Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 372

Will Baylis on dividends and accepting stock market risk

Will Baylis is a Portfolio Manager at Martin Currie, a specialist investment manager within the Franklin Templeton Group. He is lead Portfolio Manager for the Equity Income and Sustainable Equity strategies and Co-Portfolio Manager for multi-asset portfolios.

 

GH: Martin Currie in Australia recently wrote to the chair of every major company in your income portfolios with the message, ‘If your company has reasonable cashflows and a sound financial position, dividends should be paid.’ What have the reactions been?

WB: We've had remarkably positive responses. And in many cases, the chair has taken the time to write a detailed reply rather than just an acknowledgement. One chair of a large company said he had been writing about the importance of dividends since the 1990s. Companies receive up to 20% of their dividends back in reinvestment plans, and if they're worried about cash flow, dividend reinvestment can be underwritten for a small fee.

GH: And franking credits are of no value on the company balance sheet.

WB: Yes, they’re unique to Australia and they belong to shareholders. This chair has always advocated that where companies have the means and reasonable capitalisation, they should pay dividends, but that doesn't mean dividends need to go up every year.

GH: Any other feedback?

WB: Another company, a large utility, attached our letter to the board papers. They've just announced that because they have a high free cash flow, they will pay special dividends next year. So, we are pleased with the letter and they said it was very timely.

GH: Last week, we saw ANZ pay a dividend, although reduced, while Westpac suspended theirs. What’s the difference between these banks?

WB: Well, ANZ has a high level of capital and they acknowledged that they want to pay dividends, they have different types of shareholders and many rely on the dividends and have done since the GFC when interest rates have fallen from being quite meaningful to zero. Westpac has poorer trends with their bad and doubtful debts and made a balanced decision to hold back the dividend this time.

GH: Were you surprised that a company like BHP, which has had the benefit of strong iron ore prices, reduced its dividend a little?

WB: We hold BHP and we’re happy that they paid a meaningful dividend. Whether it was 10% below or above consensus is not our point. BHP has enjoyed strong iron ore prices, they've got strong free cash flow and they paid what we call a meaningful dividend.

GH: Do you think a board should maintain a steady stream of dividends and in good years hold some back in expectation that future years might be a bit leaner?

WB: A board should be aware of their capex requirements for maintenance and growth and their operational costs, etc. If they retain more capital than they need, it has to be put to work. They will be measured against their weighted average cost of capital. If there is a poor marginal use of that capital by retaining it, it makes more sense to pay it to the shareholders. Retaining dividends should be linked to a greater or different purpose for that capital.

GH: In your income funds, what are you expecting on the income for FY2021 compared with FY2020?

WB: At this stage, we're expecting income on our Equity Income Fund to fall about 20% to 30 June this year. That said, the market's income is expected to fall between 30 to 40%. So we've tried to hold companies that have a higher probability of paying dividends with quality characteristics of free cash flow and strong capital positions.

GH: And how do you balance capital preservation with generating income?

WB: When you manage a strategy for income, you have two main objectives. One is to give dollar income to your investors from dividends and deliver a yield which is higher than the broader market. Our strategy is expected to deliver about 6% including the value of franking credits. So, if we can deliver that, we feel we've done a good job in minimising what we call a drawdown on income.

GH: Right, that’s the income point of view. Is the capital outcome too difficult to predict in this market?

WB: We believe if we have a high-quality portfolio, with companies that have high barriers to entry, high levels of free cash flow, etc, over time it should give a lower level of capital volatility than the broader market. The Equity Income strategy has a beta since inception in 2010 of around 0.9. That is, slightly less volatility than the broader market. Rather than focusing on the total return, which is capital plus income, we find companies with a lower level of income drawdown because we feel we have more control.

GH: Given the pandemic has delivered winners and losers, with names like Kogan and Afterpay doing well and Flight Centre and Qantas struggling, have you made changes in the last three to six months?

WB: The interesting thing about owning companies in Australia with reliable dividends relative to the market is we tend not to own the Kogans and Afterpays of the world, and even CSL because it has a dividend yield of less than 1%. But we have made changes to reduce the income drawdown. We reduced exposure to energy, because we're worried about the oil price, and we exited Sydney Airport due to the closure of international borders, which we think will be a much more prolonged event than the closure of domestic borders. We’ve invested in some companies that have benefitted from COVID like JB Hi Fi, Coles, Woolworths and Harvey Norman. The government support and stimulus has helped some companies.

Another thing we did back in March was go through the entire universe to check which companies will have solvency issues and which will have a significant fall in revenue, because we don't want to own those companies in an income portfolio.


Register here to receive the Firstlinks weekly newsletter for free

GH: What have your investors been doing in the last three to six months?

WB: The funds under management have been steady, we haven't seen outflows but we haven't seen significant inflows either. CBA recently reported a $15 billion increase in their term deposits in six months. That tells you that a lot of people are accepting 1% or below. Banks are now funded substantially by their own term deposits and people are holding a lot more cash.

GH: Although the equity market has done surprisingly well since March.

WB: Yes, but a lot of the big rises have been in a few technology or health names, whereas the companies that we own in our Equity Income portfolio have not done as well because of the level of uncertainty around the outlook.

GH: There are many different ways that people manage income funds. Do you use derivatives?

WB: Not at all. If you start using call or put option strategies to either boost income, which is basically close to dividend stripping, or alternately trying to protect capital, there's a cost to that. It's like an insurance premium, which has to be paid from the client's return. We focus more on the sustainable dividend with franking credits of each company over time.

GH: You recently wrote an article for Firstlinks on looking through the pandemic for quality companies even if you recognise they might have some short-term problems. How does that work?

WB: Look at the example of Transurban. Before COVID, Transurban had a history of growing its distributions by 9% to 10% per annum, but recently, it has reduced dividends markedly because the volume of traffic on its toll roads has collapsed. But we see Transurban as a really high-quality company, the dominant owner of toll roads and exceedingly well run. So we were tolerant in knowing Transurban would reduce its distributions while we are holding it.

GH: What about the Australian banks which many people have relied on for income?

WB: Well, three of the four banks are still paying a dividend, they all have high capital buffers, we know the banks are vital to the safety and security of the Australian financial system, so again, we hold all four banks in the Equity Income strategy. We're not at index weight and we knew dividends would fall but we’re happy to hold them through the crisis.

GH: Transurban is an example I often use in presentations. When Sydney’s Eastern Distributor opened, the toll was $3.50 and now it’s $8. That’s a lot of money for some people but that’s pricing power for an asset drivers want to use.

WB: That’s true, but to their credit, they’ve set up a division which focuses on customer hardship. It's a genuine attempt to provide relief for customers who can't afford the tolls.

GH: Final question. What do you say to a retiree who wants the income from shares but is worried about capital preservation - the risk/return trade off?

WB: I would suggest to your readers that they contrast the risk/return around term deposits with the risk/return of owning a diversified equity portfolio. On term deposits, the capital risk and income return are both close to zero. That will be the case for the next few years but most retirees can’t live on a 1% return. Contrast this with say 6% including franking on equity income with a historical volatility of about 11% on the capital. That doesn’t mean that every year, investors should net off the 6% yield against an 11% decline in capital. It simply means that over time, the capital value of the portfolio is likely to move up and down by 11% a year on average.

But for investors who can accept the 11% volatility, they still receive the 6% income. So they don't need to drawdown on capital if they have sufficient income and they don’t need to worry as much about the implied capital volatility of the portfolio. The income comes in every quarter through the unit trust structure. For many, a 1% return is intolerable and a 6% return with volatility of 11% should be tolerable if they can rely on the income. Investors should think long term and hope to live to a very fine age.

 

Graham Hand is Managing Editor of Firstlinks. Will Baylis is a Portfolio Manager for the Martin Currie Equity Income Fund. Franklin Templeton is a sponsor of Firstlinks. The information provided 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.

 

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Have the rules of retirement investing changed?

In retirement, we still want to reduce stock volatility while generating cash flows. The two needs have not changed, but the reward expected in the old days from interest payments has gone. What should we do?

18 Aussie names for your watchlist

A Morningstar stock screener reveals a cross-section of companies with competitive advantages that are trading at material discounts to estimated value. This is a list of 18 highly-rated names worth watching.

Buffett and his warning about 'virtually certain' earnings

While many investors are happy to invest in any online companies, Warren Buffett focusses more on the quality of future growth, buying companies whose earnings are 'virtually certain' in 10 or 20 years from now.

Hamish Douglass on what really matters

Questions on the stock market/economy disconnect, how to focus long term, technology's growing role, income in a low-rate world, Modern Monetary Theory and endless debt and the tooth fairy.

Kate Howitt: investing lessons and avoiding the PIPO trade

Kate Howitt identifies the stocks she likes and the disappointments, gives context to the increasing role of retail investors, and explains why the market is more of a 'voting not weighing' machine than ever before.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 379

It is trite and obvious to say the future is uncertain, and while COVID-19 brings extra risks, markets are always unpredictable. However, investing conditions are now more difficult than ever, mainly because the defensive options for portfolios produce little income. We explore whether investing rules have changed with new input from Howard Marks.

  • 15 October 2020

Latest Updates

Weekly Editorial

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 381

There is a popular belief that retail investors do not even achieve index returns due to poor timing of investing and selling decisions. The theory is that they buy after markets rise as confidence grows, then sell in panic when markets fall, and miss the recovery. This 'buy high sell low' tendency loses the advantages of long-term investing and riding out the selloffs. But the evidence for this belief is not convincing.

  • 29 October 2020
Investment strategies

Gemma Dale: three ways 'retail' is not the dumb money

There is a popular view that retail investors panic when markets fall, but in the recent COVID selloff, they were waiting in cash for buying opportunities. What's equally interesting is the stocks they bought.

Investment strategies

Unlucky for some: 13 investment risks to check

Risk isn’t something to be avoided altogether. To achieve returns beyond the government bond rate, some level of risk must be accepted. Assessing which risks to take and calibrating them is the investor's challenge.

Responsible investing

Four reasons ESG investing continues to grow

Although Australian investors are among the most ESG-aware in the world, with the vast majority wanting responsible and ethical investments, there are still some misconceptions to dispel.

Shares

Why caution is needed in Aussie small companies

Over the last 20 years, smaller Australian listed companies have outperformed larger companies but with greater volatility. Following a strong run in the last six months, the smaller end is looking expensive.

Financial planning

The value of financial advice amid rise of retail investors

Financial advice has moved well beyond simply recommending investments, with five major components to quality advice. Helping clients avoid potentially disastrous mistakes is often underestimated.

Economy

The 2020 US presidential elections

The US is days away from a presidential election with major repercussions for economic policy and investments in the US and the world. Views from First Sentier Investors and BNP Paribas Asset Management.

SMSF strategies

Can your SMSF buy a retirement home for you now?

It sounds appealing to acquire a property now through your SMSF with the hope of residing in the property once you retire, but there are issues and costs to check that may vary by state.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 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 class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. 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.