Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Retirement Investing board question

Formerly "Lemon Fool - Improve the Recipe" repurposed as Room 102 (see above).
mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426286

Postby mc2fool » July 9th, 2021, 9:48 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
Moderator Message:
I personally feel a deaccumulation-centric board would provide a useful service, but I don't know what we'd call it, or quite how we'd distinguish it from HYS-S.

Uh? Well it wouldn't:

a) be limited to equities
b) be limited to high yield
c) be limited to income from natural yield
d) disallow discussion of total return
e) disallow discussion of anything other than equity high-yield income strategies

for a start!

Gilgongo
Lemon Slice
Posts: 415
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 6:51 pm
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426344

Postby Gilgongo » July 10th, 2021, 9:23 am

MDW1954 wrote:quite how we'd distinguish it from HYS-S.


Not sure I follow. Can you elaborate on why you say that?

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426356

Postby MDW1954 » July 10th, 2021, 10:38 am

mc2fool wrote:
MDW1954 wrote:
Moderator Message:
I personally feel a deaccumulation-centric board would provide a useful service, but I don't know what we'd call it, or quite how we'd distinguish it from HYS-S.

Uh? Well it wouldn't:

a) be limited to equities
b) be limited to high yield
c) be limited to income from natural yield
d) disallow discussion of total return
e) disallow discussion of anything other than equity high-yield income strategies

for a start!


Gilgongo, dealtn & mc2fool,

I didn't say that it couldn't be distinguished from HYS-S. I was asking for input on how we could distinguish it from HYS-S. Mc2fool's post above provides a useful starting point.

These are questions that will be asked if a new board is requested, so it's best to have answers available and to hand.

MDW1954

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426364

Postby dealtn » July 10th, 2021, 10:48 am

MDW1954 wrote:
mc2fool wrote:
MDW1954 wrote:
Moderator Message:
I personally feel a deaccumulation-centric board would provide a useful service, but I don't know what we'd call it, or quite how we'd distinguish it from HYS-S.

Uh? Well it wouldn't:

a) be limited to equities
b) be limited to high yield
c) be limited to income from natural yield
d) disallow discussion of total return
e) disallow discussion of anything other than equity high-yield income strategies

for a start!


Gilgongo, dealtn & mc2fool,

I didn't say that it couldn't be distinguished from HYS-S. I was asking for input on how we could distinguish it from HYS-S. Mc2fool's post above provides a useful starting point.

These are questions that will be asked if a new board is requested, so it's best to have answers available and to hand.

MDW1954


So do you also need examples of how it could be distinguished from Investment Strategies, Growth Strategies, Passive Investing ... ?

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426366

Postby MDW1954 » July 10th, 2021, 10:53 am

dealtn wrote:
MDW1954 wrote:
mc2fool wrote:Uh? Well it wouldn't:

a) be limited to equities
b) be limited to high yield
c) be limited to income from natural yield
d) disallow discussion of total return
e) disallow discussion of anything other than equity high-yield income strategies

for a start!


Gilgongo, dealtn & mc2fool,

I didn't say that it couldn't be distinguished from HYS-S. I was asking for input on how we could distinguish it from HYS-S. Mc2fool's post above provides a useful starting point.

These are questions that will be asked if a new board is requested, so it's best to have answers available and to hand.

MDW1954


So do you also need examples of how it could be distinguished from Investment Strategies, Growth Strategies, Passive Investing ... ?


We are talking a deaccumulation board, are we not? So why would Growth Strategies etc overlap? So no.

MDW1954

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426369

Postby dealtn » July 10th, 2021, 10:58 am

MDW1954 wrote:
dealtn wrote:
MDW1954 wrote:
Gilgongo, dealtn & mc2fool,

I didn't say that it couldn't be distinguished from HYS-S. I was asking for input on how we could distinguish it from HYS-S. Mc2fool's post above provides a useful starting point.

These are questions that will be asked if a new board is requested, so it's best to have answers available and to hand.

MDW1954


So do you also need examples of how it could be distinguished from Investment Strategies, Growth Strategies, Passive Investing ... ?


We are talking a deaccumulation board, are we not? So why would Growth Strategies etc overlap? So no.

MDW1954


Why would HYS-S?

Growth investments ensure your capital continues to grow as you draw it down. How is that inappropriate?

The focus on Income and (high) yield is endemic on this site. Is it possible that others that don't invest in this narrow, myopic way are allowed to discuss alternative approaches?

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4815
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426381

Postby scrumpyjack » July 10th, 2021, 11:43 am

Well the word De-accumulation naturally implies spending capital as well as income so there would be no logic in associating this with an HPY centric strategy.

Perhaps Spending the Kids INheriTance (SKINT) might be a possible acronym? :D

CryptoPlankton
Lemon Slice
Posts: 786
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 873 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426384

Postby CryptoPlankton » July 10th, 2021, 11:49 am

dealtn wrote:So do you also need examples of how it could be distinguished from Investment Strategies, Growth Strategies, Passive Investing ... ?

...

The focus on Income and (high) yield is endemic on this site. Is it possible that others that don't invest in this narrow, myopic way are allowed to discuss alternative approaches?

I am quite sure it is possible and I believe you have already identified a few appropriate places for such discussions.

HTH ;)

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426397

Postby Gengulphus » July 10th, 2021, 12:15 pm

dealtn wrote:
MDW1954 wrote:
Moderator Message:
As I said earlier, I have been watching this thread with interest. But nothing has really emerged that seems to grab a core consensus, so I haven't felt able to promote a particular change in board structure to those in a position to make it happen (ie, the other mods, and Clariman/ Stooz).

I personally feel a deaccumulation-centric board would provide a useful service, but I don't know what we'd call it, or quite how we'd distinguish it from HYS-S.

Reach some sort of consensus, and I'm all ears. As far as I'm concerned, you're pushing at an open door. But I'm only one mod.

--MDW1954

Well an easy way of distinguishing it from HYS-S would be a recognition that not every investment strategy for retirement, be that in accumulation, or decumulation, is about yield, and certainly not about high yield.

Your general point holds, but why does this site have a constant focus on yield, and a general feeling that high is good and low is bad?

There's a very easily-understood process in operation there: if a site has a lot of material available on a subject, it will be attractive to those interested in that subject, so those people will flock to the site and produce yet more material on that subject. Conversely, if the site has little material available on a subject, it won't be very attractive to those interested in that subject, who will be unlikely to be attracted to it - and those who already use it may even drift away from it in favour of other sites. So existing biases towards and against particular subjects will tend to be reinforced over time... In the particular case of TLF, the bias in favour of high-yield strategies (and HYP strategies in particular) was present right from the start, when it budded off from TMF in late 2016, and together with that self-reinforcing effect very easily answers your question. (Though of course only to the extent of asking a similar question about how it arose on TMF - but the answer to that is the same self-reinforcing effect operating over far more years, on a bias towards high yield that was originally quite a lot smaller.)

In short, TLF is the way it is because of those who use it, and those who use it are the way they are because of the way TLF is, two effects that feed on each other.

If you want to do something effective about it, the way to do so is not to criticise the site or the provision it makes for high-yield investors, nor those high-yield investors, nor even to criticise the high-yield bias in the abstract without actually criticising the site or its users. Instead, it is to make the site attractive to other types of investor by getting it to provide a decent amount of good-quality material about other types of strategy - and as practically all of TLF's material is user-generated posts, that means by posting such material.

As an example of what I mean, take a look at the board list in viewforum.php?f=5, and especially at the following statistics from it:


If you were an investor interested in Growth strategies coming across TLF for the first time, and you saw that, would you think it worth bothering to investigate any further at all, or would you instead put your efforts into finding a site that caters better for your needs? And if you did decide to investigate any further (perhaps imagining that the Growth Strategies board might be one that had only been set up very recently), would you find the fact that the board has had a total of 6 posts in the last 3 months at all encouraging?

I'm not saying that an investor interested in Growth strategies can make a difference to the high-yield-dominated nature of TLF's discussions just by posting a bit more on Growth Strategies - it would take quite a lot of posting, of sufficiently high quality to get others responding in significant numbers, plus almost certainly a lot of time for the self-reinforcement effect to build up. It would also take a good amount of self-discipline to avoid even minor side-swipes at investors who favour high-yield strategies, as they will almost certainly provoke defensive responses from readers who favour high-yield approaches (there will be such readers despite the board name) and the ensuing arguments are likely to prove offputting to readers interested in actually discussing Growth strategies. And when such arguments do develop (as they are highly likely to from time to time if doing this succeeds in increasing the board's popularity), more self-discipline will be needed to refrain from replying to them and instead get the moderators to deal with them for being off-topic for the board (and remember that the sooner such an off-topic argument is dealt with, the less likely it is that those interested in the actual subject of the thread will have given up on it, and more likely it is that it can be dealt with by moderator messages and/or selective deletions rather than locking the thread).

I'm certainly not guaranteeing that such an effort will succeed. But IMHO it has a chance of altering things if pursued sufficiently determinedly, whereas just indicating that you think TLF should be less biased towards high yield than it is has no chance.

I do realise that the above has drifted away from this thread's subject of what (if anything) should happen to the Retirement Investing board, so if you want to discuss it further, I'd suggest starting a new thread, called e.g. "Encouraging more discussion of low-yield strategies on TLF". I'm not doing that myself because (as if hopefully apparent from the above) IMHO there really isn't much anyone (whether admin, moderator or ordinary user) can do to encourage it other than to actually discuss low-yield strategies more, on the appropriate boards, and hope it catches on... But if anyone thinks that such a thread will get anywhere, please feel free to start one!

Finally, to return to this thread's subject and MDW1954's "Reach some sort of consensus" challenge, I'm not at all certain whether we have already reached some sort of consensus or not... Discussions like this one can result in people dropping out of them when they don't care about the matters that are still being discussed or only have mild preferences between them, or alternatively failing to make it clear that the preference they're still expressing is only a mild one, both of which can result in the discussion giving the impression of less consensus than there actually is. So I think some sort of poll is in order at this point to try to establish whether there is a consensus or not, and I've therefore just posted such a poll.

Gengulphus

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426416

Postby dealtn » July 10th, 2021, 12:50 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
If you want to do something effective about it, the way to do so is not to criticise the site or the provision it makes for high-yield investors, nor those high-yield investors, nor even to criticise the high-yield bias in the abstract without actually criticising the site or its users. Instead, it is to make the site attractive to other types of investor by getting it to provide a decent amount of good-quality material about other types of strategy - and as practically all of TLF's material is user-generated posts, that means by posting such material.



You make good points, and I am only "sub" quoting for abbreviation. Most of what you say I agree with, and you will note this Board is specifically about "Improving ..." You will note I am an infrequent contributor or visitor to the High Yield Boards (and indeed the Growth Strategy one). My more natural homes would be Share ideas, or Company News.

However what I don't think appropriate, particularly on this Board, is for Moderators to be displaying a bias towards a particular form of investing when others are trying to "improve" or broaden the provision, to encompass other alternatives. In exactly the fashion you suggest, providing informative posts on alternatives, in appropriate places, someone has made a suggestion. The, perhaps unconscious, bias of this place meaning any proposer of change feels questioned by a Mod. In asking how such a new place would compare with an alternative existing one where income strategies could be discussed, whilst not recognising the number of alternatives isn't helpful to that process. You might note it took 4 pages for this intervention to arise, yet the next 3 posts all questioned the appropriateness of that intervention.

If somebody proposed it would be nice to discuss the aspects of retirement concerning all the new found time a recently retired individual now found themselves, and create a place for doing so, covering travel, sport, theatre etc. that might be welcomed, and open for discussion. If a Mod then intervened and said how would that differentiate itself from "Sports Bar", it wouldn't be difficult to imagine some asking why it is appropriate focus on that aspect when there also existed "Music, Theatre, TV and Film", and "Books and Reading" etc.

The way I see it is this is a site that tags itself "Shares, Investment and Personal Finance" and people should be encouraged, and made welcome to discuss anything broadly within that scope. In this particular place suggestions to accommodate a better provision of such should be welcome and not (subconsciously) diminished as they require clear differentiation from specific "niche" styles - regardless of how popular such a niche might be here. I would make the same argument were this a site with a broad label of "Sports" forums and someone was interested in a specific sport, or sporting event, and felt a dedicated place for such discussion was worthwhile but a Mod asked questions about how it could be differentiated from "football", the most popular currently debated sport on the site.

In summary, particularly on this particular Board, it is appropriate to criticise - so long as that is constructive - and such suggestions for improving, as well as constructive critcism deserve merited consideration, and in the main I think that happens.

MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426426

Postby MDW1954 » July 10th, 2021, 1:23 pm

dealtn wrote:However what I don't think appropriate, particularly on this Board, is for Moderators to be displaying a bias towards a particular form of investing when others are trying to "improve" or broaden the provision, to encompass other alternatives.


You don't actually say that I displayed a bias towards a particular form of investing, although further down in your post you imply that this is what you think.

The only preference I expressed was in favour of a deaccumulation board. Read my words again, please. The reference to HYS-S, as I have said, was about how to make a deaccumulation board sufficiently different from HYS-S. That is not "displaying a bias".

Among moderators, there is a convention that we try not to participate in threads that we are also moderating. I'll now therefore drop out of this discussion, and await an outcome, either in this thread, or through Gengulphus' poll.

MDW1954

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426429

Postby Itsallaguess » July 10th, 2021, 1:32 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
The reference to HYS-S, as I have said, was about how to make a deaccumulation board sufficiently different from HYS-S.


I think it's probably worth mentioning here that I wouldn't consider High Yield Shares & Strategies to necessarily be 'a deaccumulation board' in the first place...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#426431

Postby dealtn » July 10th, 2021, 1:35 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
dealtn wrote:However what I don't think appropriate, particularly on this Board, is for Moderators to be displaying a bias towards a particular form of investing when others are trying to "improve" or broaden the provision, to encompass other alternatives.


You don't actually say that I displayed a bias towards a particular form of investing, although further down in your post you imply that this is what you think.

The only preference I expressed was in favour of a deaccumulation board. Read my words again, please. The reference to HYS-S, as I have said, was about how to make a deaccumulation board sufficiently different from HYS-S. That is not "displaying a bias".

Among moderators, there is a convention that we try not to participate in threads that we are also moderating. I'll now therefore drop out of this discussion, and await an outcome, either in this thread, or through Gengulphus' poll.

MDW1954


To be clear I wasn't addressing your own investing style, or preference, over which I have little knowledge. My concern was over any Moderator having a bias on how the site should operate. In revealing a concern about how decumulation in retirement investing may be difficult to distinguish from High Yield investing showed to me, and at least 2 others, how inappropriate such a comparison was. That bias in thinking (and you may feel an alternative word is a better label) was a concern.

AWOL
Lemon Slice
Posts: 563
Joined: October 20th, 2020, 5:08 pm
Has thanked: 366 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: Possible changes to the Retirement Investing board - acceptable outcomes?

#426789

Postby AWOL » July 11th, 2021, 7:05 pm

I think one board called Pensions and Retirement (this will also replaces Pensions - Practical Problems). Generic investment strategy has another board but investing with specific pre- and post- retirement goals discussions would be better in here.

In general I'd say people who are taking pension benefits have a lot of experience of growing their pensions to share and are possibly pension geeks :geek:

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: Possible changes to the Retirement Investing board - acceptable outcomes?

#426806

Postby mc2fool » July 11th, 2021, 7:41 pm

AWOL wrote:I think one board called Pensions and Retirement (this will also replaces Pensions - Practical Problems).

Absolutely not. That'd just wreck P-PP which is a perfectly working, useful and well defined board. See viewtopic.php?f=21&t=29947#p420802.

The poll is about the Retirement Investing (inc FIRE) board, and I'm a little surprised that what would seem an obvious choice isn't in the poll, namely that Retirement Investing should be for all retirement investing matters, both pre and post retirement, and FIRE is split off to another board, as FIRE isn't, per se, about investing but rather a lifestyle movement characterised by great frugality and extraordinary saving, i.e. the vast majority of one's income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-independence-retire-early-fire.asp

hiriskpaul
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3852
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:04 pm
Has thanked: 682 times
Been thanked: 1489 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#427000

Postby hiriskpaul » July 12th, 2021, 12:21 pm

I went for the leave it alone option. I probably fit into "Retired" as most of our income is taken from our savings and investments, but I have no interest in HYP or high yield strategies and seldom look at those boards.

Decumulation seem too limiting as a term, perhaps covering some, but certainly not all retirees and in any case may be limited to discreet events, such as giving money to beneficiaries after downsizing, or putting money into trust.


ps, Mc2fool's suggestion about separating out the lifestyle aspects of FIRE might be a good one as this has nothing much to do with investing.

Gilgongo
Lemon Slice
Posts: 415
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 6:51 pm
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#427154

Postby Gilgongo » July 12th, 2021, 6:57 pm

hiriskpaul wrote:Decumulation seem too limiting as a term, perhaps covering some, but certainly not all retirees


How can retirement (as defined by "giving up work") not be about spending what you have accumulated to spend? Do you mean that some retirees are also earning? I mean, I'm sure they are in some way, but this whole thread seems to be morphing into a slightly odd discussion I'd not anticipated :D

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#427157

Postby swill453 » July 12th, 2021, 7:07 pm

Gilgongo wrote:
hiriskpaul wrote:Decumulation seem too limiting as a term, perhaps covering some, but certainly not all retirees

How can retirement (as defined by "giving up work") not be about spending what you have accumulated to spend? Do you mean that some retirees are also earning? I mean, I'm sure they are in some way, but this whole thread seems to be morphing into a slightly odd discussion I'd not anticipated :D

Decumulation implies reduction. I'm spending from my pension, but its value is still increasing. This is exactly as I planned. As was said, we just need a better term.

Scott.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4815
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#427158

Postby scrumpyjack » July 12th, 2021, 7:09 pm

Gilgongo wrote:
hiriskpaul wrote:Decumulation seem too limiting as a term, perhaps covering some, but certainly not all retirees


How can retirement (as defined by "giving up work") not be about spending what you have accumulated to spend? Do you mean that some retirees are also earning? I mean, I'm sure they are in some way, but this whole thread seems to be morphing into a slightly odd discussion I'd not anticipated :D


Well there will be some retirees, myself included, who have sufficient income from their investments and pensions that they do not need, or want, to spend what they have accumulated. They may want at some point to give some to children/grandchildren or just leave it to roll up. They may feel that there is something inherently negative about planning how much they can reduce their assets each year and not run out before they die.

That is why I voted just to leave it as the Retirement Investing Board. People will have a wide variety of objectives/priorities etc as regards their investments after they have retired, so just leave it as one topic.

xeny
Lemon Slice
Posts: 450
Joined: April 13th, 2017, 11:37 am
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Retirement Investing board question

#427161

Postby xeny » July 12th, 2021, 7:13 pm

MDW1954 wrote:
Moderator Message:
I personally feel a deaccumulation-centric board would provide a useful service, but I don't know what we'd call it, or quite how we'd distinguish it from HYS-S.4


deaccumulation is potentially very distinct from HYS-S.

I'm looking at deaccumulation in about 3 years. The highest yield asset I currently own is SMT, and I don't expect to change that in retirement. That's very far from anything high yield, but doesn't really fit growth strategies as clearly I need to consider things like how much cash buffer it is optimal to hold.


Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests