Member Info for Damienmoore

This is a gift that keeps on giving. Total dividends per share for the past year were £1.73 through my interactive investor ISA. On today's price of £22.57 the yield is 7.6%.

And the news get better. According to Just ETF the quarterly dividend that is about to be paid will be £0.48, being a 23% increase on last year.

Love this ETF. Let's hope it remains a secret, so no one spoils it for us!

Pj14, just buy more. If the market is being dumb, take advantage.

Can't really see how you could go wrong buying more at these levels, for a long term hold. A near 8% yield and buying at well below NAV. Whilst not ultra low, the LTV is acceptable and doesn't pose inordinate refinancing risks. The manager, whilst not shy about making their fees, does a better job than most.

I am optimistic about CREI after losing a lot of money on Highcroft Investments (HCFT).

I love it when markets are irrational. Just topped up. Thank you Mr Market for delivering me this bargain of the decade.

CREI share price has taken a hit from the initial knee jerk reaction, but I'm not too concerned. The CREI managers are quite competent, and whilst they will benefit over time from higher management fee income, I don't believe this deal is motivated (purely) by greed.

Initial impressions are it's a good idea. CREI shareholders get a share in the new property assets at approximately 25% discount to NAV, yielding well in excess of 7%. Economies of scale will reduce costs and increase the available cash flows for dividends. I think it's a win for everyone. I have been a CREI holder for many years.

Correct. Forced sellers at bargain prices to those who will enrich themselves at the expense of others. This is a strategic displacement of private investors in favour of "the establishment".

An utter disgrace, in my opinion. The share price has gyrated between £6 and £8.24 since the announcement, with fearful investors selling well below NAV. The board should be ashamed of themselves. There was no precursor to this announcement, with no mention of onerous listing costs or regulatory burden in prior reports. The announcement is also thin on detail. How much money would be saved in moving to TISE in listing costs? We don't know, because they haven't qualified their claims with actual figures!

The board makes the point about the liquidity of the shares, but what have they ever done to proactively improve the company's exposure. On searching the web there is thin evidence of any sort of public relations effort. No interviews with the CEO or engagement with EO Platforms, that I have seen.

To me it does not matter what the outcome of the vote is. I no longer trust the board. A board willing to make a sudden change of this magnitude with no prior warning is not a board for me. Fired!

The board believe this is in shareholders best interests because it is significantly cheaper to be listed on TISE, and the governance requirements are not as strict. I do not trust this reasoning. The board has not mentioned these issues in the past, and the company has always sustained the cost of a main market listing. So my question is, what is the real reason for the desire to move to TISE? What is it that the directors want to do that they would find difficult to do while listed on the main market? Frankly, I am disgusted with the board. The ethos of the company has always been prudence and ethical conduct - the way to demonstrate this is with a main market listing.

Ha ha ha, Argadargada, my cage is indeed well and truly rattled - by laughter. Is the person who gave me the tip down the pub the same person who told you that Mike Kerley has been running HFEL for the past 40 years? I'm pleased you've stepped on to the fact train, but please stop digging the hole deeper. On second thoughts, please keep going - you're hilarious.

Well, the ship has steadied a bit. I have held my nerve and continue to hold. Will I regret it?....

This Global ETF focuses on companies that pay above average dividends, but at the same time have healthy "plow back" ratios i.e. retained profits, so there is a quality emphasis, too. Dividends have increased over time and I have confidence they will continue to grow. Happy to hold and forget.

This ETF focuses on US companies that pay above average dividends, but at the same time have healthy "plow back" ratios i.e. retained profits, so there is a quality emphasis, too. Dividends have increased over time and I have confidence they will continue to grow. Happy to hold and forget.

Argadargada, a completely moot point and you're snippeting what you said to protect your ego. Mike Kerley hasn't managed this trust for 40 years, and if you're happy with his performance during his tenure from 2007 you should perhaps see a financial advisor, or if you have a dog they might be better placed to make judgments on your behalf.

THE SHARE PRICE AND NAV IS LOWER NOW THAN WHEN MIKE KERLEY ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS TRUST IN 2007; 16 YEARS AGO.

Does anyone else want to put their hands up and declare their delight in Mike Kerley's perfmormance?? Perhaps you should send him a gold watch, Argadargada? I have an idea for the card:

"Dear Mike, I enclose herewith a gold watch to celebrate your amazing stock picking performance for the last 40 years, since 2007. In this time you have, somehow, managed to erode the capital over your entire tenure. Many congratulations, and happy retirement. PS. My dog thinks you're a failure, but I don't listen to him".

Argadargada, Have you had a labotomy? Mike Kerley hasn't been the manager for 40 years and the trust hasn't even existed for this amount of time. Mike Kerley's stock picking (or trading) has brought the share price and NAV down to levels not seen since the global financial crisis. If you think this is something to be happy about, then perhaps go and see your GP about possible delusional disorder.

Ade, you confuse me with your inconsistency and capriciousness:

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

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. They have managed the trust "badly".

You change your tune as quickly as a nightclub deejay, Ade.

Ade, you confuse me with your inconsistency and capriciousness:

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

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. They have managed the trust "badly".

You change your tune as quickly as a nightclub deejay, Ade.

Realist1, were you asleep when you read the report?

"Our Fund Managers had sought to enhance income and offset sterling strength through portfolio rebalancing but this had a negative impact on capital growth. Our analysis has now led us to revise the way in which we capture dividends, an approach that has too often led to diminished capital growth."

The "rebalancing" referred to is, at least in part, the recycling capital in to cum dividend stocks. You might not understand the nuances of the wording but it is a fact that Mike Kerley churned the portfolio to this end. He has now been discharged of his portfolio selection duties, and I take this as the board's acknowledgement that Kerley's approach and techniques were not working. Apparently he is retiring from asset management in 2024, and I hope he stays retired. Probably best he takes up his motor racing hobby full time.

No disrespect to PCTN holders, but I hope Picton do not successfully merge with UKCM. I am a holder of UKCM and can only see that pctn shareholders will benefit from a sucessful merger (we won't). You have a large office allocation (a liability in my view) and you will also dilute the reversionary yield that is coming online within the UKCM portfolio. If Picton succeed it will be an injustice to UKCM shareholders, unless we receive a premium in recognition of the quality of the portfolio. Sorry to paint a "you and use" picture, but this is what it is, and the merger proposals by Picton are a downright cheek in my opinon.

No, it doesn't really do much at all apart from rail road UKCM investors in to having the assets managed by Picton. There may be costs savings from scale, and the fact that Picton is internally managed, but other than this I consider this an unwanted distraction. As an investor I want to see ABRDN concentrate on managing the portfolio and realise the reversionary yield available within the properties, thus increasing the dividends available to shareholders.

I want Picton to b*gger offer, frankly.