sharetrader
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    Default Is it best to take profit and re-invest or leave it sitting?

    Since I am not a math wizard I am having trouble coming to grips with this scenario below. Have 6000 SEK in portfolio with a holding cost of $1.90 and current SP of $5.30. This represents 20,000 in un-realized gains. As a dividend yield it is returning approx. 1700 gross per year. which is close to 15% gross. I cannot figure out what is best from a financial viewpoint. For example if I leave it as is its pretty much a growing gold plated dividend earner but a part of me is saying but if you take the profits out and spread them elsewhere it could compound faster. So if I sell 3800 I get my 20000 current profit out and this leaves me with 2200 shares which will return 630 gross a year which is a reduction from 1700 per year so a loss of 1070. To make up that loss I only need to get something like 5.35 from the 20,000. I'm pretty sure I can get several % points better so on the face of it I think I will be better off. However I don't trust my analysis or math skills to be sure. Any suggestions or formulas that can be applied to test similar situations?
    www.dividendyield.co.nz
    Conservative Investing and dividend producers...get rich slowly!
    https://www.facebook.com/dividendyieldnz

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BIRMANBOY View Post
    Since I am not a math wizard I am having trouble coming to grips with this scenario below. Have 6000 SEK in portfolio with a holding cost of $1.90 and current SP of $5.30. This represents 20,000 in un-realized gains. As a dividend yield it is returning approx. 1700 gross per year. which is close to 15% gross. I cannot figure out what is best from a financial viewpoint. For example if I leave it as is its pretty much a growing gold plated dividend earner but a part of me is saying but if you take the profits out and spread them elsewhere it could compound faster. So if I sell 3800 I get my 20000 current profit out and this leaves me with 2200 shares which will return 630 gross a year which is a reduction from 1700 per year so a loss of 1070. To make up that loss I only need to get something like 5.35 from the 20,000. I'm pretty sure I can get several % points better so on the face of it I think I will be better off. However I don't trust my analysis or math skills to be sure. Any suggestions or formulas that can be applied to test similar situations?
    Thats right but you went the long way about calculating your dividend return.


    • 6,000*$5.30 = $31,800
    • $1,700/$31,800 = 0.053 (x100) = 5.3% return on the current value of the investment

  3. #3
    Reincarnated Panthera Snow Leopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Private Universe
    Posts
    5,853

    Lightbulb Tiger's Razor

    You seem to have thunk yourself into a corner there !

    You can ignore how many you bought an what price and how many you need to sell to have 'free' shares. None of that has absolutely anything to do with it.

    It is a straight comparison of current dividend yields (I recommend you look at this site: http://www.dividendyield.co.nz/ for information).

    I will use the a definition of the last twelve months paid dividends / current share price for yield.

    So SEK is $0.278/$5.30 = 5.25%

    & for example

    HBL is $0.118/$1.68 = 7.02%

    &

    FPH is $0.253/$9.65 = 2.62%

    So if you sell any amount of SEK and buy HBL your dividend yield goes up.
    and if you sell any amount of SEK and buy FPH your dividend yield goes down.

    Of course this ignores, expected future capital gains and future dividend amounts, brokerage etc.

    Best Wishes
    Paper Tiger
    om mani peme hum

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Dividends is only one part of it however so if you wanted to find your total return on the investment you could also take a look at the capital gains you have made. But you'll need to take into account when you bought the shares.

    e.g. if you bought the shares at $1.9 a year ago and they are now worth $5.30 thats a great annual return of 279%pa average. But if you bought them 10 years ago its 27%pa average.

    ^ so if you have say a 27%pa average + you get a 5.3% div, you might of had a total investment return closer to 32%pa averaged. Check out sharesight.co.nz they can add this all up for you, and it's free for the first 10 investments.

  5. #5
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,876

    Default

    What PT said. Forget what has happened in the past and what price you bought shares at. That is totally irrelevant. Its what is ahead that counts.

  6. #6
    Reincarnated Panthera Snow Leopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Private Universe
    Posts
    5,853

    Lightbulb I find this sort of stuff trival but I may be a Tiger Savant

    Quote Originally Posted by FIsaver View Post
    ....e.g. if you bought the shares at $1.9 a year ago and they are now worth $5.30 thats a great annual return of 279%pa average. But if you bought them 10 years ago its 27%pa average....
    OK so while we are doing basic maths and stuff.

    If you bought them at $1.90 and now they are worth $5.3 then they are worth 2.7895 times what you paid for them (278.95%).

    If that is over one year then the [compound] annual return is 178.95%
    [ Excel formula =POWER(5.3/1.9,1)-1 ]

    If that is over ten years then the [compound] annual return is 10.80%
    [ Excel formula = POWER(5.3/1.9,1/10)-1 ]

    Adding in the dividend yield complicates things depending upon whether you re-invest said dividends or spend it on sharesight subscriptions.

    Best Wishes
    Paper Tiger
    Last edited by Snow Leopard; 13-04-2017 at 01:00 PM. Reason: removing, or inserting, the ambiguity
    om mani peme hum

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paper Tiger View Post
    OK so while we are doing basic maths and stuff.

    If you bought them at $1.90 and now they are worth $5.3 then they are worth 2.7895 times what you paid for them (278.95%).

    If that is over one year then the [compound] annual return is 178.95%
    [ Excel formula =POWER(5.3/1.9,1)-1 ]

    If that is over ten years then the [compound] annual return is 10.80%
    [ Excel formula = POWER(5.3/1.9,1/10)-1 ]

    Adding in the dividend yield complicates things depending upon whether you re-invest said dividends or spend it on sharesight subscriptions.

    Best Wishes
    Paper Tiger
    Ah yes! I didn't think about compounded return.

  8. #8
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Thanks to all for your thoughts..yes its the compounding factor which is hard to understand.. If I take out the 20,000 and can get a better gross than 5.3% on that 20,000 then this surely has to compound faster than the present 1700 annual (actually less because this is before taxes). At the moment the 20,000 isn't compounding but is just growing along with the SP growth. This is just getting cloudy...my brain hurts
    www.dividendyield.co.nz
    Conservative Investing and dividend producers...get rich slowly!
    https://www.facebook.com/dividendyieldnz

  9. #9
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    So thinking out loud, it really comes down to whether the 20,000 will compound faster if converted to cash and re-invested or is the factor of SP growth greater. And the problem with answering this is its dependant on the future and is unknown. Since I have owned the shares since 2011, they have grown in value from 1.90 to 5.30 in 6 years (forgetting the dividends). SO this is 179% or 29.83% straight line per year. If this continues then it would be hard to beat especially if you add in the dividends but I cant help thinking I am overlooking something or missing something. Sorry if my thinking sounds confused..it is...maybe I am thinking growth and compounding are different things but they aren't really after all are they. Growth may be increased by compounding aspects but if linear growth outgrows compounding growth then its immaterial if its compounded or not.
    www.dividendyield.co.nz
    Conservative Investing and dividend producers...get rich slowly!
    https://www.facebook.com/dividendyieldnz

  10. #10
    Reincarnated Panthera Snow Leopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Private Universe
    Posts
    5,853

    Exclamation Speechless



    Best Wishes
    Paper Tiger
    om mani peme hum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •