Member Info for ade2a

James

i’m not looking for arguments or justification for opinions on here and implications i’m a paid agent of the company,told to move to china etc will be treated with the contempt they deserve.

I think you are looking for an argument.

Perhaps not you but HFEL have said they monitor social media outlets. Their words. Nobody said you.

You are as petty as those you complain about.

James

'no ones happy about the sp but it’s the underlying holdings values and they’ve paid the dividend throughout and those are facts which don’t deserve derision just because i’m not joining in.'

Whoever denied any of that statement?

Jamesmaggs

'i think sometimes you get too wrapped up in the management side almost like a disgruntled ex employee and any positivity on hfel gets railroaded by negativity and all the hogwash about dividend washing etc sounds more like a conspiracy theory!'

Come on James I thought we were friends. Very well.

I think you are the one into conspiracies trying to get me off the board for what reason?

James

Can I call you my friend James. I see you used to have discussions on the technicalities of HFEL with me no less.

Then at some point you were simply quoting 'the dividend is paid, all is well nothing to see here' and became hostile towards me. May I ask why?

Jamesmaggs,

You for sure know I totally agree.

I have been dealing with this for 2.5 years while trying to air my opinions on the income generation of HFEL.

Didin't you write a whole post telling me to get off the board or did I not remember that correctly?

Management group(s) Janus Henderson Investors Ltd

AIC sector Asia Pacific Equity Income

ISIN JE00B1GXH751

Launch date 30 May 1930

This is the launch date of the predecessor to HFEL run by Micheal Watt who was regarded as one of the best Managers in the Far East sector.

The successor HFEL was launched in 2007 under Mike Kerley. He changed the ethos and management style of HFEL.

There was in fact a special dividend of 10p/share accompanying the change of company name.

There will be no such largesse when the next change in policy inevitably arrives.

Damienmoore

Why not tell the Managers of your frustrations I cannot help you.

Do you still hold HFEL?

Out of interest.

Damienmoore

"How can you say they are not that bad? Previously you lamented how bad they are compared to a better era under the previous manager, Michael Watt, and you have spoken out about the dividend stripping. Moreover, the manager has not been constrained by a mysterious external force. They are empowered to set the level of dividend and protect the trust's capital. They were not forced to churn the portfolio and erode capital. "

To be clear I did not and will not disagree with those comments.

I posted the numbers on the sister fund for reference you can challenge those if you like.

Again to be absolutely clear I do not agree with the morals of both the Managers and the board and I have stated my support of your position. Hopefully I don't need to do it again.

Damienmoore,

I am deliberately trying to be as generous as I possibly can.

I am only referring to their stock picking skills.

I do genuinely think if they were not inhibited by;

1. The desire to trade at a premium.

2. Grow the funds under management by issuing more shares at a premium.

3. 1 & 2 leading to an unsustainable yield they are reluctant to cut.

The managers would have a chance to produce better performance.

As for their morals I know exactly where you stand and have indicated my support.

Not everyone here is like you, Actuary63 and perhaps myself.

I aim to write forward looking posts with as much optimism as possible I am sure you can see through that but I usually post the numbers so everyone can analyse for themselves.

Any challenges are welcome so long as they are not personal of course.

I do not feel it is my place to just state the fund is rubbish and the Managers are bad. I just post the numbers and give the ananlysis as I see it.

Happy to see you here this board was a little different 2.5 years ago when I first started posting.

I do sympathize with long standing holders I am one myself though my holding is now only nominal.

When the new Manager takes over I would expect a change in dividend policy or a re basing of the dividend.

The Mangers are actually not that bad but they have been constrained by having to produce an unrealistically high dividend.

Unfortunately this will result in a widening of the discount.

Ironically not taking these actions will be far worse for the capital account of HFEL.

It is now inevitable that the dividend will be cut.

Portfolio turnover may have to be reduced and this will reduce the income earning power of HFEL.

The current earnings of HFEL 20.92p is 85.75% of the proposed annualized dividend of 24.4p. The future earnings are more likely to decrease than increase.

As the turnover is reduced HFEL yield must approach the yield of the assets held currently about 5%.

The good news is that a dividend cut will actually be healthy for HFEL in the longer term. The sister fund an OEIC has indeed performed better in total returns than HFEL. Janus Henderson Asian Dividend Income is down -4.9% and -7% over 1 and 3 years compared to -12.7% and

-13.7% respectively for HFEL. Both funds have the same management team but the OEIC has a lower yield.

Simply put regardless of opinions on management style the underlying shares must produce a return of 13% + to simply maintain capital and dividends let alone increase either.

The risk is the dividend cut may not be severe enough to put HFEL on a solid footing going forward.

TOD

OK I am filtering

LTI

Stop wasting my time.

LTI

I forgot you repost insist it is correct and add an insult you instant.

LTI

You just repost the statement and insist it is correct.

Anyone can do that with any statement.

Anyone who bought Lloyds in the last year will not have earned a double digit return.

Buy backs do not contribute directly to share holder return they reduce the number of shares floated and the number eligible for a dividend. If a company buys back shares and the price falls shareholders would not get a capital return from the buy back they may get a marginally higher dividend.

I am sure you will say you are right.

In any event what does this have to do with HFEL?

LTI

Lloyds bank are able to make double digit totals returns at the moment, due to the low market valuation.

Lloyds is a single share not a trust so not sure how that is relevant?

Lloyds currently has a dividend yield of 5.99%.

1 year share price 'flat' and add dividends.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lloyds+dividend+yield&oq=lloyds++yield&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgcIABAAGIAEMggIARAAGBYYHjIICAIQABgWGB4yCAgDEAAYFhgeMggIBBAAGBYYHjIICAUQABgWGB4yCAgGEAAYFhgeMggIBxAAGBYYHjIICAgQABgWGB4yCAgJEAAYFhge0gEKMTQwMjhqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You should see Mr Guitarsolo about what is yield.

''They are led to believe that the fund produces a natural yield of 12%, including some options income.''

Yes , correct- they are currently paying 6.1p per quarter which is about 12% based on the current price. Of course that will not be the case if underlying assets/market improve on asset values from the recent slump.

Damienmore refers to a "natural yield". You deliberately left out the word natural in your description of yield which makes your statement correct but does not make Damienmores's statement incorrect as you imply.

Both statements do not refer t the same yield. You refer to the actual yield of HFEL.

There was also the one I posted some time ago but I do not want to repeat the same posts.

LTI

You have posted a lot f incorrect statements though you suggest you are some kind of moderator.

I think deliberately incorrect.

Mr Guitarsolo

Before you get all excited other income funds also engage in some of the same tactics but perhaps not to the same extent.

Mr Guitarsolo

"So my follow up question would be to ask how much that practice contributes to the falling NAV (and therefore share price".

This is easy yield 12% - estimated yield on holdings around 5% = 7% all things being equal. You can possibly add another 1% for the annual management charge.

Some is generated from options writing which muddies the numbers a little.

If I can count.

You think the managers will ever quote those numbers?