Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 344

The pitfalls of total return investing

In a former life, as a financial planner, I counselled my clients to consider the benefits of Total Return Investing (TRI). Forget about income, I said. Trust the academics, and the professionals (me). Today, however, I’m not so sure. TRI may in fact be doing investors a disservice. I say that because the global investment landscape has changed, and so have the risks.

The TRI theory holds that investors should build and learn to live off the total return of their portfolio, not just the income. In practice, this means investors sell appreciated assets when they need income above what is generated by the portfolio. And, where possible, live off dividend and interest income in the years when the portfolio declines.

The Total Return approach is elegant, it makes intuitive sense, and like so many investment strategies, it ‘backtests’ well – that is, it’s done well in the past. There is, however, a fly in the ointment: the prevailing global low-to-no interest rate regime. The backtests in the U.S. occurred during periods when both stock and bond yields were much higher.

5-Year U.S Treasury yield (1963-2019)

Thus, the TRI theory is based on what we now know to be the luxurious presumption of earning income from fixed interest. No one has had the experience of funding a 30+ year retirement through a period of zero or even negative interest rates.

The short income squeeze

This lack of income is a critical weakness of TRI theory because the less income your portfolio generates, the more you are exposed to the pain of calling on your principal during market drawdowns - what I term a “short income squeeze risk”.

Here’s how it works: in the event of a market downturn, a lack of income creates, in essence, a short-squeeze situation. Retirees have no choice but to sell their investments and often at times when valuations dictate they should be buying or at least holding.

To date, this danger has been easy to ignore because returns have been strong and volatility relatively benign. However, there are reasons to believe it may not be in the future.

The new risk hierarchy - consistency of income trumps portfolio volatility

Intelligent investors think in terms of risk and then return, so it may be helpful to rephrase the issue in terms of a hierarchy of risk. In the past, the risk of an income squeeze could be easily subordinated to the risk of portfolio volatility because income was readily available. Today’s environment calls for a rethink.

I contend that below a certain portfolio income threshold, maintaining a steady income is a higher priority than minimising volatility. This threshold will depend on several factors which may include:

  • the degree of spending flexibility
  • capital risk relative to income 
  • diversification considerations, and
  • other sources of funds.

The degree of capital risk assumed relative to income obtained is also a critical consideration. Investors and their advisers should examine this new retirement risk landscape and re-calibrate their portfolios if necessary.

Sustainable income – mitigating income squeeze risk

One strategy to mitigate income squeeze risk is to increase the portfolio allocation to investments that offer sustainable dividends. Specifically, companies and credits with stable business models that rely on secular growth trends, such as population growth both in Australia and abroad.

The classic rejoinder to such advice is that it entails foolishly 'reaching for yield', i.e. unknowingly increasing risk by moving from lower- to higher-risk assets. And it is true, increasing your allocation to riskier assets will raise the volatility of your portfolio.

However, the paradoxical world created by low-to-no interest rates means that the income generated by equity-like dividends may come to be the only way to shelter retirees from an income squeeze. And as a result, spare them from having to erode their principal during a severe or even moderate downturn.

Thus, it can be argued that by taking more risk, you are making the conscious decision to reduce income risk (the income squeeze). The choice then is not a reach for yield but the inevitable by-product of all investment decisions, the exchange of one type of risk for another.

Recognising this, Legg Mason has created income solutions like the Legg Mason Martin Currie Equity Income and Legg Mason Brandywine Global Income Optimiser which are designed to invest in assets that hold out the prospect of providing sustainable income. As central banks continue to consign investors to a world without income, we believe these strategies will play an increasingly important role in clients’ portfolios.

 

Peter Cook is a Senior Investment Writer at Legg Mason Australia/NZ, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article contains general information only and should not be considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security. Please consider the appropriateness of this information, in light of your own objectives, financial situation or needs before making any decision.

For more articles and papers from Legg Mason, please click here.

 

7 Comments
J.D.
February 14, 2020

The concept of total return investing is not to "live off dividend and interest income in the years when the portfolio declines".

If you had say 60% stocks and 40% bonds, then when the stock market declines, you do not live off dividends.


First you take from bonds what you need to live off. Secondly you reinvest the dividends buying socks when they are cheap. Thirdly you further rebalance from bonds into stocks also purchasing stocks cheap.

There's a common misconception amongst lay people that dividends are somehow safer than selling down shares and therefore dividends can provide reliable income. This is a fallacy. A dividend is literally a withdrawal. It's not similar to a withdrawal, it's an actual withdrawal.

Here's how it works at a company level - after a company pays out wages, debts, and other obligations, it pays out a portion of the remaining profit as dividends.

If a company worth $99M is gifted $1M, their new value is $100M.
In the same way, when a company pays out $1M in dividends, their new value is worth $1M less.
When you don't reinvest your dividends, you have a made a withdrawal.

Taking dividends is literally no different to a portfolio withdrawal, and when you take the dividends from high dividend stocks, you have made a larger withdrawal, which exacerbates the problem when there is a stock market decline.

It is absolutely shocking to me that someone who was a financial advisor doesn't know all of this.

Dudley.
February 18, 2020

"when you take the dividends from high dividend stocks, you have made a larger withdrawal":

... which enables withdrawal of tax credits from ATO, both of which can be 'deposited' to earn again.

J.D.
February 20, 2020

Franking credits are largely priced-in (see the below link for an explanation of what that means)
https://www.passiveinvestingaustralia.com/franking-credits-how-much-more-are-you-really-getting

Besides that, there are drawbacks to focusing on dividends.
1. Dividends are taxed while you're receiving your full-time salary - and at your highest tax bracket, potentially even pushing you into a higher bracket. You can't elect to delay realising gains until after you've retired where your returns would be taxed at time when you have no other salary.
2. Dividends miss out on the massive benefit of the 50% CGT discount.
3. Franking credits may be gone in the future.
4. Chasing yield is risky. It deters people from diversifying internationally leaving you over exposed to an isolated economic crisis. Also, since your income and job security are tied to Australia, by not diversifying internationally you increase the risk of your income and investments going down together. You also miss out on improved risk-adjusted returns from investing globally.

Kim Wilkinson
February 13, 2020

Adopting a "Bucket" strategy (https://www.superguide.com.au/accessing-superannuation/bucket-strategy-solution-retirement-income-plan) would seem to minimise the "low income risk squeeze".
In Australia, if the investment income drops, people have the age pension to take up (or increase).

Michael
February 13, 2020

Income from fixed interest and cash is VERY different to 'income' from equities. Dividends reduce your investment capital when they are paid (i.e. the share price reduces by the value of the dividend on the opening of the market on the ex-div date). This means that dividends and selling the equivalent value of shares are equal except for the tax implications (capital gains discount, franking credits).

Your challenge to TRI theory relies on the idea that dividends do not reduce your capital whereas selling shares does. This is incorrect. It will still be best practice for investors to choose investments for their total return potential rather than relying on only those that pay dividends at a certain level. To fund their income needs they then should sell assets and do so at all stages of the investment cycle.

Andrew Bird
February 13, 2020

I agree that a TRI approach is almost essential these days given low yields. But I am not sure I agree that piling into the very crowded "high yield" trade is going to provide the best risk/return outcome.

A simpler way to deal with the "short income risk squeee" that you mention is to keep a good cash buffer rather than compromising the growth potential of your portfolio. To use a simple example, If we assume a 5% drawdown rate on a portfolio, by keeping 15% in cash you have 3 years of income up your sleeve even without any income yield at all. Three years should be enough time to cover some pretty bad market downturns.

The 15% cash is not going to generate much but it does provide a lot of piece of mind. And the rest of the portfolio can be invested with total return in mind rather than a excessive focus on yield.

Andrew Bird
February 13, 2020

I agree that a TRI approach is almost essential these days given low yields. But I am not sure I agree that piling into the very crowded "high yield" trade is going to provide the best risk/return outcome.

A simpler way to deal with the "short income risk squeeze" that you mention is to keep a good cash buffer rather than compromising the growth potential of your portfolio. To use a simple example, If we assume a 5% drawdown rate on a portfolio, by keeping 15% in cash you have 3 years of income up your sleeve even without any income yield at all. Three years should be enough time to cover some pretty bad market downturns.

The 15% cash is not going to generate much but it does provide a lot of piece of mind. And the rest of the portfolio can be invested with total return in mind rather than a excessive focus on yield.

 

Leave a Comment:

     
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.