British Land announces resumption of dividend & operational update posted on Company News Board.

[PinkDalek]

I think we now have to navigate "REITs", "Pure REITs" and "Quasi REITs".

Surely not, can't a company just be accepted as long as it seems to tick all the REIT boxes?

Heading off topic, but what are those boxes?

Humour is allowed on TLF.

[Wizard]

Surely not, can't a company just be accepted as long as it seems to tick all the REIT boxes?

Heading off topic, but what are those boxes?

Humour is allowed on TLF.

Whether it is funny or not, it seems.

[Dod101]

I think we now have to navigate "REITs", "Pure REITs" and "Quasi REITs".

Surely not, can't a company just be accepted as long as it seems to tick all the REIT boxes?

Heading off topic, but what are those boxes?

You mean Big Boxes or Small Boxes?

Dod

[MDW1954]

I think we now have to navigate "REITs", "Pure REITs" and "Quasi REITs".

Surely not, can't a company just be accepted as long as it seems to tick all the REIT boxes?

Wizard,

I suspect that you are taking what was intended to be a helpful reply to idpickering, and using it to create mischief.
It is a fact that many HYP-able shares are FTSE 350 investment companies, something which has historically (if mistakenly) deterred TLF HYPers.
These are not ruled out by the guidelines, as you well know, yet some fall under the radar.

How to describe these companies? I use a mental shorthand:

REITs = actual REITS
Quasi-REITs = companies that invest in REIT-like things, but which aren't formal REITs.

'Pure REITs' was a phrase intended to convey to idpickering that the companies in question were REITs, with which he is familiar.

I was mistaken in referring to HICL as a REIT. It invests in REIT-like assets, but is not a formal REIT.

Finally, not for the first time, I regret the waste of time spent in responding to your post.

MDW1954

[Wizard]

I think we now have to navigate "REITs", "Pure REITs" and "Quasi REITs".

Surely not, can't a company just be accepted as long as it seems to tick all the REIT boxes?

Wizard,

I suspect that you are taking what was intended to be a helpful reply to idpickering, and using it to create mischief.
It is a fact that many HYP-able shares are FTSE 350 investment companies, something which has historically (if mistakenly) deterred TLF HYPers.
These are not ruled out by the guidelines, as you well know, yet some fall under the radar.

How to describe these companies? I use a mental shorthand:

REITs = actual REITS
Quasi-REITs = companies that invest in REIT-like things, but which aren't formal REITs.

'Pure REITs' was a phrase intended to convey to idpickering that the companies in question were REITs, with which he is familiar.

I was mistaken in referring to HICL as a REIT. It invests in REIT-like assets, but is not a formal REIT.

Finally, not for the first time, I regret the waste of time spent in responding to your post.

MDW1954

No, not at all. HICL is well known, having been the subject of debate on whether it was eligable for discussion on this board a number of times in the past. You also seem to have a strong interest in the REIT sector often suggesting less well known REITs as potential purchases, so I did not think its inclusion was a mistake. Instead I took the post at face value and thought that, in the same way that you had coined the phrase "quasi REIT", you were suggesting a new categorisation that included some subset of REITs and "quasi REITs".

[Gengulphus]

It is a fact that many HYP-able shares are FTSE 350 investment companies, something which has historically (if mistakenly) deterred TLF HYPers.

With regard to that "historically (if mistakenly)", it is a fact that the guidance have changed in this respect - I think to make them better reflect the intention behind them, but what it has said at times in the past has been more restrictive than what it says now. I.e. being deterred from discussing companies like HICL in some past periods was not a mistake by the TLF HYPers reading the guidelines - their possible mistake has instead been to assume that what they learnt then is still the case.

My suggestion for avoiding that mistake: every time one feels tempted to object to a post because one thinks it is breaking the guidance, check what the guidance CURRENTLY says. And if it's not worth spending the time to do that, at least IMHO it's not worth spending the time to object to the post...

And incidentally, that advice to check what the guidance currently says also applies to the issue of what "Pure REITs" and "Quasi REITs" are - the answer is "red herrings, because they aren't mentioned in the guidance"!

Gengulphus

[MDW1954]

It is a fact that many HYP-able shares are FTSE 350 investment companies, something which has historically (if mistakenly) deterred TLF HYPers.

With regard to that "historically (if mistakenly)", it is a fact that the guidance have changed in this respect - I think to make them better reflect the intention behind them, but what it has said at times in the past has been more restrictive than what it says now. I.e. being deterred from discussing companies like HICL in some past periods was not a mistake by the TLF HYPers reading the guidelines - their possible mistake has instead been to assume that what they learnt then is still the case.

My suggestion for avoiding that mistake: every time one feels tempted to object to a post because one thinks it is breaking the guidance, check what the guidance CURRENTLY says. And if it's not worth spending the time to do that, at least IMHO it's not worth spending the time to object to the post...

And incidentally, that advice to check what the guidance currently says also applies to the issue of what "Pure REITs" and "Quasi REITs" are - the answer is "red herrings, because they aren't mentioned in the guidance"!

Gengulphus

Gengulphus,

My observation regarding HYPers being deterred from investing in such FTSE 350 businesses was not intended to be a reference to the guidelines.

Rather, I think it may have been a fear of the unknown, or just lack of familiarity with the business model. A number of HYPers now hold businesses such as Tritax Big Box and Primary Health Properties; not so long ago that wasn't the case, and few people appeared enthused by my references to them.

'Pure' was intended simply as an adjective. 'Quasi' is shorthand for the second part of this sentence taken from the guidelines.

REITs and REIT-like investment companies (e.g. infrastructure companies) are perfectly acceptable.

MDW1954

[csearle]

Moderator Message:
Guys if you consider a post to be off-topic please just report it rather than discussing the off-topicness, which definitely is off topic. Thanks Chris.

[miner1000]

Just to put a final comment on what may or may not be a REIT, I have a specific reason for ensuring I know what is and is not a REIT.

I live abroad but invest in UK companies. My investment in REIT's like BLAND, is not sheltered and I have to pay 20% tax on PID distributions. I also need to make a tax declaration if I ever sell a REIT. I do not make UK tax declarations with regard to purchases or dividends otherwise.

These conditions do not apply to non REITs like HICL.

It is very important therefore for me to distinguish between the two and between PIDs and normal dividends, Apologies if this led to off topic discussion, but hopefully you get my point.

Miner

[Alaric]

It is very important therefore for me to distinguish between the two and between PIDs and normal dividends,

UK taxpayers who have to fill in a Tax Return also need to distinguish dividends between PIDs and normal. That's not helped by providers such as ii not making an distinction when reporting the arrival of dividends into a cash account.

For income seekers, REITs have an advantage of being compelled to make distributions. That distances them from others in financial sectors such as banks who can be prevented by regulators from distributing even when they would otherwise intend to.