proposed TR - total returns - strategies board

[dspp]

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 .

Most folks appear to me to be showing a fairly clear preference for not pursuing this proposal.

regards, dspp

[csearle]

Well the vocal ones anyway. C.

[mc2fool]

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..

Oh, if not explicit, I think hints of an intent of total domination and Borg-like assimilation were evident from fairly early on.

... 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...

Well, obviously there are differences of opinion about a new board, and I don't even really see this perceived "gap", but as the one thing that does seem to be agreed on is that the current Investment Strategies board description is not fit for purpose, perhaps fixing that to something more commonly acceptable is the best way forward.

I did make a suggestion ("General Investment Strategy discussions including comparisons between strategies") to try and get the discussion going on that in viewtopic.php?f=21&t=23356&start=80#p308895 but it didn't get any responses. Maybe the matter needs to be a new topic?

Personally, like others, I don't see a need to explicitly call out total return, considering it implicit and the default anyway. However, in the spirit of compromise and trying to keep as many people happy as possible (I know, a fool's errand! ) I'd support the use of the phrase in the Investment Strategies board description provided it doesn't give the impression of being exclusive. E.g. something like:

"General Investment Strategy discussions, including total return and non-total return strategies, and comparisons between strategies".

Well, yes, I do think that's a bit superfluous, but it does satisfy your goal of an explicit mention, satisfies mine of being non-exclusive, and won't upset the current denizens of the board, as it's what's done there already. It's just off the top of my head and I'm happy to consider other descriptions that match those conditions.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

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 .

Most folks appear to me to be showing a fairly clear preference for not pursuing this proposal.

regards, dspp

Hmm...

My impression was that several are favourable to an idea has cleans up the description statement of Investment Strategies.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=23356&start=80#p308895
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=23356&start=120#p309309
viewtopic.php?p=309427#p309427

and hence results in the generic total returns focussed Investing Strategies remaining without the distracting reference to ISAs in the description.

That was my take. Might look nicer to newcomers too.

Matt

[Itsallaguess]

I did make a suggestion ("General Investment Strategy discussions including comparisons between strategies") to try and get the discussion going on that in viewtopic.php?f=21&t=23356&start=80#p308895 but it didn't get any responses. Maybe the matter needs to be a new topic?

Personally, like others, I don't see a need to explicitly call out total return, considering it implicit and the default anyway. However, in the spirit of compromise and trying to keep as many people happy as possible (I know, a fool's errand! ) I'd support the use of the phrase in the Investment Strategies board description provided it doesn't give the impression of being exclusive. E.g. something like:

"General Investment Strategy discussions, including total return and non-total return strategies, and comparisons between strategies".

Well, yes, I do think that's a bit superfluous, but it does satisfy your goal of an explicit mention, satisfies mine of being non-exclusive, and won't upset the current denizens of the board, as it's what's done there already. It's just off the top of my head and I'm happy to consider other descriptions that match those conditions.

Well that plan and general approach to the wording would get my vote, but as you say, perhaps a new thread on that specific topic might be best, given the meandering nature of this one?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[IanTHughes]

In my view the two words “Total Return”, in and of their own, do not describe an Investment Strategy. Rather they describe a method of measuring the success or otherwise of a type of Investment Strategy, one where the aim of the strategy is Capital Appreciation.

But leaving that aside for a moment, and assuming such a board is created, how will anyone know whether or not what they wish to post is suitable for such a specialist board? Or, to put it another way, how will the board be moderated? The answer of course is that the board rules will have to be written and, in order for those rules to make any sense, at the very least the “Total Return” strategy that is to have its own board will have to be properly and fully defined. Such a definition should include as a minimum:

1. Aim of the Strategy - what is the Strategy attempting to achieve?

To my mind there are only two possible aims for any Investment strategy
- Capital Appreciation
- Income Generation

2. Tactics – what actions are to be taken, in an attempt to achieve the now stated Aim of the strategy

These actions may be tightly defined, as they are in a Strategy such as HYP (High Yield Equities with Ordinary Dividends only, Long Term Buy and Hold, Income to come from dividends only ... etc .. etc...), or left entirely loosely defined, as a Strategy name of “Total Return” would indicate, to me at least

3. Success Determination – how will the success or otherwise of the strategy be determined

Success or otherwise must be determined by how well the Aim of the strategy has been achieved. It therefore follows that the two possible Aims must be measured as follows:

Capital Appreciation – Value of all assets within the portfolio
Income Generation – Amount of Income generated

As I said, such a strategy does not have to be tightly defined with restrictions requiring multiple filters, but it must at least be defined!

Now, back to the original proposal, a separate board for an Investment Strategy called “Total Return”.

Well, the now defined Strategy, with its clearly stated Aim, Tactics, and Success Determination, can now fully identify the specialisation of the new board and therefore the rules. Now one can ask the question: “is a separate board required by followers of the strategy?”

Followers of the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP)” strategy had just such a board created, originally on The Motley Fool (TMF) which in due course was copied over to here on The Lemon Fool (TLF). The original decision to create a separate board for HYP, taken by those running TMF at the time, was not arrived at simply as a result of it being a separately defined Income Strategy. The separate board in fact came about because it soon became impossible to start any HYP discussion without the thread being hijacked by those who disagreed with HYP even existing as an Investment Strategy. Those trying to learn about and/or discuss HYP were swamped by anti-HYP Trolls! My guess is that it was thought easier to moderate an HYP-only board, as a whole, rather than continue the constant monitoring and moderating then required of individual threads on other more general “Strategies” boards. Presumably the owners of TLF recreated a separate HYP board because it was believed that the same problem existed. I cannot say that I disagree!

So, rather than simply creating a new board for this “Total Return” strategy, is one really required? Whether as a fully defined strategy or a simple measurement method, are threads discussing “Total Return” being routinely hijacked by those who disagree with either definition? To the extent that it is impossible for those interested in “Total Return” to have any useful discussion, as well as making it difficult to moderate?

I would say no. But then again, I do not, on a regular basis, read the relevant boards, “Investment Strategies” or “Growth Strategies” for example. Those that do may of course have a different view.


Ian

[GoSeigen]

Perhaps this is a good time to recall the history of the Investment Strategies board and why it ever existed in the first place. Before doing so could I also issue a plea for any discussion about changes to that board to take place on the board itself (or at least post a link to this discussion).

The Investment Strategies board, like many others on TLF was originally a thriving popular board on The Motley Fool discussion boards, the predecessor of this site. The focus of the board was quite particular: it was for Fools to post actual strategies which they intended or hoped to follow for comment by other Fools. It was not primarily aimed at general discussion of investment strategy (though such discussion was tolerated) for the following reasons (IIRC): most of the discussion site was open for discussion of investment strategies in the more general sense: some of them focussed on specific aspects, but in reality investment strategy is a very general term and encompassed a large part of what happened on the investment discussion boards. At the same time Fools would get annoyed at long technical discussions of some individual's investment idea on, say, the Bonds board, and so the Investment Strategies board was a useful home for that type of discussion.

Now, of course I accept the inevitability of change and evolution, but I hope the above history will inform any discussion of the future of the Investment Strategies board; perhaps some will even see merit in nudging it a bit closer to its former history.

Regards the specifics being discussed, I would be against having any mention of Total Return: I very much agree with the earlier point about the four-legged dog club -- it would be a nonsense. Also agree that mention of ISAs should not be prominent. Id be in favour of moving back to a strapline reflecting the original purpose of the board, e.g. "A place for Fools to discuss specific strategies for their investments"

GS

[johnhemming]

Tecnically, however, TMF was a lot worse than the way TLF works. Hence it mattered more on TMF what was on a board and what was not. I use the "recent posts" route into TLF which was not possible on TMF.

[EssDeeAitch]

I have been following this thread with mouth agape at the silliness of it all. The conversation basically follows the "it is" - "it isn't". "It is" - "it isn't" format but to me, as a non HYP investor (tried it, didn't like it but fully respect it) the HYP boards should be for discussing the whys and wherefores of HYP not a place to disabuse it as a viable or sensible strategy. One should not begin to try disabuse individuals of their penchant for HYP investing - it is their choice entirely.

As for a TR board - I don't see the need. TR is an "Investment Strategy" and a board already exists for that and if any new thread were appended (TR) then all would know that it relates specifically to Total Return strategy.

[dealtn]

To my mind there are only two possible aims for any Investment strategy
- Capital Appreciation
- Income Generation

I agree with much of what you say (and hence the majority of your post not in the quote).

What I would say is that whilst those two aims cover the truth, the reality is that "some" will be looking to maximize Capital Appreciation, but will have shares in their portfolios that are typically more aligned with those seeking Income Generation, and more importantly perhaps, are subject to the Board of Directors at such companies that are striving to deliver that too.

Strategies that might be labelled "value", "contrarian" or "recovery" for example might for instance see positioning in shares that have high yields due to collapses in share prices. Those pursuing such strategies would gladly never see a dividend or income from such an investment, but inevitably in practice would see an Income even though it isn't part of their requirement.

Total Return isn't used as an accident, it is more than just the 2 words, it is the practical way to describe someone looking to pursue Capital Appreciation, or perhaps wealth or portfolio maximisation, some of which is delivered in the form of Income that isn't required.

[IanTHughes]

To my mind there are only two possible aims for any Investment strategy
- Capital Appreciation
- Income Generation

I agree with much of what you say (and hence the majority of your post not in the quote).

What I would say is that whilst those two aims cover the truth, the reality is that "some" will be looking to maximize Capital Appreciation, but will have shares in their portfolios that are typically more aligned with those seeking Income Generation, and more importantly perhaps, are subject to the Board of Directors at such companies that are striving to deliver that too.

Strategies that might be labelled "value", "contrarian" or "recovery" for example might for instance see positioning in shares that have high yields due to collapses in share prices. Those pursuing such strategies would gladly never see a dividend or income from such an investment, but inevitably in practice would see an Income even though it isn't part of their requirement.

Total Return isn't used as an accident, it is more than just the 2 words, it is the practical way to describe someone looking to pursue Capital Appreciation, or perhaps wealth or portfolio maximisation, some of which is delivered in the form of Income that isn't required.

I always thought that "Reality" and "Truth" were the same! Am I perhaps being naive?

Just to clarify my thinking:

When following a strategy where the aim is Capital Appreciation, one can use whatever assets one thinks are fit for such a purpose, some of which may well provide an "unwanted" income, even at a high yield. By the way, I say "unwanted" simply because the aim is to build Capital and cash can still be considered capital even if not re-invested. All I am really saying is that the success or otherwise of such a strategy must be measured by the amount that one's Capital appreciates. I call that measurement a measurement of the "Total Return", but I do appreciate that you use the term slightly differently.

Alternatively, when following a strategy where the aim is Income Generation, one can also use whatever assets one thinks are fit for such a purpose, some of which may well not provide an income but allow for profit taking. Again, all I am really saying is that the success or otherwise of such a strategy must be measured by the amount of Income Generated, whether that income comes from Dividends, Interest or even Capital sales. HYP is not such a strategy, obviously, but there is nothing wrong with following such a strategy for Income Generation purposes.

Anyway, my apologies to others. This is an interesting discussion although a bit off topic on this thread.


Ian

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Perhaps this is a good time to recall the history of the Investment Strategies board and why it ever existed in the first place. Before doing so could I also issue a plea for any discussion about changes to that board to take place on the board itself (or at least post a link to this discussion).

The Investment Strategies board, like many others on TLF was originally a thriving popular board on The Motley Fool discussion boards, the predecessor of this site. The focus of the board was quite particular: it was for Fools to post actual strategies which they intended or hoped to follow for comment by other Fools. It was not primarily aimed at general discussion of investment strategy (though such discussion was tolerated) for the following reasons (IIRC): most of the discussion site was open for discussion of investment strategies in the more general sense: some of them focussed on specific aspects, but in reality investment strategy is a very general term and encompassed a large part of what happened on the investment discussion boards. At the same time Fools would get annoyed at long technical discussions of some individual's investment idea on, say, the Bonds board, and so the Investment Strategies board was a useful home for that type of discussion.

Now, of course I accept the inevitability of change and evolution, but I hope the above history will inform any discussion of the future of the Investment Strategies board; perhaps some will even see merit in nudging it a bit closer to its former history.

Regards the specifics being discussed, I would be against having any mention of Total Return: I very much agree with the earlier point about the four-legged dog club -- it would be a nonsense. Also agree that mention of ISAs should not be prominent. Id be in favour of moving back to a strapline reflecting the original purpose of the board, e.g. "A place for Fools to discuss specific strategies for their investments"

GS

GS:
I guessed that it came from TMF.

But perplexed as to why it grew this "strapline"

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

Everyone:
Do boards on TLF have such a thing as "Administrative owner?". Would they know the rationale? My view would be if so, they should perhaps state it, and if not the string should be rewritten in accord with a consensus of let's say 20 of most recent "original posts of threads". Yes the intent of the OPs as opposed the later posts in the threads since they sometimes meander.

Matt

[dspp]

Perhaps this is a good time to recall the history of the Investment Strategies board and why it ever existed in the first place. Before doing so could I also issue a plea for any discussion about changes to that board to take place on the board itself (or at least post a link to this discussion).

The Investment Strategies board, like many others on TLF was originally a thriving popular board on The Motley Fool discussion boards, the predecessor of this site. The focus of the board was quite particular: it was for Fools to post actual strategies which they intended or hoped to follow for comment by other Fools. It was not primarily aimed at general discussion of investment strategy (though such discussion was tolerated) for the following reasons (IIRC): most of the discussion site was open for discussion of investment strategies in the more general sense: some of them focussed on specific aspects, but in reality investment strategy is a very general term and encompassed a large part of what happened on the investment discussion boards. At the same time Fools would get annoyed at long technical discussions of some individual's investment idea on, say, the Bonds board, and so the Investment Strategies board was a useful home for that type of discussion.

Now, of course I accept the inevitability of change and evolution, but I hope the above history will inform any discussion of the future of the Investment Strategies board; perhaps some will even see merit in nudging it a bit closer to its former history.

Regards the specifics being discussed, I would be against having any mention of Total Return: I very much agree with the earlier point about the four-legged dog club -- it would be a nonsense. Also agree that mention of ISAs should not be prominent. Id be in favour of moving back to a strapline reflecting the original purpose of the board, e.g. "A place for Fools to discuss specific strategies for their investments"

GS

GS:
I guessed that it came from TMF.

But perplexed as to why it grew this "strapline"

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

Everyone:
Do boards on TLF have such a thing as "Administrative owner?". Would they know the rationale? My view would be if so, they should perhaps state it, and if not the string should be rewritten in accord with a consensus of let's say 20 of most recent "original posts of threads". Yes the intent of the OPs as opposed the later posts in the threads since they sometimes meander.

Matt

The strapline came about when a lot of stuff was being moved and reorganised. The real board intent was anything at all that wasn't somewhere else, but it ended up with a strapline that didn't quite reflect this but it wasn't that important. So c-up not conspiracy. I'm sure it will get tidied up a bit more at some point ....

regards, dspp

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

...snipped...
Now, of course I accept the inevitability of change and evolution, but I hope the above history will inform any discussion of the future of the Investment Strategies board; perhaps some will even see merit in nudging it a bit closer to its former history.

Regards the specifics being discussed, I would be against having any mention of Total Return: I very much agree with the earlier point about the four-legged dog club -- it would be a nonsense. Also agree that mention of ISAs should not be prominent. Id be in favour of moving back to a strapline reflecting the original purpose of the board, e.g. "A place for Fools to discuss specific strategies for their investments"

GS

GS:
I guessed that it came from TMF.

But perplexed as to why it grew this "strapline"

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

Everyone:
Do boards on TLF have such a thing as "Administrative owner?". Would they know the rationale? My view would be if so, they should perhaps state it, and if not the string should be rewritten in accord with a consensus of let's say 20 of most recent "original posts of threads". Yes the intent of the OPs as opposed the later posts in the threads since they sometimes meander.

Matt

The strapline came about when a lot of stuff was being moved and reorganised. The real board intent was anything at all that wasn't somewhere else, but it ended up with a strapline that didn't quite reflect this but it wasn't that important. So c-up not conspiracy. I'm sure it will get tidied up a bit more at some point ....

Thanks DSPP,

So rather than continuing to flog this horse, perhaps it would be more appropriate for someone (perhaps myself) to start off a new thread in BB raising the possibility of a strapline edit?

Matt

[jackdaww]

I have been following this thread with mouth agape at the silliness of it all. The conversation basically follows the "it is" - "it isn't". "It is" - "it isn't" format but to me, as a non HYP investor (tried it, didn't like it but fully respect it) the HYP boards should be for discussing the whys and wherefores of HYP not a place to disabuse it as a viable or sensible strategy. One should not begin to try disabuse individuals of their penchant for HYP investing - it is their choice entirely.

As for a TR board - I don't see the need. TR is an "Investment Strategy" and a board already exists for that and if any new thread were appended (TR) then all would know that it relates specifically to Total Return strategy.

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

agreed , but with a TITLE change which could kickstart increased traffic, and encourage new posters who might be more comfortable there .

a TITLE change will give a clear distinction from the more specialised income and growth boards .

[jackdaww]

Tecnically, however, TMF was a lot worse than the way TLF works. Hence it mattered more on TMF what was on a board and what was not. I use the "recent posts" route into TLF which was not possible on TMF.

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

yes, but but it doesnt help you to decide WHERE to post.

[jackdaww]

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

no , that certainly was not my intent!

[jackdaww]

Investment Strategies!

yes , with a TITLE change to include TR .

[jackdaww]

I don't really understand what you mean by Total Return in this respect, or why it needs a new board. Imo, ALL investing is ultimately Total Return, even HYP. So all the financial boards apply, regardless of whether they mention the term or not?

Gryff

the HYP practical board not infrequently alludes to "capital doesnt matter " , and mention of the TR word often invokes the OT word.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

Investment Strategies!

yes , with a TITLE change to include TR .

Eh? Don't you mean in the description strap line? A whole bunch of mine (and others!) earlier posts cautioned against this, and I'm pretty sure that my posts "received thanks" from you as a result!

Anyway I'm currently a bit busy at the moment to spend too much time on debating this one much further. I think I've said enough for now!

Matt