Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Snoopy
Please all rise for this session of the Sharechat internet court, Judge Mick 100 presiding.
The defendent, Snoopy, is here to answer the following question
"Before you decide to hold or buy more shares in a company whose shareprice is plumetting in value - eg, restarant brands
Ask your self this question:"
"Is there a possibility that my decision making process is being affected by 'escaslation of commitment'?"
"So how about it Snoopy? Are you suffering from escalation of commitment?"
---------
A fair question Judge Mick. Now please allow me to present my evidence.
I am a foundation shareholder of RBD. I acquired my first shares in June 1997 at an effective $2.03. In March 1998 I purchased some more at an equivalent price of $1.29. I have made several purchases in subsequent periods, priced as follows: September 1998 62c (equivalent), February 2000 $1.20 (equivalent) and another batch at $1.18 (equivalent). More purchases were made in September 2000 at $1.14, March 2002 at $2.08, July 2002 at $1.71, September 2003 at $1.25, September 2004 at $1.26, December 2004 at $1.26, March 2005 at $1.29, July 2005 at $1.60, October 2005 at $1.30 and finally later in that same month at $1.24. My weighted average purchase price is $1.26. My weighted average share holding time is 2.5 years. (That's because most of my holding has been bought in the last couple of years, during the time RBD has suffered from the most derision on this forum.)
Based on a market price of $1.33 I have made an average capital gain of 2.5cps per year held. The current net yield is 10cps, or 12.5cps if we add the annualised capital gain. That gives a gross yield annual return of 13.8%. Now, I'm not going to claim that is a fantastic return, although it is double what you would earn in the bank. But I do see that return as more than satisfactory, given the conservative nature of the underlying investment.
Some people see successful investment, in the cricket analogy, as a process of hitting as many sixes as you can. Personally I prefer a technique which gets less headlines but over the long term can be just as rewarding if not more so (because you are taking less risks). I refer to the 'pushing for singles' method. Just go about your job quietly clocking up the runs and keeping the scoreboard ticking over.
Being an investor in RBD won't score you many bonus swoons at cocktail parties. But it's a great investment to put your mother into. That's because my quoted returns are IMO, quite sustainable - even if the business doesn't grow at all! That's why RBD should be a core holding of any income based portfolio. For this whole century, RBD has had a consistent dividend income record that puts *all* the listed property trusts to shame.
As for the 'plummeting share price', there has been no long term plummet since 1998, since the inital fall from grace after the IPO. The share price today is more or less what it was in 1998. Since RBD have paid out nearly all of their profits as dividends since then, this is to be expected.
The case for investment, since 1998 has always been based on dividend yield. Investing in this company from a dividend perspective makes as much sense in 2006 as it did in 1998 and virtually every year in between. Therefore I reject the 'escalation of commitment' argument. If you look at 'new' investment in RBD in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 it has made huge sense every year, for eight different annually discrete reasons.
RBD, highly profitable, highly reliable and proven as a sound investment for every year of this century. Judge Mick, I rest my case.
SNOOPY
discl: hold RBD, and very satisfied with the investment performance.
I wonder if SNOOPY is still averaging down now that those lovely div