BT Group Finals, including dividend suspension.

[Arborbridge]

This article really was a complete bombshell for me. I suspect it is one that is not read as frequently as the other earlier articles as I do not think I have ever seen it referenced before - but maybe that is just my age.

It's a bombshell to me too, and completely against everything that he wrote about previously. It would be interesting to know from Stephen what the context was and how this remark came about.

He is virtually throwing in the towel and saying you lot can do what you like, but this is my way. But the odd thing is the capitulation which seems almost an accident of the wording. HYP in the classic sense did not include foreign shares, and that still stands: it also happens to be the rule for the HYP-P board too. I'm sure the reason for the rule originally was that HYP was intended for a less sophiscated audience: it is a process for Joes Bloggs to set up an easy way of investing. For that brief it made sense to keep it simple stupid. (Not you! dear reader)

I can only paraphrase Stephen: some will do it their way, but I'm sticking to the original version of HYP as closely as I can and so does the HYP-P board. Of course, those that want to can report on a different board, which several people are doing, because it gives them the abililty to mix other things in their portfolio without being OT. There seems no reason to abandon the original KISS spirit and change the nature of HYP-P.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Second, the limitations placed on what can and cannot be discussed on this board are completely arbitrary. They allow some elements of the approach Bland uses himself to be relaxed, but not others. But on what basis? Why is discussion of some REITs OK but not other ITs? Why can some posters discuss their trading activity but others not discuss non-UK shares? There is no justification in what Bland says, because he says in point 3 that everyone will run their HYP in their own way, so Bland is saying an HYP with half non-UK shares is still in his eyes an HYP, it is only TLF guidance that says it is not.



* It may be that this was a marketing exercise, an attempt to expand the 'envelope' of Bland's HYP brand, but whatever the motive the article says what it says.
** Some may ask if I mean this or if I am being provocative, to answer that upfront, this is a genuine revelation to me.

TJH has answered the point about REITs perfectly well in my view. This article does nothing to change that. REITs were in one sens only allowed in because they were property companies which converted for financial advantage: they never were ITs in the normal sense.

As for your two * point: yes, you are continuing your usual practice of being provocative. It's just your way, I guess, but it is a theme running through your posts going back to the year dot. In point of fact, I see no reason to change the HYP-P board which was created for followers of the classic HYP, whatever spurious ideas you may like to introduce. If you continued the logic of what you are saying, a HYP can contain anything at all, so what would be the point of a HYP-P board? Maybe that's where you want your provocation to end up?
The great weight of PYads writing supports the guidelines for that board and remain as valid as when he wrote them.

Arb.

[Wizard]

Second, the limitations placed on what can and cannot be discussed on this board are completely arbitrary. They allow some elements of the approach Bland uses himself to be relaxed, but not others. But on what basis? Why is discussion of some REITs OK but not other ITs? Why can some posters discuss their trading activity but others not discuss non-UK shares? There is no justification in what Bland says, because he says in point 3 that everyone will run their HYP in their own way, so Bland is saying an HYP with half non-UK shares is still in his eyes an HYP, it is only TLF guidance that says it is not.



* It may be that this was a marketing exercise, an attempt to expand the 'envelope' of Bland's HYP brand, but whatever the motive the article says what it says.
** Some may ask if I mean this or if I am being provocative, to answer that upfront, this is a genuine revelation to me.

TJH has answered the point about REITs perfectly well in my view. This article does nothing to change that. REITs were in one sens only allowed in because they were property companies which converted for financial advantage: they never were ITs in the normal sense.

As for your two * point: yes, you are continuing your usual practice of being provocative. It's just your way, I guess, but it is a theme running through your posts going back to the year dot. In point of fact, I see no reason to change the HYP-P board which was created for followers of the classic HYP, whatever spurious ideas you may like to introduce. If you continued the logic of what you are saying, a HYP can contain anything at all, so what would be the point of a HYP-P board? Maybe that's where you want your provocation to end up?
The great weight of PYads writing supports the guidelines for that board and remain as valid as when he wrote them.

Arb.

I am not sure you have really understood my post fully. I am not challenging the guidance to the HYP-P Board, the sites ‘management’ can set any rules they think appropriate. My point is that those rules are not, it seems based on the article Bree linked to, driven by Bland’s position, rather they represent the interpretation of those who have written the rules. The final sentence in your post suggests Bland / PYAD wrote the rules for HYP-P on TLF, is that correct?

I made clear I was not seeking to be provocative, it is just that this article seems to go against much of what I thought I understood. If you insist on saying that I am deliberately being provocative I guess you must be calling me a liar. Out of order IMHO, not so much provocative on your part, just plain rude.

[Dod101]

It would be helpful all round if contributors to these posts followed the guidelines of the Board and ignored the views of the one attributed with the invention of a HYP (which was as I understand it, to help in the sale of his tipsheet). That is now history. Would save a lot of hot air and argument, although some clearly enjoy that)

Dod

[Arborbridge]

I am not sure you have really understood my post fully. I am not challenging the guidance to the HYP-P Board, the sites ‘management’ can set any rules they think appropriate. My point is that those rules are not, it seems based on the article Bree linked to, driven by Bland’s position, rather they represent the interpretation of those who have written the rules.

Correct, the HYP-P rules were almost certainly not based on that article, and actually I don't know whether that article was even known about. I don't know how the board rules evolved, but I make a reasonable guess that they started off being based on the TMF board rules which in turn was based on pyad's original articles, not the one Bree found. They were later changed a little, but essentially were still very close to the TMF board, which is as it should be for continuity purposes.

The final sentence in your post suggests Bland / PYAD wrote the rules for HYP-P on TLF, is that correct?

No, is the answer - at least I've no knowledge that he had any input to the rules and I doubt he did. "as when he wrote them" -the them refers to the original articles, not the rules. Sorry if that was badly written.

What would be very interesting to both of us, would be if Stephen Bland could contribute to this thread and explain how that aritcle came about - the context of it, and whether he would consider a portfolio with foreign shares truly "HYP". When all said and done, it would not be HYP as he conceived it, and it wouldn't be HYP as the HYP-P defines, so in that sense the discovery of this "bombshell" - on overnight reflection - is beside the point: for the purposes of the HYP-P board it can be ignored. (I know someone referred to the Dead Sea scrolls: this is the equivalent to deciding which books to include in the Bible and which of the 30 odd "articles" to leave out!)

I made clear I was not seeking to be provocative, it is just that this article seems to go against much of what I thought I understood. If you insist on saying that I am deliberately being provocative I guess you must be calling me a liar. Out of order IMHO, not so much provocative on your part, just plain rude.

I'm not calling you a liar, just provocative. I assume your accusation is based on your making it clear that you were not seeking to be provocative, but it's possible to be provocative without thinking one is. I expect I do that too

[Arborbridge]

It would be helpful all round if contributors to these posts followed the guidelines of the Board and ignored the views of the one attributed with the invention of a HYP (which was as I understand it, to help in the sale of his tipsheet). That is now history. Would save a lot of hot air and argument, although some clearly enjoy that)

Dod

Yes, except that the rules of this board were derived from that history, so it can be considered crucuial. If not, that board would undergo mission creep and end up not being a HYP-P board at all.
That founding history is the lynchpin and reason for the board to exist, and explains how it came about. The changes in guidelines which have been made since are minor and were done thoughtfully, carefully and with due regard to that history, to judge by the result.

Arb.

[jackdaww]

It would be helpful all round if contributors to these posts followed the guidelines of the Board and ignored the views of the one attributed with the invention of a HYP (which was as I understand it, to help in the sale of his tipsheet). That is now history. Would save a lot of hot air and argument, although some clearly enjoy that)

Dod

Yes, except that the rules of this board were derived from that history, so it can be considered crucuial. If not, that board would undergo mission creep and end up not being a HYP-P board at all.
That founding history is the lynchpin and reason for the board to exist, and explains how it came about. The changes in guidelines which have been made since are minor and were done thoughtfully, carefully and with due regard to that history, to judge by the result.

Arb.

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

i (seriously) think this board should be left well alone .

it has more traffic then most .

its clear many ENJOY the endless discussions and arguments add infinitum on such things as -

what to do with cutters

what to top up next

what PYAD said / didnt say

HYP history

and so on and so on ....