....its been 'upgraded' a fair bit over the past few months
Printable View
Fair call that I shoudl have been more 'on the ball' with ANZ back in 2013. Suffice to say I have put a lot of effort into trying to understand banks better since then. But back in 2013, ANZ was a star that could do no wrong, so "I didn't need to pay as much attention to it" ;-P. Much like Heartland enthusiasts don't have to pay much attention to their Heartland investment today. TA is really just another way of saying "let the good times roll", and party on. I prefer to go with a more data driven forecasting approach. Granted I will miss any 'surprising turnarounds' by doing things this way. But I am prepared to forgo such wins, just as I forgo buying Lotto tickets.
SNOOPY
Strong finish last week, strong start today... $1.68 currently I believe, $1.70 by the open tomorrow? ;)
Seems to me that still trading cum a fully imputed 3.5 cent dividend up to and including this Wednesday nobody with any meaningful volume seems to want to sell. Seems they broadly agree with this hounds assessment of fair value. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see $1.70 today, ($1.69 when I looked a minute ago). Hold.
SNOOPY.
Could we please have another of your wonderfull SELL HBL posts.
I love them.
Each one sees the sp react upwards immediately.
You are making me a very wealthy man.
Snoopy thank you.
The beers are on me next time we meet.
I love how it is increasing as well, but this cannot continue forever. At some stage the risk will outweigh the reward. Unless this is a takeover haha. I will continue to hold
Even @ 168c still a solid gross 7.11% yield (5.06% fully imputed) :)
This is just such a beutiful chart I needed to update - certainly exciting
Never before have I seen a bank rerated so fast and by so much by the market as now - awesome
Still below fair value on a comparative basis with its peer group so I am expecting only a temporary pullback of 3.5 cents per share when it goes ex dividend on Thursday.
I suspect Percy has a few more than me and is probably enjoying Lobster for dinner some evenings with his chips :)
That fall from 169 to 166 today - just 'profit taking' as they say in in the trade
A good sign I reckon
Flat for the day not a bad thing, found a short term new top at 169, you reckon? Some poor punters down 1-3 cents already, but just a temporary blip on the way to the moon, as they say in the trade.
Stunning chart, nice breakout through previous highs at 160, probably want to back test that solid support, then moon-ward again eh. No worries, dead cert for sure.
Actually, my laziness at just using unadjusted 'dividend per share' figures, while the number of shares continues to increase does build a growth rate into my Dividend Capitalization Modelling. To work out what that is, I have constructed a table below.
Year Dividends Paid 'per share' (dps) No. Shares EOFY2017 {A} No. Shares EOFY {B} {A} - {B} {C} Actual Dividend [dps x {B}] Modelled Dividend Growth [dps x {C}] FY2015 3.5cps + 3.0cps 512.902m (f) 469.480m 43.422m $30.516m $2.822m FY2016 4.5cps + 3.5cps 512.902m (f) 476.469m 36.433m $38.118m $2.915m FY2017(f) 5.0cps + 3.5cps(f) 512.902m (f) 512.902m (f) 0m $43.597m $0m Three Year Total $112.231m $5.737m
(f) indicates forecast result.
Now we can calculate the incremental profit growth percentage:
$5.732m / $112.233m = 5.112%
All this modelled growth happened over a three year period, with two incremental years from the base year. The average annual growth rate, lets call it 'g', must multiply together to obtain the 5.112% total.
g x g = 1.05112
Solving for 'g' yields an annual growth rate of 2.524%
The extra earnings that I have modelled are because I am assuming that it would have been possible to earn more in the past if the share capital of today had been available 'back then'. It is implicit in what I have done that I am assuming constant 'earnings per share' on this theoretically enlarged capital base. It may not have been possible to achieve this constant 'eps growth' had the extra capital been available at the time. Any theoretical extra growth could have been more or less. But becasue this whole incremental growth modelling is only a 'what if' exercise, I will stick with the constant 'eps' estimate, andthe derived annual growth rate of 2.524% that I calculated.
SNOOPY