Jump to content

Revenue Earning Investment by St Mirren


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Yep, we hear the odd "we would like to develop the ground" but I would have expected something to happen by now.

With the increased profile of being back in the Premier we should be making an ambitious plan to get funding to develop the whole area.

I'd rather we put all our efforts into concentrating on staying in the Premiership.

Otherwise we'll be back to square one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


19 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

 

 

You are correct oaky

(1 + 300%) ^ (1/10) - 1 = 14.87% per ammum

 

If I were one of these institutional organisations borrowing from TPAFKA Jersey 2, I'd be a bit worried! :P

No mate. All you’ve shown here is that you don’t know the meaning of equity multiple. As I clearly said, It is not a timebound calculation. It relates to the amount you get back versus the amount you put in. So if I put in £1m and got back £1m I’d be getting back 100% of what I’d put it in and therefore an EM of 1x. £3m would be 300% of what I’d put in. EM of 3x. Therefore over 10 years a rudimentary return of 10% per annum. No concept of compounding.

Edited by TPAFKA Jersey 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Wow with that first paragraph you lost me in a cloud of jargon. I am certain however that this is not what I am advocating.

I think you are wrong in your second paragraph. When you buy shares you don't just have capital growth. You also have dividend pay outs. I am calling this "income" but I'm not going to argue over names. The point is that both routes provide growth.

The compound bit comes as follows:-

If I invest £100k on day one and achieve 5% capital growth on my shares plus an average equivalent of 5% dividend (both of which are entirely at the low end of expectations and pretty modest, I will be sitting at the end of year 1 with somewhere around £110k. I am then going to re-invest all of that. After year two if I see another 5% capital growth plus another 5% dividend payout then that will be 10% total on the compounded £110k not the original £100k. If this is not compound interest in all but name then I'm at a loss. Again, I am happy with the arithmetic but my naming conventions are probably crap so follow the gist here rather than the specifics.

Of course in addition to the £10k I made after year 1 and re-invested, I am additionally adding another £100k investment for a total starting pot of £210k at the beginning of year 2. At the end of that year I'll be sitting with £231k. None of this sounds exciting unless you let time work its magic over 20 to maybe even 30 years.

At the end of that, providing you have competent people investing for you, you'l have a huge pot but I don't know how to formulate my earlier equation to include the addition of £100k each year.

No no Oaksoft, I’m not disagreeeing with the methodology you describe (well maybe one little bit) it’s more the level of return you describe.

The bit I do disagree with you on is that capital growth cannot be compounded. it’s simply reflected in the overall value of your investment and can go up as well as down. Also nothing wrong with describing dividend as income. That’s exactly what it is but it is definitely not interest. Anyway the point I was trying to make is that this dividend or income is the only reinvestable part and that in a average portfolio of equities it would never generate an INCOME return of 5%. That anticipated overall growth of 5% would be spilt something more like 4% capital and 1% income. Only that 1% would be reinvestable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

No mate. All you’ve shown here is that you don’t know the meaning of equity multiple. As I clearly said, It is not a timebound calculation. It relates to the amount you get back versus the amount you put in. So if I put in £1m and got back £1m I’d be getting back 100% of what I’d put it in and therefore an EM of 1x. £3m would be 300% of what I’d put in. EM of 3x. Therefore over 10 years a rudimentary return of 10% per annum. No concept of compounding.

 

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 1:04 AM, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

In terms of the types of Funds I lend to, an exceptional return would maybe be a 3x equity multiple over maybe a 10 year cycle.  So obviously 300% (obvs 30% pa)  is a big number but these are institutional investments with massively risky strategies.  

No mate. I understand very well the meaning of equity multiple.

You then used that equity multiple to convert it into a IRR, hence your mention of 300% and 30% pa in your reply to oaky where he asked for the formula to calculate IRR.

IRR certainly does involve the concept of compounding.

As for your mention of "timebound calculation", I was merely using the term of 10 years which you used in both your original post and which have then used again as an example here again!

Edited by Wendy Saintss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a side note, finance is about adding, multiplying, subtracting and dividing and virtually nothing else.

We learn how to do these things in primary school.

You therefore have to applaud an industry which produces so much unnecessary jargon that it completely obscures which simple arithmetic operations are at the heart of it. This has to be deliberate. It is deliberate actually. I'm sure of it. The term "confuspoly" describes it quite well. The idea is to confuse the shit out of people so much that you hide what you are doing. This allows you to charge much more than you'd normally be able to do and it prevents easy comparison with competitors. It also leads to scams and abuse on a wide scale.

There is a special place in hell for people who do this with simple things. They will be bunking up next to conspiracy theory nutters who prey on weak and vulnerable sick people by filling their heads with shite. :lol:

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a side note, finance is about adding, multiplying, subtracting and dividing and virtually nothing else.
We learn how to do these things in primary school.
You therefore have to applaud an industry which produces so much unnecessary jargon that it completely obscures which simple arithmetic operations are at the heart of it. This has to be deliberate. It is deliberate actually. I'm sure of it. The term "confuspoly" describes it quite well. The idea is to confuse the shit out of people so much that you hide what you are doing. This allows you to charge much more than you'd normally be able to do and it prevents easy comparison with competitors. It also leads to scams and abuse on a wide scale.
There is a special place in hell for people who do this with simple things. They will be bunking up next to conspiracy theory nutters who prey on weak and vulnerable sick people by filling their heads with shite. :lol:


It’s this unnecessary complexity which gives some of us a living [emoji1]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Just as a side note, finance is about adding, multiplying, subtracting and dividing and virtually nothing else.

We learn how to do these things in primary school.

You therefore have to applaud an industry which produces so much unnecessary jargon that it completely obscures which simple arithmetic operations are at the heart of it. This has to be deliberate. It is deliberate actually. I'm sure of it. The term "confuspoly" describes it quite well. The idea is to confuse the shit out of people so much that you hide what you are doing. This allows you to charge much more than you'd normally be able to do and it prevents easy comparison with competitors. It also leads to scams and abuse on a wide scale.

There is a special place in hell for people who do this with simple things. They will be bunking up next to conspiracy theory nutters who prey on weak and vulnerable sick people by filling their heads with shite. :lol:

Yes that’s correct Oaky. All people who work in the Finance Industry are thieving, conniving, money grabbing excuses for human beings. From Ross McEwan right down to wee Jeanie the cashier at the Lochinver branch of RBS. All total scumbags. 

FFS!:hammer

Edited by TPAFKA Jersey 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Here is the scenario.  GLS is taking a sabattical and gives you his proxy vote to use in his absence.  What would you invest in and why to raise additional revenue? 
I'd charge you, shull and faraway for each post you make on this forum.
Within a couple of years SMFC would be a European powerhouse just like Fitzy predicted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Yes that’s correct Oaky. All people who work in the Finance Industry are thieving, conniving, money grabbing excuses for human beings. From Ross McEwan right down to wee Jeanie the cashier at the Lochinver branch of RBS. All total scumbags. 

FFS!:hammer

 

4 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 


It’s this unnecessary complexity which gives some of us a living emoji1.png
 

 

Fascinating how people react differently to a bit of banter. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

I'd charge you, shull and faraway for each post you make on this forum.
Within a couple of years SMFC would be a European powerhouse just like Fitzy predicted.

I like this idea. Not a lot, but I like it.

So far we have had proposed a long term savings and investment vehicle in which any returns are reinvested in order to create a large future sum which would then be spent on what?

The question posed invited suggestions for investment which would raise revenue which can be used to support the operations of the club to maintain or accelerate our progress.

A starting sum of 500K plus any grants, soft loans or other funding could be used to create the asset which would enable the revenue stream. This could be through the club directly or indirectly via an existing or new not for profit organisation.  So any ideas? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Yes that’s correct Oaky. All people who work in the Finance Industry are thieving, conniving, money grabbing excuses for human beings. From Ross McEwan right down to wee Jeanie the cashier at the Lochinver branch of RBS. All total scumbags. 

FFS!:hammer

Wee Jeanie in particular. She has a lot to answer for............ :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...