Is HYS&S only about dividends?

[Wizard]

From a thread now moved from HYS&S...

Moderator Message:
This (the other board, HYS&S) board is for "wide-ranging discussions of ways to obtain high yields from equities. Securities such as preference shares, PIBs, Investment Trusts, ETFs, etc can be considered" per the guidelines.

It is not for more general discussion re strategies, including for example Total Return, or other non-equity asset classes such as bonds.

Please go to the Investment Strategies Board if you want to get into such wide-ranging discussions. See viewforum.php?f=8 . I have coped this thread over to HERE so you may continue if you wish.

(which is this board, you are welcome to discuss that sort of stuff here)

HERE you are welcome to discuss pretty much anything re strategies. Long, short, sideways, cash, TR, dogs, whatever.

regards, dspp

If this is the case I would respectfully suggest that the High Yield Shares and Strategies Board needs to be renamed, as the name gives no indication that it is only for the discussion of dividend income derived from high yield shares. I think the example of Dogs of the FTSE that I referenced makes it clear that there are strategies where shares are selected on the basis of a high yield but which are not about just dividend income, however, it is now clear that such strategies cannot be discussed on HYS&S, so that board explicitly is not about high yield strategies, only some high yield strategies. Given your input it would seem a better name would be 'Investing in High Yield Shares for Income', or something similar.

This revelation about HYS&S does IMHO mean I just do not understand the point of having HYS&S (as is now) and HYP-P, as both are covering a relatively niche area of investing for income only with no consideration of capital. Having said that, presumably the recent discussions on HYP-P about shares being bought with a yield of zero on the basis they may start paying a dividend in the future would not be permitted on HYS&S (as is now) as it is about recovery of shares that do not offer a high yield. Frankly this is all just getting impossible to fathom.

[Gengulphus]

From a thread now moved from HYS&S...

Moderator Message:
This (the other board, HYS&S) board is for "wide-ranging discussions of ways to obtain high yields from equities. Securities such as preference shares, PIBs, Investment Trusts, ETFs, etc can be considered" per the guidelines.

It is not for more general discussion re strategies, including for example Total Return, or other non-equity asset classes such as bonds.

Please go to the Investment Strategies Board if you want to get into such wide-ranging discussions. See viewforum.php?f=8 . I have coped this thread over to HERE so you may continue if you wish.

(which is this board, you are welcome to discuss that sort of stuff here)

HERE you are welcome to discuss pretty much anything re strategies. Long, short, sideways, cash, TR, dogs, whatever.

regards, dspp

If this is the case I would respectfully suggest that the High Yield Shares and Strategies Board needs to be renamed, as the name gives no indication that it is only for the discussion of dividend income derived from high yield shares. I think the example of Dogs of the FTSE that I referenced makes it clear that there are strategies where shares are selected on the basis of a high yield but which are not about just dividend income, however, it is now clear that such strategies cannot be discussed on HYS&S, so that board explicitly is not about high yield strategies, only some high yield strategies. Given your input it would seem a better name would be 'Investing in High Yield Shares for Income', or something similar.

The bit of the HYS&S board guidance quoted by dspp says that the board is for wide-ranging discussions of ways to obtain high yields from equities, and those who want to use non-HYP strategies for income purposes have not infrequently talked about achieving the yield required by 'manufacturing' it through judicious sales, pointing out that cash is fungible. In the light of that, interpreting the guidance as being only about obtaining income from equities that have high dividend yields ignores both the fact that the word "wide-ranging" is there and the fact that no requirement is stated that the shares have high dividend yields. And the examples dspp mentions of discussions that HYS&S is not for don't exclude strategies that obtain high yields by 'manufacturing' them with sales.

I will also point out that "High Yield Shares & Strategies" encompasses both high-yield shares and high-yield strategies. The couple of sentences from the board guidance quoted by dspp arguably cover both of those, though that isn't entirely clear because the second sentence might reasonably be considered to be clarification of what "equities" means in the first sentence rather than as giving permission for a further area of discussion. But the guidance also says "In considering where a specific topic would be most appropriate, posters should bear in mind that this board is intended for discussing income-oriented equities or income-investment strategies.", which is pretty explicit about allowing discussion of both high-yield equities and methods of obtaining high yields.

So basically, I don't agree with your contention that HYS&S is only for the discussion of dividend income derived from high yield shares: it's neither what the board guidance says nor what dspp said. I do however agree that the board name and guidance don't reflect the intended subject area of the board as well as they could: both the fact that "High Yield Shares & Strategies" encompasses high yield strategies and the wording of "... this board is intended for discussing income-oriented equities or income-investment strategies." indicate that e.g. a high-yield bond strategy would be on-topic... I don't believe that's the intention of the board, in which case "income-investment strategies" ought to be replaced with "income-oriented equity investment strategies" in the guidance, and arguably the board name should be changed to "High Yield Shares & Share Strategies" (*).

And I do also agree with your point that "high yield" and "income-oriented" mean different things. In the past, I've mentioned a Value strategy I used from late 1999 to late 2002, that essentially used high dividend yield as its main 'Value' indicator. It tended to hold shares for fairly short periods of a few months up to a few years before their yields dropped, either because the share price rose or because of a dividend cut, and as a result, it not infrequently sold a holding without ever receiving any dividend income at all from it, and in the cases where it did receive some dividend income, that income was usually dwarfed by the capital gain or loss. So it was definitely a high-yield share strategy, and equally definitely not an income-oriented share strategy - so if I wanted to discuss it as a share strategy rather than just an example to illustrate this point, I would definitely feel that the board name and guidance were sending me conflicting messages about whether HYS&S was the place to discuss it... From my point of view, though, fortunately I don't want to discuss it as a strategy - I lost interest in it a long time ago, basically because (a) it was starting to show signs of performing well in tech-bubble-deflating conditions but not others; (b) it required rather too much rather tedious work to run it for my taste!

(*) But "- General" could be dropped - we don't use names like "Investment Strategies - General", "Sports Bar - General", etc, to indicate that other boards cover the full range of their subject, and I don't see any reason why HYS&S should be an exception to that rule...

This revelation about HYS&S does IMHO mean I just do not understand the point of having HYS&S (as is now) and HYP-P, as both are covering a relatively niche area of investing for income only with no consideration of capital.

And you never will understand the point of having the two boards if you insist on looking at similarities that are figments of your imagination (neither board's guidance says not to consider capital) rather than at the differences that are actually there (most notably, the HYP Practical guidance says "The objective of this board is to be a place for investors who have decided to take, or are contemplating taking, a HYP approach to investing. Here they can discuss the practical decisions and activities involved, without those discussions being interrupted or taken over by discussions of whether a HYP approach is appropriate in the first place." and forbids posts that don't comply with that, the HYS&S guidance has nothing similar and indeed is where discussions about whether a HYP approach is appropriate are steered).

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

The bit of the HYS&S board guidance quoted by dspp says that the board is for wide-ranging discussions of ways to obtain high yields from equities, and those who want to use non-HYP strategies for income purposes have not infrequently talked about achieving the yield required by 'manufacturing' it through judicious sales, pointing out that cash is fungible. In the light of that, interpreting the guidance as being only about obtaining income from equities that have high dividend yields ignores both the fact that the word "wide-ranging" is there and the fact that no requirement is stated that the shares have high dividend yields. And the examples dspp mentions of discussions that HYS&S is not for don't exclude strategies that obtain high yields by 'manufacturing' them with sales.

I agree and just to give some illustrations about what that might include, I'd offer the following:

1) The emphasis on shares precludes discussion of bonds, which in any event have their own board. It would however include preference shares since they are a form of equity rather than bond, even though they have bond like characteristics. It follows that discussion of convertibles would be allowed where they are convertible preference shares rather than convertible bonds.

2) It allows for a discussion of using the sale of options (but not the purchase of options) to boost the income of a share portfolio. I have for a number of years ran an account where I sell put options on shares that I want to own, and then when they are put to me I sell call options until they are called away from me. Then repeat. It is possible to get an "income" of about 12% a year that way, and with arguably less risk than a share portfolio. (The returns are taxed as capital gains and not income, but it's certainly reasonable to see those returns as income).

3) My approach to dividend investing is to not fixate on yield or income, but rather to find shares with a safe and growing dividend in the belief that will be reflected in increasing capital values. The yields may not be that high and its not really an income strategy. But it is an approach guided by dividends.

I would argue all three of those can be discussed here, unless someone wants to tell me differently.

[Gengulphus]

I would argue all three of those can be discussed here, unless someone wants to tell me differently.

Well, not "here" - you're posting on the Biscuit Bar! ;-)

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

I would argue all three of those can be discussed here, unless someone wants to tell me differently.

Well, not "here" - you're posting on the Biscuit Bar! ;-)

Yes, thank you, I have a bad habit of not knowing which board I am on when I read and post. But you know what I mean . . .

[Wizard]

I have read dspp's intervention to mean selling, in part or whole, and then usjng some of that gain is not acceptable on HYS&S. But Gengulphus appears to think that is acceptable. We are told in dspp's intervention that Dogs of the FTSE is not acceptable, the strategy Gengulphus describes sounds very similar to Dogs of the FTSE if I have understood his descriptikn properly, so I do not know why Gengulphus draws the conclusion that discussing it would be OK.

I would also point out that I reported my own recent poll on income sources as selling for income was acceptable in that poll and I therefore said I understood it was now off topic. I asked for the poll thread to be deleted on that basis. The poll has been deleted, so from that I took it that yhe Mod which deleted it was confirming that any for of disposal as a source of income was off topic for HYS&S.

It seems clarification from Mods would be helpful.

[Itsallaguess]

In the past, I've mentioned a Value strategy I used from late 1999 to late 2002, that essentially used high dividend yield as its main 'Value' indicator.

It tended to hold shares for fairly short periods of a few months up to a few years before their yields dropped, either because the share price rose or because of a dividend cut, and as a result, it not infrequently sold a holding without ever receiving any dividend income at all from it, and in the cases where it did receive some dividend income, that income was usually dwarfed by the capital gain or loss.

So it was definitely a high-yield share strategy, and equally definitely not an income-oriented share strategy - so if I wanted to discuss it as a share strategy rather than just an example to illustrate this point, I would definitely feel that the board name and guidance were sending me conflicting messages about whether HYS&S was the place to discuss it...

I'd have hoped that the underlying intention behind the High Yield Shares & Strategies remit was in the discussion of investment strategies that deliver income from the 'natural yield' of underlying holdings, and as such, something like that 'Value' strategy would not be covered by that intention, even though some of the components for such a Value strategy might display 'High Yields' themselves...

If the resulting 'income' from such a Value strategy were to be obtained from traded capital, then I'd like to think it would be clear that such a strategy should be discussed elsewhere.

If this is something that needs specifically clarifying in the High Yield Shares & Strategies guidelines then I'm sure that's something that might be looked at, but I'm surprised to see that such an intention isn't clear from the existing wording in all honesty...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Wizard]

In the past, I've mentioned a Value strategy I used from late 1999 to late 2002, that essentially used high dividend yield as its main 'Value' indicator.

It tended to hold shares for fairly short periods of a few months up to a few years before their yields dropped, either because the share price rose or because of a dividend cut, and as a result, it not infrequently sold a holding without ever receiving any dividend income at all from it, and in the cases where it did receive some dividend income, that income was usually dwarfed by the capital gain or loss.

So it was definitely a high-yield share strategy, and equally definitely not an income-oriented share strategy - so if I wanted to discuss it as a share strategy rather than just an example to illustrate this point, I would definitely feel that the board name and guidance were sending me conflicting messages about whether HYS&S was the place to discuss it...

I'd have hoped that the underlying intention behind the High Yield Shares & Strategies remit was in the discussion of investment strategies that deliver income from the 'natural yield' of underlying holdings, and as such, something like that 'Value' strategy would not be covered by that intention, even though some of the components for such a Value strategy might display 'High Yields' themselves...

If the resulting 'income' from such a Value strategy were to be obtained from traded capital, then I'd like to think it would be clear that such a strategy should be discussed elsewhere.

If this is something that needs specifically clarifying in the High Yield Shares & Strategies guidelines then I'm sure that's something that might be looked at, but I'm surprised to see that such an intention isn't clear from the existing wording in all honesty...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I think the issue, well for me anyway, is the guidelines in the context of the board title. No mention of income from dividends in the title and the use of "General" as mentioned above, plus the use of "wide ranging" in the first part of the guidelines makes it less than completely clear that an income derived from top slicing capital growth in a high yield share is off topic for HYS&S. The word income is used several times in the guidelines, but unless I have missed mention dividends is not, therefore my conclusion had always been that income from dividends or capital growth would be acceptable.

[Gengulphus]

I have read dspp's intervention to mean selling, in part or whole, and then usjng some of that gain is not acceptable on HYS&S. ...

The moderator message by dspp that you quote in your OP does not say even one word about the acceptability of selling.

... But Gengulphus appears to think that is acceptable. We are told in dspp's intervention that Dogs of the FTSE is not acceptable, the strategy Gengulphus describes sounds very similar to Dogs of the FTSE if I have understood his descriptikn properly, so I do not know why Gengulphus draws the conclusion that discussing it would be OK.

Not what I said about its acceptability - my words were "I would definitely feel that the board name and guidance were sending me conflicting messages about whether HYS&S was the place to discuss it..." They don't mean that I've concluded that strategy is acceptable for a HYS&S discussion, and they also don't mean that I've concluded it is unacceptable for a HYS&S discussion. What they do mean is that I haven't concluded anything about its acceptability on HYS&S: I am uncertain whether it is acceptable, because the wording of the board name indicates that it is acceptable and the wording of the board guidance indicates that it isn't.

Also, the only thing the moderator note by dspp you quote actually tells us about the "Dogs of the FTSE" strategy is that discussing "dogs" strategies is acceptable on Investment Strategies ("HERE you are welcome to discuss pretty much anything re strategies. Long, short, sideways, cash, TR, dogs, whatever."). It does not follow that discussing it is unacceptable on HYS&S, any more than it follows that discussing "long" strategies is unacceptable on HYS&S... What he does say about unacceptable subjects on HYS&S is that it "is not for more general discussion re strategies, including for example Total Return, or other non-equity asset classes such as bonds". "Dogs of the FTSE" does not use bonds or any other non-equity asset classes, so the last part of that doesn't apply to it. I find the "including for example Total Return" part of it hard to understand, since "total return" is a characteristic that all strategies have (though it might be negative), not a type of strategy (*); what's left after that is just "more general discussion re strategies", which I think might or might not apply to discussing "Dogs of the FTSE" depending on what was being said about it.

The common theme is that you seem to be habitually reading people's words as saying things they quite simply don't say...

(*) This incidentally is why I think the proposal for a Total Returns board a couple of months ago doesn't seem to have got anywhere - its proponents have failed to define what they mean by a "Total Return strategy", which is rather essential if one wants a board dedicated to such strategies! Note by the way that I think any discussion of what (if anything) a "Total Return strategy" is would best take place within a discussion of that proposal, either in the existing thread or in a new one posting an updated, better-defined proposal for a Total Returns board (the latter would be better tactics IMHO, as people may well not notice a new post in a thread that already has over 200 posts and has been dormant for the last month and a half).

I would also point out that I reported my own recent poll on income sources as selling for income was acceptable in that poll and I therefore said I understood it was now off topic. I asked for the poll thread to be deleted on that basis. The poll has been deleted, so from that I took it that yhe Mod which deleted it was confirming that any for of disposal as a source of income was off topic for HYS&S.

It's possible that they were confirming that it was off-topic, but it's also possible that they simply deleted it because you, its author, asked them to. Various past discussions here on the Biscuit Bar do indicate that the moderators regard someone asking for their own post to be deleted as at least a strong argument in favour of deletion, and possibly even a conclusive one.

Gengulphus

[Alaric]

The word income is used several times in the guidelines, but unless I have missed mention dividends is not, therefore my conclusion had always been that income from dividends or capital growth would be acceptable.

HIgh Yield Strategy could cover a multitude of approaches, suggesting that the current guidelines are unnecessarily restrictive. Investing in Corporate Bonds has merits to an income seeker as giving a potential floor to the portfolio running yield in the event of dividend cancellations.

At the very least "Total Return" is a measuring device which doesn't unbalance decision-making in favour of either income or capital.

[CryptoPlankton]

Like Itsallaguess, I think the underlying intention of the board is perfectly clear and this is only really an issue if you choose to make it one. Personally, if I wanted to discuss a strategy like the "Dogs of the FTSE" (as one of the examples given) then I'd quite happily post on the Investment Strategies board as the obvious choice and not waste a second of my time worrying whether it would have been technically acceptable on HYS&S.

My view is why put unnecessary demands on the site providers and volunteer mods when it can easily be avoided with the application of a little common sense?

[jackdaww]

Like Itsallaguess, I think the underlying intention of the board is perfectly clear and this is only really an issue if you choose to make it one. Personally, if I wanted to discuss a strategy like the "Dogs of the FTSE" (as one of the examples given) then I'd quite happily post on the Investment Strategies board as the obvious choice and not waste a second of my time worrying whether it would have been technically acceptable on HYS&S.

My view is why put unnecessary demands on the site providers and volunteer mods when it can easily be avoided with the application of a little common sense?

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

yes.

the investment strategies board needs a higher profile and more posters.

[Gengulphus]

In the past, I've mentioned a Value strategy I used from late 1999 to late 2002, that essentially used high dividend yield as its main 'Value' indicator.

It tended to hold shares for fairly short periods of a few months up to a few years before their yields dropped, either because the share price rose or because of a dividend cut, and as a result, it not infrequently sold a holding without ever receiving any dividend income at all from it, and in the cases where it did receive some dividend income, that income was usually dwarfed by the capital gain or loss.

So it was definitely a high-yield share strategy, and equally definitely not an income-oriented share strategy - so if I wanted to discuss it as a share strategy rather than just an example to illustrate this point, I would definitely feel that the board name and guidance were sending me conflicting messages about whether HYS&S was the place to discuss it...

I'd have hoped that the underlying intention behind the High Yield Shares & Strategies remit was in the discussion of investment strategies that deliver income from the 'natural yield' of underlying holdings, and as such, something like that 'Value' strategy would not be covered by that intention, even though some of the components for such a Value strategy might display 'High Yields' themselves...

Minor correction: not "might", but "did". Having a high yield was a requirement of that old Value strategy of mine, and if a share it was invested in ceased to have a high yield, it would be sold within a week or so - in that sense, it was even more insistent on high yields than many HYP strategies, which might leave such a share unsold for many years because of a "no tinkering" policy.

If the resulting 'income' from such a Value strategy were to be obtained from traded capital, then I'd like to think it would be clear that such a strategy should be discussed elsewhere.

If this is something that needs specifically clarifying in the High Yield Shares & Strategies guidelines then I'm sure that's something that might be looked at, but I'm surprised to see that such an intention isn't clear from the existing wording in all honesty...

To expand on what I said about that: I agree that the current wording of the HYS&S guidance says that my old Value strategy doesn't qualify - but if that's what is actually intended, I think it unfortunate that the board name indicates that it does qualify. I also think that it would be a good idea to change one or the other to stop sending those mixed messages.

The existence of those mixed messages is not something I was previously aware of, and I thank Wizard for pointing them out in his OP (I don't agree with everything in that OP, but also don't disagree with everything in it!). The fact that I wasn't aware of them is doubtless connected with the fact that I haven't wanted to post about my old Value strategy, nor to post very much on HYS&S, especially recently. It's also connected with the fact that HYS&S arose as TLF's replacement for TMF's "High Yield - Share Strategies" board, and that board's guidance was clear that its subject was defined by high yield, not by income orientation:

"The only two requirements for a post to be on-topic on this board (apart from the general TMF rules & guidelines that apply to all boards) are that:

• It is about an investment strategy that invests primarily in shares.

• It uses high dividend yield as a major sharepicking criterion."

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. I've no objections to that shift - as I said, I don't want to post about it as a strategy anyway, so it's no skin off my nose - but it was a bit of a surprise to discover as a result of reading this thread that the shift had happened.

Also, AFAIAA such a shift hasn't been proposed and discussed on the Biscuit Bar. That doesn't necessarily mean that anything has been done incorrectly - stooz and Clariman own this site and can do what they like with it - but it does lead me to wonder whether the shift from HYS&S being a "high yield" board to an "income oriented" board was deliberate, or whether it happened inadvertently in the course of writing or re-writing the TLF guidance and nobody properly realised that it had happened...

The old TMF "Investing for Income" board might also be a relevant bit of history. I can't remember whether it had board guidance, and a quick look at my archived links to see whether I can find any lead to such guidance has proved inconclusive, but basically it was for what it said on the tin: any income-oriented investment strategy. It wasn't kept in the move to TLF, I suspect because it was a low-traffic board (only about 7k posts in its entire history based on the last archived post on it that I've managed to find), all the individual types of investment discussed on it could be discussed on various boards such as HYS&S, Gilts & Bonds and Investment Trusts & Unit Trusts, and strategies using combinations of those investments could be discussed on Investment Strategies, or for what is probably the most common purpose of investing for income, on Retirement Investing.

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.

I'm not arguing for any particular answers to those questions, just that the admins and moderators should decide what answers they intend (which they may already have done, but I can't tell whether you and other admins/moderators are expressing personal opinions or collective decisions in this thread) and clarify those intentions by expressing them consistently in both the board name (as far as possible within length limits) and board guidance. It will involve some work, of course, but so does dealing with unintentionally off-topic posts, and the less consistent the message, the more of those you'll get...

Gengulphus

[dealtn]

Like Itsallaguess, I think the underlying intention of the board is perfectly clear and this is only really an issue if you choose to make it one. Personally, if I wanted to discuss a strategy like the "Dogs of the FTSE" (as one of the examples given) then I'd quite happily post on the Investment Strategies board as the obvious choice and not waste a second of my time worrying whether it would have been technically acceptable on HYS&S.

My view is why put unnecessary demands on the site providers and volunteer mods when it can easily be avoided with the application of a little common sense?

That's absolutely fine and legitimate and especially so if you are starting a new thread about "Dogs of the FTSE" (or similar).

Where it becomes more nuanced though is where a discussion is more general (that word again from the Board title) and some are saying something along the lines of

...that's interesting/relevant as that (maybe yield) is why I bought some for my HYP....and I am happy I did so...the Income has been great...etc.

Even though its not on HYP-P it isn't considered off topic, nor likely to reported for any reason by "TR zealots".

However somebody who replies

...that's interesting/relevant as that (again maybe yield) is why I bought some using my "alternative not 100% Income/Dividend strategy"...and I am happy I did so as not only have I picked up income but I have made a Capital Gain too...which is near to my target for selling and reinvesting...in my strategy involving income-oriented equities...

is very likely it seems to attract the "anti TR-zealots", who seem to see anything other as an income/dividend strategy as this (unattractive) thing called TR, and report, or claim the post as off-topic.

Now to be clear this isn't just "Dogs of the FT-SE" but other value strategies too, and Gengulphus has emphasised this already.

So, yes starting threads about a strategy should be on Investment Strategies, perhaps with the exceptions of HYP, and specific others such as Gilts, Technical Analysis, Gilts, REITs etc., where there are alternative natural homes. But on "general", "wide ranging" discussions on HYS&S (and other places too) it should surely be acceptable to reply/add to an existing thread.

[Gengulphus]

Like Itsallaguess, I think the underlying intention of the board is perfectly clear and this is only really an issue if you choose to make it one. Personally, if I wanted to discuss a strategy like the "Dogs of the FTSE" (as one of the examples given) then I'd quite happily post on the Investment Strategies board as the obvious choice and not waste a second of my time worrying whether it would have been technically acceptable on HYS&S.

My view is why put unnecessary demands on the site providers and volunteer mods when it can easily be avoided with the application of a little common sense?

And someone else knows that "Dogs of the FTSE" is a strategy that picks its shares for their high yields, and very reasonably regards it as common sense that "High Yield Shares & Strategies" is the place to post about it. You know now (and may have known for some time) that that is at least questionable and so equally reasonably regard it as common sense to avoid the issue and save the moderators work by posting on "Investment Strategies" instead. Up until when I read this thread last night, I would have been in the position of that "someone else" as regards posting about "Dogs of the FTSE" (were I to want to do such a thing, which is unlikely); now I'm in your position...

Basically, what is common sense in any situation can depend on what one knows about the situation. And so even in the absence of other things (such as differing political worldviews) that can affect people's views of what is common sense, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree on what common sense says one should do. Those differences due to differing knowledge of the situation can be reduced by making people more aware of it, so to some extent threads like this one can solve the problem they're about simply by existing... But it's unreasonable to expect anywhere near everyone to follow such threads, and it can be hard or even impossible to decide what the knowledge they impart is, so it's a pretty small extent. And that's why board names and guidance are important: they convey the information in a clearer, more digestable form - or at least, they should do that!

Gengulphus

[Itsallaguess]

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=8652

I 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'...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[dealtn]

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.

Well unfortunately "yield" has many meanings, or at least interpretations.

Let's consider a world outside of finance such as farming.

A farmer pursuing a high yield from his crop in a particular field might consider how productive the field is in turning seed into crop. He would also likely consider how the market for that crop is, and what price might be achieved at market.

Both of these I think could be contributing factors into what might reasonably be considered the yield of the crop.

Similar in a financial strategy it isn't just the "dividend" that is part of the income, or yield of return on an investment. Some would consider capital gains as part of the income from the business of investment. Indeed some businesses might measure profits from investment as part of their revenue (or income) line.

Even a strategy that really is income based can have a yield or return but never receive that as a dividend (or interest payment) explicitly. For instance buying a Gilt (for income) but selling it and taking that income as an increase in the dirty price due to interest accrual. Similarly owning a high yielding share for income but selling just before the xd date to take the dividend but in the form of capital increase due to the "dirty accrual (ie, the opposite of the drop as a share goes xd). There are legitimate, mainly tax reasons for doing so.

Some on this site have pointed out how "transferable" in practice income and capital can be.

Not all strategies, even for those with "income-oriented" equities are literally about receiving the actual dividends. No-one is insisting those that don't use such strategies have to, or there is a subliminal attempt at conversion. However there should be an acceptance and recognition that such strategies exist, fall within the guidelines of the HYS&S Board, and some tolerance extended to those who undertake such "alternative" strategies.

[Lootman]

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=8652

I would read 'ways to obtain high yields' to mean 'ways to obtain naturally-released income in the form of cash'.

One could certainly read it that way but also read it another way. It all depends on the meaning of the phrase you have added there: "naturally-released".

So to take my earlier example, what if you have a portfolio of shares and regularly sell out-of-the-money call options against it. This is a fairly safe strategy that creates additional income from a portfolio. It is common amongst retired folks in the US and is considered an income strategy. The downside is that you cap your capital gain, but then the concept of sacrificing capital gains to boost current income is one familiar to HYP anyway.

To my mind such a strategy would be on-topic for HYSS. It is a share strategy designed to give a high income (even though it would be taxed as capital gains - I don't consider that matters). And I would argue that even if the underlying shares themselves did not have a high running yield. Does it "naturally-release income in the form of cash"? Not quite "natural" perhaps but otherwise in the spirit of what you said, surely?

[Itsallaguess]

For instance buying a Gilt (for income) but selling it and taking that income as an increase in the dirty price due to interest accrual.

Similarly owning a high yielding share for income but selling just before the xd date to take the dividend but in the form of capital increase due to the "dirty accrual (ie, the opposite of the drop as a share goes xd).

What if you have a portfolio of shares and regularly sell out-of-the-money call options against it. This is a fairly safe strategy that creates additional income from a portfolio.

Hi both,

I'd really prefer not to get into a lengthy 'what if' exchange on this subject.

I've explained my interpretation of the 'discussions of ways to obtain high yields from equities' wording in the current High Yield Shares & Strategies guidance, and I'm not going to do anything more than that.

It's clear that there's a million ways we can 'generate income' from our investments, but I think there is a much smaller sub-set of those strategies that would specifically fall within the current Hight Yield Shares & Strategies guidelines category of 'obtaining a high yield from equities', and it's the spirit of that phrase that I was wishing to give my interpretation of on this thread, and that interpretation involves what I'd call the 'natural yield' of investments, which is released to the holders of such investments without any other actions being necessary other than to be a holder of them, rather than the 'creation' of an unnatural one...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Lootman]

For instance buying a Gilt (for income) but selling it and taking that income as an increase in the dirty price due to interest accrual.

Similarly owning a high yielding share for income but selling just before the xd date to take the dividend but in the form of capital increase due to the "dirty accrual (ie, the opposite of the drop as a share goes xd).

What if you have a portfolio of shares and regularly sell out-of-the-money call options against it. This is a fairly safe strategy that creates additional income from a portfolio.

I'd really prefer not to get into a lengthy 'what if' exchange on this subject. I've explained my interpretation of the 'discussions of ways to obtain high yields from equities' wording in the current High Yield Shares & Strategies guidance, and I'm not going to do anything more than that.

That is fair enough. But as a moderator you would have to make those types of determinations if such topics were posted there, so it is not just a hypothetical question. I guess I am not clear about whether your interpretation is the "official" TLF house view on the matter and therefore underpins the moderation policy. Or whether you are just expressing your personal opinion about what the guidelines should be.