proposed TR - total returns - strategies board

[dealtn]

Oh, and yes, there is a general resistance to spawning loads of new boards. Unless they genuinely cover something that cannot be expressed elsewhere. I don't see that is the case here. TR-Strategy = Investment strategies. TR-Practical = Share Ideas.

Whereas HYP....

(To be clear I am generally of the same mind as you with respect to the number of Boards, as the 3rd post on this thread might suggest)

[mc2fool]

Will you at least agree that a High Yield Strategy has in the past given a better Total Return than many a so-called Total Return Strategy?

I genuinely haven't studied it, not ever having participated in HYP, or been attracted to its narrow approach.

Not wishing to drag the thread OT, but having observed this particular back-and-forth, if I may just offer a little elucidation, dealtn, and hoping TJH doesn't mind me explaining a little of his history (and hoping I remember it correctly) ...

Firstly, you will note that he said High Yield Strategy rather than HYP, and while he runs a high yield portfolio it isn't a pyadic High Yield Portfolio (HYP). HYPs may be high yield portfolios but not all high yield portfolios are HYPs.

TJH's reason for using a high yield strategy is that way back in the early days of his investing (in UTs I believe, and many decades before HYP) he found that his higher yielding UTs were giving him greater returns that his lower yielding ones. (Note, I'm saying anything about that, per se, just explaining what (IIRC) his experience was that led him to a high yield strategy.) His strategy includes reinvesting of dividends, and top-slicing and outright selling, with the reinvestment of the proceeds, all on a formulaic basis, and I believe his end objective is to grow the size of his pot (capital), with his high yield strategy being the method to get there. HTH

[jackdaww]

amalgamation has been suggested elsewhere, and it seems the site owners dont want proliferation

Where else has amalgamation of already existing boards into your proposed new TR board been suggested? That seems to be your idea alone.

yes , you are right , my mistake .

I agree that we don't want unnecessary board proliferation and that's exactly why I don't think that a stand-alone total returns board is needed when discussions of such are very welcome and already happen on existing boards.

After all, we just don't see posts starting with "I'd like to discuss TR but I'm not sure where to put it, hope here is ok ...". Nor, AFAIAA, are the moderators regularly having to deal with posts discussing TR being reported as off-topic and needing to be deleted or moved to another board (at least, not outside of HYP-P, which I don't follow ... but I see is your most active forum!).

In regards to your comment, "as i understant things , HYP is NOT a total returns strategy", what I was pointing out was that by your listed conditions it would qualify for your proposed board, and that highlights what PinkDalek said above, that : "Any TR type of board, however entitled, will no doubt eventually go down the never ending HYP-P type discussion or strictly applied moderation will need to be applied".

HYP could well be discussed on a TR board , but i doubt if that would happen .

I suspect the last thing the mods need is another board with never ending arguments as to what is allowed on it or not!

some mods seem quite interested , probably be less work for them .

Additionally, as several posters have already pointed out, total return applies to and is employed by just about everything and everyone, other than HYP and its followers. So what happens if a total return investor wants to talk about a High Yield Shares strategy, or a Passive Investing strategy, or a Gilts and Bonds strategy, etc? Will people still be able to do so on those boards, or will mentions of TR be declared s off-topic on boards other than the proposed total returns board, and all TR discussions corralled to it?

no. / yes.

In regards to "the investment strategies and shares ideas boards would have much in common" The investment strategies and shares ideas boards are diametrically opposite in what they discuss!!!

And in regards to "a TR board might encourage more growth and non HYP investors to post". Uh? I think that non-HYP investors already make up the great majority of members of TLF. Maybe if you got off the HYP-P board you'd see that too.

[Aminatidi]

Remember what I said a few pages back about how this place seems to argue for arguments sake?

I would hope most people can see there's a difference that goes beyond "total return" in investing for yield/income versus investing for growth.

Fundsmith or most products from Baillie Gifford leap to mind.

Maybe there should be some emphasis on looking out side the UK which is small part of the investment universe.

Call it total return call it whatever but I think most people get what the intention is.

[dealtn]

Will you at least agree that a High Yield Strategy has in the past given a better Total Return than many a so-called Total Return Strategy?

I genuinely haven't studied it, not ever having participated in HYP, or been attracted to its narrow approach.

Not wishing to drag the thread OT, but having observed this particular back-and-forth, if I may just offer a little elucidation, dealtn, and hoping TJH doesn't mind me explaining a little of his history (and hoping I remember it correctly) ...

Firstly, you will note that he said High Yield Strategy rather than HYP, and while he runs a high yield portfolio it isn't a pyadic High Yield Portfolio (HYP). HYPs may be high yield portfolios but not all high yield portfolios are HYPs.

TJH's reason for using a high yield strategy is that way back in the early days of his investing (in UTs I believe, and many decades before HYP) he found that his higher yielding UTs were giving him greater returns that his lower yielding ones. (Note, I'm saying anything about that, per se, just explaining what (IIRC) his experience was that led him to a high yield strategy.) His strategy includes reinvesting of dividends, and top-slicing and outright selling, with the reinvestment of the proceeds, all on a formulaic basis, and I believe his end objective is to grow the size of his pot (capital), with his high yield strategy being the method to get there. HTH

And that's absolutely fine. More than fine, in fact, it's great he has a strategy that works for him. Others have chosen differently.

Further I would say exactly the same, I would be amazed if some High Yield Strategies haven't outperformed some Total Return ones, and vice versa (if I expressed this poorly as HYP was used incorrectly). That no doubt applies over multiple time frames too.

Yet this all seems off topic and "point scoring". The thread is surely about agreeing that Total Returns as a strategy exists, is different to other strategies, and whether there is merit in having a separate place to discuss this, in line with the structure for other strategies.

I have been scrupulous throughout this exchange not to make any claims about ANY strategy being better than any other, nor that everyone should adopt any particular strategy. It is very much a personal thing, and people have different aims anyway. I genuinely don't see what the controversy is here that is leading to said "point scoring" or "turf defending".

[mc2fool]

And that's absolutely fine. More than fine, in fact, it's great he has a strategy that works for him. Others have chosen differently.

Further I would say exactly the same, I would be amazed if some High Yield Strategies haven't outperformed some Total Return ones

Some high yield strategies are total return ones, and I just wanted to point out that your comments to TJH on measuring TR vs following a TR strategy seemed to be based on an assumption / misunderstanding about what he actually did, which is both.

[PinkDalek]

...

My polite apologies in advance but I find your recent reply near impossible to fathom who has written what nor if it is complete.

[dealtn]

And that's absolutely fine. More than fine, in fact, it's great he has a strategy that works for him. Others have chosen differently.

Further I would say exactly the same, I would be amazed if some High Yield Strategies haven't outperformed some Total Return ones

Some high yield strategies are total return ones, and I just wanted to point out that your comments to TJH on measuring TR vs following a TR strategy seemed to be based on an assumption / misunderstanding about what he actually did, which is both.

Then I am sure he will be more than happy to utilise the Total Returns Board should it be set up. The same applies to everyone. It's still not clear whether there is a demand for it. Not much has changed from my perspective since the 3rd(?) post on this thread. I doubt it will be used much, nor correctly (like many other threads across other Boards).

As I have said I have no desire for discussion, here or anywhere, to descend into squabbles about which strategy is better, and particular for others to feel the need to direct others into what strategy they believe is right for them.

It is sufficient, for me at least, to recognise that different strategies exist, different people use them to different ends, and that others might be interested, amused, or educated to hear about them.

[mc2fool]

as i understant things , HYP is NOT a total returns strategy .

HYP could well be discussed on a TR board , but i doubt if that would happen .

So now you are saying that you think it'd be ok for strategies that are not total returns to be discussed on your proposed total returns strategies board?

So what happens if a total return investor wants to talk about a High Yield Shares strategy, or a Passive Investing strategy, or a Gilts and Bonds strategy, etc? Will people still be able to do so on those boards, or will mentions of TR be declared s off-topic on boards other than the proposed total returns board, and all TR discussions corralled to it?

no. / yes.

Are you serious? You want it such that people will not be allowed to discuss total returns on any board except your TR board, and to have any such mentions that do occur declared off-topic and for all total return discussions to be corralled and limited to your TR board!

Wow. I would suggest that you ask in other likely boards what their denizens think of that but I'm confident that if you did it would result in a huge amount of work for the moderators cleaning up all the choice Anglo-Saxon responses....

[jackdaww]

as i understant things , HYP is NOT a total returns strategy .

HYP could well be discussed on a TR board , but i doubt if that would happen .

So now you are saying that you think it'd be ok for strategies that are not total returns to be discussed on your proposed total returns strategies board?

So what happens if a total return investor wants to talk about a High Yield Shares strategy, or a Passive Investing strategy, or a Gilts and Bonds strategy, etc? Will people still be able to do so on those boards, or will mentions of TR be declared s off-topic on boards other than the proposed total returns board, and all TR discussions corralled to it?

no. / yes.

Are you serious? You want it such that people will not be allowed to discuss total returns on any board except your TR board, and to have any such mentions that do occur declared off-topic and for all total return discussions to be corralled and limited to your TR board!

you seem to have understood my response . which is more than i did.

Wow. I would suggest that you ask in other likely boards what their denizens think of that but I'm confident that if you did it would result in a huge amount of work for the moderators cleaning up all the choice Anglo-Saxon responses....

[Itsallaguess]

So what happens if a total return investor wants to talk about a High Yield Shares strategy, or a Passive Investing strategy, or a Gilts and Bonds strategy, etc? Will people still be able to do so on those boards, or will mentions of TR be declared s off-topic on boards other than the proposed total returns board, and all TR discussions corralled to it?

no. / yes.

Are you serious? You want it such that people will not be allowed to discuss total returns on any board except your TR board, and to have any such mentions that do occur declared off-topic and for all total return discussions to be corralled and limited to your TR board!

Wow. I would suggest that you ask in other likely boards what their denizens think of that but I'm confident that if you did it would result in a huge amount of work for the moderators cleaning up all the choice Anglo-Saxon responses....

Well I wish this sort of crucial proposal was made much earlier in the thread, as I think it would have seriously affected people's responses in it, and it would certainly have influenced my own..

I assumed that some sort of 'Total Return - Strategies' board was being requested as an initial focus-point for anyone seeking to begin TR-related discussions in the absence of there being anywhere *currently* to clearly place such discussions, and I assumed that there was always the obvious subsequent opportunity to then spur out to other specific areas of the boards, where TR-related discussions around potential 'granular and specific aspects' could then continue to take place.

If that were to be done via a new 'Total Return - Strategies' board, or whether it was done via what seems to be a long overdue 're-imagining' of the current 'Investment Strategies' board-description, to perhaps at least 'allow' the words 'Total Return' to explicitly *exist* somewhere on the main Lemon Fool board index and board descriptions (https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/index.php), it doesn't *really* matter, but either option would, at least, fill in what seems to be a slight gap at the start of the 'investment map' here, for anyone coming new to the boards with the single 'Total Return' investment phrase rattling around their heads...

I do continue to believe that the above *would* deliver some benefits in those areas, but it seems that the further this thread develops, the clearer it looks that the initial intent of this thread was a million miles away from such a proposal, and that a much tighter degree of control was being sought, and one that on the face of it would seem likely to cause more problems going forward than those the original proposal was seeking to address...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Investment Strategies!

[tikunetih]

Investment Strategies!

Yup.

1. Use the existing "Investment Strategies" board.

PLUS

2. Refocus the existing "Retirement Investing" board, ditching its dad-dancing "(inc FIRE)" appendage, relabelling it along the lines of "Retirement Income Planning" as described here: viewtopic.php?p=307857#p307857

...in order to provide fuller coverage of the accumulation and distribution phases that a TR-based strategy comprises.


NB I've little doubt that a significant part of the appeal of "natural yield"-based strategies is that they're particularly simple to follow and implement during the distribution phase.

With TR-based strats, not so much, and a lot of ongoing thinking may (will!) need to be applied and perhaps adjustments made over the years to deliver a sustainable income without depleting a portfolio (or leaving far more behind than intended). Hardly anyone here talks about this latter stuff but it's probably some of the most important stuff to be discussing for those approaching or already in the drawdown/distribution phase.

⠀⠀

[PinkDalek]

As before, kindly make an attempt at using the various quoting mechanisms coherently.

If I attempt to quote in full your most recent, not even all the words are included, as further below.

Other than that, are you able now to confirm with comments such as no. / yes. and you seem to have understood my response . which is more than i did that you are a long way from being serious and this now 8 page topic has been started mischieouvsly, despite the attempts of many others to treat it all far too seriously?

as i understant things , HYP is NOT a total returns strategy .

HYP could well be discussed on a TR board , but i doubt if that would happen .

So now you are saying that you think it'd be ok for strategies that are not total returns to be discussed on your proposed total returns strategies board?

Are you serious? You want it such that people will not be allowed to discuss total returns on any board except your TR board, and to have any such mentions that do occur declared off-topic and for all total return discussions to be corralled and limited to your TR board!

you seem to have understood my response . which is more than i did.

Wow. I would suggest that you ask in other likely boards what their denizens think of that but I'm confident that if you did it would result in a huge amount of work for the moderators cleaning up all the choice Anglo-Saxon responses....

[tjh290633]

And that's absolutely fine. More than fine, in fact, it's great he has a strategy that works for him. Others have chosen differently.

Further I would say exactly the same, I would be amazed if some High Yield Strategies haven't outperformed some Total Return ones

Some high yield strategies are total return ones, and I just wanted to point out that your comments to TJH on measuring TR vs following a TR strategy seemed to be based on an assumption / misunderstanding about what he actually did, which is both.

Your recollection is quite correct. As I have pointed out in the past, I use an accumulation unit model as part of my record keeping, which gives me a measure of TR, so that I can compare it with TR Indices and other measures.

TJH

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

So if you are after an income from investing, you want a total return.
So if you are after capital growth from investing, you want a total return.
So if you are after capital growth and income from investing, you want a total return.

No, I genuinely don't see it that way at all.

If you are after an income from investing you want an income return. That is how I see people who "reside" in this camp.

Hi Dealtn,

Thank you for your words. I respect you as a clever guy and generally a pretty good chap - I remember you shared some very useful points in the Inflation thread which was debated on TLF a while ago.

Looking at the "most popular" strategy Board on this site it is very clear that Income, or Yield, is the absolute driver. Even as far as the selection criteria that eliminates in its filter over 90% of investment opportunities. It doesn't matter that "Income" can be manufactured, nor that many of those eliminated have a meaningful dividend and often growing too. The bizarre thing is that it seems a large amount of this "Income" is reinvested in the portfolio anyway! How many posts do we see about "top-ups" and reinvesting?

I think you have the cart before the horse here. I think most investors, regardless of which "camp" they are in, will accept that return can come in both the forms of income, and capital growth, and in a lot of cases a combination if the two. Income shares have changes in value through growth (whether that is considered important, unimportant, or secondary).

However, not only would I believe that my horse is well strapped on so to speak, I will also venture - hopefully without turning my reply into a personal attack that you have confused Income with Dividend and Yield with Dividend Yield.

Not all shares pay an Income.

Again, I believe what you meant to say was "Not all shares pay a dividend". Shares in any set of profitable companies (regardless of their dividend policy or lack of) can be used to generate a total return and yes indeed an "Income". I could, follow the mantra of several and hold a portfolio of RDSB, BATS, LGEN and generate an income from the dividends received. But I could also hold a mixed portfolio of VISA (visa), GAW (games workshop), REL(relx) , MA (mastercard), MSFT (microsoft) etc. etc. and generate an income stream by selling off a portion of the holdings each year (since on aggregate their market value grows over time). Both "strategies" have the potential to generate an income, a total return, and both will have own varying risk-return characteristics and portfolio management overheads.

Anyway, we are back to semantics it would seem.

Matt

[dealtn]

So if you are after an income from investing, you want a total return.
So if you are after capital growth from investing, you want a total return.
So if you are after capital growth and income from investing, you want a total return.

No, I genuinely don't see it that way at all.

If you are after an income from investing you want an income return. That is how I see people who "reside" in this camp.

Hi Dealtn,

Thank you for your words. I respect you as a clever guy and generally a pretty good chap - I remember you shared some very useful points in the Inflation thread which was debated on TLF a while ago.

Looking at the "most popular" strategy Board on this site it is very clear that Income, or Yield, is the absolute driver. Even as far as the selection criteria that eliminates in its filter over 90% of investment opportunities. It doesn't matter that "Income" can be manufactured, nor that many of those eliminated have a meaningful dividend and often growing too. The bizarre thing is that it seems a large amount of this "Income" is reinvested in the portfolio anyway! How many posts do we see about "top-ups" and reinvesting?

I think you have the cart before the horse here. I think most investors, regardless of which "camp" they are in, will accept that return can come in both the forms of income, and capital growth, and in a lot of cases a combination if the two. Income shares have changes in value through growth (whether that is considered important, unimportant, or secondary).

However, not only would I believe that my horse is well strapped on so to speak, I will also venture - hopefully without turning my reply into a personal attack that you have confused Income with Dividend and Yield with Dividend Yield.

Not all shares pay an Income.

Again, I believe what you meant to say was "Not all shares pay a dividend". Shares in any set of profitable companies (regardless of their dividend policy or lack of) can be used to generate a total return and yes indeed an "Income". I could, follow the mantra of several and hold a portfolio of RDSB, BATS, LGEN and generate an income from the dividends received. But I could also hold a mixed portfolio of VISA (visa), GAW (games workshop), REL(relx) , MA (mastercard), MSFT (microsoft) etc. etc. and generate an income stream by selling off a portion of the holdings each year (since on aggregate their market value grows over time). Both "strategies" have the potential to generate an income, a total return, and both will have own varying risk-return characteristics and portfolio management overheads.

Anyway, we are back to semantics it would seem.

Matt

Yes I used Income and yield in the way you describe, and what I think is generally held to be the case when referring to Income and Yield strategies. I could have used Dividend Income, and Dividend Yield.

In a general sense I think that it is more common for people to talk about the income from their portfolio as solely Dividend Income (although some might include option premia received too, perhaps). If that portfolio also generates an increase in wealth, some of which may be realised, I can see an argument for saying that for the portfolio holder could describe that as his income from following his strategy. I would think most would be content (as is the tax man) in keeping income and capital gains separate, although the term "Return" doesn't fit neatly.

Perhaps the portfolio income and the portfolio owners income might be different things, and as such it is the case a clear distinction need be made where it isn't obvious which is being referred to.

[jackdaww]

As before, kindly make an attempt at using the various quoting mechanisms coherently.

If I attempt to quote in full your most recent, not even all the words are included, as further below.

Other than that, are you able now to confirm with comments such as no. / yes. and you seem to have understood my response . which is more than i did that you are a long way from being serious and this now 8 page topic has been started mischieouvsly, despite the attempts of many others to treat it all far too seriously?

So now you are saying that you think it'd be ok for strategies that are not total returns to be discussed on your proposed total returns strategies board?





Are you serious? You want it such that people will not be allowed to discuss total returns on any board except your TR board, and to have any such mentions that do occur declared off-topic and for all total return discussions to be corralled and limited to your TR board!

[/b]



Wow. I would suggest that you ask in other likely boards what their denizens think of that but I'm confident that if you did it would result in a huge amount of work for the moderators cleaning up all the choice Anglo-Saxon responses....

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

yes , i started this thread with SERIOUS intent .

i have once or twice slipped into mischief mode , possibly frustrated by baffling and convoluted arguments - baffling to me . muddying the waters perhaps.

sorry i havnt yet mastered the quoting mechanisms.

i am surprised at the interest - there must be some merit , or it would have died a death or been shot down in flames long ago .



ps. sorry i didnt understand your earlier post today at 1.36 pm

[Itsallaguess]

I have once or twice slipped into mischief mode

And I've got to be honest and say that doing so hasn't been at all helpful, especially for those of us that have been trying to take your initial request at face value and have tried to discuss it seriously..

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[jackdaww]

I have once or twice slipped into mischief mode

And I've got to be honest and say that doing so hasn't been at all helpful, especially for those of us that have been trying to take your initial request at face value and have tried to discuss it seriously..

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

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

just to be clear then , my initial post was of VERY SERIOUS intent , but with hindsight and from discussions arising , not well put .