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

Different ways of taking income

General discussions about equity high-yield income strategies
tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433040

Postby tjh290633 » August 6th, 2021, 11:05 pm

jackdaww wrote:some articles very recently in the IC about this very subject i think - which i take to debunk the high yield approach .

Unfortunately the high yield approach has worked better for a long period than the other approach, as evidenced by the FT350HY TR and FTSE350LY TR indices.

TJH

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

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433045

Postby Itsallaguess » August 7th, 2021, 6:27 am

GoSeigen wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:
The OP said this in his opening post -

there seems to be a continuing debate around whether it is more profitable to follow a 'total return and sell a few when needed' versus 'live off the dividends and/or yield'.

I asked both him and Alaric, who's also repeated the same statement many times over the years, to please provide A SINGLE LINK to any income-investor on these boards who has EVER suggested that income-investing is 'more profitable' or 'better' (from a TR perspective..) as an investment strategy...

Neither have been able to do so....


Not a link, but a name: Rob Davies aka MunroMan, he of "90% of returns come from dividends in the long run" fame.

He made this claim about as often as your antagonists -- and based on some very dodgy maths indeed.


Thanks GS - I'm aware of Rob's regular forays down that particular rabbit-hole, and the number of times he was pulled up over it and re-educated as to the fact that it wasn't 'dividends' per se, but the re-investment of them that provided the bulk of the returns that he was claiming, but I'm not quite sure that's the same as trying to claim that income-strategies were 'more profitable' or 'better' (from a TR perspective) than other types of investment approaches.

So I think there's a distinction in the claim he was making with that statement, incorporating the inherent and regular mistake at the heart of it, and a claim that one particular approach was 'better' than another....

Thanks for the reminder though, and I remember you were regularly involved with many of those re-education episodes, which seemed to be required so regularly that one began to be a little concerned as to why earlier arguments on the very same claims needed to be repeated as often as they did...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4350
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433046

Postby GoSeigen » August 7th, 2021, 6:56 am

GoSeigen wrote:
Not a link, but a name: Rob Davies aka MunroMan, he of "90% of returns come from dividends in the long run" fame. He made this claim about as often as your antagonists -- and based on some very dodgy maths indeed.

GS

Well I named a name, it wasn't accepted. Maybe that is part of the problem. Asking for something then rejecting it when given calls into question the intelligence or good faith of the giver -- then no wonder there's a reluctance to respond to challenges to produce evidence. Even if it is not intended to be it looks like a rhetorical trick and people don't like that sort of game.

GS

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

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433049

Postby Itsallaguess » August 7th, 2021, 7:12 am

jackdaww wrote:
Some articles very recently in the IC about this very subject I think - which I take to debunk the high yield approach .


Well you can't beat a bit of confirmation-bias every now and then, can you...

But more seriously, I think it's going to be difficult to 'debunk' a whole investment strategy whilst it clearly continues to be used by some investors, many of which post here, and who continue to enjoy the benefits that are delivered *for them* by using it...

So if we hopefully might agree that, then what are we really left with?

I suppose we're left with saying that a *high-yield* approach might not actually deliver to a particular investors individual requirements all the time, and of course, it's clear that this might be the case, just the same as we might agree that 'value investing' might not suit a particular investor, who might not possess the analytical skills often required to highlight 'value investing candidates' - but if you're one of those investors who doesn't have the analytical skills for value-investing, does it give anyone the right to 'debunk' the whole approach, or do we just accept that there's perhaps some strategies that don't suit some particular investors, but that it also clearly *does* suit others, and we might perhaps simply move on, without the need to want to 'debunk' anything?

And I suppose we're also left, perhaps, with saying that a *high-yield* approach might not suit an investor with regards to short, medium, or long-term volatility, or reliability, and again, it's clear that this might be the case, but if there's high-yield investors who are happy to live with those potential issues, and are happy to create and live with any long-term coping strategies that might be required to manage them, then does the actual existence of the potential issues give anyone the right to 'debunk' the whole approach, or do we again simply accept that there's some strategies that might contain inherent aspects of them that might not suit some investors to have to cope with, but also that it clearly *does* suit others who are perhaps happier to 'cope' with those aspects, and so we might simply 'move on' again, without the need to want to 'debunk' anything at all...

I think the word 'debunk' carries with it an implication that something simply 'doesn't work', and that clearly can't be true if we've got long-term posters here who have managed to retire and continue to enjoy the results from taking a high-yield approach, so if we might agree that (and if you don't, then I'd be interested to hear why not..), we seem to be left with the fact that taking a high-yield approach simply might not 'suit everybody' in terms of what they might be looking for from an investment strategy, and I really don't think there'd be any arguments at all if that was where we'd perhaps land with this, as it's clearly true that there are *many* investment approaches that we might look to take as individual investors, and it's likely that there's *many* of those investment approaches that might not suit our individual requirements, so why would it be so surprising to find that a high-yield approach might be contained in that list of 'sorry, that doesn't suit me' list?

To be clear, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I would absolutely put myself in that latter category - I've taken a high-yield (single-share) approach in the past, and it didn't suit me, and I moved on, but that wasn't because I'd 'debunked' the approach, but because I'd learnt enough about it's particular risks and foibles to clearly understand that, whilst it's clear that there are mitigating strategies that can be taken to cope with them, it wasn't going to suit me as an individual to have to do that over the long-term that I needed my investment strategy to last, and because the results I'd seen from it didn't suit me as an individual investor...

That's not to say that there's clearly many investors who are much happier to live with them, and for those, it's clear that a high-yield approach *does* suit them better than it suited me, so how can such an approach be completely 'debunked', when people are quite happily using it?

That would be like taking a BMW and Audi for a test-drive, finding yourself much preferring the Audi, and then trying to 'debunk' BMW's....

As an aside though, and remembering that this thread is actually talking about 'Different ways of taking income', I do think it's again important to point out that *not all* dividend-based strategies are using a 'high-yield' approach, and there very often seems to be an assumption with these types of discussions that all income-investors are to be automatically assumed to be 'high-yield' investors, with all the 'high-yield' implications that such an approach might bring, and I do think it's very important to acknowledge that there are *many* income-investors on these boards that have recognised the reliability and volatility issues with focussing on the word 'high', and are much happier to look further down the yield curve to more 'medium' yielding investments, many of which don't suffer from the volatility and reliability issues perhaps seen with many of the more 'higher yielding' options.

That would certainly describe my own investment journey towards lower-yielding collective investments, which deliver dividend-based results that I'm personally much, much happier with in terms of a long-term investment strategy, but I think it's very important not to fall into what seems to be a regular trap on these boards, where anyone wanting to discuss 'income-investment' is automatically assumed to be talking from a 'high-yield' approach, and it's important to recognise that this clearly *isn't* the case, and so such assumptions aren't very helpful on a thread that's simply wanting to discuss different ways of *taking* income, rather than making incorrect assumptions about which approach might be being used to *generate* the income for those of us taking a more 'dividend-delivery' approach...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

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

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433051

Postby Itsallaguess » August 7th, 2021, 7:23 am

GoSeigen wrote:
GoSeigen wrote:
Not a link, but a name: Rob Davies aka MunroMan, he of "90% of returns come from dividends in the long run" fame. He made this claim about as often as your antagonists -- and based on some very dodgy maths indeed.


Well I named a name, it wasn't accepted. Maybe that is part of the problem. Asking for something then rejecting it when given calls into question the intelligence or good faith of the giver -- then no wonder there's a reluctance to respond to challenges to produce evidence. Even if it is not intended to be it looks like a rhetorical trick and people don't like that sort of game.


Sorry GS - I'm not really comfortable with being accused of 'rhetorical trickery' on this particular point.

My question was with regards to anyone highlighting a historical poster who's ever claimed that income-strategies delivered *better returns* than TR-based strategies, but as far as I'm aware Rob never actually claimed that, and his claim was not particularly about the *level* of a given 'return', but how much influence dividends played in generating returns in general, which I think is sufficiently different to the question asked to justify my earlier response.

The fact that his regular claim was also debunked as having a completely false premise in the first place steered such claims into the realms of fantasy anyway, so I'm not quite sure that his example stands up on a couple of fronts to be honest...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4350
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1590 times
Been thanked: 1579 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433057

Postby GoSeigen » August 7th, 2021, 8:13 am

Itsallaguess wrote:
GoSeigen wrote:
GoSeigen wrote:
Not a link, but a name: Rob Davies aka MunroMan, he of "90% of returns come from dividends in the long run" fame. He made this claim about as often as your antagonists -- and based on some very dodgy maths indeed.


Well I named a name, it wasn't accepted. Maybe that is part of the problem. Asking for something then rejecting it when given calls into question the intelligence or good faith of the giver -- then no wonder there's a reluctance to respond to challenges to produce evidence. Even if it is not intended to be it looks like a rhetorical trick and people don't like that sort of game.


Sorry GS - I'm not comfortable with being accused of 'rhetorical trickery' on this particular point.

My question was with regards to anyone highlighting a historical poster who's every claimed that income-strategies delivered *better returns* than TR-based strategies, but as far as I'm aware Rob never actually claimed that, and his claim was not particularly about the *level* of a given 'return', but how much influence dividends played in generating returns in general, which I think is sufficiently different to the question asked to justify my earlier response.

The fact that his regular claim was also debunked as having a completely false premise in the first place steered such claims into the realms of fantasy anyway, so I'm not quite sure that his example stands up on a couple of fronts to be honest...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


Well I'm certainly not going to volunteer any more examples, it's a waste of time. IAAG wouldn't agree anyway, he's made up his mind. And anyway my point is this: the fact that you don't receive any examples does not mean that they don't exist; there are other reasons for people's reluctance to engage -- lack of time, lack of inclination, and removal of the evidence from TMF (where this sort of thing was regularly discussed) being three simple examples -- which have nothing to do with whether the original assertion was correct or not.

To give an opinion for which I am not prepared to dredge up links or other evidence: there have been long debates in the past about whether capital appreciation was of any importance to a high yield investor, and also claims that by targeting high yield stocks a portfolio could outperform the general market. I occasionally took part in these discussions so this stands as my sworn witness statement. My position since at least 2006 has been that every investment is a combination of three types of cashflow: purchase price, income, disposal price; that it was 100% clear to me that if one of those cashflows was too large the others had to be smaller for a given total return. It's therefore foolish to evaluate an investment on running yield alone because losses or gains can be baked into the purchase and disposal price, which you are thereby ignoring. There was never a shortage of people disputing this position, many of whom argued that focussing on dividends (in various ways) is sufficient to get superior returns. One of those people is TJH, who has always argued that shares are superior to gilts because their income rises with inflation, never acknowledging [well he simply repeats his views over and over without caveat] that other factors may come into play, including that the income is not guaranteed to rise but may actually fall, which outcome consequently is inferior to that of higher-ranked fixed-income securities. Another poster, LFC, could never accept that there is any similarity in the maths of shares and bonds: that if a share's "coupon" is too high, then its capital necessarily has to decline (or the coupon be cut) to achieve a given yield. His argument in effect was that there was no danger in a share whose dividend payments were too high, which is an argument IMU that income (ignoring "capital") is a sufficient indicator of a sound investment.

None of this will be of interest to IAAG who will dismiss it as hand-waving or not quite addressing his narrow point. So I'll just leave it as my worthless opinion. It may be of passing interest to someone.

Incidentally large-cap UK shares -- despite their rising dividends -- underperformed from 2000, the early golden age of TMF/HYP, all the way through to last March/April. A combination of cash, gilts and corporate bonds has trounced shares over that period; I know because it is how all my portfolios were composed -- based on my above understanding of securities maths and the prevailing yield/risk curves -- and they have a return of some 12% CAGR over the period. I don't claim the same will happen where we are starting from now, but that is a different question...

GS

jackdaww
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2081
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:53 am
Has thanked: 3203 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433058

Postby jackdaww » August 7th, 2021, 8:21 am

tjh290633 wrote:
jackdaww wrote:some articles very recently in the IC about this very subject i think - which i take to debunk the high yield approach .

Unfortunately the high yield approach has worked better for a long period than the other approach, as evidenced by the FT350HY TR and FTSE350LY TR indices.

TJH


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

if that is the case , i would expect the high yield approach to be very widely promoted , rather than a few dozen followers on here , and of course fund managers who see an easy opportunity .

TUK020
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2039
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 1175 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433059

Postby TUK020 » August 7th, 2021, 8:27 am

GoSeigen wrote:
Incidentally large-cap UK shares -- despite their rising dividends -- underperformed from 2000, the early golden age of TMF/HYP, all the way through to last March/April. A combination of cash, gilts and corporate bonds has trounced shares over that period; I know because it is how all my portfolios were composed -- based on my above understanding of securities maths and the prevailing yield/risk curves -- and they have a return of some 12% CAGR over the period. I don't claim the same will happen where we are starting from now, but that is a different question...

GS


GS, not disagreeing with any of these statements, but pointing out that this does not prove causality.
Large cap UK (high yield) shares may have underperformed since 2000, not because they are large cap high yield, but because the UK market only contains a skewed sample of sectors that have underperformed.

Incidentally, Munroman got taken to task over some of the overly provocative statements he made (repeatedly, to your frustration), but he also came up with this gem of a summary of the high yield portfolio approach:

There are only a few rules in finance.

Markets are volatile, get used to it.
No one really knows what is going on, so join the club.
Dividends keep companies a bit more honest.
Compound interest works.
Diversification reduces risk.

jackdaww
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2081
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:53 am
Has thanked: 3203 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433064

Postby jackdaww » August 7th, 2021, 8:52 am

jackdaww wrote:some articles very recently in the IC about this very subject i think - which i take to debunk the high yield approach .

i lost interest in the idea many years ago .

8-)


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

the writers were algy hall , phil oakley . i know chris dillow has written in a similar vein .

not to mention terry smith , warren buffett , and baillie gifford.

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

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433069

Postby Itsallaguess » August 7th, 2021, 9:09 am

GoSeigen wrote:
None of this will be of interest to IAAG who will dismiss it as hand-waving or not quite addressing his narrow point.


Heh - well I wouldn't dismiss it as hand-waiving GS, but simply yet more evidence of the desperate attempts to justify some people taking positions that lack the actual evidence to do so...

Lemon Fool has been running for nearly five years now, and I'm sorry, but if you're having to resort to 'sworn personal statements' that you remember a ghost from TMF that's cemented your views ever since, then quite frankly it all starts to look a bit odd that such vociferous legacy-grievances should be carried over to this place, where it's clear that modern-day evidence of posters holding such claims doesn't seem to exist...

I'm happy for you to continue battling yesterdays ghosts GS, but I'll continue to highlight that this is what might be going on in those cases where there's an inability to bring forward the requested evidence of what's actually been claimed...

Getting back on topic, this all of course completely misses the point that many income-investors are really *quite happy* to give up a level of total-return, because the income-based investment strategy that they might prefer to use delivers other benefits to them at the same time, and it's that primary point that often seems to be deliberately missed or denied with these types of discussions, but which actually forms the basis for many peoples preferences as to which approach they might prefer to take in the first place....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433070

Postby scrumpyjack » August 7th, 2021, 9:18 am

Of course all this discussion rather misses the point that the HYP concept, as I understand it, is that it is an alternative to taking an annuity. It has nothing to do with whether or not a TR approach is better. Also it is a perfectly reasonable approach to leave it to the directors of the companies you invest in to decide how much can be sustainably paid out as dividend, and then live off that ‘natural yield’ as income.

Personally it is not an approach that appeals to me, but if I had to choose between an annuity or an equity HYP, I would go for the latter.

jackdaww
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2081
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:53 am
Has thanked: 3203 times
Been thanked: 417 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433071

Postby jackdaww » August 7th, 2021, 9:31 am

scrumpyjack wrote:Of course all this discussion rather misses the point that the HYP concept, as I understand it, is that it is an alternative to taking an annuity. It has nothing to do with whether or not a TR approach is better. Also it is a perfectly reasonable approach to leave it to the directors of the companies you invest in to decide how much can be sustainably paid out as dividend, and then live off that ‘natural yield’ as income.

Personally it is not an approach that appeals to me, but if I had to choose between an annuity or an equity HYP, I would go for the latter.


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

perhaps just one bad idea replacing another bad idea...

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433078

Postby 88V8 » August 7th, 2021, 10:14 am

jackdaww wrote:perhaps just one bad idea replacing another bad idea...

Perhaps or perhaps not depending on how the HYP portfolio is run, but for sure the HYP leaves one with the capital and the annuity doesn't.

I think IAAG has the rights of it... HYP suits some. It suits me, to a degree, but alongside some FI.
However, like IAAG, I am moving more towards ITs because they involve less fiddling about.

I have come to think of HYP as a hobby with benefits.
All of the more elaborate investment strategies have a hobby element.
Hobbies suit some folk.
But it's hard to say that baking is 'better' than carpentry.

V8

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

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433084

Postby CryptoPlankton » August 7th, 2021, 10:57 am

This circular argument really is quite tiresome. "TR" proponents seem to be determined to provoke a fight with a pretty much non-existent foe. I derive much of my income from the "natural yield" generated by my investments, and I'm quite sure that by being heavily (but, admittedly, not exclusively) invested for "income", I'm not getting the very best returns I could. But, do you know what? I really don't care - and this is why:

a) It provides me with a sufficient, growing and fairly stable (I have a safety margin built in) income to help me live comfortably.

b) It is pretty effortless and requires only the very occasional "tinkering". I prefer to spend more time on other things.

c) It doesn't seem to prevent my overall "wealth" from increasing over time - a matter of some concern, as I have no heirs! (it actually contributes, though not as impressively as some of my other investments.)

So, if you can squeeze out better returns than me by doing it your way (and I'm sure you clever clogs out there can) then great. But there's no point in criticising my approach - what alternative can you offer me that I could possibly be interested in?

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

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433089

Postby Itsallaguess » August 7th, 2021, 11:26 am

CryptoPlankton wrote:
This circular argument really is quite tiresome.

"TR" proponents seem to be determined to provoke a fight with a pretty much non-existent foe.


Given the Olympics theme...

Interviewer - "Fantastic news Ben - GOLD for Great Britain in the marathon - I can't believe the amount of training you've had to put in to deliver that result, and as a jogger who's happy doing their 5k run once a week, I'm astounded at the level of fitness that must be needed to deliver on your marathon gold medal today - well done!'

Gold medal marathon winner Ben - "Thanks - but you should run further than that to be honest, and much more often as well, if you're wanting to get fit like me"

Interviewer - "Oh - erm, sorry Ben, I didn't say I wanted to get as fit as you, I was just mentioning that I love doing my 5k run once a week, that's all.."

Gold medal marathon winner Ben - "Well why don't you run further, and much more often - you could get fitter than you are now if you were to do that, clearly"

Interviewer - "Oh, erm, well of course you're probably quite right Ben, but I've not really got time in my weekly schedule to fit any more running in right now, and to be honest, I've tried longer-distances and they just don't seem to suit me in the way that enjoying a shorter 5k run does, and anyway, I'm really happy with the level of general fitness my current weekly 5k running schedule delivers, so I'll just keep that up for now, if that's OK?"

Gold medal marathon winner Ben - "Idiot..."

:O)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Darka
Lemon Slice
Posts: 773
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:18 pm
Has thanked: 1819 times
Been thanked: 704 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433091

Postby Darka » August 7th, 2021, 11:31 am

Itsallaguess wrote:Gold medal marathon winner Ben - "Idiot..."

:O)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


Lol, just about sums up this whole pointless argument ;)

Alaric
Lemon Half
Posts: 6033
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 1399 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433116

Postby Alaric » August 7th, 2021, 1:31 pm

As regards income being higher rated than cash or capital, why is it that some posters prefer to buy cum dividend rather than ex dividend? If their intention is to reinvest the dividend proceeds the theoretical position in the unlikely absence of market fluctuations is that they lose out by the stamp duty and spread when they reinvest the additional dividend. In the longer run too, their future dividends will be a little lower by virtue of having fewer shares.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433117

Postby scrumpyjack » August 7th, 2021, 1:39 pm

Alaric wrote:As regards income being higher rated than cash or capital, why is it that some posters prefer to buy cum dividend rather than ex dividend? If their intention is to reinvest the dividend proceeds the theoretical position in the unlikely absence of market fluctuations is that they lose out by the stamp duty and spread when they reinvest the additional dividend. In the longer run too, their future dividends will be a little lower by virtue of having fewer shares.


Sanjay Shah made a lot doing the old Danish dividend stripping ruse!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Shah

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433174

Postby 88V8 » August 7th, 2021, 7:06 pm

Alaric wrote:In the longer run too, their future dividends will be a little lower by virtue of having fewer shares.

Mmmm, maybe.
But that assumes a perfect market where the price declines by the sum of the divi. Often happens with FI, not so much with equities.
A dividend in the bank is a bird in the hand.

V8 (who nevertheless trades cum or ex, regardless)

kempiejon
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3488
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:30 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1145 times

Re: Different ways of taking income

#433175

Postby kempiejon » August 7th, 2021, 7:14 pm

88V8 wrote:But that assumes a perfect market where the price declines by the sum of the divi. Often happens with FI, not so much with equities.
A dividend in the bank is a bird in the hand.

V8 (who nevertheless trades cum or ex, regardless)


Yeah the ex or cum has been done a couple of times; I too generally buy when I have the money regardless of dividend state and market noise can push prices about as much as dividends. As I still save each month the collected dividends get invested each month too so no extra dealing costs.


Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests