nonsense, HYP is an excellent strategy", "Isn't", "Is too", ..., type exchanges (to describe them highly succinctly - they were generally much longer!). And the original question got lost in the crossfire...

That's what led to the board being split in 2008, the basic idea being that High Yield - HYP Practical was for questions about running a HYP in practice, with "should use HYP" vs "shouldn't use HYP" arguments strictly forbidden on that board, and High Yield - Share Strategies for anything else about high-yield share strategies, which among other things would give those who wanted to pursue those arguments somewhere they could legitimately do so. In the process, High Yield - HYP Practical needed to acquire a definition of what constitutes a "HYP", as otherwise the "should use HYP" vs "shouldn't use HYP" arguments would simply morph into "should use what User1 chooses to call HYP" vs "should use something entirely different that User2 chooses to call HYP" arguments. And that's more-or-less what we've got today, with some slight changes to the board names and rewritten board guidance as a result of the move from TMF to TLF. (The rewritten board guidance is broadly on the same lines as the TMF board guidance, but substantially shorter due to a mixture of not using an 'FAQ' format, providing far fewer pointers to which other boards one might use instead, getting rid of some lists of examples and some less-necessary conditions, etc.)

My point in giving that fairly long description of what happened is to say that yes, pyad's original 'rules' about how to run a HYP were modified, more or less from the word go (which is basically inevitable as soon as a strategy is let loose for multiple investors to use), but no, what are generally thought of now as the HYP 'rules' are not a modification of pyad's original 'rules' about how to run a HYP. They're not rules about how to run an investment strategy at all - they're instead rules about what is allowed to be discussed on the HYP Practical board.

XFool wrote:I'm sure all this is likely well known to many (most?) posters on TLF HYP boards. But to everyone? When I see arguments over "total return" and "capital doesn't matter" it makes me wonder if these differences have been lost over time or are not appreciated by newer posters, causing people to argue 'past' each other. I seem to remember that on TMF these same arguments resulted in some kind of split in the HYP boards, possibly between 'Pyad HYP' and 'Other HYP', but this is where my memory definitely lets me down.

Hopefully the above account of how board split came about will refresh your memory. I do realise that I haven't been able to back it up with much concrete evidence, but I've tried to keep it as objective as I can - e.g. saying that the arguments erupted and what sort of problems they caused, but not laying blame on either side. What evidence I can supply is just that I was quite involved in coming up with the TMF board split and so ought to know what I'm talking about, and that the TMF board split was along the lines I describe - see the TMF High Yield - HYP Practical guidance and the TMF High Yield - Share Strategies guidance from the time, noting the acknowledgements at their ends for evidence of my involvement.

As an aside, a detail of those two bits of TMF guidance is that the High Yield - HYP Practical guidance was post 2 on that board (I think post 1 was a standard "Welcome to the board" type of message) while the "High Yield - Share Strategies" board was post 52212 on that board. The reason for that was that the High Yield - Share Strategies board was a renaming of the original High Yield Portfolio board, while the High Yield - HYP Practical board was new - done that way so that existing threads (and especially the raging arguments) would remain on-topic for their board after the split.

XFool wrote:The only thing I can think to suggest now is that these two broadly different versions of HYP be explicitly resurrected in the TLF boards (Merely saying 'Pyad HYP' now won't help newcomers)

How about:

Hi Yield Portfolio as an Annuity (Pyad HYP)

Hi Yield Portfolio Investing (HYP)

Under those two umbrellas there could still be room for different streams of 'modifications' to both those two broad categories.

I would suggest that if you want to pursue that idea, you review it in the light of the links I've provided above, as the "Hi Yield Portfolio as an Annuity" name in particular seems to be based on a memory of the original proposal that has been significantly distorted by subsequent exposure to "Capital doesn't matter"... And I would suggest that if you still want to pursue it after that review, you propose it in a new thread to avoid it getting tangled up with all the other issues in this thread!

Gengulphus

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1619
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 276 times
Been thanked: 573 times

Re: A whinge

#441320

Postby MDW1954 » September 10th, 2021, 5:20 pm

absolutezero wrote:I would like to know which mod changed the title in the first place and why they chose this specific title (as opposed to any of the billions of other things they could have chosen).
I do have my suspicions.



Moderator Message:
I have previously said that it wasn't a moderator, but an admin. Maybe the distinction wasn't clear to you, but my wording was chosen for very good reason.

Maybe they felt that thread title to be appropriate, given the tenor of your remarks? I don't know. What I do know is that they didn't feel that your own choice of thread title was appropriate.

I don't know who you suspect changed the thread title. But I can tell you that there are three admins, and csearle isn't one of them. And neither am I.

--MDW1954

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 7275
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 773 times
Been thanked: 1807 times

Re: A whinge

#441362

Postby redsturgeon » September 10th, 2021, 8:57 pm

Moderator Message:
I changed the title in response to a user request. I think my new choice was better than your original which I felt to be an insult to the memory of someone I knew personally. I think my new title describes your opening post better than the old one. YVMV

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 7275
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 773 times
Been thanked: 1807 times

Re: A whinge

#441426

Postby redsturgeon » September 11th, 2021, 11:08 am

Moderator Message:
Let me just remind people that discussion of moderation is off topic on any open forum here. Please feel free to PM me but do not comment on this or any other thread.

XFool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7249
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 948 times

Re: A whinge

#441494

Postby XFool » September 11th, 2021, 5:01 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
XFool wrote:Specifically wrt HYP troubles -

I hope I can be forgiven for sticking my oar into this nest of vipers!

Let me supply that original context. It's an article by TMFPyad (as he was then, due to being a TMF staff member at the time), an archived copy of which can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20140219210 ... 01106c.htm.
...
All readers: please note that I'm saying the above just to help XFool (and anyone else who is interested) get an accurate idea of what pyad's original proposal actually said - not to express support for what it said. And as fair warning, IMHO any arguments either in favour of or against what it said would be thoroughly off-topic both for this thread and this board - if anyone wants to put forward such arguments, I'd suggest High Yield Share Strategies as the best place.
XFool wrote:After this original Pyadic HYP idea was floated, if I remember correctly (I may not) two things happened. Possibly the most significant in the current context is that some took the original HYP idea and ran with it (suitably modified) as a long term investment portfolio strategy.
...
My point in giving that fairly long description of what happened is to say that yes, pyad's original 'rules' about how to run a HYP were modified, more or less from the word go (which is basically inevitable as soon as a strategy is let loose for multiple investors to use), but no, what are generally thought of now as the HYP 'rules' are not a modification of pyad's original 'rules' about how to run a HYP. They're not rules about how to run an investment strategy at all - they're instead rules about what is allowed to be discussed on the HYP Practical board.
...
Hopefully the above account of how board split came about will refresh your memory. I do realise that I haven't been able to back it up with much concrete evidence, but I've tried to keep it as objective as I can - e.g. saying that the arguments erupted and what sort of problems they caused, but not laying blame on either side. What evidence I can supply is just that I was quite involved in coming up with the TMF board split and so ought to know what I'm talking about, and that the TMF board split was along the lines I describe - see the TMF High Yield - HYP Practical guidance and the TMF High Yield - Share Strategies guidance from the time, noting the acknowledgements at their ends for evidence of my involvement.

Thank you Gengulphus - as someone involved directly involved - for your detailed and, as ever, comprehensive reply including as it does archive references to original HYP writings from TMF .

Gengulphus wrote:
XFool wrote:The only thing I can think to suggest now is that these two broadly different versions of HYP be explicitly resurrected in the TLF boards (Merely saying 'Pyad HYP' now won't help newcomers)

How about:

Hi Yield Portfolio as an Annuity (Pyad HYP)

Hi Yield Portfolio Investing (HYP)

Under those two umbrellas there could still be room for different streams of 'modifications' to both those two broad categories.

I would suggest that if you want to pursue that idea, you review it in the light of the links I've provided above, as the "Hi Yield Portfolio as an Annuity" name in particular seems to be based on a memory of the original proposal that has been significantly distorted by subsequent exposure to "Capital doesn't matter"... And I would suggest that if you still want to pursue it after that review, you propose it in a new thread to avoid it getting tangled up with all the other issues in this thread!

I won't be pursuing the idea. My suggestion was made only as a tentative, and possibly simplistic, helpful contribution based on some awareness of the history of HYP and how that might still be a cause of misunderstanding and disagreement. As an outsider not involved in the ongoing 'HYP Wars' I don't really know the intricate details and causes of current controversies.

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4034
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1330 times

Re: A whinge

#441576

Postby dealtn » September 12th, 2021, 9:55 am

redsturgeon wrote:
Moderator Message:
Let me just remind people that discussion of moderation is off topic on any open forum here. Please feel free to PM me but do not comment on this or any other thread.


For completeness of that response, "here" means this Board, not this site.

viewforum.php?f=91

There are alternative ways to seek clarification, and discussion on moderation, to a PM. This route is more helpful in ensuring the wider community is aware of issues on any specific moderation, such that future issues, discussion, and moderation can be avoided (or consistency be judged).

"Raise issues with ... or ask Admin about a moderation decision."

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2116
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 1753 times
Been thanked: 754 times

Re: A whinge

#442247

Postby Clariman » September 14th, 2021, 5:28 pm

dealtn wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:
Moderator Message:
Let me just remind people that discussion of moderation is off topic on any open forum here. Please feel free to PM me but do not comment on this or any other thread.


For completeness of that response, "here" means this Board, not this site.

viewforum.php?f=91

There are alternative ways to seek clarification, and discussion on moderation, to a PM. This route is more helpful in ensuring the wider community is aware of issues on any specific moderation, such that future issues, discussion, and moderation can be avoided (or consistency be judged).

"Raise issues with ... or ask Admin about a moderation decision."

Moderator Message:
Let me further clarify and correct any misunderstanding. There is NO public forum on this site for GENERAL discussion of moderation. If any user (or group of users) has a general issue about site moderation, they should send a PM to the site's admin/owners (Stooz or Clariman) describing the issue and suggesting any improvements that could be made. This will then be considered by the owners who may discuss it with the site's volunteer Moderators.

Neither Improve the Recipe nor Room 101 boards are for GENERAL moderation discussions, despite some suggestions to the contrary. Room 101 is for an individual user's specific question about a specific moderation action. It is an escalation point if the user has failed to get an answer from the individual moderator concerned. The only posters who should join the discussion on a Room 101 topic are the Admin team (Clariman, Stooz, Redsturgeon). It is not a free for all discussion forum. See the welcome post in Room 101 https://lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=13513

Finally, it is accepted that moderation mistakes are sometimes made. However, the rules of the site are straightforward. Approx 99% of moderation complaints occur when someone is not following the site rules - often knowingly so. Acquiaint yourself with the site rules if you are unsure of them - https://lemonfool.co.uk/app.php/rules . Any general moderation issues, please message myself or Stooz.

Thanks
Clariman

XFool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7249
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 948 times

Re: A whinge

#442568

Postby XFool » September 15th, 2021, 5:24 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
XFool wrote:Specifically wrt HYP troubles -

I hope I can be forgiven for sticking my oar into this nest of vipers!

Let me supply that original context. It's an article by TMFPyad (as he was then, due to being a TMF staff member at the time), an archived copy of which can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20140219210 ... 01106c.htm.
...

"Oh, I nearly forgot: another strong reason as well. For basic rate taxpayers, there is no tax to pay on dividends under current legislation. Unlike interest, for example, which carries a tax liability of 20%. And if you are a higher rate payer, the tax on the dividends received is limited to 25%."

Those were the days! :)

TUK020
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1454
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 468 times
Been thanked: 841 times

Re: A whinge

#442576

Postby TUK020 » September 15th, 2021, 5:45 pm

Usually when I read a thread that has turned into a major spat, I sigh and move on.
I do understand some of the frustrations involved, and personally have pretty much stopped posting on HYP-P, as I feel it is too tightly constrained, but there are other boards where I can engage in broader discussions and get useful insight.

However, as I ploughed through this thread, I noticed yet again something that I would like to draw attention to and comment on.

Gengulphus has repeatedly shown willingness to stick his head above the parapet to champion polite and respectful behaviour of posters towards others. This benefits all of us in this little community.

Well done, and please keep it up

tuk020


Return to “Lemon Fool - Improve the Recipe”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests