Sainsbury Finals

[Gengulphus]

Is this year’s Sainsbury dividend actually an extra cut to their promised dividend policy of 2.0x cover?

Well, tramrider, that's an interesting point. One would imagine that dividing by two was something Mike Coupe could do in his head. So why have they allowed the cover to go over 2x? Is this some extra layer of prudence, - or something related to the extra shares issued, perhaps a timing issue? There will be some unhappy shareholders unless it is explained before the AGM, although the answer may be simple and obvious to those well versed in these matters.

Maybe this is something Gengulphus could explain for us?

Sorry, but no, I'm not going to spend any significant time looking for the detailed explanation. I will however make a couple of quick suggestions about where to look for it:

* Check exactly what the policy is. In particular, there are various different measures of EPS (basic, adjusted, diluted versions of both, etc) and similarly various measures of cash flow, and dividend cover can be by any of them, so check which one the dividend policy refers to and whether dividend cover by that one has gone over 2x.

* If that doesn't sort it out, it's probably because the dividend policy is not the only policy the company has - it should have one of keeping the business going (I would be very worried if it didn't!) and may well have others, such as one of debt reduction. The various policies compete for the company's cash flow, and the dividend policy doesn't automatically win when there's a conflict! If that is the explanation, a detailed look at the annual report or a question asked at the AGM might reveal it. Though I would suggest that anyone doing the latter tries to make the question a bit more diplomatic than asking Mike Coupe about his ability to divide by two! ;-)

Gengulphus

[moorfield]

You really can't expect people to unitise just to be 'convincing'. If one wants to unitise, fine; if one thinks it isn't worth the candle, fine. Personal choice.

If one wants to be convincing I think XIRR is a more effective social leveller. No need to involve unitisation. IMHO.

[77ss]

You really can't expect people to unitise just to be 'convincing'. If one wants to unitise, fine; if one thinks it isn't worth the candle, fine. Personal choice.

Agreed - but I can expect people who try to persuade me to make a decent effort to be 'convincing'! People do of course have the personal choice to ignore that expectation and try to persuade me without making that effort, but equally I have the personal choice to point out that doing so wastes everyone's time and it would be better either to make that effort or to give up the attempt to persuade me...

Gengulphus

You are assuming that people who post their personal viewpoints/outlook are trying to persuade you of anything.

I don't, in general, see this as being the case.

I view this board as being all about mutual self-help. We all post our different outlooks, often just based on different circumstances. I believe that a variety of opinions has to be more helpful than groupthink.

When I post, I am not trying to 'persuade' anybody of anything; even less do I try to be 'convincing' - caveat lector!

If we all had to be 'convincing', there would be damn few posts.
'

[Arborbridge]

You really can't expect people to unitise just to be 'convincing'. If one wants to unitise, fine; if one thinks it isn't worth the candle, fine. Personal choice.

I'm the one who needs to be convinced!: that is, I unitise for myself. If I can demonstrate my success - or otherwise - to other people, then that is a by product rather than the main aim.

My other point is that people who give us narrative accounts of how well they've been doing over the past "n" years can't expect to be taken seriously unless they can back it. And, as I mentioned earlier, unless they have the numbers, they cannot know how satisfactory their performance is, so there is no basis for their satisfaction. For posters like Ian, this is not an issue: he has never unitised and isn't interested in doing so, but since he never comes out with a narrative on how well he is doing, there is no problem. If we are to learn from each other's ideas, those ideas should be testable - if not there is nothing concrete and it is all hand waving.

Moorfield: XIRR is not terribly useful. HYP is an income technique, not a TR one, and no amount of XIRR will tell us whether the HYP result is better or worse than any other alternative. XIRR is also too personal in that it depends on precise inputs and longevity of holdings. It's of interest perhaps in one's one decision making, but XIRR comparisons between posters here should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Arb.

[Breelander]

I'm the one who needs to be convinced!: that is, I unitise for myself.

Spot on! That's exactly why I do it.

[Dod1010]

You really can't expect people to unitise just to be 'convincing'. If one wants to unitise, fine; if one thinks it isn't worth the candle, fine. Personal choice.

I'm the one who needs to be convinced!: that is, I unitise for myself. If I can demonstrate my success - or otherwise - to other people, then that is a by product rather than the main aim.

My other point is that people who give us narrative accounts of how well they've been doing over the past "n" years can't expect to be taken seriously unless they can back it. And, as I mentioned earlier, unless they have the numbers, they cannot know how satisfactory their performance is, so there is no basis for their satisfaction. For posters like Ian, this is not an issue: he has never unitised and isn't interested in doing so, but since he never comes out with a narrative on how well he is doing, there is no problem. If we are to learn from each other's ideas, those ideas should be testable - if not there is nothing concrete and it is all hand waving.

Moorfield: XIRR is not terribly useful. HYP is an income technique, not a TR one, and no amount of XIRR will tell us whether the HYP result is better or worse than any other alternative. XIRR is also too personal in that it depends on precise inputs and longevity of holdings. It's of interest perhaps in one's one decision making, but XIRR comparisons between posters here should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Arb.

Like 77ss I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is not a competition and anyway if I had a good result or even a standout one it would not 'prove' anything as would soon be pointed out. Everyone has a different portfolio and it would not be possible to isolate the cause of any out performance whether stock picking, selling when a dividend is cut or whatever. Besides what would we be testing anyway? I am really only interested in my income generated. Any capital gain is a side issue as far as my HYP is concerned.

The only thing I do know is that holding on to say RBS for 8 or 9 non productive years is not a recipe for success in increasing your income so what might be called positive non tinkering seems to me to be a nonsense as is Strategic Ignorance. I am entirely with Wizard on this.

I have no need to unitise and will not be doing so because as I have said I am not in any sort of competition and am not interested in seeing whether or not I am beating any particular index or fund.

As to my portfolio I pm' d Arb recently and the only change to it has been forced on me by the liquidation of London & St Lawrence IT which I always regarded as part of my HYP. It has now been replaced by introducing Admiral and Murray Income. I am not particularly convinced by either as I am of course relying on Admiral's specials and Murray Income has a lot of duplication with my current holdings. The L & St L situation illustrates a problem with family controlled companies, one must go along with their wishes.#

Apols for this as it has little to do with the subject matter. In fact sorry I thought I was replying to a similar post on the Carillion thread.

I would suggest that a mod might like to take a look at both of these threads. They would have been curtailed I think in TMF days.

Dod

[Gengulphus]

You really can't expect people to unitise just to be 'convincing'. If one wants to unitise, fine; if one thinks it isn't worth the candle, fine. Personal choice.

Agreed - but I can expect people who try to persuade me to make a decent effort to be 'convincing'! People do of course have the personal choice to ignore that expectation and try to persuade me without making that effort, but equally I have the personal choice to point out that doing so wastes everyone's time and it would be better either to make that effort or to give up the attempt to persuade me...

You are assuming that people who post their personal viewpoints/outlook are trying to persuade you of anything.

No, I'm giving you my personal viewpoint about people who try to persuade me. I am not making any assumption that you are one of them. That's not for me to know or assume, but for you to decide for yourself. Nor am I making any similar assumption about anyone else.

Gengulphus

[77ss]

I have no need to unitise and will not be doing so because as I have said I am not in any sort of competition and am not interested in seeing whether or not I am beating any particular index or fund.

Dod

Spot on!

This is not a race or a competition, and one is under no obligation to try to beat or match 'the market' - even assuming that one can choose an appropriate benchmark.

What matters to me, is whether or not what I am doing works for me.

Does it suit my character?
Is it right for my personal circumstances?
Is it meeting my needs?
Will it meet my objectives?

Can't answer for the fourth point of course - 'call no man happy until he dies' - but the other three are ticking along nicely.

[Wizard]

IMHO some people are so determined not to be proven wrong that they would never concede a point whatever evidence was put forward.

Terry.

[Arborbridge]

This is not a race or a competition, and one is under no obligation to try to beat or match 'the market' - even assuming that one can choose an appropriate benchmark.

Absolutely agree, there is no obligation and it is not a competition. But I refer to Gengulphus's pertinent contribution

Agreed - but I can expect people who try to persuade me to make a decent effort to be 'convincing'! People do of course have the personal choice to ignore that expectation and try to persuade me without making that effort, but equally I have the personal choice to point out that doing so wastes everyone's time and it would be better either to make that effort or to give up the attempt to persuade me...

In other words, if people come on here giving opinions about how well there portfolios are doing - and what amounts to "advice", although not promoted as such - there really is an intellectual obligation to back up those opinions with fact. Otherwise, all is - or could be - misleading hot air. Such folk risk being completely ignored.

Compare the attitudes of some with TJH, who whilst never saying his ideas are the best since sliced bread, gives us chapter and verse on his results in a transparent way and leaves us to make the judgement as far as is possible. His postings have been informative and helpful in encouraging others. If only more were like him: we would have a much larger body of knowledge by now, on which to draw.

I add once more, that someone such as Ian position (and I think you) have no such obligation, since he has never made any claims so there is nothing which needs to be supported.


Arb.

[Dod1010]

To comment specifically on Arb's latest, I certainly am giving no advice and if I praise a particular share I will usually add DYOR as I would not want any of my opinions to be followed by anyone unless they have convinced themselves. But if we did not express opinions, there would not be much point in the Boards. I will read but seldom act upon the opinions of others.

Investing is an intensely personal thing for all sorts of reasons and what I do will not necessarily suit others who may want more 'safety'. That is a bit of a myth but never mind.

Dod

[MrFahrenheit]

Apols for this as it has little to do with the subject matter. In fact sorry I thought I was replying to a similar post on the Carillion thread.

I would suggest that a mod might like to take a look at both of these threads. They would have been curtailed I think in TMF days.

Dod

This site exists for the benefit of many readers.

Those who don't like a particular thread always have the very easy option to skip it and move on.

Others may well like such discussions, and it would be a shame IMHO to deny them the option.

Moderator Message:
subject is Sainsbury's final. Any further off topic posts will be removed. Raptor.