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

[Basil]

You've missed the point completely LEK.  The average capital gain has been 14% per annum for the last 10 years.  Additional to the capital gains the dividend yield started at 15% gross 10 years ago.  Its much higher today.   Add the two together and you get total shareholder return.  HLG don't have analysts who need to trumpet their TSR to shareholders to justify their egregiously high management fees like Morrison's need to do. Sorry, I can't make it any more simple than that.

Ask A.I. yourself, try and dumb it down so A.I. can calculate it for you.  If I bought a share for $2.70 10 years ago that's now worth $10 and along the way it paid 41.8 cps in dividends every year, (dividends varied each year but I tried to dumb it down for A.I.), what would my annual TSR be ?
A.I. can't seem to perform the task, I have tried asking it twice.  It consistently adds the capital gain of $7.30 to the dividends received of $4.18 and assumes the total return inclusive of all dividends is earned at the end of the 10 year term, (obviously with dividends paid throughout the term the actual return is much higher as the dividends can be reinvested). 

A huge part of HLG's performance has always been its dividends so with A.I. incorrectly calculating the CAGR I would need to spend a considerable amount of time running the actual calculations myself....but none of you naysayers would believe me so there seems no point in bothering.
FWIW which is very little, A.I. gives an annual TSR of 18.04% per year using its fundamentally flawed calculation methodology. 

P.S. See the HLG thread.  I have crunched all the numbers manually this morning because I was curious and the average annual TSR is 23.5% for the last decade. Its not a straight line though and some years were negative so its best to hold this one long term.

[LoungeLizard]

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.

You said, it wasn't a competition and yet here you are again with your "my CAGR is bigger than yours." Which actually it isn't but to be honest it's immaterial. Why? Because it isn't a competition!

 I see from your posts on other high quality stocks like FPH that you simply can't get your head around what you would classify as high PE, no growth companies. Which makes me wonder when so called no-growth companies like IFT (and FPH) continue to grow and return outstanding TSR how do you deal with the paradox. By slating them off and anyone who follows them, it appears.

This thread is actually about what people would buy if they could only buy one stock. ie what they would buy now. I really doubt whether anyone, apart from yourself apparently, would put all their money on HLG, regardless of past performance. They would look for a company that is diversified across a number of essential industries and has a good track record of growing one's capital. To me that's IFT in a nutshell.

And as far the future is concerned, which is really what we should be looking at, then IFT with it's investment in Renewables and Datacentres beginning to show remarkable returns, is really the one to look out for. I have no doubt that it will continue to show total returns of around 15-20% annually to shareholders. I really can't see HLG showing much capital gain beyond where it is now. Even paying $10 for a clothing retailer is not very sensible in my view. IFT on the other hand will soon be worth more than FPH and it's just a matter of time that the SP approaches $30-$40. Can you really say the same about HLG? Oh, that's right - you did say that HLG could be worth $30 one day. Pity no-one believes you.

[Basil]

I'm done with this thread.  Its a bit of a silly thread anyway and as I stated from the outset I would choose TWF because a diversified portfolio is important. That said, without a "cheat" option HLG would be my next pick. I've stated my opinion, defended the disinformation against it and stated the correct returns.  There's nothing more to say and I can't be bothered arguing with obtuse argumentative people.  It wouldn't matter what I said in this post to reply to the one above, there would be another snarky cynical reply come back in due course as sure as night follows day.  Life is too short.   

[LoungeLizard]

I'm done with this thread.  Its a bit of a silly thread anyway and as I stated from the outset I would choose TWF because a diversified portfolio is important. That said, without a "cheat" option HLG would be my next pick. I've stated my opinion, defended the disinformation against it and stated the correct returns.  There's nothing more to say and I can't be bothered arguing with obtuse argumentative people.  It wouldn't matter what I said in this post to reply to the one above, there would be another snarky cynical reply come back in due course as sure as night follows day, supported by the usual suspects.  Life is too short.   

Not an ounce of self-reflection as to why you repeatedly wind people up with your know-it-all attitude. I would value your contributions a hell of a lot more if they were delivered with a bit of respect for others views. I'm not holding my breath on that.