proposed TR - total returns - strategies board

[dealtn]

What about when bonds are pricey?

They were pricey. They were all priced over par. Clearly their price could do nothing but fall.



GS

Bonds priced over par aren't necessarily pricey. Far from it. I have made profits buying above par, and selling below par, many times.

[tikunetih]

What about when bonds are pricey?

They were pricey. They were all priced over par. Clearly their price could do nothing but fall.



GS

Bonds priced over par aren't necessarily pricey. Far from it. I have made profits buying above par, and selling below par, many times.

Whoosh.

I don't think it's possible for GS to have signalled his sarcasm any more strongly.

[GoSeigen]

What about when bonds are pricey?

They were pricey. They were all priced over par. Clearly their price could do nothing but fall.



GS

Bonds priced over par aren't necessarily pricey. Far from it. I have made profits buying above par, and selling below par, many times.

Which is precisely what you rather rudely criticised me for saying not three months ago! Having now seen you argue against your own case I shall let the entire matter rest.

GS

[dealtn]

They were pricey. They were all priced over par. Clearly their price could do nothing but fall.



GS

Bonds priced over par aren't necessarily pricey. Far from it. I have made profits buying above par, and selling below par, many times.

Which is precisely what you rather rudely criticised me for saying not three months ago! Having now seen you argue against your own case I shall let the entire matter rest.

GS

I don't think so.

The only reference I can think that applies to was the "Allocating Capital - Post QE" (or similar) thread.

You said Gilts won't fall. I said they will fall, as they are above par and will redeem at par. They can move in both directions, of course, in the interim.

Your belief was they would only go up, and broadly speaking so far, you have been right. There has been no change to the terms of issue with respect to either the redemption date, or price, and I don't expect there will be.

If you think that is incorrect then feel free to enlighten me, but I suggest it's more appropriate, on the thread where the original discussion took place, rather than here.

Alternatively, it must be a different thread, in which case you can point me in the right direction. It's not impossible but I don't recall being rude, to you, or anyone else for that matter. Not something I am often accused of.

[jackdaww]

On such a board would it be OK to compare (currently) poor total return strategies with (currently) significant better return strategies without being assaulted by those who do not apparently have strong beliefs in optimising total return? I.E. would it be a safe place to discuss warts and all of certain investment areas?

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

i hope it would be safe to discuss any investment area.

[jackdaww]

I don't have a problem with it, but doubt it will be used much (or correctly). Like the Growth Strategies Board I suspect it will get little traffic.

To me much of the "traffic" on a certain board could (should?) be taking place on the respective Company Share News Boards. The reality is traffic will inevitably go to the most frequently used boards. It is just a shame that most threads then drift from the original purpose and descend into squabbles at a tangent to the original post. Maybe that is just inevitable on fora such as this one.

It is particularly annoying that threads can't develop when someone (who probably doesn't care where the thread is) asks a question, which then gets answered, or at least an opinion is offered. Before long the accusation of "off-topic", or "wrong Board" are levelled, when in fact all could benefit from any thread meandering and drifting in the interests of amusement and education perhaps.

Hope I'm proved wrong.

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

we dont know.

but this thread is getting plenty of traffic ..

[Itsallaguess]

I may have misunderstood, but the way I initially read things was that jackdaww was perhaps more interested in the 'Total Return - Strategy' side of things than anything else, and was perhaps looking for somewhere to enable the pulling together of some perhaps diverse TR 'ideas', which may indeed have their own individual areas of interest elsewhere on this site, but because of that diversity, he thought that discussions of TR at a 'Strategic' level might not be as coherent to do that using a number of individual boards, as it might have been if it were possible to be carried out on a single 'Total Return - Strategy' board.

Yes, sure, that's fine, and there is already a board perfectly suited for doing that. Why do you think it requires an additional board to be created?

Let me put it this way: if there is a Total Return Investment Strategies board (we are talking about investment strategies, right?), then what is the Investment Strategies board going to be for, non-total return strategies?!?

Which of course makes complete sense when read in isolation, I'd agree...

But - there's the tricky realm of convention that comes into play with these types of discussions, and that's where I'd raise your quite valid point above, and perhaps put it against the already-existing TLF convention of having a 'High Yield - Strategies' board, where people of like-mind (ignoring for now what we might agree is the quirky complication of HYP-Practical...) can discuss 'broad High Yield Strategies' in an area that's clearly marked out for that to happen within...

Hopefully, it's fairly clear that the 'High Yield - Strategies' board is a popular one, and I'd broadly argue that it's general remit is being accomplished by it's very existence.....as it both attracts the attention of posters with an interest in it's broad 'High Yield' themes, and it also attracts readers who might be interested in such things, simply by dint of the clear notice above it's door....

Now, your otherwise quite valid point might perhaps argue that the 'High Yield - Strategies' board maybe also 'doesn't need to exist', because there's a 'perfectly good' 'Investment Strategies' board where all of those 'High Yield - Strategies' conversations, which are currently happily taking place within it, could actually also have a 'good fit'....and there's no denying that you're 'right' - but then there's the really quite appropriate question to ask - which would perhaps be 'Which situation is likely to deliver the best outcome for those with a particular sub-interest....?', and I think it's that key question that then starts to 'perhaps' give answers that help to justify the sorts of 'sub-definition-boards' that we're really talking about in this specific thread....

So....the question might be -

"If a 'Total Return - Strategies' board were to exist on TLF, would it be likely to attract both readers and posters who may be interested in the strategic element of total-return investment in a way that is an improvement to the current situation, where such conversations might still be able to go on using the site structure as it stands, but might either have to occur at a more granular level using other diverse areas of the site, or might have to go on within the 'Investment Strategies' board, but where that board is not currently as clearly marked for such discussions as a potential 'Total Return - Strategies' board might be...?"

And perhaps I'd ask, given the current 'High Yield - Strategies' board convention and the enjoyment of it by those that use it, that a secondary question might also give an idea of the usefulness of the actual convention that we're talking about, if the following question were asked of those that do use the 'High Yield - Strategies' board -

"Do you think you'd get as much use and enjoyment regarding the types of 'High Yield - Strategies' conversations contained within that board, if it was decided to do away with the 'High Yield - Strategies' board, and ask everyone who uses to use it to simply carry on those discussions inside the 'Investment Strategies' board?"

If the answer to that second question was perhaps a resounding 'No! - We like it the way it is!' - then would that tell us how much of a benefit people with such 'better defined sub-interests' receive from having a specifically-defined area in which to carry on those interests?

I'd perhaps argue that it might.....and that would perhaps help to justify what jackdaww is proposing here, which is to help to provide another such 'better defined sub-interest' board, outwith the broader 'Investment Strategies' board that you're proposing as a 'good enough' solution...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[kempiejon]

...
but this thread is getting plenty of traffic ..

But what is it saying? I've seen this idea developing as a plat du jour, perhaps I'm missing something but it's a meta discussion about the notion of discussing the measure of total return and not strategies for how people get there. Does it indicate a desire to discuss TR on a specail board or just that people like the too and throw of their opinions.
Other posters have said that TR is applicable to most investing. I buy "such and such a quoted instrument" because... it goes up, or not, I've also had a coupon, interest, dividend it's now worth more/less on a TR basis, as opposed to say I hold cash for its liquidity and certainty but it costs me as it is eroded by inflation.
Specific boards do not necessarily draw me there but I do notice where the traffic goes.

[Itsallaguess]

Moderator Message:
Some off-topic posts have been deleted - so I'll ask once again, having already done so earlier in the thread - can everyone please try to keep to the primary subject matter, which is specifically trying to gauge any broad appetite for a 'Total Return - Strategies' board? - Thanks - Itsallaguess

[dspp]

I must admit, reading some comments, those that say all investing should be TR unless specifically stated otherwise, are making a very valid point. When one adds in the other point that is made about if there was a specific TR board, then there would be an unwanted tendency to shunt TR discussion in that direction, then I think that is a very powerful double argument against a TR-specific board. A third point is of course that all investment strategies can be discussed on the board of that name so there is nothing stopping TR-specific discussion going there.

One can sketch out many taxonomies of investment strategies, or decompositional structures. They are by their nature not mutually exclusive. One person may sort objects by colour, another by smell, a third by shape - they are all valid. So it is with investment strategies I think. This bedevils any attempt to create a pure structure for TLF boards, and that is before one considers mixed portfolio approaches, i.e. basket of strategies and strategy rotations.

Just some random thoughts after watching for a few days, before a beer. That's next up.

regards, dspp

[csearle]

...there would be an unwanted tendency to shunt TR discussion in that direction, then I think that is a very powerful double argument against a TR-specific board.

To be quite frank, for me, shunting TR discussion to a TR-specific board would not be "unwanted", it would be a win-win for all concerned. C.

[Stonge]

There are far too many boards on here.

The board structure is catastrophic and incomprehensible.

[csearle]

There are far too many boards on here.

The board structure is catastrophic and incomprehensible.

How would you organise it? C.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Well I'll repeat myself. It seems pointless. Sorry Jackdaww! Surely all investors are aiming for a TR. Even an income based strategy requires some level of capital preservation, else the equity will dwindle, hence the validity of the entities paying that income, and then finally that income.

Hence all investment boards here would appear to be aimed at a TR. So I was *about* to suggest was to post these envisaged discussions e.g. "Mixed Bonds + Equity strategy", or "Nassim Talem Black Swan Strategy", or "John and Jane's strategy" into

viewforum.php?f=8 i.e.

Investment Strategies
Stocks and Shares ISA , Choosing funds for ISA's, risk factors for funds etc
Investment strategy discussions not dealt with elsewhere.

but on reading the boards mission statement, that would seem i) either misguided since that board *looks* to be mainly about ISAs (hence staying inside 20k per annum input) or ii) that the (on now looking at a few thread titles in that board) fore mentioned board urgently needs it's mission statement revising.

Matt

[johnhemming]

I think it is pointless to create a new board, but I read the forum on the basis of searching posts since last visit so I don't really care. It would add an additional complication as to where to start a new topic, but that doesn't really make me want to have a strong view on this.

[88V8]

HYP Practical is far and away the busiest Board here. And much of it is arguments about what constitutes HYP.

Judging by the arguments here over what constitutes TR, I'd say a new Board would be off to a good start

Albeit of no interest to me.

V8

[jackdaww]

I must admit, reading some comments, those that say all investing should be TR unless specifically stated otherwise, are making a very valid point. When one adds in the other point that is made about if there was a specific TR board, then there would be an unwanted tendency to shunt TR discussion in that direction, then I think that is a very powerful double argument against a TR-specific board. A third point is of course that all investment strategies can be discussed on the board of that name so there is nothing stopping TR-specific discussion going there.

One can sketch out many taxonomies of investment strategies, or decompositional structures. They are by their nature not mutually exclusive. One person may sort objects by colour, another by smell, a third by shape - they are all valid. So it is with investment strategies I think. This bedevils any attempt to create a pure structure for TLF boards, and that is before one considers mixed portfolio approaches, i.e. basket of strategies and strategy rotations.

Just some random thoughts after watching for a few days, before a beer. That's next up.

regards, dspp

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

agree re investment strategies board .

MOST users on here say they DO invest for TR , a TR board would achieve recognition of that .

one option is to rename the investment strategies board, to say , TR investment discussions.

[jackdaww]

HYP Practical is far and away the busiest Board here. And much of it is arguments about what constitutes HYP.

Judging by the arguments here over what constitutes TR, I'd say a new Board would be off to a good start

Albeit of no interest to me.

V8

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

yes , i am encouraged by the interest shown .

maybe there should be an arguments board ...

[jackdaww]

I think it is pointless to create a new board, but I read the forum on the basis of searching posts since last visit so I don't really care. It would add an additional complication as to where to start a new topic, but that doesn't really make me want to have a strong view on this.

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

it could SIMPLIFY deciding where to start a new topic .

[jackdaww]

Well I'll repeat myself. It seems pointless. Sorry Jackdaww! Surely all investors are aiming for a TR. Even an income based strategy requires some level of capital preservation, else the equity will dwindle, hence the validity of the entities paying that income, and then finally that income.

Hence all investment boards here would appear to be aimed at a TR. So I was *about* to suggest was to post these envisaged discussions e.g. "Mixed Bonds + Equity strategy", or "Nassim Talem Black Swan Strategy", or "John and Jane's strategy" into

viewforum.php?f=8 i.e.

Investment Strategies
Stocks and Shares ISA , Choosing funds for ISA's, risk factors for funds etc
Investment strategy discussions not dealt with elsewhere.

but on reading the boards mission statement, that would seem i) either misguided since that board *looks* to be mainly about ISAs (hence staying inside 20k per annum input) or ii) that the (on now looking at a few thread titles in that board) fore mentioned board urgently needs it's mission statement revising.

Matt

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

most of the existing boards are dedicated to a particular sub theme - eg growth / high yield / ideas / investment trusts etc

the investment strategies board is the most general and flexible .

MOST users on here say they DO invest for TR , a TR board would achieve recognition of that .

an option is to rename the investment strategies board, to say , TR investment discussions.