RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Refreshing honesty The guy who took me through the basics of corporate financial analysis was of the opinion that very rarely is there predictive value in going back more than five years. He was CFO of a leading construction firm for a long time and now teaches post-grad finance.
The only cases where I've seen data suggesting something further in the past matters is in businesses where assets can be impaired in ways that affect the far future (banking and insurance, for example, where it's not abnormal for a bet to be placed on something 20 years away and a mistake in modeling the bet can have lasting consequences). DIV's bet is that the market for a royalty partner's products and/or services will remain intact and grow slowly over time. The shareholder's bet is that DIV has assessed the market's future correctly.
.
babedinkleman wrote: babedinkleman wrote: "19 of the past 75 months (25%) the dividend has come when the Yeild is below 7.00%" and "6 of the past 75 months (8%) the dividend has come when the Yeild is below 6.50%" ......so 25 months of the the past 75 months (33% of the time) the yeild has traded between 6 and 7 percent.
Care to guess when the majority of those months were? They certainly weren't the years when the former founder's $50 million lawsuit and $tens of millions in legal fees were hanging over the company or when they just had one royalty stream out west that was going down the tube due to the price of oil.
The 6-7% years are really the only numbers worth looking at.....because this 2+ years was mostly the period leading up to Covid when they FINALLY had that lawsuit and legal fees of the co-founder behind them (dragged on for years) and had sold their original restaurant royalty stream out west which tanked with oil's demise. This two years was when the company was in the form most similar to what the entitiy should look like post covid if things go back to 'normal' (whatever that is).
Of course you can't use a 5 or 6 year period of data where the company was transitioning from a mess to finally getting their sh!t together to come up a conclusion to where a stock should be trading based on an average yield over that entire period and pricing that doesn't paint the stock in it's current form.
And when I say the market hates this model....which I often do.....and which it does.....that is the reason even when firing on all cylinders with lawsuits behind them and multiple royalty deals it trades in th 6-7% yield range....not the 5-6% range.
And hey....it's rare I defend this stock but some of these posts from the 'overvalued' crew are bordering on misleading at best. To think it's right to include data for a period where the stock was an mess, tied up in lawsuits, and nowhere near in it's current form to determine what yield it should be trading at today or post covid is just wrong. Why not go back 10 or 12 years where the stock was trading for pennies and there was no yield? Should be able to get it to a fair value of about $1.20 using that 'data' range. I mean cmon.....