Also, in 2008 EWA (the etf) was 33 and is now 23. The Aussie market got clobbered falling over 40%. In 2002 IAF was 5 and is now 8.60 which is about a 6% return per year not counting the 9% distribution policy. If you got burned by buying too high I am sorry but you need more than anger to convince me it is a Ponzi scheme. Why don't you complain to the SEC?
On June 30, 2008, shares in all markets were going nuts. IAF has been as high as 18 and as low as 4. This last quarter too much of the distribution came from paid in capital but other times the whole distribution has been from capital gains and dividends. Not a Ponzi scheme but also not as well as I would like it to perform.
Seems like about a wash to me. Drop 100,000 in base and add 90,000 in bonuses. The change of control part may be interesting down the road.
Oz dollar drop vs the U.S. dollar has been stunning and some say it has farther to fall. I have been expecting this rise in unemployment as many projects were being cancelled and some were huge even in the mining sector. Ironically, the jobs added number was greater than expected last week when data was released.
This does not mean they will continue to pay the 25 cents per quarter that they have been paying. Depending on what happens to the share price, the 9% policy can mean a smaller or larger dividend and right now the dividend would drop to about 20 cents per quarter IF the price stayed in this range for several months. I rather expect a small decrease to about 23-24 cents for the next payout.
BHP and QBE make up about 16% of the total portfolio for IAF so their bad news would have some repercussions. But Colleen's assertion that EWA is more weighted to financials is bothersome as 37% of IAF is weighted to the same category. Not sure her statement can explain the depth of the decline in IAF although it does yield some light on the matter. Hopefully we will see a rebound come the new year.
I am glad you connected with her Ed but am wondering what caused the original slide from the 10.50 down to the mid nines before we got the 50 cent drop yesterday and 30 cents today. I know those two heavyweights can put strain on IAF so perhaps the news was leaked earlier that bad things were coming.
I agree Ed. I have seen rather substantial drops and rises in this one but am wondering why IAF is acting this way in comparison to the EWA etf which has most of the same companies in its portfolio. Sure would seem logical that Aberdeen would let shareholders know the reason for the drop and I really do not want to hear, "We have no knowledge of any cause that would cause this decline" nonsense. Still, I am willing to hold this for the dividend unless something drastic regarding said dividend is in the works.
IAF carries many of the same companies as the EWA etf for Australia which dropped 1.5% while IAF dropped about 8%. This makes no sense at all unless IAF is cutting their distribution and changing their long held policy regarding the distributions.
Don't know where ABX came from as I am pretty sure IAF is what I typed in and it is pretty hard to make a mistake to get Barrick Gold out of Aberdeen Australia.
One positive article about Chinook's potential in Tunisia and western Canada and the lemmings jump on board. Sonde Energy as two proven wells off Tunisia but, with the unsettled political condition and the inability of a partner to provide funds to develop the area, Sonde may lose the whole deal and fall into bankruptcy. They have sold off much of their western Canadian properties as well and come up with non commercial drillings in the Duvernay Shale (all wells in the Montney/Duvernay are not productive) regardless of what acreage the company has. Be very careful about these less than junior drillers.
And we all know what your opinion is worth don't we beeny--that is except for you. (Spoiler) 3.00 and your opinion can get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Quite right, meant to say 2015 but I also said "I think" which means I was not claiming infallibility. So please, if you reference that comment at some time in the future please get it correct.
Gosh wrongo, what happened to the losses you used to mention before the gain of 40 million. You seem to be very good at picking and choosing numbers to use when it suits you. You are right about the price not being very good right now but outside of that little nugget, what was there about my post that was not accurate? Don't bother answering because, barring a collapse to 70 dollars a barrel or something like that, there was nothing wrong with my suggestion of what they might gross.
If Magellan can average that for the year they should have revenue in the 10 million area before expenses for next year. I frankly think they will do better and will return to profitability next year.