RE:RE:RE:RE:The Rules Don't Changebehold the typical aforementioned "simple" investor who only cares about yield and price with no concern for the underlying assets, business fundamentals, and valuation. thanks for sharing, but i would push back on your criticism on mat and your misguided self-belief that you know how to value and compare different investment opportunities. best of luck with your risk management and capital allocation.
.
DeanEdmonton wrote: I know how yeild, share price, NAV etc work, been at this a very long time, but thanks for the very basic 101 level investing explanation. Nothing you said changes the current situation. All the moves they have made to date have not changed the outcome. You are free to believe the story management is pedalling, I base my decisions off the actual results achieved. They slashed the dividend during Covid, it has not been put back, they spent a ton buying back shares, which would have been better used developing or buying quality properties, share price is still low. Last point, they got rid of a whole bunch of their diversifation and the company with the "Bad" assets is actually out perfroming them. The demonstrated results don't lie, management often does.
materialsgirl wrote: You sound disappointed. For sure performance over 3 years has been terrible.
I would say that a 9% yield, while possible, would be unwise.
Firstly the yield woud not happen because the share price would rise.
This short term rise would be offset by the drop in NAV.
I agree entirely that a solid business selling at half NAV is absurd.
Just note that they are implementing a cure by slowly eliminting the
"diversified" label
mat