Astrazeneca disappointment

[idpickering]

Still in law and finance words seldom seem to mean the same as I think they do.

As an ex policeman, both civil and army, I know this to be true. Even the odd comma here and there can change a sentences’ inference.

Ian.

And as for apostrophes ….

I hear you Bouleversee! Should’ve heard the rows about apostrophes when I was in the Army equivalent to the CID! Reports had to be spot on as it involves serious crimes, although obviously all reports were meant to be so, even for the uniformed Officers too.

Ian.

[absolutezero]

As an ex policeman, both civil and army, I know this to be true. Even the odd comma here and there can change a sentences’ inference.

Indeed, and it doesn't even need to be anything specialised. One of my favourite examples is the different meanings/inferences of "No thanks to you!" and "No, thanks to you!"...

Gengulphus

Or "I helped my brother, Jack, off a horse".

[MDW1954]

As an ex policeman, both civil and army, I know this to be true. Even the odd comma here and there can change a sentences’ inference.

Ian.

And as for apostrophes ….

I hear you Bouleversee! Should’ve heard the rows about apostrophes when I was in the Army equivalent to the CID! Reports had to be spot on as it involves serious crimes, although obviously all reports were meant to be so, even for the uniformed Officers too.

Ian.

Ian,

Bouleversee's observation may have been slightly tongue-in-check. You might want to check that apostrophe again...

MDW1954

[idpickering]

Ian,

Bouleversee's observation may have been slightly tongue-in-check. You might want to check that apostrophe again...

MDW1954

Thank you for that MDW1954. I thought I was’ right.

Anyway, back to AstraZeneca, I have held them for many years, and have no intention of selling. I have no intention of topping up currently either.

Ian.

[absolutezero]

Ian,

Bouleversee's observation may have been slightly tongue-in-check. You might want to check that apostrophe again...

MDW1954

Thank you for that MDW1954. I thought I was’ right.

Anyway, back to AstraZeneca, I have held them for many years, and have no intention of selling. I have no intention of topping up currently either.

Ian.

Me neither. 3.8% yield. Share price has been doing well lately but I won't take anything lower than 4%.

[idpickering]

Me neither. 3.8% yield. Share price has been doing well lately but I won't take anything lower than 4%.

I do sometimes wish I was more strict on that matter myself. I admit that when I run a screen via digitallook my minimum yield is 3%. I think I should adjust my screening going forward, and use 4% as a minimum too. It is meant to be high yield after all. Cheers.

Ian.

[absolutezero]

My lower limit is 4%.
I don't have a higher limit but I suspect I should have. But there are some great shares available pushing 7%. Vodafone being one.

[idpickering]

My lower limit is 4%.
I don't have a higher limit but I suspect I should have. But there are some great shares available pushing 7%. Vodafone being one.

Thanks for that. SSE are up there too,on a similar yield. As for AZN,I sometimes top these up in Dec, to get in before their finals divi, but won’t this year as better yields elsewhere.

Ian.

[Gengulphus]

I do sometimes wish I was more strict on that matter myself. I admit that when I run a screen via digitallook my minimum yield is 3%. I think I should adjust my screening going forward, and use 4% as a minimum too. It is meant to be high yield after all.

It might actually be worth going to https://markets.ft.com/data/indices/tea ... =UKX.D:FSI and copying the figure from there into the screen just before running it. If you click on the "5Y" button above the chart, you'll see that the FTSE100 yield (which at least this board's guidance uses as its 'high yield' threshold) has varied between a bit below 3.4% and a bit above 4.3% in the last five years, and a bit of work with the mouse and its wheel can modify that to a ~20-year chart showing it's varied between about 2% and a bit above 6% in that period... Furthermore, it not infrequently changes up or down a significant amount in a pretty short period. And indeed right now is such a period: the FTSE 100 yield from that source was 3.94% about 2.5 weeks ago when I ran the final poll for GDHYP's 51st purchase, now it's 4.13%.

I.e. 'high yield' is a moving target and can move quite quickly!

Gengulphus

[idpickering]

I do sometimes wish I was more strict on that matter myself. I admit that when I run a screen via digitallook my minimum yield is 3%. I think I should adjust my screening going forward, and use 4% as a minimum too. It is meant to be high yield after all.

It might actually be worth going to https://markets.ft.com/data/indices/tea ... =UKX.D:FSI and copying the figure from there into the screen just before running it. If you click on the "5Y" button above the chart, you'll see that the FTSE100 yield (which at least this board's guidance uses as its 'high yield' threshold) has varied between a bit below 3.4% and a bit above 4.3% in the last five years, and a bit of work with the mouse and its wheel can modify that to a ~20-year chart showing it's varied between about 2% and a bit above 6% in that period... Furthermore, it not infrequently changes up or down a significant amount in a pretty short period. And indeed right now is such a period: the FTSE 100 yield from that source was 3.94% about 2.5 weeks ago when I ran the final poll for GDHYP's 51st purchase, now it's 4.13%.

I.e. 'high yield' is a moving target and can move quite quickly!

Gengulphus

Thank you very much for that Gengulphus.

Ian.