Arborbridge wrote:idpickering wrote:Arborbridge wrote:
To IDP: wot no pickering? You rather surprised me by your precipitatness.
Arb.
Not on this occasion no Arb. 1. It takes away all the doubt. 2. TATE yield is higher. I might be wrong, but I'm happier out of all the kerfuffle regarding Unilever.
Ian.
I'm still in the "wait and see" camp - we'll have to disagree on this one. Tate's yield maybe a bit higher, but over the past ten years ULVRs' dividend growth rate has outstripped that of Tate by double. (x1.46 increase for Tate to 3.x for ULVR). I haven't worked through the numbers, but I doubt the problems concerning the tax position would make up the difference.
I'm dorising it for now.
My bold.
I suggest you run the numbers, because based on the numbers I have just run the tax impact is material and your gut feel is very much wrong.
Projecting forward the growth rate for last 10 years over the next 10 years, using the dividend for 2018* for each as a base and the share price for each (all on Dividenddata), then applying 15% witholding tax for Unilever from 2020 onwards I get the following numbers.
For each £100 invested you can buy 2.3 Unilever shares and 15.4 Tate shares. Calculated as per above I get cumulative dividends of £50.40 between 2019 and 2028 for Tate, for Unilever over the same period it is £51.96 if no tax comes to pass, but only £44.75 if 15% tax is appled from 2020 onwards.
Terry.
* For Unilever I have assumed the second and third dividend are in line with the first and second, as in previous years to create the basis dividend to roll forward.