Thread: The Banks
View Single Post
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 4th January 2009, 10:22 PM
eniyanman eniyanman is offline
Senior Member
Points: 5,068, Level: 45
Points: 5,068, Level: 45 Points: 5,068, Level: 45 Points: 5,068, Level: 45
Activity: 13%
Activity: 13% Activity: 13% Activity: 13%
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,237
Thanks: 39
Thanked 50 Times in 39 Posts
Rep Power: 4
eniyanman will become famous soon enough
Default Re: The Banks

Quote:
Originally Posted by knightofdelta View Post
I would like you to shed more light. One the reasons I posted it is for constructive criticism so I can be better.

The reason I used coefficient of variation is that the five banks are going to be in a portfolio and large variability (positive and negative) can distort mean returns because the dividends are going to be part of the expected returns from the portfolio.
I like the concept of coefficient of variation which you used. That was very novel. However, it's use with absolute values is what I query. I have no problems with the dividend yield illustration.

Let's take, for example, Skye Bank. Let's assume that there is a 1:2 reconstruction before ex-div date (but total dividend pay-out remains the same, in which case each reconstructed share gets N1.20 dividend). This will automatically put Skye in the top 5 in terms of absolute DPS and coefficient of variation of the top 5 banks will reduce. As we know, from a quantitative view-point, a reconstruction in itself should not change a stock's relative value, however, it does as explained above. If on the other hand the dividend yield was used, then the CoV would remain unchanged irrespective of the reconstruction.

Last edited by eniyanman; 4th January 2009 at 10:24 PM.
Reply With Quote