sharetrader
Page 6 of 26 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 252
  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justakiwi View Post
    Yes, but you said above, companies should not pay dividends until they are fully matured with no further room for expansion. My question is (as a beginner who is learning) do companies ever truly get to the point where no further expansion/growth is possible?
    Yes as I mentioned before, if the investor seeks dividends, they choose portfolios the consist of such companies. The likes of utilities, electricity companies where there's a finite limited market share and the companies have been in existence for many decades. This is not the case in NZ where the emphasis is expectation of dividends regardless of the 'type' of business they choose to invest in.

    Quote Originally Posted by 777 View Post
    If a company is paying a dividend then it must be making a profit. Not all profit is distributed thus leaving a varying % for further expansion.
    I used the example of The Warehoues Group in the past replies. In their early years on the NZX, they too had a 'dividend policy' which was basically a rout to strum up investors. The policy of paying a set dividend rate carried on throughout all the years when they needed capital to expand. It was inevitable that red sheds would open up in every decent size town throughout NZ but during those decades, they funded that expansion through bank loaning it to issuing more shares. Yes some years where they had a loss they still paid the dividend (done by borrowing additional funds and floating more shares to pay the out goings to shareholders).

    If the board of directors don't seem to have the same alignment view with their shareholders, then I must say they're not worthy of a company to invest in.

  2. #52
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    9,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Yes as I mentioned before, if the investor seeks dividends, they choose portfolios the consist of such companies. The likes of utilities, electricity companies where there's a finite limited market share and the companies have been in existence for many decades. This is not the case in NZ where the emphasis is expectation of dividends regardless of the 'type' of business they choose to invest in.
    I would like to see these two lists of 'dividend companies' and 'growth companies'.

    My investment in NZ's electricity gentailers has yielded very high growth over the last three years. I am talking a capital gain of 50% plus dividends. That sort of return would be very satisfactory for a growth company, but it has been achieved by investing in a boring no growth industry. Yes the electricity market in terms of MWh sold has barely grown in that time.

    Contrast this to my investment in Sky City which is plugged into NZ's tourism growth boom. These have fallen in value by 20% over the same period, even though dividend payments have been maintained to keep me happy.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 30-05-2019 at 08:33 AM.
    Watch out for the most persistent and dangerous version of Covid-19: B.S.24/7

  3. #53
    Senior Member Lego_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    I would like to see these two lists of 'dividend companies' and 'growth companies'.

    My investment in NZ's electricity gentailers has yielded very high growth over the last three years. I am talking a capital gain of 50% plus dividends. That sort of return would be very satisfactory for a growth company, but it has been achieved by investing in a boring no growth industry. Yes the electricity market in terms of MWh sold has barely grown in that time.

    Contrast this to my investment in Sky City which is plugged into NZ's tourism growth boom. These have fallen in value by 20% over the same period, even though dividend payments have been maintained to keep me happy.

    SNOOPY

    What's been the EPS growth of the gentailers though? How much of the share price appreciation has been a P/E ratio expansion?

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lego_Man View Post
    What's been the EPS growth of the gentailers though? How much of the share price appreciation has been a P/E ratio expansion?
    BINGO! Someone that knows the importance of shareholder value. I'll reiterate, when NZ listed companies start hiding figures that really matter (ie EPS) or making investors manually calculating such figures.. then that tells me they're selling something else. Over in N. America, EPS is a major metric # in quarterly reporting. P/E also matters in value investments, but in NZ, it's of little relevance due to NZ's small size (when the company is the ONLY company in the NZ industry, then you can't go by any other benchmark). I also wonder in NZ finance news, why they don't report the performance of the companies in terms of EPS? On the radio they're great at saying how much sales has been achieved or growth in some area, etc. but why not figures that really matter like EPS?

    Trickery comes in all forms and the dividend policy is a good way to mask or exaggerate things for shareholders. I see directors of such companies stringing along or implementing the idea that as long as shareholders get the dividend, they can do other things that would be detrimental to the company, and when things get so bad that a dividend can't be paid, well then that's too late.

  5. #55
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    9,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lego_Man View Post
    What's been the EPS growth of the gentailers though? How much of the share price appreciation has been a P/E ratio expansion?
    For 'Contact Energy', it depends on which way you look at things:

    eps Growth

    I calculated 22.0c eps for FY2015 and 18.3c eps for FY2018. So all of the the share price gain has been in
    PE expansion!

    dps Growth

    If you accept 'anticipated dividend yield' is the motivation for the dividend hound to chase a share, I observe something rather interesting. Note I have adjusted the dividends to the after tax money received because not all the dividends below were fully imputed

    Dividends Paid over FY2016: 15c x (0.72) + 11c x (0.9237) = 21.0c

    Dividends Paid over FY2019: 19c + 16c x (0.8239) = 32.3c

    That means from an 'after tax dividend' point of view (+54%) the increase in dividend received is very closely associated with the 50% increase on share price. There was no contribution to the capital gain from PE expansion!

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 30-05-2019 at 06:02 PM.
    Watch out for the most persistent and dangerous version of Covid-19: B.S.24/7

  6. #56
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    9,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    For 'Contact Energy', it depends on which way you look at things:

    eps Growth

    I calculated 22.0c eps for FY2015 and 18.3c eps for FY2018. So all of the the share price gain has been in
    PE expansion!

    dps Growth

    If you accept 'anticipated dividend yield' is the motivation for the dividend hound to chase a share, I observe something rather interesting. Note I have adjusted the dividends to the after tax money received because not all the dividends below were fully imputed

    Dividends Paid over FY2016: 15c x (0.72) + 11c x (0.9237) = 21.0c

    Dividends Paid over FY2019: 19c + 16c x (0.8239) = 32.3c

    That means from an 'after tax dividend' point of view (+54%) the increase in dividend received is very closely associated with the 50% increase on share price. There was no contribution to the capital gain from PE expansion!
    In light of what I have said above, I think it is interesting to report what the then new chairman Sir Ralph Norris said about what he planned to do with cashflows once assuming office after the Origin Energy sell down. This period covers the circa 50% increase in value of Contact Energy shares since the former cornerstone shareholder Origin Energy sold out. From p6 AR2016

    "We have three choices for the cash flow: distribute to shareholders, pay down debt or reinvest capital in maintaining and growing the business. We understand that that investors are looking at Contact as a company with a strong dividend yield and so we continue to have a dividend policy that focuses on returning cash to shareholders."

    This statement from the Chairman couldn't be more clear in that he sees Contact as a dividend generating company. Over the subsequent time, Contact has indeed continued to pay out very generous dividend to shareholders. But the return that shareholders have accumulated from those dividends has been dwarfed by the capital growth in the share price over the same period. And that shows that even a determined 'dividend payer' can take a strong place in a 'growth portfolio'.

    I should add that I invested in Contact for the dividend, but have been pleasantly astonished at how the share price has grown since Origin sold out.

    SNOOPY
    Watch out for the most persistent and dangerous version of Covid-19: B.S.24/7

  7. #57
    Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,685

    Default

    Be aware of Management particularly CEO
    "Yahoo Finance
    Buffett: The 'biggest danger' a company faces is picking the wrong CEO
    Julia La Roche
    Julia La RocheˇCorrespondent
    Tue, May 4, 2021, 5:28 AM

    BRK-A
    +2.37%

    BRK-B
    +2.15%
    Warren Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A, BRK-B), says the most significant risk factor a company faces is selecting the wrong CEO.

    The 90-year-old investing legend said that he's "looked at a lot of businesses, and that's what's caused the number one problem," and it's not listed in securities filings.

    "The biggest danger, they have that section in the prospectus called…[certain risk factors]. The number one risk factor, you never see it, the number one risk factor is that this business gets the wrong management, and you get a guy or a woman in charge of it that are personable, the directors like them, they don't know what they're doing, but they know how to put on an appearance. That's the single biggest danger," Buffett said during Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting of shareholders on Saturday.

    Later in the meeting, Buffett said the main thing for Berkshire's board is to "preserve the culture" and if they "get the wrong person as the CEO, you can do something about it."

    "That's the biggest risk a board has, is if you pick the wrong CEO and I've been on 20 boards, and this happened more than once. Sometimes it's a terrible problem to get rid of them. Years go by and if a dissident comes in, it's one thing, but if you just sit there and you collect your $300,000, $400,000 a year, and the chief executive keeps proposing you get an increase from time to time — it's worse yet if he's a nice person doing his best."


    CEO mythology
    Buffett also said he might write in a future annual shareholder letter about the topic of myths perpetuated by CEOs.

    "[One] of the subjects I might write about in one of the future annual reports is the problems caused by the myths that people have about their own organization. And I've seen that so many times in various forms," Buffett said.

    According to Buffett, this mythology problem has "to some extent become accentuated in the last 20 or 30 years, because the CEO often works with the investor relations and they say, 'Well, we have to have constant contact with the analyst community.' And of course, so they go on every couple of months, and they repeat certain things about their company, and it becomes part of, sort of the catechism. And nobody's going to go on two months after the CEO has said one thing and say, 'Well, actually, that really isn't the way.' They're not going to contradict themselves or change course."

    Without mentioning companies by name, Buffett said there's "a lot of mythology that gets handed down from one CEO to the next."

    "Can the succeeding CEO say the guy that picked him was on the wrong course or he's been telling you something that isn't really quite true? He can't do it. And then he starts repeating it and it leads to enormous errors, but it's hard to tell the story without giving examples and I don't like to give examples," Buffett added.

    Buffett's long-time business partner, Berkshire Hathaway's vice chairman Charlie Munger weighed in: "[What's] really interesting is the way you prattle out all the time. You're pounding back in, even if it's wrong."

    Julia La Roch

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    "The number one risk factor, you never see it, the number one risk factor is that this business gets the wrong management, and you get a guy or a woman in charge of it that are personable, the directors like them, they don't know what they're doing, but they know how to put on an appearance. That's the single biggest danger,"
    Most definitely and perhaps this answer the question in my other posts why shareholders tend to 'expect' dividend payments from the mgt team / directors of the company. Perhaps it could be many decades of failed managements of NZ listed companies that it's kinda painted the investment area that it's probably not such a bad idea to get some form of payment than risk losing 100% of the investment.

    I've been living in NZ long enough (25+ years) and see 1 example after another where mgt has failed. You know, 1 CEO or CFO or director sacked from their job and it's not just the smaller companies that behave this way, but also the larger NZ listed ones. I remember NZ Telecom looking for a CEO replacement when they hired a guy from overseas with a massive pay package ; his glorious idea was to change the to what we have Spark.

    What is clear about investment rules is what happens in NZ is clearly different to what happens abroad. So what Warren Buffet says is of moot interest to the NZ investor (or so that's my perception I see here). Likewise with the difference in taxation where Kiwi Savers funds pay taxes every year + FIF / FDR on US listed equities (and then to investors at RWT) or the PIE rate. Whereas N. America, savers there pay no taxes to maximise compound growth and can control their rate of tax they pay at retirement (for which senior incomes are low as they quit their day job) are much less. I'm not at all comfortable of the NZ arrangement that investors in their 20s - 50s should be paying taxes on investment gains when those are the years they are "most productive". The deferring of taxing over in US/Canada is a definitely win for the middle class.

  9. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Hi OldTech,

    My rules are similar to what the book "Warren Buffett and the Interpretation of Financial Statements" alludes to.

    I’m looking for companies that show a consistent 5+ year trend of growth in revenue, earnings. They have low/no debt relative to profits and they have a ‘moat’ or at least be the/one of the preferred in its field (eg Auckland Airport has a big competitive advantage to say Wellington or Christchurch airport).

    I use a discounted dividend/cashflow model in which I want to get a forecasted 10 year 14.4% minimum return (quadruple my money in 10 years).

    My rules for my portfolio is that my stock picking capital is only 1% of my overall investment portfolio (we have a few hundred thousand in rental property and KiwiSaver index funds and another non KiwiSaver index fund) so portfolio gets topped up each Jan 1st or I take any cash in the portfolio and dump into mortgages or index funds. This equates to a few thousand of a portfolio in sharesies I’m currently running. This allows me to pursue my hobby of stock picking without putting the family financial plan at risk because of a conviction I have on a particular company.

    Several years ago before meeting my wife or having children, I had a portfolio in the vicinity of $80k which was being used to accumulate as a house deposit. My rules weren’t very stringent and I was mainly focusing on the ASX. I had 60% from memory of my portfolio in Slater & Gordon and that completely tanked. I'd built it up from a few wins though which balanced out (Credit Corp, Supply Network) I learnt my lesson and am now sticking to the NZX which I know companies better (tax benefits too). I now cap my weighting of a particular stock to 30% on purchase and if it goes over 40% of portfolio (including cash on the side) I sell down to get back within 30-40% I've learnt no matter how convinced I am that I’m right, picking a company and betting big on it sometimes doesn’t work. I’m not bulletproof so a bit of a limit and diversification helps.

    My wife is also a good sounding board, she knows little about stock picking, fundamental analysis etc. if I approach her and say oh by the way I’m just going to take a grand or two out of out mortgage and bet it on Oceania Healthcare or Mainfreight she certainly tells me where to stick it so my impetuous nature when I see a deal gets brought back into the wider context. Finding someone like this for all of us (whether your spouse, child, family friend who’s adept at business and is conservative) I recommend I’m a far better investor because of that outside influence.

    My rules as far as companies go it’s a mix of a Buffett/Munger and Peter Lynch type approach. Find a business I understand (takes out banks, insurance, energy utilities, biotech, technology) take out businesses growing too slow (listed property, mature industries) and non profitable ones (hard to value) really only leaves me with a handful of NZX companies to choose from. Choose a management that’s got skin in the game and has shareholders as best interest (whittles it down even more).

    Then just hold onto them for a long time until something catastrophic happens to the underlying business that makes it different from the initial reason to buy it, the management becomes people I don’t want to do business with or the growth grinds to a halt and better alternatives come along.

    So those are my rules. All in a valuation/mental checklist I keep in my head (easy when there are less than 10 companies) and just loosely follow the business news but mainly read NZX announcements and annual reports.

    Thought about venturing back into ASX for more opportunities and growth companies but figure it's 1% odd of investment net worth (excluding family home), it gives me pleasure following companies so scratched my itch without overtaking my life with a demanding career and family life.

    Currently I’m holding Oceania, Summerset, Asset Plus, NZ Cash fund (thanks Snoopy! As was NZ Bond Fund). Everything else on my watchlist (Mainfreight, Auckland Airport, Ryman, Ebos, F&P Healthcare, Goodman Property) is a bit too expensive.
    Last edited by epower; 30-05-2021 at 11:52 AM. Reason: Errored writing on phone, rectified

  10. #60
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    My only rule - keep stacking up income.

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
  •