HYP Practical - Some Changes

[Clariman]

The board formerly called "High Yield Portfolio - Practical" has been a challenging one for The Lemon Fool, as it was for The Motley Fool website, due to different interpretations of what constitutes an HYP approach. Prompted both by ongoing moderation challenges and the lengthy discussion prompted by Gengulphus here, the site owners, Admins and Moderators have agreed a set of changes which I have just implemented. These are as follows:

• Simplification of the board name to "HYP Practical (See Group Guidelines)", to remove confusion with the other High Yield board and to make it clear that anyone posting there should read the group guidelines
• This is further emphasised by a change to the board's sub-heading
• New Group Guidelines for HYP Practical make it much clearer what is and what is not acceptable on the board. We accept that this will not be quite as tight as some people would like it to be and probably too tight for others. However, those who continue to moderate the board are fully in agreement with them, so moderation decisions should be more consistent than they might have been in the past.
• Anyone trolling on the HYP Practical board or repeatedly ignoring the board guidelines, can now be barred from posting on this specific board. This is a new capability that Stooz has created. We hope never to have to use it, but it will be used if need be.
• You should only post on HYP Practical if you understand the guidelines and if you have chosen to follow the HYP approach defined therein. In other words you must be a believer who follows the faith. That said, it can still be a broad church, where different approaches can be tolerated, without deviating from the fundamental tenets.

If you want to make any comments, you can do so on this topic here. However, the main purpose of this post is to explain the rationale for the changes, rather than re-open discussions.

A huge Thank You to the moderators who have been discussing this at great length in the last few weeks. There was a really productive and positive debate that has led us to this consensus. Particular thanks to csearle for doing the first revised draft and to MDW1954 for doing the final draft of the new Board Guidelines.

Thanks
Clariman

[moorfield]

For the avoidance of doubt and some illustration of the rules, can we have a notional portfolio posted up please Clariman that you would buy today?

(Perhaps that's an exercise you could also conduct annually each January, say.)

Thank you
M

[moorfield]

In other words you must be a believer who follows the faith.

Blimey, that does sound a little Catholic!

For the avoidance of doubt and some illustration of the rules, are you also willing to name any posters in particular who you feel have not been "following the faith" on the board over, say, the last 6 months?

[Alaric]

For the avoidance of doubt and some illustration of the rules, can we have a notional portfolio posted up please Clariman that you would buy today?

Perhaps those who regard themselves as HYPers should out themselves, followed by a debate as to whether as stated by at least one poster that it is "the HYP Strategy" implying singular or whether in the opinions expressed by some other posters there's a multiple of them.

I had the impression that clariman was more of a property and deposits investor rather than an equity one, so wouldn't be able to post on the renamed board.

[Clariman]

In other words you must be a believer who follows the faith.

Blimey, that does sound a little Catholic!

No religion involved. Just trying to use an analogy that folk would probably understand. You have to go along with the HYP approach. The board is not about IF the approach is good, bad or indifferent, it is about HOW you follow HYP.

For the avoidance of doubt and some illustration of the rules, are you also willing to name any posters in particular who you feel have not been "following the faith" on the board over, say, the last 6 months?

Look, this isn't about any individual posters. It is a clear framework for what the board is about.

[Clariman]

I had the impression that clariman was more of a property and deposits investor rather than an equity one, so wouldn't be able to post on the renamed board.

Correct. Other than posting the Guidelines which were developed by the Mods as a whole, I would NOT be allowed to post on the board. I'm glad the guidelines are that clear

[IanTHughes]

Clariman, thank you for setting out these new guidelines, which do appear at first glance to be a significant improvement.

I do have one disagreement as follows:

Rules

For the purposes of this board, a HYP approach is one that invests on a Long Term Buy and Hold (LTBH) basis in a diversified portfolio of shares. Those shares:

When initially bought, should have yields greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 index.

To my knowledge, it has never been a requirement of the HYP Strategy that every purchase must be of a yield that is greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 Index.

Indeed, when buying a one-shot HYP, and assuming one starts with the highest yields, it is entirely possible that, in order to select what one thinks will be suitably diversified holdings all with sustainable dividends, the last one/two/three selections might well be less than the yield of the FTSE 100 index. This would be entirely acceptable as the aim of HYP is to create a "PORTFOLIO" with a yield that is greater than that of the FTSE 100 Index, not that every holding must yield more than the FTSE 100 Index.

When adding capital to an HYP, whether buying a new holding or topping up an existing one, once again it is possible that, in order to select what one thinks will be suitably diversified holdings all with sustainable dividends, the selection might not yield more than the FTSE 100 Index. Less likely than when buying a one-shot HYP, but still possible

HYP is a portfolio strategy and it is the yield of the portfolio that should be high.


Ian

[dealtn]

Well having read the new guidelines it seems I am now no longer allowed to post on that Board at all.

That would be despite not being critical of the strategy on that Board, or of those that practice it, and only really posting there as a result of a question being asked to which I might have the answer. In doing so I have been rec'd numerous times, not just by HYPers but also moderators.

A shame therefore to be excluded, and others may be in a similar position, and the entire community poorer, and potentially less educated as a result.

If that is the decision than it will be respected but can I make a plea that threads and replies should be on the appropriate Boards whenever possible, and this be policed equally too, as on many occasions they will be on HYP-P (as was) as much due to habit, and volume of posts and readership, rather than on a more appropriate, and now inclusive place.

Share Ideas, and Company News should be the default place for many threads/posts and not HYP-P which is where they initially reside (and on many occasions end up being moved from)

[MrFoolish]

Am I correct in thinking you can post on the HYP board to say the strategy is serving you well, but not to say it is serving you badly?

[Clariman]

Well having read the new guidelines it seems I am now no longer allowed to post on that Board at all.

That would be despite not being critical of the strategy on that Board, or of those that practice it, and only really posting there as a result of a question being asked to which I might have the answer. In doing so I have been rec'd numerous times, not just by HYPers but also moderators.

Hi dealtn

I'm not equipped to answer for your specific circumstances because I do not follow the board as a rule. I will leave it to the board's mods to comment.

What I would say is that I would think that anyone who has been a valued contributor to the board would continue to be and should not feel excluded.

We had lengthy discussions on the choice of words for the rules section. We decided against saying "must" because that was too definitive. "Ideally" was seen as being too weak. We chose "should" because it sits between the two. It is not a 100% compulsion but a general rule. There is wriggle room.

[Wizard]

Well having read the new guidelines it seems I am now no longer allowed to post on that Board at all.

That would be despite not being critical of the strategy on that Board, or of those that practice it, and only really posting there as a result of a question being asked to which I might have the answer. In doing so I have been rec'd numerous times, not just by HYPers but also moderators.

A shame therefore to be excluded, and others may be in a similar position, and the entire community poorer, and potentially less educated as a result.

If that is the decision than it will be respected but can I make a plea that threads and replies should be on the appropriate Boards whenever possible, and this be policed equally too, as on many occasions they will be on HYP-P (as was) as much due to habit, and volume of posts and readership, rather than on a more appropriate, and now inclusive place.

Share Ideas, and Company News should be the default place for many threads/posts and not HYP-P which is where they initially reside (and on many occasions end up being moved from)

But with the new guidelines it seems to me the clear outcome (and maybe the intent) is to drive much more of the discussion to the High Yield Shares & Strategies General board (HYS&S). In future it should be much less likely that the questions will be asked on HYP-P, so you should not need to worry that you can't post on HYP-P.

I think the new guidelines are a brilliant step forward, almost all traffic will now be forced on to HYS&S. And of course there is absolutely nothing that can be discussed on HYP-P that is not allowed to be discussed on HYS&S. I think this will make everyone's lives so much easier, for 90%+ of people that used to post on HYP-P they now just post on HYS&S; for the HYP-P community they can be left in peace without risk of any off topic content; and, after maybe an initial blip it should significantly reduce the workload for those that moderate HYP-P.

I have one thought on the new guidelines, but as I am no longer allowed to post on HYP-P there seems no point raising it, I will leave any suggestion on it for those that will in future use HYP-P.

[Wizard]

Well having read the new guidelines it seems I am now no longer allowed to post on that Board at all.

That would be despite not being critical of the strategy on that Board, or of those that practice it, and only really posting there as a result of a question being asked to which I might have the answer. In doing so I have been rec'd numerous times, not just by HYPers but also moderators.

Hi dealtn

I'm not equipped to answer for your specific circumstances because I do not follow the board as a rule. I will leave it to the board's mods to comment.

What I would say is that I would think that anyone who has been a valued contributor to the board would continue to be and should not feel excluded.

We had lengthy discussions on the choice of words for the rules section. We decided against saying "must" because that was too definitive. "Ideally" was seen as being too weak. We chose "should" because it sits between the two. It is not a 100% compulsion but a general rule. There is wriggle room.

That's a shame, what seemed a very clear set of rules has now become blurred again

[seagles]

Clariman, thank you for setting out these new guidelines, which do appear at first glance to be a significant improvement.

I do have one disagreement as follows:

Rules

For the purposes of this board, a HYP approach is one that invests on a Long Term Buy and Hold (LTBH) basis in a diversified portfolio of shares. Those shares:

When initially bought, should have yields greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 index.

To my knowledge, it has never been a requirement of the HYP Strategy that every purchase must be of a yield that is greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 Index.

Indeed, when buying a one-shot HYP, and assuming one starts with the highest yields, it is entirely possible that, in order to select what one thinks will be suitably diversified holdings all with sustainable dividends, the last one/two/three selections might well be less than the yield of the FTSE 100 index. This would be entirely acceptable as the aim of HYP is to create a "PORTFOLIO" with a yield that is greater than that of the FTSE 100 Index, not that every holding must yield more than the FTSE 100 Index.

When adding capital to an HYP, whether buying a new holding or topping up an existing one, once again it is possible that, in order to select what one thinks will be suitably diversified holdings all with sustainable dividends, the selection might not yield more than the FTSE 100 Index. Less likely than when buying a one-shot HYP, but still possible

HYP is a portfolio strategy and it is the yield of the portfolio that should be high.


Ian

Ian,

I believe that is why the word "SHOULD is there. If you are buying 1 or 2 "new" shares they will be above the FTSE100 but you may be pushed to find 15 in different sectors that meet that yield. So you have "wiggle" room to go below. That is how I read it anyway.

[moorfield]

No religion involved. Just trying to use an analogy that folk would probably understand. You have to go along with the HYP approach. The board is not about IF the approach is good, bad or indifferent, it is about HOW you follow HYP.

For the avoidance of doubt and some illustration of the rules, are you also willing to name any posters in particular who you feel have not been "following the faith" on the board over, say, the last 6 months?

Look, this isn't about any individual posters. It is a clear framework for what the board is about.

Ok. But presumeably I can ask individual posters to explain why they feel they are "following the faith", referencing this post and the rules.

Or would that be regarded as "trolling"?

[MDW1954]

Clariman, thank you for setting out these new guidelines, which do appear at first glance to be a significant improvement.

I do have one disagreement as follows:

Rules

For the purposes of this board, a HYP approach is one that invests on a Long Term Buy and Hold (LTBH) basis in a diversified portfolio of shares. Those shares:

When initially bought, should have yields greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 index.

To my knowledge, it has never been a requirement of the HYP Strategy that every purchase must be of a yield that is greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 Index.

Indeed, when buying a one-shot HYP, and assuming one starts with the highest yields, it is entirely possible that, in order to select what one thinks will be suitably diversified holdings all with sustainable dividends, the last one/two/three selections might well be less than the yield of the FTSE 100 index. This would be entirely acceptable as the aim of HYP is to create a "PORTFOLIO" with a yield that is greater than that of the FTSE 100 Index, not that every holding must yield more than the FTSE 100 Index.

When adding capital to an HYP, whether buying a new holding or topping up an existing one, once again it is possible that, in order to select what one thinks will be suitably diversified holdings all with sustainable dividends, the selection might not yield more than the FTSE 100 Index. Less likely than when buying a one-shot HYP, but still possible

HYP is a portfolio strategy and it is the yield of the portfolio that should be high.


Ian

Ian,

I believe that is why the word "SHOULD is there. If you are buying 1 or 2 "new" shares they will be above the FTSE100 but you may be pushed to find 15 in different sectors that meet that yield. So you have "wiggle" room to go below. That is how I read it anyway.

Ian,

Seagles is correct. The phraseology went through several iterations, but the intention is to make clear that a higher-yield strategy should necessarily involve buying higher-yielding shares. But it is not a mandatory stipulation.

MDW1954

[seagles]

No religion involved. Just trying to use an analogy that folk would probably understand. You have to go along with the HYP approach. The board is not about IF the approach is good, bad or indifferent, it is about HOW you follow HYP.

For the avoidance of doubt and some illustration of the rules, are you also willing to name any posters in particular who you feel have not been "following the faith" on the board over, say, the last 6 months?

Look, this isn't about any individual posters. It is a clear framework for what the board is about.

Ok. But presumeably I can ask individual posters to explain why they feel they are "following the faith", referencing this post and the rules.

Or would that be regarded as "trolling"?

I think you can ask why they are buying individual shares but not why they are following HYP. I believe High yield Strategies would be place to ask why anyone is following any High Yield Strategy. IMO.

[IanTHughes]

Clariman, thank you for setting out these new guidelines, which do appear at first glance to be a significant improvement.

I do have one disagreement as follows:

To my knowledge, it has never been a requirement of the HYP Strategy that every purchase must be of a yield that is greater than the yield of the FTSE 100 Index.

Indeed, when buying a one-shot HYP, and assuming one starts with the highest yields, it is entirely possible that, in order to select what one thinks will be suitably diversified holdings all with sustainable dividends, the last one/two/three selections might well be less than the yield of the FTSE 100 index. This would be entirely acceptable as the aim of HYP is to create a "PORTFOLIO" with a yield that is greater than that of the FTSE 100 Index, not that every holding must yield more than the FTSE 100 Index.

When adding capital to an HYP, whether buying a new holding or topping up an existing one, once again it is possible that, in order to select what one thinks will be suitably diversified holdings all with sustainable dividends, the selection might not yield more than the FTSE 100 Index. Less likely than when buying a one-shot HYP, but still possible

HYP is a portfolio strategy and it is the yield of the portfolio that should be high.

I believe that is why the word "SHOULD is there. If you are buying 1 or 2 "new" shares they will be above the FTSE100 but you may be pushed to find 15 in different sectors that meet that yield. So you have "wiggle" room to go below. That is how I read it anyway.

Seagles is correct. The phraseology went through several iterations, but the intention is to make clear that a higher-yield strategy should necessarily involve buying higher-yielding shares. But it is not a mandatory stipulation.

Fair enough


Ian

[Wizard]

No religion involved. Just trying to use an analogy that folk would probably understand. You have to go along with the HYP approach. The board is not about IF the approach is good, bad or indifferent, it is about HOW you follow HYP.

Look, this isn't about any individual posters. It is a clear framework for what the board is about.

Ok. But presumeably I can ask individual posters to explain why they feel they are "following the faith", referencing this post and the rules.

Or would that be regarded as "trolling"?

I think you can ask why they are buying individual shares but not why they are following HYP. I believe High yield Strategies would be place to ask why anyone is following any High Yield Strategy. IMO.

IMHO trying to understand the terminology at a microscopic level is missing the point. The default should be that for high yield matters you post on HYS&S unless you run an HYP and are posting about a matter relating to practically running an HYP, then and only then post on HYP-P. Life on TLF will be so much easier if people adopt that mindset. If that approach isn’t adopted and / or isn’t enforced by moderation nothing will change and everyone involved in the new guidelines will have wasted their time.

[GrahamPlatt]

In other words you must be a believer who follows the faith.

Blimey, that does sound a little Catholic!

For the avoidance of doubt and some illustration of the rules, are you also willing to name any posters in particular who you feel have not been "following the faith" on the board over, say, the last 6 months?

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[moorfield]

In other words you must be a believer who follows the faith.

Blimey, that does sound a little Catholic!

For the avoidance of doubt and some illustration of the rules, are you also willing to name any posters in particular who you feel have not been "following the faith" on the board over, say, the last 6 months?

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

The religious analogy that has always popped into my mind regarding the two boards is Judean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea. Both are trying to achieve what is ultimately the same thing, working with pretty much the same materials (or compounds of). Which lot are the "Splitters" though remains a (divine?) mystery to me.