Invesco Perp High Income

artha

Jonbvn wrote: »

The key is in the name of the fund. The major KPI is for income.

Has the fund done that well in terms of income? Didn't someone point out in a recent post that the fund has changed classification from equity income to equity income and growth (or is that fact of no significance)? Earlier in the week I was talking to retired friends who I hadn't seen for a number of years and the subject of investments came up. They had a large sum in this fund and were commenting on how little income they were getting compared to a few years ago. I assume this is to do with companies reducing dividends in the current climate. As I have no experience prior to 12 months ago could someone educate me please on what sort of income this fund was paying pre-recession?

Aegis

artha wrote: »

Has the fund done that well in terms of income? Didn't someone point out in a recent post that the fund has changed classification from equity income to equity income and growth (or is that fact of no significance)? Earlier in the week I was talking to retired friends who I hadn't seen for a number of years and the subject of investments came up. They had a large sum in this fund and were commenting on how little income they were getting compared to a few years ago. I assume this is to do with companies reducing dividends in the current climate. As I have no experience prior to 12 months ago could someone educate me please on what sort of income this fund was paying pre-recession?

Here you go, back to July 2005:

http://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=PPHI&univ=U&pagetype=dividends

yelf

over weighting tobacco hasnt been a bad ploy

StevieJ

Aegis wrote: »

Here you go, back to July 2005:

http://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=PPHI&univ=U&pagetype=dividends

I note there is a comment about Woodford being slated for not including Tech stocks during the tech boom and being proved correct, is this not a myth as those particular stocks did not in general pay decent dividends (if any), not a good idea for an income fund

StevieJ

yelf wrote: »

over weighting tobacco hasnt been a bad ploy

That is one of the reasons I wouldn't touch that fund, although those stocks are difficult to avoid in income funds.

Aegis

StevieJ wrote: »

That is one of the reasons I wouldn't touch that fund, although those stocks are difficult to avoid in income funds.

I personally hate smoking and wish it would go away, but I don't base my investment decisions on my personal dislikes.

Is there a specific reason you avoid tobacco stocks?

StevieJ

Aegis wrote: »

I personally hate smoking and wish it would go away, but I don't base my investment decisions on my personal dislikes.

Is there a specific reason you avoid tobacco stocks?

Dislike does not effect my investment decisions either, but I am not happy to invest in a fund that goes out of its way to trade in companies that use addiction with a causal link to early death to maintain customer numbers (at least in the short term). I know it is not easy to avoid these companies (unless you use those goody funds) but that fund is a little to obvious for my liking.

Aegis

StevieJ wrote: »

Dislike does not effect my investment decisions either, but I am not happy to invest in a fund that goes out of its way to trade in companies that use addiction with a causal link to early death to maintain customer numbers (at least in the short term). I know it is not easy to avoid these companies (unless you use those goody funds) but that fund is a little to obvious for my liking.

I suppose I'm more of the view that people have a right to do what they like with their own health. If they want to smoke and risk illness, then fine. I personally do a sport that has a fairly high risk of injury, but I wouldn't want people banning me from doing that simply because I might break my foot (again) as part of my search for an endorphin high (somewhat addictive itself). As such, if people want to smoke I'm happy for them to do so, much the same as if they want to drink.

Just different opinions I guess.

StevieJ

Aegis wrote: »

I suppose I'm more of the view that people have a right to do what they like with their own health. If they want to smoke and risk illness, then fine. I personally do a sport that has a fairly high risk of injury, but I wouldn't want people banning me from doing that simply because I might break my foot (again) as part of my search for an endorphin high (somewhat addictive itself). As such, if people want to smoke I'm happy for them to do so, much the same as if they want to drink.

Just different opinions I guess.

I guess you must be in favour of the legalisation of Heroin then ?

Aegis

StevieJ wrote: »

I guess you must be in favour of the legalisation of Heroin then ?

My thoughts on drugs are somewhat controversial. Suffice to say, I believe it's better to have such substances generally available in controlled and taxed doses than it is to have it equally available but cut with even more harmful stuff and only earning money for the dealers and smugglers.

Perhaps we should leave it at that rather than going into further detail here?