Standard Life vs National Grid Shares

aj23_2

I have £430 to buys shares with on Hargreaves.

Look at Standard Life, about £3.60 a share, and National Grid, about £8.50 a share.

Can buy more with Standard Life, and you get a decent return a few times a year.

Or National Grid, less shares, but they have high pay outs on dividends look at the their few years.

Not sure which one to go with?

AnotherJoe

It really doesn't matter, the amount is too low to make any difference.


Why are you buying shares? Do you own any other investments?

bowlhead99

NG a bit boring. SL Aberdeen difficult to call. They're not particularly comparable as NG is a completely different kettle of fish from SL.

The idea that "they are both companies and they both pay dividends so I'll just toss a coin or ask someone on the internet which one is better for me to spend four hundred quid on" does not really mark you out as the type of savvy investor for whom investment appraisal comes naturally. You might be better off just throwing it into a fund that covers everything from energy supplies and pipelines through to banks.

https://www.fondulproprietatea.ro/investor-relations

ColdIron

aj23 wrote: »

Can buy more with Standard Life, and you get a decent return a few times a year.

Or National Grid, less shares,

Makes no difference unless you believe that two halves is better or worse than a pint

BLB53

Individual shares is not a good strategy...better off with collectives such as investment trusts or index funds imho.

jimjames

ColdIron wrote: »

Makes no difference unless you believe that two halves is better or worse than a pint

Exactly although as a beer drinker two halves often is better than a pint :beer:.

£100 buying 100 shares at £1 each is no different to buying one £100 share. If they both pay 4% dividends or increase by 10% you've still got £4 income or £10 growth on either option.

bowlhead99

jimjames wrote: »

£100 buying 100 shares at £1 each is no different to buying one £100 share. If they both pay 4% dividends or increase by 10% you've still got £4 income or £10 growth on either option.

The most obvious practical difference is that if/when the shares double or quadruple in value: you can't sell a portion of your holding to cash-in some of your gains or reduce your exposure to the company, if you only hold one share. As you can't sell fractional shares on the stock exchange. Generally the smaller the unit size the greater the liquidity for small investors.

eskbanker

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Generally the smaller the unit size the greater the liquidity for small investors.

So what you're saying is that there's more liquid in the two halves then?

bowlhead99

eskbanker wrote: »

So what you're saying is that there's more liquid in the two halves then?

Kind of. If you are getting two halves you can keep one fresh unpoured and just drink the other one first. No need to have it all at once. As it is when selling off your stocks piecemeal, if the unit size accommodates multiple sales on separate occasions, that's a good thing.

grey_gym_sock

in theory, 2 halves might hold more liquidity, due to surface tension ...

but back on topic, it appears you're proposing to pay a £11.95 dealing commission to invest £430. and will eventually have to pay the same again to sell.

that's a ridiculously high percentage in costs. (i tried to work it out, but it broke my calculator ) ... so buy a fund instead, for which there is no dealing charge with HL. e.g. they have blackrock consensus 85 at a cut-price on-going charge.

aj23_2

AnotherJoe wrote: »

It really doesn't matter, the amount is too low to make any difference.


Why are you buying shares? Do you own any other investments?

Why not? It's an investment isn't it?

I have 500 with Lloyds Banking Group I bought last year.

Just looking to invest for the long term.

Don't know about funds.