Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 193

Why LICs differ in dividend sustainability

With company reporting season now behind us, we take a look at how the listed investment company (LIC) sector fared. The majority of LICs reported lower earnings for the six months to 31 December 2016, mainly due to lower dividend income. Some LICs, mainly those with a small cap-focus, experienced lower capital appreciation from their investment portfolios. The potential for lower earnings had been well-flagged by many LICs given the lower dividends from the mining, energy and retail sectors and ANZ Bank.

Dividends flat despite lower LIC profits

Despite lower reported earnings, most LICs reported good portfolio returns (pre-tax-NTA plus dividends) for the period with the S&P/ASX 200 Accumulation index up 10.6% for the six months to 31 December 2016. The average portfolio return for the large-cap focused LICs under our coverage was 7.8% while the mid/small-cap focused LICs produced an average portfolio return of 3.7%.

The apparent disconnect between the good portfolio returns from the large-cap focused LICs and the lower reported earnings reflects the fact that most, particularly the larger, long established LICs, report only dividend income and realised profits in the income statement. These LICs are long-term investors, so unrealised portfolio revaluations are not recognised in the income statement. Many of the newer LICs, particularly a number of the small-cap focused LICs, tend to hold investments for shorter periods and their reported earnings rely more on capital appreciation, with both realised and unrealised gains and losses reported through the income statement.

Given the trend of lower reported earnings, it was not surprising to see few increases in interim dividends. As shown in the table, all of the large cap focused LICs in our coverage held dividends flat, except CBG Capital (ASX:CBC) which reduced its dividend. A number of the mid/small-cap focused LICs announced modest increases in dividends. Amongst the LICs with an international focus, Cadence Capital (ASX:CDM) reduced its dividend, not surprising given relatively low profit reserves, while Hunter Hall Global Value (ASX:HHV), which has a high level of profit reserves, increased its dividend despite reporting a lower profit.

Update on dividend sustainability

In our August 2016 LMI Update, we discussed dividend sustainability and how this is a critical issue when choosing LICs. We mentioned that LICs that rely largely on dividend income for earnings are less likely to report losses during periods of market downturns, and therefore the dividends they pay to their own shareholders are likely to be more sustainable. However, if the companies they invest in are forced to lower dividends due to reduced earnings, then, depending on their own payout ratios, the LICs may also be forced to reduce dividends, or at best hold them at current levels. We have seen this occur in the recent reporting season, with the lower dividend income from portfolios resulting in flat dividend payments by the large-cap focused LICs. In our report we also noted that LICs with a greater reliance on capital appreciation were more likely to be forced to reduce or even stop payment of dividends in a sustained market downturn. However, with positive market returns this has not been the case over the past six months. Portfolio gains and reasonable profit reserves have allowed some of the mid/small-cap focused LICs to slightly increase dividends.

Whilst LICs need to generate profits in order to pay dividends, it is possible for them to pay out more than they generate in profits in a given year by dipping into retained profit or dividend reserves from prior years. So it is possible for LICs to smooth dividend payments to their shareholders by retaining profits rather than simply paying out 100% of earnings each year. The table above shows our estimates (based on the latest published accounts) of the number of years each LIC under our coverage (excluding those that don’t pay dividends) could retain current dividend payments without generating any additional profits. This is a good indicator of dividend sustainability when markets turn down. Coverage of one means that a LIC could maintain its current dividend payout for one year without generating any profit in the current year. There a number of LICs with dividend coverage of more than two years which means they are reasonably well placed in the event of a sustained market downturn.

Attractive yields remain but watch profit reserves

Despite the flat, or modest increase in dividends, the LIC sector still offers attractive yields for investors. We calculate an average dividend yield of 4% across the Australian share focused LICs with most LICs paying fully franked dividends. We think it likely that the LICs will experience stability in their dividend income over the next six months and do not expect to see many reductions in dividends from the sector. It is possible we may see modest dividend increases from some LICs.

It is important to watch management commentary for any indications of potential changes to dividend payments. We note that Djerriwarrh Investments (DJW), one the highest yielding LICs currently, has already said it expects to cut its dividend from 24 cents per share to 20 cents per share in 2017. Also, keep an eye on those LICs that have low levels of profit reserves as this could also be an indicator of a potential dividend reduction.

Peter Rae is Supervisory Analyst at Independent Investment Research. Extracted from IIR’s February 2017 LMI Monthly Update. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

6 Comments
Garry B.
March 10, 2017

Another factor to consider is LIC Capital Gains Tax Deduction. This occurs when long term holdings are sold at a profit and the CGT consequences are passed through to the shareholder. The tax effectiveness depends on your tax rate-not much use for SMSF. The older style LIC's will often pay these type of dividends, but the newer share trading type will not be able to. An LIC CGT deduction can be quite nice when you come to filling in your tax return.

Ian A
March 09, 2017

Thanks for this article Peter.

In regard to your following comment it doesn't appear correct to me? The difference in reporting of unrealised capital gains / losses in the Income Statement for low turnover LICs (don't) and Trading LICs (do) should be irrelevant if using pre-tax NTA plus dividends for performance comparison. The reason being that pre-tax NTA "includes" unrealised capital gains for "ALL" LICs but not deferred tax on this.

"Despite lower reported earnings, most LICs reported good portfolio returns (pre-tax-NTA plus dividends) ...

The apparent disconnect between the good portfolio returns from the large-cap focused LICs and the lower reported earnings reflects the fact that most, particularly the larger, long established LICs, report only dividend income and realised profits in the income statement. These LICs are long-term investors, so unrealised portfolio revaluations are not recognised in the income statement. Many of the newer LICs, particularly a number of the small-cap focused LICs, tend to hold investments for shorter periods and their reported earnings rely more on capital appreciation, with both realised and unrealised gains and losses reported through the income statement."

Could Peter (author) or others here please comment on whether my understanding is correct?

Thanks in advance.

Peter Rae
March 09, 2017

Thanks for your comment/question, Ian.

Your statement that "pre-tax NTA "includes" unrealised capital gains for "ALL" LICs but not deferred tax on this..." is correct. Pre-tax NTA is a measure of total portfolio return (including realised gains, unrealised gains, income and expenses) and is the way that we compare LIC performanc?e.

However, what the article is pointing out is that there is a disconnect between total portfolio returns (pre-tax NTA + dividends) and reported statutory net profit for the LICs that don't report unrealised gains in the income statement. Their income statements comprise primarily dividend income plus any realised gains, less expenses. During the latest reporting season many of the LICs reported lower statutory earnings due to lower dividend income. However, as the article points out, when you look at the total portfolio returns for these LICs, they reported solid returns.

What the article also says is that LICs can only pay dividends out of profit reserves. LICs that don't report unrealised gains through the income statement (ie they are on capital account) cannot pay out these gains as dividends until they are realised.

The article was aimed at investors who rely on LICs for dividends.

Hope this helps.

Regards
Peter

Ian A
March 09, 2017

Thanks very much for that Peter.

Yes, fully understand the statutory reporting difference between the dividend harvesters and Trading LICs. In hindsight I read your comments out of context. All makes sense now.

An interesting example is Whitefield (WHF) which cops bad press from numerous investors due to no dividend growth since the GFC. It didn't cut its dividend of course during the worst of the GFC. So those who focus solely on dividends are missing WHF's real performance (accumulation NTA growth) which has been much better than most of the other older style LICs in recent years.

So given the above and the gloss many LICs put on profit announcements including performance BEFORE fees in some cases all I can say is that thank goodness there are Research Reports such as yours available where we can get the most important performance data being pre-tax accumulation NTA annualised over different time periods.

Thanks again.

Ashley
March 09, 2017

Unrealised portfolio revaluations are not recognised in the income statement – yes but the unrealised gains in underlying shares should be reflected in high LIC prices – that’s the problem with LICS. And the div yield of 4% is not attractive since it is 10% lower than the overall market yield. Attractive means better, not worse!

Gary M
March 09, 2017

I guess there are people out there who look for income in LIC’s but it isn’t me – I thought if anything it would be total return prospects.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

LIC reporting season wrap for 2017

How long can your LICs continue to pay dividends?

Four simple strategies deliver long-term investing comfort

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Let's make this clear again ... franking credits are fair

Critics of franking credits are missing the main point. The taxable income of shareholders/taxpayers must also include the company tax previously paid to the ATO before the dividend was distributed. It is fair.

Latest Updates

Retirement

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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.