KFL - Kingfish. What are your feelings for this?

[krusty]

Is this a winner? Some of the stats look okay.

[Contrarian]

Gidday
IMHO the Aussie version BRM is a much better deal.

[Catalyst]

I'm not sure what stats you are referring to Krusty, but KFL raised money in 2004 at $1 and seven years later they are trading at 99c. Yes, you would have received dividends during that time and some free options but this is hardly good stats.

KFL's dividend policy is to distribute 2% of avg NAV per quarter so it is best regarded as a high yielding stock (8%+ pa net) IMHO.

[Arbitrage]

KFL has never really performed over the years. I went to an AGM a couple of years ago and was surprised how those shareholders present worshipped the Board, particularly Carmel Fisher, despite their non performance and that it was trading at a significant discount to its asset holdings. The audience seemed to be mainly people who saw it as a good alternative investment to a share fund. The share price jumped that afternoon and really hasn't done much since.
Go to their website and sort through their portfolio, pick out the good stocks and go and buy them yourself. At least KFL won't clip the ticket along the way.

[krusty]

Thought the yield was better than a poke in the eye. Some of their assets seem to be winners.

[troyvdh]

,,,,,mmmmmm....buy RYM....I have some but not as many as i should..,.,.,.

[Arbitrage]

Exactly my point. Krusty, you are better to invest directly rather than through KFL.

[JemT]

I think BRM is a better deal than KFL, primarily because BRM gives you access to small cap ASX shares that you might not otherwise be able to economically buy (illiquidity/brokerage costs). KFL is really just a few main NZX 50 stocks. Also BRM is trading at about a 20% discount to NAV if I recall. The payout of 2% of NAV per quarter is not a bad return either.

[Arbitrage]

Congratulations to the Directors at KFL. We are back to par.

[777]

The warrants then are in the money.