Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 137

Chasing dividends often overlooks growth

A year ago in Cuffelinks, we wrote about the bubble in stocks (and inevitably property) inflated by the baby boomer’s desperate search for yield. We described the pursuit of yield as a fad. We were not surprised to watch investors rushing into higher yielding banks and Telstra but we were shocked to hear of investors buying BHP for its ‘progressive’ dividend.

The bubble has burst but the fad lives on, and banks have wiped billions from retirees’ wealth while BHP has backed away from its ‘progressive’ dividend position. We wrote:

“The pursuit of yields through dividend-paying shares is analogous to a mindless heard of bison stampeding towards a cliff. Wall Street will sell what Wall Street can sell. Right now selling yield and income is the easiest game in town. Investors are predisposed to hearing the siren song of income and advisers and product issuers are rushing to feed the hoards. There are only a few who are willing to question the conventional thinking about pursuing yield at all costs.

My belief is that the pendulum will swing back and this time is no different to other periods of unbridled optimism…”

Of course much has changed. BHP has fallen 35%, CBA declined 26% from its interim peak to trough, NAB 28% and Telstra 23%. What has not changed is retirees’ need for income. But is there a better way to generate income that suffers less from the massive tides associated with mass investor hype and hysteria?

High payouts may generate income but limit growth

I believe there is and some basic arithmetic can demonstrate a superior choice even for those requiring income.

Table 1. High ROE company paying out 100% of earnings

Let’s start with the company described in Table 1 by making some minor assumptions. First, we assume the business is able to generate a return on equity (ROE) of 20% sustainably. Second, we can buy and sell the shares on an unchanged price earnings (P/E) ratio of 10 times. The final assumption is a payout ratio of 100%.

We have assumed no increases in debt (which increases the risks) and no dilutionary share issues. The company’s only source of growing equity is retained profits.

Table 1 demonstrates that an investor who purchases and sells shares in a company with an attractive rate of return on equity, a constant P/E and a payout of 100% will receive as their return an internal rate equivalent to the dividend yield at the time the shares are purchased. This represents the upper bound of their return – the dividend yield is the best outcome, unless they speculate successfully on an expansion of the P/E ratio. For that to occur, sentiment or popularity towards the company’s shares would have to change and be correctly predicted.

In more simple terms, if you chase a high yield and the company pays all of its earnings out as a dividend, the high yield is about all you should expect. Perhaps that is what investors who chased the banks, Telstra and BHP are now finding out.

Lower payout ratios can improve total returns

In Table 2, the only item that has changed is the payout ratio, which is now zero. Of course this has a major impact on everything else.

Table 2. High ROE company paying out 0% of earnings

This company pays none of its earnings out as a dividend. An investor who buys and sells the shares on the same P/E ratio will experience capital and earnings growing by the rate of the retained ROE. The constant P/E ratio means the IRR to the investor will equal the return on equity of 20%.

My proposal is that investors who chase higher yields, especially from companies that pay the bulk of their earnings out as dividends, are missing out on major financial benefits. The corollary is that company boards who acquiesce to shareholder demands for higher dividend payout ratios – especially where they are able to employ retained earnings at high rates of return – are ultimately doing their shareholders and their share price a disservice, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Power of true blue-chips (not Telstra)

It’s not only about dividend yields

Investors in 2005 who invested $100,000 in the higher, 5.9%-yielding Telstra shares could have invested $100,000 in the M2 Group. The major difference between these two companies was not just their yield. Telstra’s management elected to pay the bulk of the company’s earnings out as a dividend. Indeed, under Solomon Dennis Trujillo, Telstra’s dividend exceeded earnings over a number of years. While Telstra’s payout ratio was near 100%, M2 Group’s payout ratio was much lower. Table 2 revealed the desirable impact on returns from investing in a company that can retain earnings and reinvest those earnings at a high ROE. Table 3 puts that into practice.

Investing $100,000 in Telstra in 2005 for ten years has produced an investment of about $117,000 or an average annual compounded capital return of 1.5% p.a. Many of you will jump to the defence of Telstra and point out that I have excluded the dividends from the calculations. But this article is about retirees who have been chasing income to spend on food and clothing and other essentials like BMWs and annual overseas holidays, so I have not assumed a reinvestment of dividends.

In 2005, the 5.9% yield on Telstra shares equated to $5,900 of fully franked income. Telstra has increased the dividend since then from 28 cents to 30 cents per share and the low increase reflects that fact that profits have not grown markedly. In any event, the income on the $117,000 investment would be about $6,500.

Contrast this with M2 where the ability to generate high returns on large amounts of capital have turned $100,000 into $3 million and importantly for those desperate for income, turned $3,900 of dividends in 2005 into almost $100,000 of fully franked dividends in 2015.

M2 is not an isolated example of the power of high rates of return on equity and the ability to retain profits. For example, CSL also displayed a less attractive dividend yield than Telstra in 2005, but was able to retain capital and compound it at an attractive rate, ultimately producing more wealth and more income.

Investors chasing the highest yielding blue chip shares are missing out on the returns and income available from true blue chips – the type that we prefer to fill our portfolios with. Investors are making an expensive mistake by eschewing those companies with lower yields today but are able to grow their income. Go for growing income, not the highest yield.

 

Roger Montgomery is CIO at The Montgomery Fund and author of ‘Value.able – how to value the best stocks and buy them for less than they’re worth.’ As a special Cuffelinks offer for Christmas, go to rogermontgomery.com/valueable-book/ for a two-for-one book promotion until December 13th. The coupon code is TWO4ONE. This article is for general information purposes only.

 

6 Comments
David
December 12, 2015

Dear Roger,
Is your Table 2 correct? You show the share price as twice the equity at the end of the period. Is not the share price ten times the EPS. So the cash flow would be:
Year 1 -$20.00
Year 2 $0.00
Year 3 $28.80
and the IRR would be 20% as you have shown.

Roger Montgomery
December 09, 2015

Dear Patrick, I was almost certain I had asked the Bloomberg terminal for the split-adjusted data. if not, thank you for picking up the error. The adjusted data only serves to reinforce the argument for pursuing growing income even more.

Patrick
December 09, 2015

True Roger it certainly makes your proposition more powerful. I follow your methodology now due to my age and time left before I think I will retire but seeing this article has changed my thoughts about investing once retired.

I now realise that I should follow your advice even after retiring as it is more likely to provide a better income over the medium and long term.

The link to CSL's announcement to the asx is here --> http://www.csl.com.au/docs/995/712/Share%20split%20notice.pdf

Patrick
December 09, 2015

Good article Roger but I think your calculations are incorrect for CSL. On 18 October 2007 they did a 3 for 1 share split. On 17 October CSL were $100 on 18 October they were $34.

Your calculations severely underestimate the return and value of CSL. They work out to be more attractive than M2.

David Button
December 05, 2015

Roger interesting article ,if only we had the skill or foresight to invest in M2 & CSL at those levels .

David
December 03, 2015

Has roger scaled up for refund of franking credits? Consider the scenario that the initial income from M2 has not been enough and that they may have had to see down some capital which would affect the outcome etc

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Dividends: more is less, less is more

Take no income from the best companies

Pay attention to how growth is financed

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Lessons when a fund manager of the year is down 25%

Every successful fund manager suffers periods of underperformance, and investors who jump from fund to fund chasing results are likely to do badly. Selecting a manager is a long-term decision but what else?

2022 election survey results: disillusion and disappointment

In almost 1,000 responses, our readers differ in voting intentions versus polling of the general population, but they have little doubt who will win and there is widespread disappointment with our politics.

Now you can earn 5% on bonds but stay with quality

Conservative investors who want the greater capital security of bonds can now lock in 5% but they should stay at the higher end of credit quality. Rises in rates and defaults mean it's not as easy as it looks.

30 ETFs in one ecosystem but is there a favourite?

In the last decade, ETFs have become a mainstay of many portfolios, with broad market access to most asset types, as well as a wide array of sectors and themes. Is there a favourite of a CEO who oversees 30 funds?

Meg on SMSFs – More on future-proofing your fund

Single-member SMSFs face challenges where the eventual beneficiaries (or support team in the event of incapacity) will be the member’s adult children. Even worse, what happens if one or more of the children live overseas?

Betting markets as election predictors

Believe it or not, betting agencies are in the business of making money, not predicting outcomes. Is there anything we can learn from the current odds on the election results?

Latest Updates

Superannuation

'It’s your money' schemes transfer super from young to old

Policy proposals allow young people to access their super for a home bought from older people who put the money back into super. It helps some first buyers into a home earlier but it may push up prices.

Investment strategies

Rising recession risk and what it means for your portfolio

In this environment, safe-haven assets like Government bonds act as a diversifier given the uncorrelated nature to equities during periods of risk-off, while offering a yield above term deposit rates.

Investment strategies

‘Multidiscipline’: the secret of Bezos' and Buffett’s wild success

A key attribute of great investors is the ability to abstract away the specifics of a particular domain, leaving only the important underlying principles upon which great investments can be made.

Superannuation

Keep mandatory super pension drawdowns halved

The Transfer Balance Cap limits the tax concessions available in super pension funds, removing the need for large, compulsory drawdowns. Plus there are no requirements to draw money out of an accumulation fund.

Shares

Confession season is upon us: What’s next for equity markets

Companies tend to pre-position weak results ahead of 30 June, leading to earnings downgrades. The next two months will be critical for investors as a shift from ‘great expectations’ to ‘clear explanations’ gets underway.

Economy

Australia, the Lucky Country again?

We may have been extremely unlucky with the unforgiving weather plaguing the East Coast of Australia this year. However, on the economic front we are by many measures in a strong position relative to the rest of the world.

Exchange traded products

LIC discounts widening with the market sell-off

Discounts on LICs and LITs vary with market conditions, and many prominent managers have seen the value of their assets fall as well as discount widen. There may be opportunities for gains if discounts narrow.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.