csearle wrote:I think it is a bit of a presumption to insist that
all strategies are Total Return (TR) strategies. For example if you run an HYP (see
guidelines) then you don't really give a monkey's was the capital does, well you might, but you should really be focussed on the income, so in that example TR is at least, er, unimportant.
Not necessarily. Doubtless some HYPers don't care about capital, but equally some reckon that focusing on a high level of dividend income from a HYP and reinvesting it is the best way they have to try to achieve good capital growth over the long term. Basically, someone's long-term objective need not be the same thing as what their tactics to try to achieve it focus on.
csearle wrote:It follows then that Total Return is not so general as to include all strategies. So why not allow a board that abstracts the importance of Total Return?
I think that it is worth a punt. What is the worse that can happen: we have to shut it down again through lack of use? Big deal! On the other hand it could be the new favourite place to post?
No, something worse than that which can happen is that all strategies get brought up there (including the strategy of running a HYP with dividend reinvestment), and it ends up being a duplicate of Investment Strategies and therefore fragmenting discussions between Investment Strategies and itself. Or even worse, people start reporting discussions that take place on it as off-topic because they "really belong" on Investment Strategies, or
vice versa. For the sake of the sanity of users trying to decide where to post, and of moderators needing to adjudicate on such reports, there need to be criteria to help them decide where a post belongs - preferably at least partially objective criteria, as ones that just involve a poster stating that they think what they're saying is likely to result in superior TR are liable to result in unending "it's obvious that it will / will not" arguments.
csearle wrote:Let's just try it?
To be clear: I'm fine with it being tried, but my advice is that it's likely to cause trouble if the new board ends up indistinguishable in practice from an existing board. And so I would suggest that preferably, those proposing it should come up with a way of distinguishing it from Investment Strategies in practice. It's
only if they cannot do that that I start to doubt that it will work well in practice. And before anyone suggests that
I ought to suggest a way of distinguishing it from Investment Strategies in practice, sorry, I'm not proposing it - I'm in favour of it because I want other Lemons to get the boards they want provided they're workable in practice, but I cannot decide for them what they want, and as far as me wanting it for my own use is concerned, I don't...
Gengulphus