Will i get dividend payments?

marvin

le_loup wrote: »

No, it's because the NAV has reduced. If the company was woth x when it held the dividend value with no liability to pay it, it must now be worth x-divi now it has that liability. Of course the price may change due to any number of other reasons but the NAV is imutable.

So show me a share that rises by exactly the divi before and falls exactly by the divi after.

le_loup

Oh dear! You're not really listening are you?
But never mind, apparently, you know loads of people who make money from your scheme, so join them. Who needs to understand boring stuff like Balance Sheets, Assets & Liabilities when you're a friend of marvin?
Good luck.

marvin

le_loup wrote: »

Oh dear! You're not really listening are you?
But never mind, apparently, you know loads of people who make money from your scheme, so join them. Who needs to understand boring stuff like Balance Sheets, Assets & Liabilities when you're a friend of marvin?
Good luck.

Firstly not my scheme shows you have not read, or understood a single thing I have written.

From thisismoney
"

Once a share goes ex-div, the price normally goes down. Yesterday the FTSE 100 was weighed down by a number of leading companies going ex-dividend, which stripped around 13 points off the bluechip index. These included AstraZeneca, Lloyds TSB and Reckitt Benckiser. In fact investors in Lloyds could not wait to pile out of the stock, after trousering a very fat dividend cheque as more than 40m shares changed hands. Expect the screens and City prices pages to be peppered with little xds once the banks get their first-half reports out the way. "

Now show me some evidence for what you say is the ONLY reason for shares to gain or lose value xd.

le_loup

Do you want the 50p argument or the £5 argument?
The day I trust the Daily Mail to give me any, let alone financial information, I will jack it all in. The DM knows as much about investment as it seems you do. I have explained as clearly as I am able about the ex-dividend phenomena. You either don't understand or disagree with my explanation. That is your right.
So, shall we leave it there?

Wobblydeb

I bought recently just for dividend then ditched straight after - Thorntons if you're interested. The trick is buying far enough in advance before everyone else starts to think "Oooo there's a fat dividend date due soon". I bought about 4 weeks beforehand and then sold immediately on Ex-Div day.

Small proportion profit. If I could find more that were clearly undervalued in advance of the dividend I would do it more often.

I wonder if it more noticeably happens with companies in a similar position to Thorntons? Good cash payer, but with some question marks over the long term viability of the existing business model? :think:

marvin

le_loup wrote: »

Do you want the 50p argument or the £5 argument?
The day I trust the Daily Mail to give me any, let alone financial information, I will jack it all in. The DM knows as much about investment as it seems you do. I have explained as clearly as I am able about the ex-dividend phenomena. You either don't understand or disagree with my explanation. That is your right.
So, shall we leave it there?

That was just a simple google I can only go on my experiences I have no reason to doubt the people I talk to if they say they do it and say they make a profit at it. There is also evidence that goes someway to prove that this may be the case.

You are correct I don't accept your argument as there is simply no evidence for it. You have burbled on about NAV (Net Asset Value) yet dividends are usually paid from profit not net asset value. You have not yet, despite being asked several times, to back up your assertion with some evidence of it. If it was true it would be written down somewhere, I have looked at several explanations of xd over the last few hours not one of them backs up your theory.

So yes you go your way and I will go mine and the intellegent people out there will do their research and make their own minds up on the matter.

marvin

Some reading for you based on Canadian but...

"Overall, our results indicate that irrespective of the differential tax treatment, the price
drop to dividend ratio is consistently less than one in all years. Thus, we argue that the
E&G theory alone is not sufficient in explaining such behaviour and that the short-term
trading around the ex-dividend day could be the missing link in explaining the ex

dividend day price change."

http://www.efmaefm.org/efma2005/papers/228-saadi_paper.pdf

le_loup

marvin wrote: »

You have burbled on about NAV (Net Asset Value) yet dividends are usually paid from profit not net asset value.

Your understanding of even basic accounting leaves a lot to be desired. However, as you seem to know so much about share trading, we'll leave it there. You don't want to be educated, and that's fine. Why should you, you must be making a fortune from your trading style. As I said before; good luck with your strategy.

marvin

le_loup wrote: »

Your understanding of even basic accounting leaves a lot to be desired. However, as you seem to know so much about share trading, we'll leave it there. You don't want to be educated, and that's fine. Why should you, you must be making a fortune from your trading style. As I said before; good luck with your strategy.

If you had provided any education it would have been better but to date your only message has been I am right and I don't care what anyone else says.

Back up what you say with evidence not just arrogance and you will do better in educating people.

I would have been willing to read any evidence you came up with and even produced some which in part backs up your theory but you just came back with abuse, says a lot about you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_asset_value

for your education