RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The Rules Don't ChangeYou can disagree all you like. If you bought HR anytime after 2012, you are still under water. Zero SP growth. Only exception is if you picked up shares in the Big Feb 2020 downdraft and even then, if you weren't in by Nov 2020, you are still underwater. "Underlying value" that is never reflected in the share price is not a compelling arguement to base investments on.
Take a look at what physical realestate has done in the past 10 years. It isn't just Toronto and Vancouver, raw farmland in norther Alberta has quadrupled. Now tell me you have seen anywhere near the same return from HR. Like I keep saying, and you are correct, I truly am a simple investor, I judge based on demonstrated returns and results and that is where I put my money. You do it however you like and all the best to you.
Frankie10 wrote: behold 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