IRP Property Investments Discussion Board http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion http://www.iii.co.uk/icons/logos/uk_logo.gif http://www.iii.co.uk tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9102038 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9102038&action=detail Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:53:00 GMT badnews tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9101966 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9101966&action=detail Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:15:00 GMT Rober01 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9101915
BN By badnews ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9101915&action=detail Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:41:00 GMT badnews tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9101814
I am not disputing your reasoning - so what does your analysis show is the best buy? By Krayl ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9101814&action=detail Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:45:00 GMT Krayl tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9101095 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9101095&action=detail Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:47:00 GMT JDread tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9100745 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9100745&action=detail Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:54:00 GMT Rober01 tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9100390 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9100390&action=detail Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:47:00 GMT Krayl tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9100160
Dividend, Cover, Discount
IFD 11.2%, 0.8, 33%
PCTN 11.1%, 1.1, 43%
IRP 10.8%, 0.9, 17%

There is nothing to choose between them on dividend but on dividend cover and discount it looks like Picton is the one to go for.

Purely for income (not in the property sector) I would personally go for ILH.
By Krayl ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9100160&action=detail Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:04:00 GMT Krayl tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9099567 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9099567&action=detail Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:20:00 GMT badnews tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9099445
Buy and hold. By JDread ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9099445&action=detail Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:30:00 GMT JDread tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9006669 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9006669&action=detail Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:05:00 GMT Divmad tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9005119 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9005119&action=detail Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:44:00 GMT badnews tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.9001119 http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=9001119&action=detail Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:02:00 GMT Divmad tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.8842665 In thousands of £s, the profit on rental activities after tax is 3684 which is 3.3p/share. However there is a write-down of 1705 for property valuation which would make the operating profit 5389 or 4.9p per share (2010 5.3p). I think this is the most realistic figure to take.
This year there is also a profit on cash hedging which adds 1429 to make the overall profit 6818 or 6.2p/share (2010 1.4p).
This is all against a dividend of 7.2p per share. It is difficult to see how this is sustainable.
By Krayl ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=8842665&action=detail Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:50:00 GMT Krayl tag:iii.co.uk,2003:tst.8840097
Basically property companies have to revalue their properties prior to publishing results and any increase in value of their portfolio is added to the surplus or net rental income after deducting expenses to reach the published profit figure and conversely any reduction in portfolio valuation has to be deducted from the net rental income to reach the final profit figure.

The result of this is when property is increasing in value you get a very high apparent profit figure and when property is decreasing in value you get a low profit figure.

Earnings were high here last year because the companies portfolio substantially increased in value and this increase was added to profits;this year its properties fell back in value and the decrease in value had to be deducted from profits.

The figure to look at is net rental income because in the final analysis this is the money that pays the dividends.The company is overpaying to some extent,and has being even in previous years,if you count only net rental income but by a much lesser amount than indicated,if it paid dividends out of net income it could probably pay about 5.75p divi.Expenses were probably higher this year because the company purchased a number of properties.

By TX2 ]]> http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:IRP.L&display=discussion&id=8840097&action=detail Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:21:00 GMT TX2