Member Info for longtimeinvestor

td
''My original 100% holding would have realised more growth and would have more monetary value with the recent rise in sp than my post consolidation position''

Why?
£1 sitting on the balance sheet would still be worth £1.
All the market increase in value has been/would have been on the operational Aviva business .
The clear benefit has been for an investor to use the cash for further investment, which could have meant increasing their holding in Aviva by a good percentage.

Nom
that saved me replying to the nonsense that snige is capable of.

snige - a supplier could call your energy supply and that of others 'green' if on a 'green tariff' purely on the basis that the income could be going into 'green' energy production investments.

tf
''75ish % of a 20p rise in sp is less than 100% of the same.Gotta be.''

How would cash on the balance sheet doing nothing come to have an increased value?.
The rise in the market cap in the last week is based on the business operations of aviva and the profitability of those operations.

td
''The message that I am purveying is that I alone should be the only one who decides upon decisions about my investments''

When an investor buys shares of a quoted company, the investor is handing over the handling of that investment to the BOD - they decide on investment decisions. An investor is free to withdraw from the investment at any time if the decisions of the BOD are not to their liking

td
''my preferred previous situation with all my returned cash still invested in Aviva plus my original 100 per cent intact.''

that was the problem, the cash was not invested. Investors now have the choice to invest the cash.
You have your original percentage ownership of Aviva 100% intact

WB
''Struggling to understand is all''

it has been explained countless times already, for you to understand

kl
''3. I have some money in my account''

That is your clear gain - money to do with as you please.

trot
''No it's not. ''

yes it is
It is clear to me that the share price has gained for anyone who used the cash to increase their percentage ownership of the operational business, in addition to the clear gain of also receiving a 7% + yield as opposed to cash earning nothing.
The initial clear gain is that investors had cash 'in their hands' to do with as they please rather than being untouchable. Very clear

mac
''than take money from the record-breaking profits of energy conglomerates.''

Yes take/steal amounts to the same thing. Oil companies already pay a higher rate of corporation tax.
What about the $Billions of losses suffered when oil went below ZERO and the current write downs of Russian assets.
It should be a case of swings and roundabouts.
Investors RISK their money investing in these companies any many saw their investment plummet dramatically at the oil low.
It should be risk reward NOT no risk/reward .

mac
''than take money from the record-breaking profits of energy conglomerates.''

Yes take/steal amounts to the same thing. Oil companies already pay a higher rate of corporation tax.
What about the

Cas
''those of you with chunks of cash lying effectively idle in premium bonds it may wake you up to better alternatives''

I think people are hoping to win £1 million on PB, which would be the attraction over the averaging 1% income on them.

Also have to consider the wide spread on prefs, if not keeping forever.

cas

some may prefer though the 10% total return currently offered on the ordinary shares. It would be surprising if the average profitability for the next 10 to 20 years is not such as to be able to make a total return to investors averaging 4.5p per share

cas
''well as interest rates rise the capital value of bonds(and roughly this is a bond to all intents and purposes)falls so its quite possible, indeed probable that the capital value will fall further ''

it's a lot better than 1.5%.

J46
28 Mar 2021 18:31
''US 10 yr notes yield ~1.5% , risk free.

trot
''I still think you are missing the point.''

The point made was -
''we've been forced to sell 24% of our shares and their value given back to us. ''

and my point was that it is incorrect information

trot
''The market value gain is less clear and more difficult to explain because it requires you to apparently create value from "nothing".''

Any gain is clear, you purchase for X and you can see the gain from ther, plus 7% + yeild from the share purchase at Xl

trot
''the number of shares you own having been reduced''

the share in the business was not reduced, The shares had a cosmetic consolidation

gb
''How did Einstein define insanity?''

your repeating the same nonsense over and over about buybacks and expecting it to be true each time.
The truth is that buybacks reduce the number of shares in issue.

''Windfall tax''

Centica is my worse performing stock in my portfolio - well underwater - no dividend for 2 + years - talk of a WT must be a f...ing joke

Trot
It is a fact that that people are better off if investing the cash, increasing their percentage ownership of the operational business and with the addition of a 7% + yield rather than not getting a return .

sfh
'' I was just explaining in non-technical terms that we are no better off,''

why not?
investors have been given cash to do with as they please, rather than getting zero return on it.
Many would have used the money to increase their percentage ownership of Aviva with some buying shares at about the 390p level and therefore already have made a 10% capital appreciation, and not forgetting of course the high yield that will come with the additional investment.
By what stretch of the imagination is this not a gain over having cash earning NOTHING.