Telegrah - 4pc,5pc or 6pc yield

[moorfield]

The Telegraph has published three interesting tables today which may be of interest to those looking for HYP shares:

FTSE 100 stocks that yield at least 4pc ranked by dividend cover
Highest yielding FTSE 100 stocks
and
Highest yielding FTSE 100 stocks with positive dividend cover

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/sh ... ield-safe/

[Wizard]

Source is Stockopedia, but seems to be somewhat different to the numbers I get from DigitalLook. So Telegraph shows Pearson cover as -1.1 whereas DigitalLook shows cover as 1.35. Pretty big difference.

Terry.

[monabri]

1.35is the div cover for Pearson at 31 Dec 15 (2015) - source London Stock Exchange. I'm wondering that you only get old data from certain sites unless you pay for it?

Investing.thisismoney.co.uk suggests div cover of 0.9 !!

ADVFN =1.95.

[monabri]

When I run HYPTUSS with PSON - DigitalLook indicates a div cover of 1.30 (this is a little different from the figure you mention above).

[77ss]

Source is Stockopedia, but seems to be somewhat different to the numbers I get from DigitalLook. So Telegraph shows Pearson cover as -1.1 whereas DigitalLook shows cover as 1.35. Pretty big difference.

Terry.

You can't beat going to the horse's mouth.

From Pearson's last annual:

For 2015, the dividend is covered 1.4 times by adjusted earnings


However, the word 'adjusted' means that you have to decide how you want to define cover - using 'adjusted' eps or actual eps. Or, look at both and form a judgement about how reasonable the 'adjustment' seems to be (not easy!). With PSON, you also have to take into account its changed business - I susect this is a more important factor:

Adjusted earnings per share from continuing and discontinued operations 70.3p (hence the 1.35)

Strip out the discontinued operations (FT/Economist), and things look very different:

(Loss) / earnings per share from continuing operations (in pence per share) (43.3)p

Irritatingly, I can't find an 'adjusted' version of this latter figure.

[Arborbridge]

77ss,

This goes to the heart of why Luni didn't trust eps based factors, and why some people prefer free cash flow to equity - although that also has problems in deciding what to include in the "free" part of the expression.

It might also go some way to explain why SI was proposed for "ordinary" investors who are not account savvy

Arb.

[Wizard]

77ss,

This goes to the heart of why Luni didn't trust eps based factors, and why some people prefer free cash flow to equity - although that also has problems in deciding what to include in the "free" part of the expression.

It might also go some way to explain why SI was proposed for "ordinary" investors who are not account savvy

Arb.

Hang on Arb. There was recently a long debate about SI on this very board, the conclusion IIRC was that SI was aout the Long Term not about immediate considerations.

Terry.

[Arborbridge]

the conclusion IIRC was that SI was aout the Long Term not about immediate considerations.

I that case, Wizard, I must recant that remark

[toofast2live]

There is a thin line betweeen Strategic Ignorance and plain old Vanilla Ignorance. The former is very definitely about the long term. The latter is about ignoring aspects such as a five year record, gearing and cover, among other financial essentials.

Finding the information is not easy - primarily because companies do not want to make it easy. They prefer to control communications through expensive PR rather than financial reports.