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 !

[Left Field]

Basil , with respect, the topic of this thread is not "lets all ask Basil what we should do."

This thread is not about your fabulous investing success.

I know it is dangerous and scary for someone with your strong religious zeal, but how about reigning in your ego and at least be open minded enough to allow others to contribute their thoughts on this topic.

You don't have to out-shout and out-post everyone .

[Kaycee]

"You don't have to out-shout and out-post everyone"  Thank you Left Field, very well put.

[Basil]

This thread is not about your fabulous investing success.

That rich coming from someone that frequently reminds us all of their investing success.  Just have a look at the Gentrack or Tower threads for examples of that.

Its not just about return on capital employed.   Its also about return of capital employed.  In the last 10 years HLG has repaid investors who bought in the late $2 range, $4.18 in dividends and repaid their investment more than 1.5 times over.  All future dividends are based on a free carry investment.

Anyway, each to their own, that's about the only thing I agree with you about.

[LoungeLizard]

If you go back to what the discussion was about Basil, you took umbrage at my general assertion that:

"IFT delivers total shareholder return that are consistently better than far riskier stocks."

You made it into a contest between HLG and IFT (even though I said it wasn't a competition) and you said:

 "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.

But it turns out that IFT DOES have a superior TSR to HLG. Rather than acknowledge your mistake you are now talking about yield, which is totally different. And on that I am sure you are aware that TOTAL shareholder return includes dividends. I can give you the breakdown of how AI comes up with the overview if you're interested.

Wouldn't it be far easier, and mature, to just say that both HLG and IFT have done incredibly well over the last 10 years, rather than shout down anyone who approaches investing differently - and consequently picks different stocks to yourself?

[Basil]

Look lizard, I have already put the opening and closing 10 year values of HLG into a CAGR calculator and the annual CAGR just for capital gains is 14% per annum.

Add in the 15% gross yield I was getting at the start, increasing during the tenure of my holding and it's quite obvious the TSR for HLG has far exceeded IFT in the last decade. 

Happy to share a link to the CAGR calculator I use if you're interested. Don't believe everything A.I. tells you.

Its not a competition, I was merely explaining why I prefer HLG with the yield. Each to their own.

[LoungeLizard]

Look lizard, I have already put the opening and closing 10 year values of HLG into a CAGR calculator and the annual CAGR just for capital gains is 14% per annum.

Add in the 15% gross yield I was getting at the start, increasing during the tenure of my holding and it's quite obvious the TSR for HLG has far exceeded IFT in the last decade. 

Happy to share a link to the CAGR calculator I use if you're interested. Don't believe everything A.I. tells you.

Its not a competition, I was merely explaining why I prefer HLG with the yield. Each to their own.

Fair enough. If it isn't a competition then please don't act as though it is. Actions speak louder than words.

I have a full break down of the AI analysis - if you're interested -  which references all the figures back to annual reports. As I say, it includes dividends - so your fixation on gross yield is immaterial. And on that it probably overstates the HLG TSR because it assumes dll dividends are re-invested, which by the sounds of things you don't do. So the return would be even less.

[Basil]

Here's the CAGR calculator I use.  https://cagrcalculator.net/result/
Suggest you put opening value of $2.70 and closing value of $10.00 in there and the period is 10 years.
After entering those values you will see for yourself that the capital growth component only of HLG is 14% per annum.
Add to that average annual capital gain the yield each year and you will get the TSR.  The first year was 15% gross inclusive of imputation credits, i.e first year total shareholder return was 14% capital gain + 15% yield = 29% but the 15% yield was taxable so for people on a 33% tax rate the net shareholder return in year 1 was 14% capital gain + 10% net yield = 24%.  Dividends have gone up over the years.

[LaserEyeKiwi]

Here's the CAGR calculator I use.  https://cagrcalculator.net/result/
Suggest you put opening value of $2.70 and closing value of $10.00 in there and the period is 10 years.
After entering those values you will see for yourself that the capital growth component only of HLG is 14% per annum.
Add to that average annual capital gain the yield each year and you will get the TSR.  The first year was 15% gross inclusive of imputation credits, i.e first year total shareholder return was 14% capital gain + 15% yield = 29% but the 15% yield was taxable so for people on a 33% tax rate the net shareholder return in year 1 was 14% capital gain + 10% net yield = 24%.  Dividends have gone up over the years.

With respect - this is a nonsense way to compare the return from two stocks. Total returns are share price growth & total money paid out in dividends. IFT outperformed.

Trying to frame today's dividend yield, as today's dividend amount vs the share price 10 years ago is silly.