Itsallaguess wrote:Gengulphus wrote:So basically, the old TMF "High Yield - Share Strategies" board required "high yield" and "shares" and that's the same as is visible in the TLF "High Yield Shares & Strategies" board name, while the old TMF "Investing for Income" board didn't require either of them but did require "income oriented".
The wording of the TLF "High Yield Shares & Strategies" guidance mentions all three, though its mention of "high yields" is about what yields one obtains (a property of the strategy) rather than the 'natural yield' (as you call it) of the shares.
If I understand you correctly, you believe it's supposed to be about all three and that the "high yield" part is intended to be about the shares rather than the strategy. On both of them, you might well be right - as a moderator, you're in a better position to know what the admins' and moderators' intentions are for the board. But in view of the history and the board name, it does seem worth questioning:
* Whether the "high yield" aspect is really intended to be a requirement on the shares used in the strategy, rather than on the shares and/or the strategies as suggested by the board name.
* Whether the shift in the guidance to requiring "income oriented" as well as the other two was deliberate.
The first line of the
High Yield - Shares & Strategies board guidance says this -
The High Yield Share Strategies board is intended for wide-ranging discussions of ways to obtain high yields from equities.https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8652I would read '
ways to obtain high yields' to mean '
ways to obtain naturally-released income in the form of cash'.
I also think that one of the key words there is '
obtain', which I think would be reasonable to interpret as '
get as an end-result of the strategy', and not just '
use as part of a selection process' in terms of other
non-income-oriented strategies...
I know you've said that a '
Dogs of the FTSE' strategy would specifically select shares with a
'high yield' as part of the strategy remit, but that isn't necessarily picking them '
to obtain a high yield' from them - it's picking them in that way to hopefully obtain a
capital gain, so again, I don't think that would align with the spirit of the above guidance wording, that states that the board is for discussion of '
ways to obtain high yields from equities', and not '
ways to use high yield as part of a capital-gain investment strategy'...
As far as I am concerned, you're preaching to the converted about what the current HYS&S guidance
says: as I've previously indicated, it would not have (*) allowed my old Value strategy, which would entirely happily sell a share before receiving even a single dividend from it. I'm a bit less certain about "Dogs of the FTSE", as IIRC it was a "pick your shares, wait for a year, then repeat" type of strategy - so it would have been expected to receive quite noticeable dividend income from them. Getting that income would probably not have been its primary aim for most of its users - but it may well have been a not-insignificant aim for some of them.
But it equally would have been allowed under the TMF "High Yield - Share Strategies" board's guidance. That doesn't bind TLF, of course, but that was the only guidance available when TLF was set up with a similarly-named board and it does make the topic shift that changed strategies like my old Value strategy and (probably) "Dogs of the FTSE" from being on-topic at the time of the move to TLF to off-topic now a bit surprising. Hence my question (second bullet above) about whether the change in the guidance that has produced the topic shift was deliberate, which you seem to have overlooked...
(*) My previous indication of this was "
Assuming the current HYS&S's guidance really is intended to mean what it says, somewhere along the line that definition of HYS&S's subject area has quietly morphed into an income-oriented one, and in the process my old Value strategy has shifted from being on-topic to off-topic for the board." in an unquoted part of the post you replied to, and I say "would not have" rather than just "does not" merely because the non-overlapping dates mean it's never had the chance to allow or disallow my old Value strategy.
Gengulphus
However, I did not challenge the moderation intervention I merely suggested that given this intervention it would, IMHO, make sense to change the name of the board to make it more explicit and bring the name into line with the moderation clarification of the guidance.