A pre-occupation with "yield"

[richfool]

Apologies for the delay in responding, just been talking to my son in Australia.

Firstly, I would point out that I do monitor and take note of yield on current value. Accepted technically it can be argued that that is the return I am now getting on my reduced investment, which is why I think it's misleading. I note your main preoccupation in this discussion is invariably in the context of making comparisons when considering buying a new stock, - which I have no dispute with. But my point is that to take the view that one's investment is earning income at the "yield on value" figure, is misleading. For that reason I much prefer tjh's perspective of focusing on the actual level of income that I'm receiving.

Let me put forward an example. (The related actions are fictitious and for amusement only, but the figures themselves are correct.

I was updating my spreadsheets last week to reflect recent dividends received and to incorporate the latest (falls in) valuations. Upon doing so, I noticed that the overall yield on value on my portfolio had jumped by 1.5%. "Luvvly jubbly", I thought and immediately started rejoicing with a couple of glasses of Merlot (or insert wine of your choice). Then I looked at the dividends I had received over the last year, - they were entirely constant, no change or increase. Ah, so where did that 1.5% come from?

Ah, but wait, it was a product of the FALL in valuations upon which the yield on value figure is calculated. At which point I spat out my mouthful of Merlot and immediately drank a glass of cider vinegar as a penance! Celebration cancelled.

To re-illustrate that point, let me take a specific holding, - AAIF. (Aberdeen Asian Income trust)
Bought when on a yield of 5.40%
(At the end of this year to 30th March) Yield on cost shows: 5.13% (consistent with what I would expect with a modest increase in value)
Prior to updating the valuation (say Jan this year) - yield on value: 4.33%
After latest valuation update - yield on cost: 5.85% (an increase of 1.53%)

So if one looks at the yield on value, one might think, ooh going up nicely (increased by 1.5%). But that is misleading, as my dividend income hasn't gone up by 1.5% It remained more or less constant.

I am not looking to sell, replace or buy more of that share, but just want to monitor my dividend income.

[richfool]

If there's any 'misleading' going on in the mind of an existing income-investor, it's when they move away from that position and start discussing Alice-in-Wonderland 'yield on cost' figures...

The examples in my preceding post would suggest to me that if there are any "Alice-in-Wonderland" figures (or AiW interpretations), they are in the "yield on value" calculation, (not the yield on cost figure). That is the figure that is further from the reality of my actual dividend income received.

Sorry, my thought processes have been disrupted this morning, but as you have made frequent reference to the value (significance) of "yield on value" being used to help identify where one stock could be sold and another bought to enhance income, (which wasn't the issue I was raising), there is also another side/implication to that which we haven't touched on. That is the fact that that particular stock may well have a low "yield on value", because its capital growth has outperformed. As said, I am not a HYP'er, I like to invest for income, but I also want growth as well where I can get it. Therefore I am very happy to have and take that capital growth as well as the dividend income.

Agreed that is a different point and acknowledged I have posted this on the High Yield Shares & Strategies board as opposed to Investment Strategies, but just because I prefer income, doesn't mean I don't want capital growth or should ignore it.

[Itsallaguess]

So if one looks at the yield on value, one might think, ooh going up nicely (increased by 1.5%). But that is misleading, as my dividend income hasn't gone up by 1.5% It remained more or less constant.

I am not looking to sell, replace or buy more of that share, but just want to monitor my dividend income.

But the mistake you're making is to think that your dividend income should automatically go up just because a 'current yield' figure goes up on an existing holding, and that's clearly not always the case...

Take a worked example -

SHARE C -

Originally bought on a current-yield of 5%, when the share price was 100p, and the dividend was 5p.

One day you look at the current yield of the SHARE C, and it's saying 6%, so in your case you'd be cracking open the Merlot, and that might well be the correct thing to do, but you've got one more really important check to carry out first...

If you check if the dividend has gone up to 6p, and the share price is still the same 100p that you paid for it, then that 6% yield is indeed something to celebrate, as you're getting a 20% rise in your income from that share...

But hang on.....

What if the current yield is showing 6% today, but you see that the dividend is still being paid at 5p.....your position on this is that you'd be 'falsely celebrating' that 6% yield, because your actual dividend income 'has not gone up'....

But that's because you shouldn't *just* be using that single current yield figure as a metric to your own income....

That current 6% yield against a 'static' 5p dividend must surely only mean one thing, and that's because the rise in current-yield in this example is due to the share price going down.....

So you go and look at the SHARE C share-price, and you notice that the share that you originally bought at 100p is now priced at just 83.33p....

So the SHARE C 6% 'current yield' figure set against a static dividend of 5p is absolutely correct in this case, but it's just being stated against a lower share price....

83.33p x 0.06 (yield) = 5p

You're wanting to dismiss the usefulness of a 'current yield' figure because, it seems, you're not using it against the current share price....

You're assuming that if a 'current yield' figure was 5% yesterday, and it's risen to 6% today, then that should *always mean*, if it's going to be a useful metric to you, that you should *always* be able to see a corresponding 'rise' in your dividend income....

That premise is entirely incorrect, and I think this is where your misunderstanding of the 'current yield' metric is rooted...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[CryptoPlankton]

...
So the SHARE C 6% 'current yield' figure set against a static dividend of 5p is absolutely correct in this case, but it's just being stated against a lower share price....

83.33p x 0.06 (yield) = 5p

You're wanting to dismiss the usefulness of a 'current yield' figure because, it seems, you're not using it against the current share price....

You're assuming that if a 'current yield' figure was 5% yesterday, and it's risen to 6% today, then that should *always mean*, if it's going to be a useful metric to you, that you should *always* be able to see a corresponding 'rise' in your dividend income....

Forgive me for interjecting, but it seems to me that there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. The OP has already said that he has sold and bought on occasion within his portfolio when a current low yield has been traded for a higher one. The problem seems to be that you cannot accept that anyone can find yield on cost in any way useful. Without wishing to enter the argument, I can certainly see one possible use: as an indicator of the performance of an investment as an income grower. If equal amounts are put into two shares with different starting yields, the yield on cost will show at any time in the future which share has ended up giving the greater present day income bang for the original buck. This may be useful to some for helping to decide what factors to consider when selecting further investments. Or, as for yourself (and me, for that matter!), it may be totally irrelevant as there are other ways of determining this. Either way, the whole argument seems pretty futile - anyone reading this thread should be quite capable of understanding the difference between yield on cost and current yield. If not, then I'd politely suggest they probably need to do some more homework before investing in equities at all.

Incidentally IAAG (sorry for going slightly OT here), may I make an enquiry about your posting style please? As you are one of the most prolific posters on the site, it is inevitable that I end up reading (and enjoying) a lot of your posts. However, I do find your typography/punctuation a little confusing at times. I have highlighted a small passage above where you use your whole range of italics, 'inverted commas' and *asterisks*, not to mention the bold. I was wondering whether you could explain the apparent subtle difference in emphasis implied by each as I am sometimes finding myself bogged down trying to work it out? Perhaps the introduction of underlining might help to clarify things?

[richfool]

Now you are telling me what I have just told you.

But the mistake you're making is to think that your dividend income should automatically go up just because a 'current yield' figure goes up on an existing holding, and that's clearly not always the case..

No, I am not suggesting that at all. On the contrary, I am saying that the current yield/yield on value figure is not representative of the dividend income I am receiving. It is misleading, or it is misleading without further clarification or research.

I know not to celebrate because I know there is more to it than just looking at the yield (the yield on value figure), That is my point. I accept that the calculation has its uses.

I understand how the yield on value is arrived at and I also realise that the yield on cost is or becomes out of date, sometimes flattering, and misleading & irrelevant as time goes on and (as) the SP and dividends change.

Perhaps this better encapsulates my point:

When posters (more likely HYP'ers) are gurgling ecstatically that, for example Shell has hit a yield of 12% today, (luvvly jubbly) that doesn't mean that an existing holder of that stock can similarly rejoice thinking that he is getting that 12% dividend income on his EXISTING holding of the stock. That figure is only really relevant to a new buyer, someone topping up (or if, as you point out is making comparisons). (Though see * below)

In my own case, I have held Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) for some years. It's current yield (on HL) is quoted as: 9.77%. I am not getting an 9.77% dividend income on my investment. * Though I accept you will say: "well yes you are, because the value of your investment has fallen to the point where what's left is earning 9.77%". That maybe technically correct, but it is nevertheless misleading (certainly at face value), and not something I would rejoice about. I have also of course lost c 40% of my capital.

[88V8]

.... if Shell has hit a yield of 12% todaythat doesn't mean that an existing holder of that stock can similarly rejoice thinking that he is getting that 12% dividend income on his EXISTING holding of the stock. That figure is only really relevant to a new buyer, someone topping up (or if, as you point out is making comparisons.

Exactly, it's useful for new buyers, for topping up or for making comparisons.

Yield on Cost is only useful for beating oneself up, or patting oneself.

V8

[Itsallaguess]

But the mistake you're making is to think that your dividend income should automatically go up just because a 'current yield' figure goes up on an existing holding, and that's clearly not always the case..

No, I am not suggesting that at all.

On the contrary, I am saying that the current yield/yield on value figure is not representative of the dividend income I am receiving.

It is, when used against the current price of the share.

What you're describing is that you want to be able to use a map to help give directions, but so long as you can keep your compass in your pocket at all times....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Itsallaguess]

Either way, the whole argument seems pretty futile - anyone reading this thread should be quite capable of understanding the difference between yield on cost and current yield.

If not, then I'd politely suggest they probably need to do some more homework before investing in equities at all.

But richfool gave a fictitious example earlier, explaining that when he initially 'saw' that the current yield of one of his holdings had 'gone up', he cracked open the Merlot, stating that this should also mean that his income had risen accordingly...

Then later, when he realised that his dividend income hadn't actually changed *at all*, he had to gargle with cider vinegar to wash out his earlier error..

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 'current yield' metric, and as such, it needs highlighting....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[CryptoPlankton]

Either way, the whole argument seems pretty futile - anyone reading this thread should be quite capable of understanding the difference between yield on cost and current yield.

If not, then I'd politely suggest they probably need to do some more homework before investing in equities at all.

But richfool gave a fictitious example earlier, explaining that when he initially 'saw' that the current yield of one of his holdings had 'gone up', he cracked open the Merlot, stating that this should also mean that his income had risen accordingly...

Then later, when he realised that his dividend income hadn't actually changed *at all*, he had to gargle with cider vinegar to wash out his earlier error..

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 'current yield' metric, and as such, it needs highlighting....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

*'Aargh!'*

[TUK020]

*'Aargh!'*

So, CP, you are challenging us to Dorises at dawn?

[richfool]

Either way, the whole argument seems pretty futile - anyone reading this thread should be quite capable of understanding the difference between yield on cost and current yield.

If not, then I'd politely suggest they probably need to do some more homework before investing in equities at all.

But richfool gave a fictitious example earlier, explaining that when he initially 'saw' that the current yield of one of his holdings had 'gone up', he cracked open the Merlot, stating that this should also mean that his income had risen accordingly...

Then later, when he realised that his dividend income hadn't actually changed *at [b]all*, he had to gargle with cider vinegar to wash out his earlier error..

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 'current yield' metric, and as such, it needs highlighting....[/b]

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Re the part of your post I have bolded, that was me being facetious/flippant, in order to illustrate & emphasise the misinterpretation that could arise. In reality I did update my spreadsheets, noticed the increase, momentarily thought that looks good, but immediately thought that can't be right because I've only added a couple of dividends, then thought "Ah it must be due to the formula/calculation reflecting the large falls in the current valuations of the various holdings. That process took place quicker than it took me to type it! -- Which illustrates the potential for investors being mislead.

In conclusion, I still can't disagree with my original contention that the yield on value is misleading in terms of monitoring one's dividend income (one being an existing holder).

By the way, I just spotted a mistake in my earlier posting, re-quoted below, as I can't now amend the earlier post. I have highlighted the part concerned, which should have read: "yield on value" and not "yield on cost").

To re-illustrate that point, let me take a specific holding, - AAIF. (Aberdeen Asian Income trust)
Bought when on a yield of 5.40%
(At the end of this year to 30th March) Yield on cost shows: 5.13% (consistent with what I would expect with a modest increase in value)
Prior to updating the valuation (say Jan this year) - yield on value: 4.33%
After latest valuation update - yield on cost: 5.85% (an increase of 1.53%)

So it should have read:

Prior to updating the valuation (say Jan this year) - yield on value: 4.33%
After latest valuation update -yield on VALUE: 5.85% (an increase of 1.53%)

[Itsallaguess]

*'Aargh!'*

So, CP, you are challenging us to Dorises at dawn?

Ì̦̰̘̮ ̶̬͈͖͉̰͔̳t͝h̼i̡͙̪͓̩n͍̤͈͉̮ͅk̦̞͓͎͞ ̙̱̗̜̘̙ͅw̱͙͇̖̝̼͞e͓̯ ̻͔͔̺͎̬̰m̴̩̦̞̟̗i̼̯̝̫͚̜̼g̣͘ͅͅh̪͙t͙̘̳̼̮͜ h͈̱̼̜̘̠͓av̡̩͇͙e̢̳̮̮̜ ̲̭̟̪̼̬͉t͕́o̧͍̝̺̳̗̻ ̩͕̯͖̟̲d͈̙̠͔̯̩͝o͔ ̳̝i̯͎̟͈̦͜t̞ ͎͇i̠̩̩̭͠n͍͕̻̠̥ t͕̩̪̥h͙ͅe̶̘͉̣̬̻̯̯ ҉̲̹̳̠̯m҉̥o͇͇̰͎̯͓r̸͎͚̪̜̱n̡̠i̧̠̫͖̠̠n̛̦g͍̺͈ ̗͎-̟̠̫̞̭̦̬ ̻̙h̯̝̙̠͉̥e̮̬̖̝ ̸͔͎̜͍̣s͙̳̤͈̞̮͝e̺̗͙ẹ̴͉̼m͔̺̞͇͡s̝͟ ̭a̮͔͘ ̠ḽ̘̝͚i̢͙̙̝̰͇ͅt̶ṭ̮̜͢l͏̠͕e̗̳̺̞͡ͅ ̷̻̖͔̟͎g̘̹̫͙͍̬r̨̳͖̺̝u̳̝͎̣m̭̲̫̻̹p̭̱̟̪̪͡ỵ͠ ̺̰͓̱̥̬͟a̟̪̜̦̤f̸͚̣̪̞̻̮̳t̮̗͓e̼̱̥̭̥̼r̫͈̫̲͠ ̙̻̗l͈̯͙̦̼̣u̩̳͖̮̯̣̩n͉͚͉͇̩͚͢c̹̹̹̮h̷͍.͕̺̤̰͖̺̘.͓͙͈͟.̶͉͔͇


I҉̭̝̤͍̗̣t͙̻́s̙̟͉̰a͖̙̱̻̜ͅl͇l͍̮̘̫̥̲ͅa̱̫̺̼̬g̰̺̝͚u͉̘ẹ̛s̭̞̝̟͙s̳̯͇̻͠

[Breelander]

Ì̦̰̘̮ ̶̬͈͖͉̰͔̳t͝h̼i̡͙̪͓̩n͍̤͈͉̮ͅk̦̞͓͎͞ ̙̱̗̜̘̙ͅw̱͙͇̖̝̼͞e͓̯ ̻͔͔̺͎̬̰m̴̩̦̞̟̗i̼̯̝̫͚̜̼g̣͘ͅͅh̪͙t͙̘̳̼̮͜ h͈̱̼̜̘̠͓av̡̩͇͙e̢̳̮̮̜ ̲̭̟̪̼̬͉t͕́o̧͍̝̺̳̗̻ ̩͕̯͖̟̲d͈̙̠͔̯̩͝o͔ ̳̝i̯͎̟͈̦͜t̞ ͎͇i̠̩̩̭͠n͍͕̻̠̥ t͕̩̪̥h͙ͅe̶̘͉̣̬̻̯̯ ҉̲̹̳̠̯m҉̥o͇͇̰͎̯͓r̸͎͚̪̜̱n̡̠i̧̠̫͖̠̠n̛̦g͍̺͈ ̗͎-̟̠̫̞̭̦̬ ̻̙h̯̝̙̠͉̥e̮̬̖̝ ̸͔͎̜͍̣s͙̳̤͈̞̮͝e̺̗͙ẹ̴͉̼m͔̺̞͇͡s̝͟ ̭a̮͔͘ ̠ḽ̘̝͚i̢͙̙̝̰͇ͅt̶ṭ̮̜͢l͏̠͕e̗̳̺̞͡ͅ ̷̻̖͔̟͎g̘̹̫͙͍̬r̨̳͖̺̝u̳̝͎̣m̭̲̫̻̹p̭̱̟̪̪͡ỵ͠ ̺̰͓̱̥̬͟a̟̪̜̦̤f̸͚̣̪̞̻̮̳t̮̗͓e̼̱̥̭̥̼r̫͈̫̲͠ ̙̻̗l͈̯͙̦̼̣u̩̳͖̮̯̣̩n͉͚͉͇̩͚͢c̹̹̹̮h̷͍.͕̺̤̰͖̺̘.͓͙͈͟.̶͉͔͇


I҉̭̝̤͍̗̣t͙̻́s̙̟͉̰a͖̙̱̻̜ͅl͇l͍̮̘̫̥̲ͅa̱̫̺̼̬g̰̺̝͚u͉̘ẹ̛s̭̞̝̟͙s̳̯͇̻͠

What????

[Itsallaguess]

In reality I did update my spreadsheets, noticed the increase [in current yield], momentarily thought that looks good, but immediately thought that can't be right because I've only added a couple of dividends, then thought "Ah it must be due to the formula/calculation reflecting the large falls in the current valuations of the various holdings.

That process took place quicker than it took me to type it! -- Which illustrates the potential for investors being mislead.

In conclusion, I still can't disagree with my original contention that the yield on value is misleading in terms of monitoring one's dividend income (one being an existing holder).

I'm sorry richfool, but the conclusion that I've come to is that you need to improve your spreadsheet, as it's clearly giving you performance-indications that are not actually useful for you to know...

You seem to be complaining that a metric isn't useful, but you're not using it in the correct way, and reading it as some sort of 'headline figure' as a current-holder, when, as a holder, it's supposed to be used as one half of an input into another calculation, which would normally also use the current price of the share....

Neither of the above issues are a fault of the 'current yield' metric...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[richfool]

In reality I did update my spreadsheets, noticed the increase [in current yield], momentarily thought that looks good, but immediately thought that can't be right because I've only added a couple of dividends, then thought "Ah it must be due to the formula/calculation reflecting the large falls in the current valuations of the various holdings.

That process took place quicker than it took me to type it! -- Which illustrates the potential for investors being mislead.

In conclusion, I still can't disagree with my original contention that the yield on value is misleading in terms of monitoring one's dividend income (one being an existing holder).

I'm sorry richfool, but the conclusion that I've come to is that you need to improve your spreadsheet, as it's clearly giving you performance-indications that are not actually useful for you to know...

You seem to be complaining that a metric isn't useful, but you're not using it in the correct way, and reading it as some sort of 'headline figure' as a current-holder, when, as a holder, it's supposed to be used as one half of an input into another calculation, which would normally also use the current price of the share....

Neither of the above issues are a fault of the 'current yield' metric...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Thanks for the ongoing thoughts and observations.

Well I have to conclude it isn't useful for measuring my dividend income, though agreed it is useful for other purposes.

Ironically, I had only added that extra column on my spreadsheets, (calculating the yield on value), a couple of years back, as a result of input on these boards that it would be a more useful metric to monitor dividend performance, as opposed to just the yield on cost measure that I had previously been maintaining. Maybe I should remove the yield on value column!

No,I won't remove it. There's clearly a place/use for it, but I will avoid using it as a headline measure of my dividend income.

I can still see & follow the amounts and flow of dividends across the spreadsheet (many are quarterly). I can view the total for the year and can compare them with previous years figures. And I can still look at the yield on cost (return on the original cost/outlay), which to me still has a validity and which, note, is based on a constant, which doesn't fluctuate with the SP.

[Itsallaguess]

Well I have to conclude it [current yield] isn't useful for measuring my dividend income, though agreed it is useful for other purposes.

Ironically, I had only added that extra column on my spreadsheets, (calculating the yield on value), a couple of years back, as a result of input on these boards that it would be a more useful metric to monitor dividend performance, as opposed to just the yield on cost measure that I had previously been maintaining. Maybe I should remove the yield on value column!

No,I won't remove it. There's clearly a place/use for it, but I will avoid using it as a headline measure of my dividend income.

Woah there cowboy!

I mean, we can hopefully agree to disagree over such an interesting subject as this is, but if I thought it would get to the point where someone began to even joke about 'taking columns out of spreadsheets', then I wouldn't have got involved in the first place!

I mean, is that even allowed? - I thought we could only ever add data *into* these monstrous things that we play with!

More seriously though (no, I mean it, this is serious now.. ) it sounds like all you need to do is to actually add in another extra column to your spreadsheet, and everything will, I feel, begin to click into place.....

So, for each line-entry that you've got in your existing spreadsheet, can we assume that you've got an updating 'current value' (capital value of each holding) column, and also an updating 'current yield' column, is that right?

If that's the case, then alongside those entries somewhere, you just need to add in an extra column, and call it 'Expected Dividend', and then have that column contain a formula that multiplies the 'Current Value' figure with the 'Current Yield' figure for each portfolio line-entry, and that should then be your 'Expected Dividend' for each holding in your portfolio...

Then, somewhere else on the spreadsheet, either at the bottom of the 'Expected Dividend' column, or perhaps elsewhere if you've got a little 'dashboard' type of area, with important 'portfolio-level' information displayed, you can then aggregate all the individual line-entries under the 'Expected Dividend' column, and you can then call that cell 'Expected Portfolio Income', or something similar...

I do exactly the above for my 'Forecast Yield' figures, which are broker-led 'look-aheads' of each share's income 12-months out, and having collated this data for a good few years now, I can tell you that whilst there's often little blips at an 'individual holding' level, it's really quite surprising how accurate the overall picture is at 'portfolio level' once the actual data is eventually collated and compared with those previous overall forecasts....

We're usually talking a couple of percent margin here or there, and I find having this type of automated information to hand, to help me easily track income-progress etc. over many years, is a really useful tool in my ongoing quest for even a sniff of an early-retirement plan...

I hope the above is useful..

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[richfool]

Whoa!! I prefer to keep things as simple as possible, not to add more data or columns. What's that famous expression KISS.

Currently, I record against each holding, across the (Xcel) spreadsheet:-

The name of the stock, the qty of shares held, the book cost, the current value, a cell with a formula that calculates the % that that holding is of the overall portfolio, then a cell which calculates the capital performance as a % using the book cost and the current value, then 12 columns - one for each month, where I enter dividends rec'd, then at the end of those:
a cell with a formula that totals up the dividends rec'd year to date
then a cell with a formula that calculates the YOC (yield on cost) from the total dividends rec'd & the book cost
then a cell with a formula which calculates the YOCV (yield on current value) from the total dividends rec'd & the current value.

Those are on my normal dividend spreadsheet. I have a couple of other spreadsheets that monitor other things.

So are you saying that I should add a further column multiplying the current value and the YOCV figures for each holding?
(Noting that those figures will only be correct at the point in time I update the current values).

[tjh290633]

Just looking at the relevant spreadsheet on my portfolio, I call it "Income Forward". It has successive columns showing:

1.Company
2.Date Announced
3.Date XD
4.Date Paid
5.No of Shares
6.Dividend/share
7.Dividend (£.p) Forecast
8.Cumulative Dividends
9.Dividend Announced
10.Dividend Paid
11.Cash Balance actual
12.Predicted Cash balance

The first 5 columns are obvious and are either the dates announced or those from the previous year, with the year incremented.

Column 6 has either the dividend announced, or that paid last year if it is yet to be announced.

Column 7 is the product of Columns 5 and 6

Column 8 is the cumulative sum of the dividends down to that row.

Column 9 is blank until a dividend has been announced (i.e. if Column 2 is today or earlier)

Column 10 is blank until column 4 is today or earlier)

Column 11 is the sum of the opening balance of cash and dividends paid so far

Column 12 is the sum of the opening balance of cash and the announced or forecast dividends in column 7.

Why all these columns? They give me a picture of what can be expected if the status quo ante is preserved, what has happened so far, and when I can expect to have accumulated enough dividends to do another top-up.

Whenever I update the starting balance, I update the dates of announcement, XD and payment for those shares where the dividend has been paid by incrementing the year by one. I then sort the table by "Date Paid", which gives me a revised forecast of the next 12 month's dividends.

Not always an underestimate as we have found recently.

TJH

[PinkDalek]

You now need a number 13, unluckily, for those previously announced ...

[AsleepInYorkshire]

35

AiYn'U