idpickering wrote:Arborbridge wrote:floyd3592 wrote:
What's ur concern with HFEL Dod?
OT for a moment to answer this: it's because the dividend is partly paid for by a deterioration in your on capital "expensively bought" as Dod would say. As evidence of this, my own holding of HFEL has given a TR from 2011 of 5.9%pa. So given that the yield is similar or higher than that, I deduce that the capital has been eroded. Not seriously, but definitely.
Arb.
I’ve never held HFEL, but as the name of the game here is the income, and share price movements secondary, I’d be inclined to let it be and just accept that the share isn’t going to out perform on the capital value front, and just be grateful for the income. But then, what do I know?Each to their own, and all that. As for GSK, my intention is to continue to hold, for now at least.
Ian.
IMHO the reason why ‘capital is secondary’ was a justifiable part of PYADic HYP was because it was a forever hold strategy. For somebody willing to sell and replace or who practices some form of rebalancing based on capital values (i.e. taking both of those into account most people who post on this board) surely it is delusional to say capital should not be considered along side income. It is that sort of thinking that can lead to ‘sell low, but high’ decisions, which in the long term will have an adverse impact on income.