On another board someone just said
"Jitters about anything bond yield related is hardly a UK specific problem"
However -
Bloomberg just told us that US bond yields highest for 1 year
UK bond yields depending on the 10 year or 30 years - the highest since 2008 (16 years +)
or since 1998 (26 years +)
That IS a UK specific problem |
Loads of reit’s and income stocks just following gilts |
Thanks Skinny |
So why the drop? Quick look at today's last regulatory announcement shows an increase in a short position of 180k+ shares. Is it that? Can't spend too much time digging as things are hectic at work |
They will still continue to blame previous government. What a bunch of muppets! |
Looks like 15-year Gilt yields will go through 5% tomorrow
...who crashed the economy this time? |
Calm down Smurf, it will happen when it's time. |
Come on AV this is helping my merger arbitrage trade. |
I hold both in my long term income port. Saves having to decide between them. |
Nice one.
I’m tempted to say it’s now time to buy, well never know what the city is thinking, but if that’s the worst of the city stamping over this isn’t quite the shot sandwich many are talking about.
Av. or LGEN? For the time being it has to be LGEN for my fresh money going into my SIPP. |
My sense of humour got the better of me |
Englebert, touché. I see you post about filtering as well, rather than post substance. Please add me to your filter and then it's all wonderful?But please post on AV. you seem to absorb what others say, pick at it and airburst nothing. Interesting people posting today, little on subject though. |
Engelbert, rather than ...Ironic and pretty silly post as well. |
Rongetsrich, rather than parade your criticism of yump for parading his victory, why can't you do what everyone else does.
Engelbert, rather than ... |
Yump, rather than parade your victory every time you use the filter button, how about you do what everyone else does? |
A monologue is not a discussion. That post probably puts everyone off the investment.
Another thick moron for the filter. |
fenners66
Last words on this, please
They could not use 'increase in dividend cost' for the basis of the 2025 dividend
as the cost of the 2025 dividend is hugely inflated, over 2024, by the issue of shares to DLG shareholders. So they used % increase in dividend per share to make it crystal clear (to most of us!!) that AV shareholders dividend outlook would not be effected.
They then revert to 'increase dividend cost' in 2026 to emphasise to shareholders that in the event that share buybacks reduce the number of shares in issue, the dividend per share will be increased pro rata |
1robbob - the question is why did they change from dividend per share to total dividends paid - after completion - in the same paragraph
Why not enhance the message rather than obscure it ?
By saying the increase in 2026 would be mid single digits or better if there are any share buybacks.....
That would leave us in no doubt.
However I can think of another reason why they cannot say even that at this stage - I had not thought of it until writing this - what if they are planning to / or make another acquisition in 2026 they need to ensure they are not overcommitting now ? |
Quite.
Hopefully thats clear now - I can’t think of any more ways of explaining it! |
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
Hot Features
Premium
