TJH
Several posts on this thread have been deleted for discussing moderation.
Removed the references. But TJH's point is still valid. - Gryffron
Thanks to Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77, for Donating to support the site
Gengulphus wrote:I think that's 'good old days' syndrome - posters were very disruptive from the autumn of 2007 to the spring of 2008
Gengulphus
MrFoolish wrote:Gengulphus wrote:I think that's 'good old days' syndrome - posters were very disruptive from the autumn of 2007 to the spring of 2008
And I think that's "seeing the world through your own prism" syndrome. What you take to be "very disruptive", others might just see as expressing a contrary opinion.
Gengulphus wrote:I'll just leave with the strong impression that people (including a moderator) aren't interested in making this aspect of the current guidance work.
Gengulphus wrote:
for ordinary users, the purpose of board guidance is to guide them as to what's on-topic for the board, and IMHO the test against the FTSE100 yield is currently instead guiding them into arguing about whether shares are on-topic on the board...
Gengulphus wrote:No, it was not seeing the world through my own prism. There were endless "should one use a HYP strategy or not?" arguments at the time on the TMF board, which spread on to most threads no matter what their subject was supposed to be, and many other people regarded it as disruptive, including the TMF moderators.
Gengulphus
Itsallaguess wrote:Gengulphus wrote:
for ordinary users, the purpose of board guidance is to guide them as to what's on-topic for the board, and IMHO the test against the FTSE100 yield is currently instead guiding them into arguing about whether shares are on-topic on the board...
It's difficult to disagree with that Gengulphus.
In an ideal world it would probably be 'a good thing' to be able to have a definitive data-source for a 'HYP yield floor' to be able to point at, but it's clear both from this thread and the many that have come before it on this topic that as things stand, that sought-after data-source simply doesn't exist as far as we're aware, and is frankly very unlikely to, given the swift variations in the necessary underlying data..
But even with the above said, one of the main things the current HYP Practical Guidance is trying to achieve overall is to build in some welcome flexibility for both posters and moderators, and generally position itself quite rightly as a guide for the 'spirit of the HYP Practical rules' rather than be overly prescriptive and dogmatic, and so maybe finding some sort of sweet-spot between declaring an 'acceptable yield-floor' that is not too high so as to then both unnecessarily restrict candidate-choice, and (worse, in my opinion...) perhaps even regularly drive investors towards the 'riskier end' of the yield-spectrum, and finding one that is 'not too low' so as to make the idea that potential HYP candidates might clearly struggle to be called 'High Yield' candidates in the first place, might be the sort of end-goal that would perhaps satisfy your hope for clearer guidance in this area, whilst still maintaining the overarching aim of maintaining a good level of flexibility in the HYP Practical guidance itself.
So if that might be somewhere near an acceptable 'end-goal' for this discussion, then perhaps the next area of concern might be with regards to the suitability and (perhaps more importantly...) the longevity of any particular independent data-source that we might think appropriate for this task, and as we've found here and in earlier discussions on the subject, this alone is an area that can lead to quite varied results, but I was wondering if a suitable solution to this issue might actually be one where a persistent data-source might be used initially, and then given some of the above 'yield margin flexibility' by simply deducting a fixed figure from the persistent data-source figure?
For instance, if we look at the current London Stock Exchange page for the FTSE 100, which I would like to think ticks the 'persistent data-source' box at least, we can see that it's currently showing a FTSE 100 Dividend Yield of 4.7% -
Source - https://www.londonstockexchange.com/indices/ftse-100
So for the sake of this discussion, and taking account of the requirement to allow for some often-needed flexibility in the HYP candidate-selection process, would we perhaps be able to tick all the boxes above by simply taking a fixed 1% figure off the above data-source figure?
Currently, that would give a HYP yield-test of 3.7%, which interestingly gives a figure roughly around the same area as the Dividend Data figure of 3.73% (https://www.dividenddata.co.uk/dividendyield.py?market=ftse100), but my concern with just using the Dividend Data figure from the offset would be the previously mentioned 'persistent data-source' issue, where we might hopefully expect the London Stock Exchange site to remain stable as a potential data-source for the initial yield-figure in a much more reliable way, but I mention the Dividend Data site just because reducing the London Stock Exchange FTSE 100 yield figure by 1% came to roughly the same ball-park yield figure...
So as the London Stock Exchange FTSE 100 yield figure would 'float' automatically, given the changes in the underlying 'FTSE Russell' data that it's using, then the above might at least give a reasonable answer to the 'FTSE 100 yield-test' question, whilst trying to maintain a good level of flexibility to that yield-test so as not to unnecessarily restrict choice, or drive people into areas of the yield-spectrum from the off-set that they perhaps might prefer to stay away from at any particular point in time...
Of course my suggestion of a 1% reduction to give a current 'yield-test' figure of 3.7% might be deemed to be too low, and perhaps a reduction of 0.5% might be put forward as a more suitable level of flexibility, which would then give a yield-test figure of 4.2%, but I was more concerned with offering the above up as a potential 'process-solution' to the issue really, given the problems in this area that have been previously discussed here and in earlier threads on the subject.
Cheers,
Itsallaguess
Wizard wrote:
A couple of questions.
First, pedantic I know, but when you talk about flexibility do you mean 1% point, rather than 1%? I think the former.
Second, are you speaking in the capacity of a Moderator or a poster? It is all very well posters chatting about this, but unless Site Admin or Moderators have some interest in engaging and are willing to consider amending the guidance it is IMHO a bit of a waste of time.
Itsallaguess wrote:Wizard wrote:
A couple of questions.
First, pedantic I know, but when you talk about flexibility do you mean 1% point, rather than 1%? I think the former.
Second, are you speaking in the capacity of a Moderator or a poster? It is all very well posters chatting about this, but unless Site Admin or Moderators have some interest in engaging and are willing to consider amending the guidance it is IMHO a bit of a waste of time.
I was discussing the potential option of using the single-source London Stock Exchange FTSE 100 yield figure (currently 4.7%), and then lowering it by a set amount to allow for both the potential for 'ongoing noise' in the underlying data, and also allowing a fixed margin allowance so as to maintain an overall steer towards 'High Yield' constituents, whilst giving a level of 'defined flexibility' at the same time.
I used a subsequent 1% reduction of that initial yield figure as part of that discussion just to initially see if a subsequent 'yield-floor' of 3.7% (as it would currently stand using this technique) might deliver a 'yield-floor' that might be useful to help solve the various known issues with this type of problem, whilst also helping to maintain some level of required poster and moderation flexibility when trying to come up with a 'known-process' that might be used to formulate an answer to the original question. I also then mentioned that if a 0.5% yield reduction were to be used at the current time, then that potential 'yield-floor' would be 4.2% using this same technique...
Regarding your second question, I've posted on this thread as an interested observer only, and I'm just trying to engage with what I think is a quite valid question from Gengulphus on this subject.
Cheers,
Itsallaguess
Itsallaguess wrote:Wizard wrote:
A couple of questions.
First, pedantic I know, but when you talk about flexibility do you mean 1% point, rather than 1%? I think the former.
Second, are you speaking in the capacity of a Moderator or a poster? It is all very well posters chatting about this, but unless Site Admin or Moderators have some interest in engaging and are willing to consider amending the guidance it is IMHO a bit of a waste of time.
I was discussing the potential option of using the single-source London Stock Exchange FTSE 100 yield figure (currently 4.7%), and then lowering it by a set amount to allow for both the potential for 'ongoing noise' in the underlying data, and also allowing a fixed margin allowance so as to maintain an overall steer towards 'High Yield' constituents, whilst giving a level of 'defined flexibility' at the same time.
I used a subsequent 1% reduction of that initial yield figure as part of that discussion just to initially see if a subsequent 'yield-floor' of 3.7% (as it would currently stand using this technique) might deliver a 'yield-floor' that might be useful to help solve the various known issues with this type of problem, whilst also helping to maintain some level of required poster and moderation flexibility when trying to come up with a 'known-process' that might be used to formulate an answer to the original question. I also then mentioned that if a 0.5% yield reduction were to be used at the current time, then that potential 'yield-floor' would be 4.2% using this same technique...
Regarding your second question, I've posted on this thread as an interested observer only, and I'm just trying to engage with what I think is a quite valid question from Gengulphus on this subject.
Cheers,
Itsallaguess
tjh290633 wrote:Presumably the LSE and its information source are calculating the yield on the FTSE100 by taking the total dividends received in the past year and dividing that by the market capitalisation of the FTSE100.
dealtn wrote:
I find it odd that you should be using a "historic" yield as a means to determine future yields, full stop. So such a route can only be seen as desirable in the absence of any commonly accessible, and trustworthy alternative for future yields. (The data sources I use fail those tests).
dealtn wrote:
Secondly it is again intuitively odd that in determining a threshold for High Yield candidates you would be using a method for deriving some kind of "average" or "benchmark" yield and then subtracting from it. I appreciate you are calling this a "floor", but were I pursuing candidates for High Yield (regardless of the strategy, and its rules/guidelines) I would be trying to establish that benchmark and adding to it.
Even from a Board Guideline perspective, and a desire to limit the "pointless" discussions around "off-topic" I would imagine having a lower than average benchmark, even as a floor, would only encourage such "off-topic" accusations.
MrFoolish wrote:Gengulphus wrote:No, it was not seeing the world through my own prism. There were endless "should one use a HYP strategy or not?" arguments at the time on the TMF board, which spread on to most threads no matter what their subject was supposed to be, and many other people regarded it as disruptive, including the TMF moderators.
Gengulphus
That is your recollection but it isn't mine.
Yes, there were some "should one use a HYP strategy or not?" arguments. But there were plenty more nuanced discussions about the suitability of investment trusts, what Doris was all about, buying the odd foreign shares and slightly lower yielding shares, etc, etc. These tended to get leapt on by the purists and reported to the TMF moderators, who sometimes stepped in for a quiet life on the board. Basically they were breaking up quarrels between opposing views, rather than taking sides. The situation wasn't that different to the multiplicity of arguments we get on TLF. For you to attribute a single to view to the TMF moderators on the matter is over-simplistic.
Itsallaguess wrote:Gengulphus wrote:
for ordinary users, the purpose of board guidance is to guide them as to what's on-topic for the board, and IMHO the test against the FTSE100 yield is currently instead guiding them into arguing about whether shares are on-topic on the board...
It's difficult to disagree with that Gengulphus.
In an ideal world it would probably be 'a good thing' to be able to have a definitive data-source for a 'HYP yield floor' to be able to point at, but it's clear both from this thread and the many that have come before it on this topic that as things stand, that sought-after data-source simply doesn't exist as far as we're aware, and is frankly very unlikely to, given the swift variations in the necessary underlying data..
But even with the above said, one of the main things the current HYP Practical Guidance is trying to achieve overall is to build in some welcome flexibility for both posters and moderators, and generally position itself quite rightly as a guide for the 'spirit of the HYP Practical rules' rather than be overly prescriptive and dogmatic, and so maybe finding some sort of sweet-spot between declaring an 'acceptable yield-floor' that is not too high so as to then both unnecessarily restrict candidate-choice, and (worse, in my opinion...) perhaps even regularly drive investors towards the 'riskier end' of the yield-spectrum, and finding one that is 'not too low' so as to make the idea that potential HYP candidates might clearly struggle to be called 'High Yield' candidates in the first place, might be the sort of end-goal that would perhaps satisfy your hope for clearer guidance in this area, whilst still maintaining the overarching aim of maintaining a good level of flexibility in the HYP Practical guidance itself.
Itsallaguess wrote:dealtn wrote:Secondly it is again intuitively odd that in determining a threshold for High Yield candidates you would be using a method for deriving some kind of "average" or "benchmark" yield and then subtracting from it. I appreciate you are calling this a "floor", but were I pursuing candidates for High Yield (regardless of the strategy, and its rules/guidelines) I would be trying to establish that benchmark and adding to it.
Even from a Board Guideline perspective, and a desire to limit the "pointless" discussions around "off-topic" I would imagine having a lower than average benchmark, even as a floor, would only encourage such "off-topic" accusations.
Well something would only be 'off-topic' if any particular solution to this issue wasn't actively incorporated into the guidelines, and so a thread started to specifically discuss the potential for additional clarity might be assumed to either result in that additional clarity or not, and so I'm not sure it would be appropriate to claim such 'off-topic' potential at this early stage of such a discussion..
Gengulphus wrote:I didn't say that the TMF moderators were taking sides, just that they regarded what was happening as highly disruptive. The quarrels between opposing views that they were breaking up were that disruption! And the fact that they eventually went beyond their usual measures of deleting posts and posting 'thread-stoppers' (the nearest measure to locking a thread that they had) and split the board shows that they regarded it as more-than-normally disruptive.
Gengulphus
Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests