Member Info for Damienmoore

Long Time Investor, You are an odious cretin with the graces of a rat. What your really simple obnoxious brain doesn't understand is that it's not just a case of investors selling their shares and fking off if they are not happy. Investors have been misled. They are led to believe that the fund produces a natural yield of 12%, including seme options income. It does not do this. The managers churn the portfolio to produce the outsized yield, and they obfuscate the degree to which they do so. They never mention this strategy in the annual report and the contribution to income.

If you're tired of repeating yourself, then don't - just fk off and stop whinging about others expressing their views.

JPPoubelle, Your humility is commendable, and will save you from a future of hardhip and stress. Most people can't cope with the ego dent of making a mistake, and carry on with the same patterns of behaviour over and over and over again.

You did indeed make a mistake investing here. Social Housing is an untested asset class, and I would contend not a safe investment for this reason.

Please be a boring investor. Read Tim Hale's book and it will gorw your wealth sensibly, and save your marriage!

A Morningstar article from 4th May 2006:

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/59764/henderson-far-eastern-promise.aspx

Can you believe that at the time of writing the article in 2006, the NAV of this trust was 231.3p. The NAV was 14% higher, 17 years ago!

Michael Watt, if you are dead, I hope you are not rolling in your grave. The fund managers who succeeded you are total clowns and are destroying our capital !! They think it's okay to have weak conviction, with 100% portfolio turnover creating large transaction costs, and believe that by trading in to cum-dividend companies they are getting something for nothing. But apparently according to them, this is okay. It's "style".

JPPoubelle, I have read your posts and, with all respect, you are a typical emotional investor who gets caught in the buy high, sell low trap. This is not for you, and you should not make an investment in to a single company again. Read smarter investing by Tim Hale, and avoid this type of madness. All The best To You.

FF, do you really day trade and make a living, or are you pulling all our plonkers?

Up she goes, as expected.

canetoad,

"you seem to have this idea that issuing new shares and diluting existing shareholders is a great idea".

if you worked in the broking community for 20+ years i hate to think of the damage you must have done, because you are totally clueless. investment trusts don't dilute shareholders on an assets per share basis when they issue new equity and use the proceeds to buy more of the underlying assets. in the case of hfel they have (unbelievably) issued new shares at premium, so this will have been accretive to existing shareholders.

the reason the nav per share has declined is because the value of the underlying assets has tanked . it's got nothing to do with the issuance of new equity, it's the asset managers making poor asset allocation decisions.

good god. the number of people who come on here with a ****tail of arrogance and ignorance. it's cringing.

Falconer-Flyer, of course, I think the same as you. The shares are undervalued but there are good reasons for the neurosis. Punter64, commercial property market dynamics are not the same as residential property, so you should view Halifax's comments this morning in the correct context.

Thank you, Bott. I would admit that the letter in response by Ronald Gould is very well crafted.

The price gyrates due to uncertainities in the market. Sometimes it's up, sometimes it's down. There's no significance to it and it could easily end up in the red by the end of the day.

Rylidan, it's got nothing to do with shorters, it's the general sentiment towards the company. It operates in a real estate market where the demand for its properties is highly constrained and concentrated to care providers, which has a negative impact on the company in terms of the balance of power. If a care provider can't pay its rent, it's not a simple matter of evicting them and re-letting a property in the open market to normalise the income. Instead, as can be seen, when a care provider fails to pay rent SOHO has little option but to tolerate it and suffer the negative impact on income.

Furthermore, this real estate sector is not subject to open market pricing for rent; it is controlled indirectly by the government, and so it is significantly exposed to central government budget and regulatory risk. This is not so favourable in the current climate, where government and local authorities are seeking to control costs and mitigate inflation.

My opinion is that as a longer term investment this is a buy at current levels, but let's get real and understand the risks the market is currently pricing in.

Hi Actuary63,

Yes, correct. Putting it another way, if 10% yield is required from underlying investments yielding 5% annually, then the way to arrive at 10% is to get 5% twice. How to do this? Buy stocks that are about to pay a dividend and when said dividends have been paid, sell the stocks and recycle the money in to different companies leading up to their ex dividend. It really is simple maths that not many on here have the brain for.

This strategy can be successfully hidden if stock prices are rising, but in a stagnant or declining market it can create a doom-loop of reducing capital values and the need to recycle more and more capital to create the income. The possible eventual outcomes are:

1. The capital destruction becomes so great the manager puts his hands up and says "oops, we need to reset the dividend".

2. The Asia Pac markets recover strongly, the manager gets away with it, and says "phew".

3. The manager makes some excellent stock picks that boost the capital value of the trust, and says "phew".

Outcomes 2 and 3 are looking less likely as time rolls on. Would you want to take a risk on the manager finding a get out of jail free card up his sleeve?

On the Citywire forum investors in Hendeson Far East Income are actually willing to face the truth that this trust is converting capital in to income. One comment on this forum refers to the trust as "eating itself", which I thought was a good way of putting it! other comments refer to the obfuscation committed by both the managers and the board of directors, who are meant to act in the best interests of shareholders.

https://moneyforums.citywire.com/yaf_postsm242296_HFEL--Henderson-Far-East-Income--I-just-bought-more--having-2nd-thoughts.aspx

I wonder if the investors here will ever face the truth, even though it's staring them in the face.

Ade, this is hilarious. It's like a social experiment. Did you notice how LTI acts like a baboon when you presented actual evidence (instead of dogma) that the underlying holdings of this trust do not support its outsized yield? Instead of a measured, logical response, he starts beating his chest. He also purported to being smart, which was so funny it made my day yesterday. Please keep provoking him with the truth, because it is wonderful entertainment.

LTI, are you okay? You appear to be on repeat mode. We know you bought shares at 210.5p and we know that the capital values of assets very over time. But this is not the topic of discussion. We are talking specifically about the performance/conduct of the HFEL managers and relative performance of the trust, which has been poor.

Your repeated reference to the trust performing in line with the Hang Seng is absurd. All you are doing is pointing out the fact that the trust, somehow, failed to benefit from diversification, as HFEL is an Asia-Pac fund with an investment mandate to seek opportunities across multiple asia pacific markets. You are simply pointing out the failure and taking comfort in it. It looks like "longtime" investing hasn't made you smarter.

Bott, I'm afraid you have the wrong end of the stick. The money raised from new equity is quickly deployed by the manager and on a per share basis the company does not lose assets. The money doesn't simply disappear and then dilute the NAV per share. However, as we know, the per share NAV has been declining due to poor stock selection and management. Part of the poor management is the very high turnover in the underlying investments, which the manager does to buy in to companies leading up to ex-dividend dates. The manager has also been using the cash from equity raises to buy in to companies just before ex-dividend, to boost the revenue account of the trust. Mike Kerley says by doing this he is being "dividend aware". This is his jargonistic way of stating that he is dividend stripping.

The dividend stripping is not speculation - it is a fact the manager is doing this, and it is reasonable to contend that this could be the cause of the abysmal capital performance / total return. To put it in to context, the share price was this low in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, between 2008 and 2009; 14 years ago. THIS IS EMBARRASSING.

In the past 10 years HFEL's total return with dividends reinvested is 38.4%. In that time the FTSE 100 has returned 70%, and FTSE World 201.3% (SOURCE: Trustnet).

The managers have failed, and continue to fail. Shareholders should be indignant and asking questions.

Ade, Just ignore them and don't engage their childishness. Anyone can participate in free speech and debate irrespective of whether they own shares in the company or buy-to-let beach huts in Bognor Regis. Don't even spend a second justifying yourself. LTI's inner chimpanzee appears to be running riot. He needs to get a grip or move to China and join the totalitarian regime there.

Jamesmaggs, why so touchy?? Shareholders are stakeholders of a business and have a right to object to the management, and have an input in to how their company is run. This is nothing new, so what's the stroppy teenager act all about? If you don't like democracy, go and live in China.

The half year report is satisfactory with NAV increasing to Euro 14.77, and the share price creeping up during the period. The following comment made by interim chair, Fionnuala Carvill:

"My fellow Directors and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the continued confidence you have shown in Princess during the first half of the year. Acknowledging the sensitivity in Princess not fulfilling its dividend objective in 2022, and the impact that had on shareholders, it is our belief that Princess offers an attractive long-term investment case within Listed Private Equity with a well-respected Investment Manager that is well placed to navigate the current environment. "

has a conciliatory tone that will offer some appeasement to those shareholders willing to forget/forgive the inept foreign currency trades that destroyed a large amount of shareholder capital.

I am not willing to forgive/forget, but it appears they did at least listen.

Ade,

Oh, I see. You are not in disagreement with the contention the managers' have obfuscated their dividend stripping strategy. You simply feel it is unproductive for me to be on here complaining about it, when I should be directing my energy down other, perhaps more effective channels.

You have a valid point, but allow me to explain my motives for posting on here: I AM HERE TO RUFFLE FEATHERS. That's right, I am here to provide the irritating truth to see what happens from it. I am not expecting people to like me or the content of my posts, but this is understandable. Can you imagine the level of cognitive dissonance a person would feel attempting to accept that they made a mistake trusting an investment manager who has successfully hidden the truth about how they produce an outsized yield?? It's a huge assault on the ego, and as is evident denial and anger are the tools used to protect the fragile ego.

BUT, there may be one or two people who have enough insight and openness to start asking questions, which may in turn be enough to (1) prevent investors making the mistake of investing more/new money who may not have given it a second thought (2) give a bit of impetus to those who object to the conduct of the manager, with the chance (albeit remote) that one or more investors start asking them confontational questions.

It has taken me a long time to accept that I made a mistake investing in HFEL, and that the wool was successfully pulled over my eyes. But now I am older and wiser, I am willing to accept that sometimes investment managers allow salesmanship to override truth and transparency. This should not happen and I am calling it out.

Thanks for your reply, and All The Best.