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 04, 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

Doubling down on dividends

Dividends: more is less, less is more

Take no income from the best companies

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Where Baby Boomer wealth will end up

By 2028, all Baby Boomers will be eligible for retirement and the Baby Boomer bubble will have all but deflated. Where will this generation's money end up, and what are the implications for the wealth management industry?

Meg on SMSFs: $3 million super tax coming whether we’re ready or not

A Senate Committee reported back last week with a majority recommendation to pass the $3 million super tax unaltered. It seems that the tax is coming, and this is what those affected should be doing now to prepare for it.

How much do you need to retire comfortably?

Two commonly asked questions are: 'How much do I need to retire' and 'How much can I afford to spend in retirement'? This is a guide to help you come up with your own numbers to suit your goals and needs.

The secrets of Australia’s Berkshire Hathaway

Washington H. Soul Pattinson is an ASX top 50 stock with one of the best investment track records this country has seen. Yet, most Australians haven’t heard of it, and the company seems to prefer it that way.

Meg on SMSFs: Clearing up confusion on the $3 million super tax

There seems to be more confusion than clarity about the mechanics of how the new $3 million super tax is supposed to work. Here is an attempt to answer some of the questions from my previous work on the issue. 

How long will you live?

We are often quoted life expectancy at birth but what matters most is how long we should live as we grow older. It is surprising how short this can be for people born last century, so make the most of it.

Latest Updates

Property

Australian housing is twice as expensive as the US

A new report suggests Australian housing is twice as expensive as that of the US and UK on a price-to-income basis. It also reveals that it’s cheaper to live in New York than most of our capital cities.

Exchange traded products

The catalyst for a LICs rebound

The discounts on listed investment vehicles are at historically wide levels. There are lots of reasons given, including size and liquidity, yet there's a better explanation for the discounts, and why a rebound may be near.

Retirement

The new retirement challenges facing Australians

A new report from Vanguard has found an increasing number of Australians expect to be paying off a mortgage in retirement, or forced to rent. A financially secure retirement is no longer considered a given.

Strategy

Why aren’t there more Warren Buffetts?

Warren Buffett is widely regarded as the most successful investor ever. Rather than keep his secret sauce hidden, he's shared his knowledge for decades, so why aren't more investors able to replicate his methods and success?

Retirement

Finding joy in retirement

Retirement can last more than 30 years, necessitating thoughtful planning. Many miss workplace friendships, identity, status, expertise, and routine, but these can be replaced with renewed activities and purpose.

Shares

Bull and bear case for Australian equities for FY25

ASX market bulls point to corporate balance sheets and earnings, while bears highlight company valuations and persistently higher inflation. It's best to ignore short-term noise and focus on investing in quality companies.

Gold

How gold can help diversify your portfolio

As inflation is likely to remain stubbornly elevated, the correlation between bonds and equities could remain high, reducing diversification within portfolios. A gold allocation may help to better protect your investments.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.