If you were only allowed to buy one share on the NZX

[Basil]

I crunched the numbers a while back and inclusive of the consistent huge dividends HLG has paid every year in the last decade their total shareholder return has comfortably exceeded IFT.  This growth has been achieved with no debt, no share issuance and no expansion of the very modest PE metric it trades on. 
My 20% portfolio allocation is based on its current price which has nearly quadrupled in the last decade.

[LoungeLizard]

I crunched the numbers a while back and inclusive of the consistent huge dividends HLG has paid every year in the last decade their total shareholder return has comfortably exceeded IFT.  This growth has been achieved with no debt, no share issuance and no expansion of the very modest PE metric it trades on. 
My 20% portfolio allocation is based on its current price which has nearly quadrupled in the last decade.

I think your insistence that it's some sort of either/or competition between IFT and HLG rather proves the point of the dangers of being too one-eyed. By all means have HLG as 20% of your holdings if your'e comfortable with that. But that doesn't mean that those of us with 20% (or more) of our holdings in IFT are wrong, or somehow missing out. Personally, HLG doesn't fit my investment profile and I think it's reached its peak as to what the market will pay for a clothing retailer. But that's just me. As I keep having to say - there's different ways of making (and losing) money in shares.

[Basil]

I think its you who is too defensive.  I'm not advocating either/or at all.  You stated something that was factually incorrect, that IFT's 10 year TSR was superior, I was simply telling you that I have crunched the numbers and can tell you you're wrong. 

[LoungeLizard]

Actually all I said was "IFT delivers total shareholder return that are consistently better than far riskier stocks." I didn't even mentioned HLG except in my last post which was about it not being an either/or - that diversity is key.
It's clear you are very sensitive to a different view on the stocks you pick. Lighten up.

[LoungeLizard]

For what it's worth:

AI Overview   
           
 Over the last decade, Infratil (NZX:IFT) has significantly outperformed Hallenstein Glasson Holdings (NZX:HLG) in Total Shareholder Return (TSR).
 Infratil generated an annualized post-tax return of approximately 17.3% per year, growing a hypothetical investment nearly fivefold, while Hallenstein Glasson delivered a cumulative return of around 277% (14.2% annualized).

[Left Field]

For what it's worth:

AI Overview   
           
 Over the last decade, Infratil (NZX:IFT) has significantly outperformed Hallenstein Glasson Holdings (NZX:HLG) in Total Shareholder Return (TSR).
 Infratil generated an annualized post-tax return of approximately 17.3% per year, growing a hypothetical investment nearly fivefold, while Hallenstein Glasson delivered a cumulative return of around 277% (14.2% annualized).

I think your insistence that it's some sort of either/or competition between IFT and HLG rather proves the point of the dangers of being too one-eyed. By all means have HLG as 20% of your holdings if your'e comfortable with that. But that doesn't mean that those of us with 20% (or more) of our holdings in IFT are wrong, or somehow missing out....

Thanks LL. Your posts are spot on - particularly #16 above.

As I have said before, there is no right or wrong with share investing....just different returns.

My last point is that all the figures quoted by Basil and myself are historic.

It's the next 5 to 10 years that will really count, and I see much greater future potential for IFT than HLG is ever likely to achieve.

Data Centres, renewable energy etc etc are huge growth sectors internationally, and the  IFT team are very well positioned. 

[Basil]

For what it's worth:

AI Overview   
           
 Over the last decade, Infratil (NZX:IFT) has significantly outperformed Hallenstein Glasson Holdings (NZX:HLG) in Total Shareholder Return (TSR).
 Infratil generated an annualized post-tax return of approximately 17.3% per year, growing a hypothetical investment nearly fivefold, while Hallenstein Glasson delivered a cumulative return of around 277% (14.2% annualized).

Its not worth much.  A.I. is just picking up the movement in the share price which is correct.  HLG was $2.70 in mid 2016 when I bought in.  The share price has grown at a 14% CAGR in line with EPS growth rate, so that part of A.I. is correct but I was getting 15% gross yield when I bought in on top of the 14% annual share price growth so that has to be factored into the total shareholder return.  If the 14% capital growth per annum worked in a linear manner I was getting 29% TSR per annum from the outset but of course dividends have grown over the years.  Based on Forsyth Barr forecast dividends for next year and assuming 60% imputation my gross yield on purchase price next year is 35%.  Factor that in and calculate the total shareholder return for me will you.
Each to their own but I can't feed my family on the miserable 1.4% yield IFT pays, that's one thing for certain !