Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 345

Where do sustainable returns come from?

Share prices across the Australian market have risen by an average of 20% over the past 12 months. This looks like great news on the surface but we need to look deeper to see where those gains came from and whether they are sustainable.

People have a tendency to mentally ‘lock in’ past gains and assume they are ‘in the bank’. The problem is that almost all of the 20% share price gains over the past 12 months were probably only temporary and should not be assumed to be ‘locked in’ at all. The 20% share price gains were not underpinned by 20% higher company profits nor 20% higher dividends. Profits per share across the market actually fell over the period, and dividends per share rose by only 4% (and most of the dividend increases were due to temporary commodity price spikes from the miners).

Paying more for the same profits

Twelve months ago, investors were prepared to pay $16.25 per dollar of company profits, but over the past year, they bid the price up to $20.40 per dollar of profits. They are now paying 25% more per dollar of profit than they did a year ago.

Twelve months ago, investors were prepared to pay $23 per dollar of company dividends (i.e. dividend yield of 4.34%) but over the past year they bid the price up to $26.40 per dollar of dividends (dividend yield of 3.8%). They are now paying 14% more per dollar of dividends than a year ago.

What caused this miraculous 25% increase in the price paid for a dollar of profits and 14% increase in the price of a dollar of dividends?

The main reason is confidence levels. At the start of 2019 people were pessimistic and feared the late 2018 ‘global growth scare’ might turn into the next GFC or possibly worse, especially as the US Fed was still raising interest rates amid Trump’s trade wars. Investor pessimism quickly turned to confidence when the Fed switched from rate hikes in 2018 to rate cuts in 2019. Central banks raise rates when they are bullish on the economy and cut rates when they are bearish. The crowd (investors) do the reverse.

The charts break this down by market sector. The left chart shows price gains over the past 12 months; the middle chart splits this into changes in earnings (profits) per share and changes in the price paid per dollar of profits; and the right chart does the same for dividends:

Looking at the two big sectors:

First: Financials. Profits per share fell (across the Big 4 banks plus other disasters like AMP) but share prices rose 13%, so investors en masse boosted the price per dollar of profit by 25%, and the price per dollar of dividend by 17% (dividends also fell). The crowd assumes the current banking woes are temporary and banks will miraculously return to the golden years of double-digit profit growth. Our view has been that those golden years are gone. The banks are facing not only cyclical pressures (margin pressure from ultra-low rates, and bad debts from property developers/investors) but also more lasting structural pressures (crippling regulations, expensive remediation and compliance, higher capital costs, deteriorating demographics).

Second: Resources. Profits and dividends rose by 30%+ per share, a combination of recoveries from big write-offs from prior years, plus the fortuitous spikes in iron ore and oil prices. Investors have sensibly discounted this and only bid up share prices by 12% because they know this profit and dividend growth is not repeatable. Many of the miners are probably underpriced at current levels.

The market is now in expensive territory, with price/earnings ratios above 20 (more than $20 being paid per dollar of profits) and dividend yields below 3.8% ($26.40 per dollar of dividends). In order to hold on to the recent price gains, either profits and dividends need to rise substantially in 2020, or central banks need to keep cutting rates and buying up assets. That is, central banks need to remain bearish and pessimistic so that the crowd remains overconfident. 

 

Ashley Owen is Chief Investment Officer at advisory firm Stanford Brown and The Lunar Group. He is also a Director of Third Link Investment Managers, a fund that supports Australian charities. This article is for general information purposes only and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

 

6 Comments
Mark
February 20, 2020

Good afternoon,

Thanks for this good article. Could you please provide some explanation of how dividend yields below 3.8% equate to $26.40 per dollar of dividends.

a owen
February 21, 2020

hi mark - if I pay $100 for a share that pays $3.80 dividend I am paying 100/3.8 = $26.40 dollars per dollar of dividend (I rounded the 3.8% div yield for the story). It is the reverse of the price/earnings ratio because the numerator and denominator are switched. If I pay $26.40 for a dollar of dividends I am hoping of course that dividends rise over time - but that is always the case whether I pay $20 or $30 or even $10.
cheers

ashley

Warren Bird
February 21, 2020

Ashley, your calculation is not the reverse of a P/E. It's still got P on the top, but you have D instead of E on the bottom.

And you don't actually need dividends to grow to justify paying $100 for $3.80 a year of income. It just means that you're discounting $3.80 a year at 3.8%.
But I understand that what you're saying is you'd rather have dividends grow so that your total return is better than 3.8% a year.

Mark
February 21, 2020

Thanks Ashley, appreciate your help.

Cheers

Mark

stefy
February 20, 2020

I believe the current share market prices and global warming are intimately related. Let me explain why. The current market prices are based wholly and solely on fiat money creation by the Fed in USA ($500 billion late last year alone). The exponential rise in fiat money has facilitated the rise of an economic backwater in China to a superpower producing every consumer good possible. It has made the world full of possibilities, exploit commodities worldwide, create new mines and industries, increase production etc etc, and allow wild asset inflation like housing and stocks. Fiat money, a world without limits, has created global climate change as sure as I am alive and breathing. So much for modern money theory.

Tony Reardon
February 20, 2020

We review our asset allocations every half year. The 2019 performance of local and international equities of 20%+ naturally led to a slightly out of balance portfolio and so we we moved a percentage out of equities into fixed interest. While this might feel like one is “selling winners”, it does lock in some of those profits.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Australian large caps outperform small caps over long term

In a short-term world, take a longer-term view

Why does Australia’s skewed stock market underperform?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

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?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

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.