Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 50

Equity income investors should focus on reinvestment rates

I wish I had a US dollar for every time an Australian equities fund manager has said to me in the last two years, “With earnings growth hard to come by, investors are focusing on yield.”

Should income investors focus exclusively on dividend yield? Or is this missing the forest for the trees? How should value investing fit into the income investor’s process?

Pre-retirement, an investor may want income strategies to form a defensive part of their portfolio, with the income generated complementing other growth or higher risk strategies in their portfolio.

Post-retirement, there is an array of needs. The income investor may seek to preserve the longer term purchasing power of their income. Growth in that income, and if possible the underlying capital, would still be a priority. Somebody who is deeper into retirement might be less concerned with income or capital growth, wanting just income to live on.

On top of this is the legacy factor. Some retirees set a high priority to ‘leave their portfolio behind’ for a dependent spouse or other family members, or they may have a charitable goal. In these cases, growth is still a priority.

The characteristics of an ideal income stock

In an ideal world, an income stock would provide all of the following characteristics:

  • a high dividend yield
  • a dividend yield that increases over time
  • preservation of capital
  • low risk of large drawdowns (decline in value), to avoid sequencing risk
  • favourable tax characteristics, full franking if possible
  • a high level of liquidity.

The reality is often far different from the ideal. The best future income-producing businesses may have stock which is overvalued, and hence trading on a fairly low dividend yield. In volatile market environments, stable, safe and high quality businesses may also trade at a premium.

Various academics have suggested that dividend yield is a sustainable market anomaly, in addition to more traditionally recognised factors such as value, size and momentum. Whilst this claim is a matter for continuing debate, perhaps we should think of dividend yield as a hybrid market factor, capturing the value risk premium, but adding another dynamic – the ability of the business to produce free cash flow and hence pay out ready income.

A higher payout ratio may in fact reduce the intrinsic value of a business, particularly if that business has the opportunity to reinvest those funds at high rates of return (as explained in James E Walter’s, ‘Dividend Policies and Common Stock Prices’, Journal of Finance, 1956).

Despite this fact, Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton, from the London Business School published a study spanning the years 1900 to 2010 on the returns shown by the lowest to highest yielding markets over time. The results showed a near linear relationship between yield and return, with positive correlation. That is, the higher yielding markets did the best. In their book ‘Triumph of the Optimists’, they stated that the real reason for the superior performance of stocks over other asset classes was the reinvestment of dividends.

But this doesn't help many income investors. Don’t they want to spend the dividends?

Focus on stocks with high rates of reinvestment

I suggest that rather than focusing on high initial yields, there is a far more important driver for income investors and early stage retirees with maybe 20 years or more left in retirement: stocks with high rates of reinvestment. Whilst the income investor is not reinvesting the dividend, the underlying business, if producing high rates of return on assets, is continually growing its capital base by reinvesting retained profits, enabling dividend growth over time.

Presumably, the wish list item of capital growth would be satisfied as long as the market recognises the growth in book value by increasing share prices over time. History has shown that the market usually does reward book value growth.

So what are some of the key things to look for in a stock that has high rates of reinvestment?

Firstly, look at the most recent and 5-year average Return on Assets (ROA). A ROA higher than 15% is good. I prefer to filter on ROA rather than Return on Equity (ROE), as it captures leverage on the balance sheet and thus penalises highly geared businesses. Then, obviously, you need to make a call on whether that ROA can be achieved going forward.

To assess the reinvestment rate, you can apply the following simple formula:

% of profits reinvested = 100% - (dividend yield% x PE ratio)

Whilst these stocks with high reinvestment rates will most likely have a low current dividend yield, their ability to compound book value and grow dividends over time might mean a higher average yield over 10 or 20 years than current high dividend yield stocks.

A great example of this was nine years ago, comparing the yield on CSL with Telstra. CSL was trading at around $5.95 per share after adjusting for subsequent stock splits, and its yield was quite low, 2% or less. However if you still owned that stock today, the last two half-year dividends delivered a yield of around 19.4% on that $5.95 initial purchase price. The dividends have grown so much that it is now an extremely high income producer on that initial price. The simple average of these two yields is 10.7% over the period. CSL’s share price has also gone from $5.95 to $67.55 as I write. The capital investment has multiplied itself 11 times.

In contrast, Telstra at the time was trading around $5.00 on a high yield, and while it is still on a good but lower yield, it has experienced little capital growth, currently trading at $5.19.

Telstra has had minimal reinvestment, due to a high payout ratio, whilst CSL has reinvested substantially in its long term growth. Perhaps CSL was a much better ‘income stock’ (if there is such a thing) than the traditional yield play of Telstra, particularly for the retiree with a long retirement ahead of them. Capital gains could have been harvested along the way also, supplementing that lower initial yield.

Valuation is always important

The other obvious fundamental piece of analysis is to determine whether the stock is initially trading at a valuation discount. If so, this discount should further augment the positive effects of reinvestment and the initial yield. If the stock is currently trading at a premium (which I believe is the case for many such quality stocks at present), then your total rate of return over a 10 year period will be slightly lower if valuations normalise. For investors with a very long holding period, and long retirement ahead of them, this might not be as crucial as it would be to the investor with a much shorter time horizon. A high valuation would however create increased drawdown risk.

So to summarise, the key sources of equity income are:

  • the initial yield
  • the future growth in dividends, caused by a business retaining profits and reinvesting
  • capital gains that may be harvested as quasi income
  • franking credits, particularly for the low tax rate investor
  • your initial purchase price relative to intrinsic value, as a discount will likely augment total return while a premium will likely reduce it.

Equity income can also be generated by fund managers that employ option writing strategies, but these are complex and require almost a lifetime of experience in options markets to implement successfully. For retail investors who like to participate in the benefits of compounding reinvestment in a quality business, a buy and hold approach is an appropriate investment style.

One final point to note is that the income investor should seek other diversified sources of income which have low correlations to equity market beta. Examples of this might be equity market-neutral funds, or market-neutral absolute return fixed income products.

 

Matt Olsen is Head of Research at Select Investment Partners.

 

  •   21 February 2014
  • 3
  •      
  •   
3 Comments
Warren Bird
February 21, 2014

A very good article, Matt, and well argued.

There is an alternative view, with which I've always had some sympathy, that companies should as a matter of course distribute all earnings to shareholders. If they wish to invest in a new venture then they should go to their stakeholders and the market to seek new capital for that purpose. The argument especially applies if the company is "diversifying", moving away from its previous core business, but could also apply even to, say, a retailer wanting to add new stores. Why not let the shareholders decide if management is making the right decision?.

In the real world this is probably impractical. It certainly requires more active engagement by shareholders than exists in reality. However, sometimes when I read about failed investments that drag down companies that once were very good I think that investors would have been better off having had the money in their own hands in the first place. For every CSL there is probably at least one other company that is no longer listed who would have lost much less for its shareholders if it had paid them more of their profits along the way and let them pick where the money was going to go.

Still, let me finish by saying that I think the gist of your argument is sound. Evaluate a company from a longer term point of view, not just last year's dividend. That is a worthy and valuable message. It applies to investing in corporate bonds, too. A high yield isn't a guarantee of higher performance; it is instead a warning sign of high risk.

Capital Markets guy
February 21, 2014

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your article. It is concerning when ANY investor focuses only on one part if total return and ignores others (including ignoring the impact of fees, taxes and charges). And Telstra is a great long-term example, although the evidence on the benefits of a solid dividend yield in terms if return and risk is compelling.

I also say thanks for emphasising the role that valuations play for long-term investors. I am personally stunned by the amount of investment advice that doesn't emphasise valuations.

Where I can't agree with your thesis is that dividend growth rates should be a primary emphasis for yield seekers or anyone else - particularly if this is founded on the growth rates of reinvestment. An excellent paper from 2002 by Arnott showed that (Surprisingly) firms with high dividend payout ratios tended to grow their dividends faster than companies with high reinvestment rates / low dividend yields.

Thanks again for presenting your thesis.

Mitchell
February 22, 2014

Its interesting that in the US, companies which hand back profits to shareholders often have their share price driven down. In a way, it's an acknowledgment by the market that management don't have any ideas as to how to grow the business.

Management are paid to do a better job than the shareholders could with the cash.

If you want income, you invest in Bonds and live off the interest. Alternatively, you cash in some of your capital gains from the growth in your shares.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

LICs vs ETFs – which perform best?

Why I dislike dividend stocks

Doubling down on dividends

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

Division 296: the initial moves to make before the windows close

What if the best superannuation strategy isn't about earning more, but acting before your options disappear? Several overlooked planning windows are narrowing, with consequences that can last for decades.

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Superannuation’s structural failings

Politicians are fighting over access to super, but they may be arguing about the wrong thing. The system’s three fundamental flaws have been hiding in plain sight for decades, costing Australians far more than they realise.

Planning

The great wealth transfer myth

Why do some families preserve wealth for generations while others struggle to? As the great wealth transfer unfolds, the determining factor is often not the structure of the estate, but the preparation of those who will inherit it.

Investment strategies

What comes after bank hybrids?

For years, bank hybrids have been a cornerstone of portfolio income. With tens of billions of dollars now disappearing from the market, investors face a critical question: what comes next, and are the obvious replacements enough?

Investment insights from the US

What happens when knowledge becomes a commodity? The latest themes emerging from the US tech sector suggest AI could reshape company moats, disrupt incumbents and create winners and losers in unexpected places.

Investing

Can Berkshire thrive without Buffett?

Warren Buffett's departure marks the end of an era. But the more important question for investors is whether Berkshire's culture, discipline and capital allocation framework can survive without the man who built them.

Retirement

The Bengen 4% Rule: Lost in translation

For years, retirees have been told to focus on withdrawal rates. But the real question is far simpler: how many dollars can you safely spend? The answer may be very different from what conventional retirement wisdom suggests.

Interest rates

Super low interest rates came with side effects

For more than a decade, investors lived through an era of near-zero interest rates. With bond yields now surging, it's worth asking whether cheap money solved economic problems, or introduced a much larger set of risks.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 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.