Member Info for eccles04

Elgrebe, As I have already wriiten a few days ago, you may say that it is a return of capital and some would agree but that is not HMRC's view. If dividends from investments exceed £2k in a year the excess over £2k are taxable at 7.5% and you are obliged to declare them unless of course you have unused personal allowance as my wife does. It's simply not worth the risk because if at some future date an HMRC employee discovers it they can give you a nasty caning. I recall a case from when I was in practice of a farmer's wife who was doing calf rearing as a side line but not declaring it. In some mysterious manner they found out, took the case back 13 years then got their £11k tax and doubled it for a penalty.

One could almost suspect some manipulation but some people get their thinking wrong when it comes to buy backs, wrongly take a negative view, and unload. Also possible that others might take an erroneous view of the upcoming trading report. Not me however, where else can you get a yield like this from a busines with a successful track record?

"Tesco is a quality defensive stock" - someone must be having a laugh, not sure who.

Of course it's overdone human beings always do this when their thinking is ruled by fear instead common sense. We have a friend who will no longer allow us to visit and rarely ventures out even now when the number of "cases" in our neck of the woods is virtually zero.

Fisher, Depends on what you are seeking I mean L &G are not in the general insurance business as AV are which has to mean that AV is more risky and profits will fluctuate more in the medium to long term. L&G will tend to give you a more stable income.

Correct, it does not make sense and it's generally called "sentiment" or as I call it illogical stupidity. One can observe it's presence all the time from remarks made in posts on these boards. Apparently it was supposed to be linked to news about the health situation in India. What on earth that situation has got to do with LLOY profits defies normal reasoning but hey ho. I came across a poster a few days ago who was completely unable to correctly measure his profits correctly on a couple of transactions insisting that he had made about 50% more than he had in fact made and telling the whole world about it. That's just one little example of how crazy things can get with human beings at times.

Now we know why Antonio spent £139k a couple of weeks ago, wonder if he placed a bet at the same time.

I am not trying to "wind you up"; what would be the point? This thread began when I queried the logic which you were offering to other readers in an attempt to get you thinking properly about financial transactions. Obviously I have failed and you are unable to accept that I (a qualified accountant and a chief accountant for 25 years) have a better understanding of profit measurement than you do. I don't know what "filter" means but no matter.

You are so right Spindler, IMO TSCO has always been a bit iffy especially with the tricks they play in their shops on those consumers who lack discernment.

Dear oh dear of dear, Gav you are making the same fundamental mistake as many do who do not understand how to correctly measure profits, i.e., you are mixing up profits and cash which are not the same thing. Profits may result in an equal amount of cash but not necessarily so. Your figure of £1584 includes £1000 cash from the difference between £15k got from DLG and £14K put into Sabre. Surely you can see that??? As for deducting £473 made from the separate Sabre deal from your figure of £1584, well that totally defies accounting logic so I now give up.

Sorry old chap but you are talking to a retired chief accountant here and I know how to correctly measure profits. You did two separate deals making profits of £572 on one of them and £473 on the other which total £1045. If I keep the DLG shares, I get a profit of £714 I decide to copy your deal with Sable which I could easily do with £14k which I happen to have I also get the £473 profit so my total would then be £1187 which is £142 more than you made. Simple isn't it.

Hi Falky, I don't want you to do anything my friend but I had the impression that you wanted to avoid writing "complicated" posts. I being a supporter of the plain English campaign would endorse all such attempts.

Gavster, Well yes I see all that but you only got £572.97 from the sale of 4858 DLG shares vs the £714.13 which I got. The Sabre deal was a quite separate deal on which you fortuitously made £473.03 and not linked to the DLG sale at all except that you chose to suggest that it was. So you got £572..97 if you will vs my £714.13 I could have got £14k from somewhere, it matters not where and done the same as you but to claim that it was anything to do with DLG shares would not be true would it?

'morning Falky, re complications: As a retired reporting accountant I knew that most of my audience did not know about or understand financial gobbledegook or accountants' acronyms. Thus I never used them and still don't; there will be newbies and others reading this board who will often have no idea what you are on about unless you do the same. No offence intended.

Dadean, sorry old chap but it doesn't matter what you think, HMRC still thinks it's an income div and therefore taxable unless contained in an ISA.

adv11: Completely agree, "sustainable" dividends come from what are called "cash cows". Cash cow businesses in general are those that produce cash come rain or shine and of course said cash comes from making profits from products which everyone buys all the time. Years ago I lived near a rather nice period four bedroom house and met the owner one day whilst out for a walk. He told me his businesses were a mobile fish and chip van and supplier of fish to local hotels. He always made money because even when things were bad, folk still bought his fish and chips and thus the business was a cash cow.

No one seems to have noticed that Antonio bought £140k worth about a month ago; Mr Chalmers bought a few bob's worth too. It's possible that they don't know what they are doing I suppose.

Duke: Could be a lot more than that. See if you agree with my simple calcs: At end of year they had roughly £11m in cash and receivables; add £2M from treasury shares and what shall we say another £1m first qtr profit. That lot comes to £14m but let's take off £2m which directors might like to keep in the bank; so we have £12m going nowhere. Divide that by 45m shares and you get to 26p ! Would someone like to correct me?

At 7.5% yield not "fairly attractive" but VERY attractive. Where else can one get that from a defensive stock?

Still some wallies selling before they know what the dividend(s) will be.