Invesco Perp High Income

sabretoothtigger

Thats true, but shell hasnt fallen much. I was looking at GSK the other day as it seems so beaten down for no good reason, woodford is probably right

I believe all three go ex div tomorrow so you will see more falls yet

StevieJ

barny_100 wrote: »

I thought this would have been bumped to point out by luck or judgement Mr Woodford has ducked taking a massive hit on a BP investment! Down 15% post spill so far I believe?

Strange as it may seem the BP share price is still higher than when he dumped them.

artha

Richard_DandR wrote: »

Are you referring to the comment on not investing in tech stocks?.

Yes but, just to reiterate, the point that was being made was that Neil Woodford was applauded retrospectively for not taking part in the dot com boom on the basis that it would not last when the funds remit probably didn't allow it to hold purely growth stocks. Or am I misunderstanding the way equity income funds, for the most part, operate?

JamesU

artha wrote: »

Yes but, just to reiterate, the point that was being made was that Neil Woodford was applauded retrospectively for not taking part in the dot com boom on the basis that it would not last when the funds remit probably didn't allow it to hold purely growth stocks. Or am I misunderstanding the way equity income funds, for the most part, operate?

I think NW's actions and the external perception of his actions are pretty straight-forward. Strategic defensive fund with numerous old economy stocks as stalwarts across sectors as mentioned in thread above. He dropped banks years ago pre-credit crunch because of view on debt levels, dropped oilies pre-oilslick because of views on forecast dividend cover, and did not buy dotcom stocks because of low dividend yields. That's it really.

NW was not really applauded retrospectively for his judgement in avoiding dotcom stocks (avoided because of low dividends, hence unsuited to fund), but was indeed vindicated for not taking part in the party to make gains, once the stocks crashed.

Here it is from NW himself, link is below:

NW: “The discipline of buying only stocks that generate a solid dividend is a useful one because it tends to steer you away from frothy, speculative stocks. For example, during the dot-com boom I did not buy technology stocks because they were not paying decent dividends. I came under some pressure at the time for not doing so, but I was vindicated when the tech bubble burst.”


Hopefully this will satisfy your curiosity and put you mind ar rest?:)


JamesU

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/investment/article3940081.ece

artha

JamesU wrote: »

I think NW's actions and the external perception of his actions are pretty straight-forward. Strategic defensive fund with numerous old economy stocks as stalwarts across sectors as mentioned in thread above. He dropped banks years ago pre-credit crunch because of view on debt levels, dropped oilies pre-oilslick because of views on forecast dividend cover, and did not buy dotcom stocks because of low dividend yields. That's it really.

NW was not really applauded retrospectively for his judgement in avoiding dotcom stocks (avoided because of low dividends, hence unsuited to fund), but was indeed vindicated for not taking part in the party to make gains, once the stocks crashed.

Here it is from NW himself, link is below:

NW: “The discipline of buying only stocks that generate a solid dividend is a useful one because it tends to steer you away from frothy, speculative stocks. For example, during the dot-com boom I did not buy technology stocks because they were not paying decent dividends. I came under some pressure at the time for not doing so, but I was vindicated when the tech bubble burst.”


Hopefully this will satisfy your curiosity and put you mind ar rest?:)


JamesU

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/investment/article3940081.ece

Yes. Thanks. It helps to see the bigger picture in order to understand why one persons good fund is anothers laggard

JamesU

artha wrote: »

Yes. Thanks. It helps to see the bigger picture in order to understand why one persons good fund is anothers laggard

For sure, but based on RayeWolfe's post above the returns over longer periods look pretty good to me.

JamesU

Richard_DandR

"Not sure about others but Psion £40 and Filtronic £20 - when was that then ?"

I was using Google Finance share price graphs for historic prices. I guess they might not be as reliable as I thought.

artha

JamesU wrote: »

For sure, but based on RayeWolfe's post above the returns over longer periods look pretty good to me.

JamesU

Provided it wasn't the stocks that have been ditched along the way that gave the good previous total returns

RayWolfe

No, bought and held.

JamesU

RayWolfe wrote: »

No, bought and held.

Not even a little sell and rebuy to lock in gains along the way?:)

JamesU