Berkshire Hathaway (BRK), aka Warren Buffett, has paid only one dividend since Buffett gained control. In 1967, Berkshire paid a dividend of 10 cents on its shares. It’s never happened again. Buffett has said he "must have been in the bathroom when the dividend was declared.”
Berkshire Hathaway is famous for not paying dividends despite having billions of dollars in cash. The company has many critics who believe that the company should “reward” or “return money to” shareholders. I am not one of those critics. I believe that Bershire/Buffett has proved itself to be perhaps the best allocator of capital on the planet, and I do not question that they can allocate their capital as well as or better than I could if they gave me some of it. I love dividends, but I don’t think Berkshire should pay a dividend.
Berkshire, while known mainly as an insurance company, is actually a conglomerate. It has a dizzying array of wholly owned companies in businesses as diverse as railroads, carpeting, candy, furniture, and jewelry. It also owns huge stakes in several public companies. It is the latter that I want to focus on, because Berkshire/Buffett has shown a great liking for companies that pay dividends.
Berkshire’s stock holdings are published quarterly. For the most recent quarter (ending June 30), here are its largest holdings, the percent of Berkshire’s stock portfolio represented by that holding, and the stock’s projected yield based on current payout. All information is from Morningstar.
• Coca-Cola (KO), 22%, yield = 3.2%
• Wells Fargo (WFC), 18%, yield = 0.9%
• American Express (AXP), 13%, yield = 1.8%
• Procter & Gamble (PG), 10%, yield = 3.3%
• Kraft (KFT), 6%, yield = 3.9%
• Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), 5%, yield = 3.8%
• Wal-Mart (WMT), 4%, yield = 2.4%
• Wesco Financial (WSC), 4%, yield = 0.5%
• U. S. Bancorp (USB), 3%, yield = 1.0%
• ConocoPhillips (COP), 3%, yield = 4.2%
These top 10 holdings account for 88% of all of Berkshire’s stock holdings—a very concentrated portfolio, especially considering its size. Overall, the company owns more than $46 billion in stocks, spread out over 37 different positions. (These figures do not include foreign investments held abroad.)
In Q2, Berkshire purchased about 17 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, adding to the 24 million it already owned. The total spent was about $1 billion, or about $58 per share. This was the biggest increase in any holding in Berkshire’s portfolio, raising its stake by 70%. What’s that worth in dividends? In June, J&J raised its dividend from $0.49 per share per quarter to $0.54, or $2.16 per year. A year’s worth of dividends at that rate for 24 million shares is $51,840,000. Actually, Berkshire will get more than that in the next 12 months, because J&J will raise its dividend again next June, as it has for 48 straight years.
In fact, 5 of those 10 companies are Dividend Champions—companies that have increased their payouts for 25 years or more consecutively: Procter & Gamble (54 years), Coca-Cola (48), J&J (48), Wesco (38), and Wal-Mart (36). ConocoPhillips has a 10-year streak going. In Q2, the second-largest increase in shares held by Berkshire was in Becton Dickinson (BDX), in which Berkshire increased its position by 8%. Becton Dickinson is a Dividend Champion with a 37-year streak.
Charlie Munger, Buffett’s sidekick at Berkshire, has been quoted as saying, “Investing is where you find a few great companies and then sit on your ass." While dividend-raising companies require attention just as any stock holdings do, it is clear that Berkshire/Buffett have found several great companies with a common characteristic—they pay consistently rising dividends. They have helped make Buffett the richest investor in the world.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Portfolio Forensics
From time to time, one runs across pointless arguments about whether buy-and-hold is dead. Most long-term stock holders know that buy-and-hold really means buy-and-monitor, or buy-and-homework, or some similar phrase that indicates that reasons can arise to sell a long-term holding. The days of the dying grandfather telling his family “Never sell the AT&T” are long gone. While the ideal might be to hold each stock “forever,” life happens, and in doing so it can create reasons to sell any stock.
How do you decide? I advocate periodic Portfolio Reviews. In my Dividend Portfolio, which is devoted to dividend growth stocks and does not require real close attention, I aim to conduct a review twice per year. The point is to impose upon yourself the discipline to really examine your stock portfolio periodically, apply standards designed to reveal whether each stock still deserves a place in your portfolio, and take action on what you find out.
In my Dividend Portfolio, normally the presumption is that each dividend stock will not be sold. But that presumption can be overcome. During a Portfolio Review, the burden shifts to the company to prove why it should be kept. Here are some of the questions I ask:
• What is its yield on cost (YOC)? I don’t penalize a dividend growth stock solely because its current yield may have dropped below qualifying levels. That may be only because the stock’s price has jumped way up. If I purchased it years ago, and I am still satisfied with how it is growing its dividend, the reliability of the dividend, etc., I normally would keep it. It is doing its job. By the way, the formula for YOC is: Yield on Cost = (Current Yield x Current Price) / Acquisition Price. An equivalent formula is Last 12 Months’ Dividends / Acquisition Price.
• Should some profits be taken? If the company’s price has skyrocketed, that may present an opportunity to cash out some or all of it and purchase another stock selling at a better price and offering a higher yield. The goal would be to have the total dividend stream increase after the transactions are completed. Notice that if you have held a stock a long time, its current yield may be low but its YOC may be quite high, difficult to match with a new purchase.
• Is the safety of its dividend in question? As soon as BP’s oil rig blew up, the safety of its dividend became perilous for anyone who thought about it. In a Portfolio Review, update your information on each company and give serious thought to the ongoing reliability of its dividend.
• Is there a chance to improve your portfolio by making a stock swap? There are various ways to improve your portfolio, such as increasing its total yield, increasing the rate of dividend growth, diversifying it, and so on. As to increasing yield, note the discussion above (second bullet) about making sure that the initial yield on a new purchase would exceed the YOC of the stock you would sell. If it wouldn’t, it’s hard to justify the swap. A higher expected rate of increase may tip the scales.
• Did the company cut or freeze its dividend? If so, it is subject to immediate examination. You will probably decide to sell most stocks that cut or freeze their dividend. The main goal of my Dividend Portfolio is to deliver an ever-increasing dividend stream, so obviously a cut or freeze hurts that goal. Also, a cut or freeze often portends a price drop. Confident management teams adhere to established dividend-growth patterns. A company that cuts or freezes its dividend is conserving cash for some reason. Find out why. The company may be in difficulty, and its price may be in for a drop too. Selling early usually brings in the most money you will be able to get for that stock for a long time to come.
• Has the company’s current yield risen above 10 percent? If so, it is subject to immediate review, but this is not an automatic reason to sell. An extremely high yield is usually the result of an extremely low price. Find out why the market has devalued the stock. It may be a clue that the company is having major problems, and upon examination you may discover that the dividend itself is in peril. This may be dividends’ equivalent of a “dead-cat bounce” in price.
• Has the rate of growth of the dividend taken a turn for the worse? Can you figure out why? Many dividend investors regard dividend growth as a key indicator of future prospects, because it reflects management’s view of and confidence in the next few years, often based upon information available to them but not to you.
Let’s look at some examples. Here is how these principles played out for six stocks in a recent Portfolio Review of my Dividend Portfolio.
Abbott Labs (ABT): I own two slugs, purchased in 2008 and 2009. Their yields on cost are 3.2% and 3.7%, respectively. Abbott increased its dividend 10% this year. The stock is working fine. Decision: Hold
Alliant Energy (LNT): Initiated position early in 2010, and it has worked out well. The stock has a 9% price increase and a 4.9% YOC after a 5% dividend hike this year. Decision: Hold.
Diageo (DEO): I bought this in 2008. Diageo is a foreign stock (Britain), and like many foreign stocks, it does not adhere to a predictable dividend-raising schedule. It makes two payments per year, and the first payment is typically less than the second payment, making the total year’s dividend impossible to predict. In its native currency, Diageo has been a steady dividend raiser, but with varying exchange rates, that has sometimes translated into fewer $US, as if it had cut its dividend. Too many headaches to keep track of, despite the company’s strengths. My position was small, and I had a 14% long-term price gain on the stock. Decision: Sell and put the money to work elsewhere.
Emerson Electric (EMR): Also purchased in 2008, EMR has disappointed lately with small dividend increases, just 2% in 2010. Its 2.7% yield on cost (YOC) was pulling the portfolio’s YOC down. Last year, I put it on sort of probation, sticking a 10% trailing sell-stop under it. It survived by steadily moving up in price from what had been a significant capital loss. After nearly hitting the breakeven point, its price began to weaken again. The lousy dividend increase motivated me to put a tighter stop under it (5%), which it hit a couple of weeks later. Decision: Put tight stop under it; the stop was hit, so stock sold.
McDonalds (MCD): Purchased in 2008 and again in 2009. YOC is 3.7% and 4.1% respectively. Blended price increase is more than 20%. Raised its dividend 26% in 2009; awaiting 2010’s increase (which typically comes with the final payment of the year). What’s not to like? Decision: Hold.
Royal Bank of Canada (RY): Purchased in 2008, the stock survived the financial crisis and is a solid, stable bank. But it has not increased its dividend since 2008. I decided to put this small position’s money to work elsewhere. Decision: Sell.
The Dividend Portfolio contained 12 stocks when I did the Portfolio Review. The 3 sells mentioned above are a little misleading, because I wanted to show examples of reasons to sell. Those were the only 3 sales resulting from this review. The other 9 stocks were held. In dollar terms, there is typically less than 10% turnover per year in this portfolio. Sometimes there is none.
A good practice is to keep a Shopping List ready—stocks that will help improve your portfolio in some way and that meet all your criteria for buying a stock. For my Dividend Portfolio, I use my e-book, The Top 40 Dividend Stocks for 2010, as my Shopping List. I make sure to update the information, especially any target’s yield and valuation, before making any purchase. With the proceeds from the 2 immediate sales, I increased my stake in Alliant Energy. At a current yield of 4.5%, that gave a nice boost to the portfolio’s overall YOC (which was 4.1%). When Emerson Electric hit its sell-stop, I used those proceeds to initiate a position in Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), whose price seems depressed, at a 3.6% initial yield. I was pleased to see that Warrren Buffett—through Berkshire Hathaway (BRK)—had made JNJ his single largest stock purchase in Q2, adding 17 million shares to the 24 million he already owned, spending about $1 billion on the purchase. I picked up 50 shares myself. What the hell. Always glad to be in agreement with Mr. Buffett.
How do you decide? I advocate periodic Portfolio Reviews. In my Dividend Portfolio, which is devoted to dividend growth stocks and does not require real close attention, I aim to conduct a review twice per year. The point is to impose upon yourself the discipline to really examine your stock portfolio periodically, apply standards designed to reveal whether each stock still deserves a place in your portfolio, and take action on what you find out.
In my Dividend Portfolio, normally the presumption is that each dividend stock will not be sold. But that presumption can be overcome. During a Portfolio Review, the burden shifts to the company to prove why it should be kept. Here are some of the questions I ask:
• What is its yield on cost (YOC)? I don’t penalize a dividend growth stock solely because its current yield may have dropped below qualifying levels. That may be only because the stock’s price has jumped way up. If I purchased it years ago, and I am still satisfied with how it is growing its dividend, the reliability of the dividend, etc., I normally would keep it. It is doing its job. By the way, the formula for YOC is: Yield on Cost = (Current Yield x Current Price) / Acquisition Price. An equivalent formula is Last 12 Months’ Dividends / Acquisition Price.
• Should some profits be taken? If the company’s price has skyrocketed, that may present an opportunity to cash out some or all of it and purchase another stock selling at a better price and offering a higher yield. The goal would be to have the total dividend stream increase after the transactions are completed. Notice that if you have held a stock a long time, its current yield may be low but its YOC may be quite high, difficult to match with a new purchase.
• Is the safety of its dividend in question? As soon as BP’s oil rig blew up, the safety of its dividend became perilous for anyone who thought about it. In a Portfolio Review, update your information on each company and give serious thought to the ongoing reliability of its dividend.
• Is there a chance to improve your portfolio by making a stock swap? There are various ways to improve your portfolio, such as increasing its total yield, increasing the rate of dividend growth, diversifying it, and so on. As to increasing yield, note the discussion above (second bullet) about making sure that the initial yield on a new purchase would exceed the YOC of the stock you would sell. If it wouldn’t, it’s hard to justify the swap. A higher expected rate of increase may tip the scales.
• Did the company cut or freeze its dividend? If so, it is subject to immediate examination. You will probably decide to sell most stocks that cut or freeze their dividend. The main goal of my Dividend Portfolio is to deliver an ever-increasing dividend stream, so obviously a cut or freeze hurts that goal. Also, a cut or freeze often portends a price drop. Confident management teams adhere to established dividend-growth patterns. A company that cuts or freezes its dividend is conserving cash for some reason. Find out why. The company may be in difficulty, and its price may be in for a drop too. Selling early usually brings in the most money you will be able to get for that stock for a long time to come.
• Has the company’s current yield risen above 10 percent? If so, it is subject to immediate review, but this is not an automatic reason to sell. An extremely high yield is usually the result of an extremely low price. Find out why the market has devalued the stock. It may be a clue that the company is having major problems, and upon examination you may discover that the dividend itself is in peril. This may be dividends’ equivalent of a “dead-cat bounce” in price.
• Has the rate of growth of the dividend taken a turn for the worse? Can you figure out why? Many dividend investors regard dividend growth as a key indicator of future prospects, because it reflects management’s view of and confidence in the next few years, often based upon information available to them but not to you.
Let’s look at some examples. Here is how these principles played out for six stocks in a recent Portfolio Review of my Dividend Portfolio.
Abbott Labs (ABT): I own two slugs, purchased in 2008 and 2009. Their yields on cost are 3.2% and 3.7%, respectively. Abbott increased its dividend 10% this year. The stock is working fine. Decision: Hold
Alliant Energy (LNT): Initiated position early in 2010, and it has worked out well. The stock has a 9% price increase and a 4.9% YOC after a 5% dividend hike this year. Decision: Hold.
Diageo (DEO): I bought this in 2008. Diageo is a foreign stock (Britain), and like many foreign stocks, it does not adhere to a predictable dividend-raising schedule. It makes two payments per year, and the first payment is typically less than the second payment, making the total year’s dividend impossible to predict. In its native currency, Diageo has been a steady dividend raiser, but with varying exchange rates, that has sometimes translated into fewer $US, as if it had cut its dividend. Too many headaches to keep track of, despite the company’s strengths. My position was small, and I had a 14% long-term price gain on the stock. Decision: Sell and put the money to work elsewhere.
Emerson Electric (EMR): Also purchased in 2008, EMR has disappointed lately with small dividend increases, just 2% in 2010. Its 2.7% yield on cost (YOC) was pulling the portfolio’s YOC down. Last year, I put it on sort of probation, sticking a 10% trailing sell-stop under it. It survived by steadily moving up in price from what had been a significant capital loss. After nearly hitting the breakeven point, its price began to weaken again. The lousy dividend increase motivated me to put a tighter stop under it (5%), which it hit a couple of weeks later. Decision: Put tight stop under it; the stop was hit, so stock sold.
McDonalds (MCD): Purchased in 2008 and again in 2009. YOC is 3.7% and 4.1% respectively. Blended price increase is more than 20%. Raised its dividend 26% in 2009; awaiting 2010’s increase (which typically comes with the final payment of the year). What’s not to like? Decision: Hold.
Royal Bank of Canada (RY): Purchased in 2008, the stock survived the financial crisis and is a solid, stable bank. But it has not increased its dividend since 2008. I decided to put this small position’s money to work elsewhere. Decision: Sell.
The Dividend Portfolio contained 12 stocks when I did the Portfolio Review. The 3 sells mentioned above are a little misleading, because I wanted to show examples of reasons to sell. Those were the only 3 sales resulting from this review. The other 9 stocks were held. In dollar terms, there is typically less than 10% turnover per year in this portfolio. Sometimes there is none.
A good practice is to keep a Shopping List ready—stocks that will help improve your portfolio in some way and that meet all your criteria for buying a stock. For my Dividend Portfolio, I use my e-book, The Top 40 Dividend Stocks for 2010, as my Shopping List. I make sure to update the information, especially any target’s yield and valuation, before making any purchase. With the proceeds from the 2 immediate sales, I increased my stake in Alliant Energy. At a current yield of 4.5%, that gave a nice boost to the portfolio’s overall YOC (which was 4.1%). When Emerson Electric hit its sell-stop, I used those proceeds to initiate a position in Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), whose price seems depressed, at a 3.6% initial yield. I was pleased to see that Warrren Buffett—through Berkshire Hathaway (BRK)—had made JNJ his single largest stock purchase in Q2, adding 17 million shares to the 24 million he already owned, spending about $1 billion on the purchase. I picked up 50 shares myself. What the hell. Always glad to be in agreement with Mr. Buffett.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
August's Market Swoon Pulls Timing Outlook Back To Negative
1. Summary
After the stock market’s rally in July, which pulled the Timing Outlook up into positive territory, August has seen a nearly equal but opposite slide. Today’s Timing Outlook is negative at 4.5, significantly down from 7.5 last time. Today’s S&P 500 value (at mid-day) of about 1048, is a value that has been crossed through several times in the last few months as the market see-saws up and down. In other words, the market has overall been sideways for three months, but with significant volatility that has looked like trend-starts, but turned out to be false hopes.
This kind of yo-yo action causes the Timing Outlook to jump around too. The last five readings, including today’s, have been Negative-Positive-Negative-Negative-Positive-Negative. Short-term (2-3 week) market reversals are the worst conditions for discerning an investable trend. The Timing Outlook is least useful under these conditions, as swings to-and-fro with the market.
My Capital Appreciation Portfolio has remained 100% in cash since early May. That means that it has gained nothing, but in so doing it has outperformed the S&P 500, which has an overall loss since that time. In the last report, the July rally led me to review the criteria for re-entering the market.
• 9% rise over two weeks, with at least 7/10 days positive
• 3% rise over 3 weeks, with at least 10/15 days positive
• 4% rise over 4 weeks, with at least 14/20 days positive
• Etc.
The market’s August drop has put these criteria out of reach again, at least for a while. It is hard to see the catalyst that would trigger a sustained rally. Q2 earnings came in strong: 66% of companies in the S&P 500 beat earnings estimates, and 63% beat revenue estimates. But that good news has been offset by poor economic news. Corporations are doing well, but individuals are not. It seems that every day, some negative report is issued about housing, manufacturing, unemployment, a “jobless recovery,” troubles in Europe, the possibility of a double-dip recession, or the possibility that we’ve never actually exited the Great Recession. Ben Bernanke stated recently that the economy is displaying “unusual uncertainty.” Traditionally, markets hate uncertainty.
My Dividend Portfolio is 100% invested, but I made some changes this month. I completed a Portfolio Review, which led me to sell three stocks (Diageo, Emerson Electric, and Royal Bank of Canada) and replace them with two others (added to position in Alliant Energy and initiated position in Johnson & Johnson). These are the first changes to the portfolio in a year. Hopefully they will strengthen the portfolio for its key objective: To generate ever-increasing income streams. The holdings in the Dividend Portfolio are not protected by sell stops. Risk management is accomplished by means of the Portfolio Reviews.
2. Market Performance Since Last Outlook
(“now” figures are as mid-day, Wednesday, August 25, 2010)
Last Outlook (8/5/10): 7.5 (positive)
S&P 500 last time (8/5/10): 1126
S&P 500 now: 1048 Change: -7%
S&P 500 at beginning of 2010: 1115
S&P 500 now: 1048 Change in 2010: -6%
S&P 500 at close 3/9/09 (beginning of bull market): 677
S&P 500 now: 1048 Change since 3/9/09: +55%
3. Indicators in Detail
• Conference Board Index of Leading Economic Indicators: The most recent report last week showed a tiny increase in this index. The index has been gyrating the past few months (displaying “unusual uncertainty” too, I guess), rendering it ambiguous. I require three straight monthly increases or decreases to label this as positive or negative. Indicator remains neutral. +5
• Fed Funds Rate: No change. The Fed continues to reinforce the idea that rates will not be raised anytime soon. In a nutshell, they seem to see “unusual uncertainty” in the economic recovery combined with little possibility for inflation in the next few months. With the Federal Funds rate near zero, this indicator remains positive. +10
• S&P 500 Market Valuation (P/E): Morningstar pegs the current P/E of the S&P 500 at 15.2, same as last time. This indicator stays in positive territory at any value below 17.4. +10
• Morningstar’s Market Valuation Graph. Morningstar’s proprietary market valuation graph is at 0.91, down significantly from 0.98 last time and close to the 0.90 level that would move this indicator into positive territory. For now, the indicator remains in the neutral range, which is any value between 0.90 and 1.10. +5
• S&P 500 Short Term Technical Trend: This short-term technical indicator uses the two shorter simple moving averages (SMAs). The configuration is 20-day > 50-day > Index. That is ambiguous, reflecting the yo-yoing in the market. Neutral. +5
• S&P 500 Medium Term Technical Trend: The mid-term indicator uses the two longer SMAs (50-day and 200-day). The lineup is 200-day > 50-day > Index. This is exactly the opposite of an uptrend. Negative. +0
• DJIA Short Term Technical Trend: This chart looks similar to the S&P 500 chart. Neutral. +5
• DJIA Medium Term Technical Trend: Same as the S&P 500. Negative. +0
• NASDAQ Short Term Technical Trend: The NASDAQ’s chart has the same configuration as the other two. Neutral. +5
• NASDAQ Medium Term Technical Trend: Same as the other two. Negative. +0
TOTAL POINTS: 45
NEW READING: 45 / 10 = 4.5 = NEGATIVE
After the stock market’s rally in July, which pulled the Timing Outlook up into positive territory, August has seen a nearly equal but opposite slide. Today’s Timing Outlook is negative at 4.5, significantly down from 7.5 last time. Today’s S&P 500 value (at mid-day) of about 1048, is a value that has been crossed through several times in the last few months as the market see-saws up and down. In other words, the market has overall been sideways for three months, but with significant volatility that has looked like trend-starts, but turned out to be false hopes.
This kind of yo-yo action causes the Timing Outlook to jump around too. The last five readings, including today’s, have been Negative-Positive-Negative-Negative-Positive-Negative. Short-term (2-3 week) market reversals are the worst conditions for discerning an investable trend. The Timing Outlook is least useful under these conditions, as swings to-and-fro with the market.
My Capital Appreciation Portfolio has remained 100% in cash since early May. That means that it has gained nothing, but in so doing it has outperformed the S&P 500, which has an overall loss since that time. In the last report, the July rally led me to review the criteria for re-entering the market.
• 9% rise over two weeks, with at least 7/10 days positive
• 3% rise over 3 weeks, with at least 10/15 days positive
• 4% rise over 4 weeks, with at least 14/20 days positive
• Etc.
The market’s August drop has put these criteria out of reach again, at least for a while. It is hard to see the catalyst that would trigger a sustained rally. Q2 earnings came in strong: 66% of companies in the S&P 500 beat earnings estimates, and 63% beat revenue estimates. But that good news has been offset by poor economic news. Corporations are doing well, but individuals are not. It seems that every day, some negative report is issued about housing, manufacturing, unemployment, a “jobless recovery,” troubles in Europe, the possibility of a double-dip recession, or the possibility that we’ve never actually exited the Great Recession. Ben Bernanke stated recently that the economy is displaying “unusual uncertainty.” Traditionally, markets hate uncertainty.
My Dividend Portfolio is 100% invested, but I made some changes this month. I completed a Portfolio Review, which led me to sell three stocks (Diageo, Emerson Electric, and Royal Bank of Canada) and replace them with two others (added to position in Alliant Energy and initiated position in Johnson & Johnson). These are the first changes to the portfolio in a year. Hopefully they will strengthen the portfolio for its key objective: To generate ever-increasing income streams. The holdings in the Dividend Portfolio are not protected by sell stops. Risk management is accomplished by means of the Portfolio Reviews.
2. Market Performance Since Last Outlook
(“now” figures are as mid-day, Wednesday, August 25, 2010)
Last Outlook (8/5/10): 7.5 (positive)
S&P 500 last time (8/5/10): 1126
S&P 500 now: 1048 Change: -7%
S&P 500 at beginning of 2010: 1115
S&P 500 now: 1048 Change in 2010: -6%
S&P 500 at close 3/9/09 (beginning of bull market): 677
S&P 500 now: 1048 Change since 3/9/09: +55%
3. Indicators in Detail
• Conference Board Index of Leading Economic Indicators: The most recent report last week showed a tiny increase in this index. The index has been gyrating the past few months (displaying “unusual uncertainty” too, I guess), rendering it ambiguous. I require three straight monthly increases or decreases to label this as positive or negative. Indicator remains neutral. +5
• Fed Funds Rate: No change. The Fed continues to reinforce the idea that rates will not be raised anytime soon. In a nutshell, they seem to see “unusual uncertainty” in the economic recovery combined with little possibility for inflation in the next few months. With the Federal Funds rate near zero, this indicator remains positive. +10
• S&P 500 Market Valuation (P/E): Morningstar pegs the current P/E of the S&P 500 at 15.2, same as last time. This indicator stays in positive territory at any value below 17.4. +10
• Morningstar’s Market Valuation Graph. Morningstar’s proprietary market valuation graph is at 0.91, down significantly from 0.98 last time and close to the 0.90 level that would move this indicator into positive territory. For now, the indicator remains in the neutral range, which is any value between 0.90 and 1.10. +5
• S&P 500 Short Term Technical Trend: This short-term technical indicator uses the two shorter simple moving averages (SMAs). The configuration is 20-day > 50-day > Index. That is ambiguous, reflecting the yo-yoing in the market. Neutral. +5
• S&P 500 Medium Term Technical Trend: The mid-term indicator uses the two longer SMAs (50-day and 200-day). The lineup is 200-day > 50-day > Index. This is exactly the opposite of an uptrend. Negative. +0
• DJIA Short Term Technical Trend: This chart looks similar to the S&P 500 chart. Neutral. +5
• DJIA Medium Term Technical Trend: Same as the S&P 500. Negative. +0
• NASDAQ Short Term Technical Trend: The NASDAQ’s chart has the same configuration as the other two. Neutral. +5
• NASDAQ Medium Term Technical Trend: Same as the other two. Negative. +0
TOTAL POINTS: 45
NEW READING: 45 / 10 = 4.5 = NEGATIVE
Friday, August 13, 2010
Financing Retirement V: The Cistern Model
This is the final article in my series on retirement.
Essentially all strategies for financing retirement—even those as philosophically opposed as maximizing capital vs. maximizing income rights—use the same “plumbing.” I like to think of it in terms of cisterns, with pipes running in and out, and leaks. The idea comes from those old algebra questions where A could fill his cistern at a certain rate, B’s cistern filled more slowly and also had a leak in it, and poor C’s cistern was a veritable symphony of problems. As a 12-year-old, you had to create formulas to figure out how long the water in each cistern would last. See Stephen Leacock’s hilarious short story, “A, B, and C—The Human Element in Mathematics.” (For younger readers: A cistern is a big barrel to collect rainwater.)
Here’s the analogy: Your retirement assets are in the cistern. There are two goals:
· The cistern must fund your retirement adequately.
· The cistern must never go empty. In fact, it must never get even close enough to empty that you worry about it or lose sleep over the possibility. You want a nice, abundant cistern that inspires confidence.
There is continual change in your cistern. It is not a static thing, which is why I prefer this analogy to the more common “nest egg.” The cistern’s contents expand and contract throughout your life, both before you retire (the so-called accumulation years) and after you retire (the decumulation years).
What goes into your cistern? Mostly assets that you decide to put in there. Some inflows to your retirement cistern begin early in life, while others come along later. Typical inflows include savings, 401(k) contributions, dividends, royalties, Social Security, pensions, interest, inheritances, etc.
Note that I count as inflows some items (such as Social Security) that a retiree may just spend directly. I will explain why I do this in a minute. Note also that, with the exception of old-fashioned pensions and Social Security, inflows require a positive decision on your part. You must decide to put assets into your cistern (or not).
Besides expanding from the contributions that you make into your cistern, the level in your cistern also goes up when you experience increases in the market value of assets already there. Examples of assets that may enjoy value expansion include:
· Stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, and the like
· Your house
· Increasing dividends from companies that raise dividends regularly
· A small business you may own
What about declines? It is important to note that declines in the level of the assets in your retirement cistern take place not only after retirement via actual withdrawals, but earlier in life as well. Some people “raid” their cistern prior to retirement to cope with emergencies or to make large purchases. Taking out a home equity loan to buy a boat, for example, decreases the level of your cistern in two ways: First, the value of the loan lowers your equity in your home and thus decreases its value in your cistern. Second, the additional debt creates interest obligations that reduce the amount you can put into your cistern for some time into the future.
The level in your cistern also goes down if the value of the assets in it declines. Significant declines in the value of your stocks or your home obviously can have a major impact on the level in your cistern. During the recent financial crisis, some people have been forced to delay long-planned retirements, because the levels in their cisterns went down so far that the two major goals—seemingly within their grasp—suddenly were moved out of reach.
And everybody’s cistern has a leak: Inflation. That is a continuing outflow, sometimes rapid, sometimes slow, that insidiously reduces the value of the contents of your cistern. Only if we go into a period of deflation would the value-of-money dynamic actually cause the value of what’s in your cistern to expand. It would become like an inflow rather than a leak.
I said that I would explain why I count as inflows monies that go directly to spending, such as Social Security payments. The reason is that if we visualize that everything runs through the cistern, even if only briefly, it puts all assets on an equal footing for analysis. The value of income rights can be directly compared to the value of capital, for example.
Viewed this way, everyone makes withdrawals from their cisterns. Thus, someone who spends his Social Security check upon arrival must acknowledge that if he did not spend all of it, he could deposit the balance in his cistern for a future day. And the debate between income-maximizing strategies and capital-maximizing strategies can be seen for what it really is, which is an assessment of two strategies, both of whose goals are the goals stated at the beginning of this article. In both cases, the retirees are betting that their strategy will both provide sufficiently for retirement and that their cistern will never run dry.
Say someone maximizes income during their accumulation years by loading up on dividend-paying stocks, then lives off the income in retirement. We can picture the dividends as flowing into the cistern through a dividend pipe, but flowing right back out through a dividend-withdrawal pipe. Such a person might say that she is not making “withdrawals” if they just take the dividends directly, but she really is, because if not taken immediately as cash, the money would flow into the cistern. The same reasoning applies to pension or Social Security income. You may take it directly, but it is helpful to view it as flowing into and out of the cistern. It provides a better picture of the dynamics of retirement funding.
Similarly, someone who loads up on growth stocks during their accumulation years, then converts those assets into income by selling portions to fund retirement, is clearly making withdrawals. The “bet” is whether the unsold assets remaining in the cistern will simultaneously expand enough to make up for the assets sold. Similar reasoning applies to someone who buys an annuity: She makes a big withdrawal to buy the annuity, but the annuity itself then creates an inflow of income that lasts the rest of her life. The “bet” is whether the income will eventually exceed what it cost to purchase the annuity.
So the cistern analogy is strategy-neutral. I believe that viewing retirement funding in this way allows for more reasoned comparisons of strategies. It’s no secret that I believe in the efficacy of accumulating assets that bear rights to receive increasing dividends, and that I think that it is a superior retirement strategy to relying principally on accumulating assets that hopefully will expand in value via increasing prices to offset withdrawals. But I do not kid myself that when I spend those incoming dividends or Social Security checks, I am not really draining a little bit out of my cistern each time too.
Essentially all strategies for financing retirement—even those as philosophically opposed as maximizing capital vs. maximizing income rights—use the same “plumbing.” I like to think of it in terms of cisterns, with pipes running in and out, and leaks. The idea comes from those old algebra questions where A could fill his cistern at a certain rate, B’s cistern filled more slowly and also had a leak in it, and poor C’s cistern was a veritable symphony of problems. As a 12-year-old, you had to create formulas to figure out how long the water in each cistern would last. See Stephen Leacock’s hilarious short story, “A, B, and C—The Human Element in Mathematics.” (For younger readers: A cistern is a big barrel to collect rainwater.)
Here’s the analogy: Your retirement assets are in the cistern. There are two goals:
· The cistern must fund your retirement adequately.
· The cistern must never go empty. In fact, it must never get even close enough to empty that you worry about it or lose sleep over the possibility. You want a nice, abundant cistern that inspires confidence.
There is continual change in your cistern. It is not a static thing, which is why I prefer this analogy to the more common “nest egg.” The cistern’s contents expand and contract throughout your life, both before you retire (the so-called accumulation years) and after you retire (the decumulation years).
What goes into your cistern? Mostly assets that you decide to put in there. Some inflows to your retirement cistern begin early in life, while others come along later. Typical inflows include savings, 401(k) contributions, dividends, royalties, Social Security, pensions, interest, inheritances, etc.
Note that I count as inflows some items (such as Social Security) that a retiree may just spend directly. I will explain why I do this in a minute. Note also that, with the exception of old-fashioned pensions and Social Security, inflows require a positive decision on your part. You must decide to put assets into your cistern (or not).
Besides expanding from the contributions that you make into your cistern, the level in your cistern also goes up when you experience increases in the market value of assets already there. Examples of assets that may enjoy value expansion include:
· Stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, and the like
· Your house
· Increasing dividends from companies that raise dividends regularly
· A small business you may own
What about declines? It is important to note that declines in the level of the assets in your retirement cistern take place not only after retirement via actual withdrawals, but earlier in life as well. Some people “raid” their cistern prior to retirement to cope with emergencies or to make large purchases. Taking out a home equity loan to buy a boat, for example, decreases the level of your cistern in two ways: First, the value of the loan lowers your equity in your home and thus decreases its value in your cistern. Second, the additional debt creates interest obligations that reduce the amount you can put into your cistern for some time into the future.
The level in your cistern also goes down if the value of the assets in it declines. Significant declines in the value of your stocks or your home obviously can have a major impact on the level in your cistern. During the recent financial crisis, some people have been forced to delay long-planned retirements, because the levels in their cisterns went down so far that the two major goals—seemingly within their grasp—suddenly were moved out of reach.
And everybody’s cistern has a leak: Inflation. That is a continuing outflow, sometimes rapid, sometimes slow, that insidiously reduces the value of the contents of your cistern. Only if we go into a period of deflation would the value-of-money dynamic actually cause the value of what’s in your cistern to expand. It would become like an inflow rather than a leak.
I said that I would explain why I count as inflows monies that go directly to spending, such as Social Security payments. The reason is that if we visualize that everything runs through the cistern, even if only briefly, it puts all assets on an equal footing for analysis. The value of income rights can be directly compared to the value of capital, for example.
Viewed this way, everyone makes withdrawals from their cisterns. Thus, someone who spends his Social Security check upon arrival must acknowledge that if he did not spend all of it, he could deposit the balance in his cistern for a future day. And the debate between income-maximizing strategies and capital-maximizing strategies can be seen for what it really is, which is an assessment of two strategies, both of whose goals are the goals stated at the beginning of this article. In both cases, the retirees are betting that their strategy will both provide sufficiently for retirement and that their cistern will never run dry.
Say someone maximizes income during their accumulation years by loading up on dividend-paying stocks, then lives off the income in retirement. We can picture the dividends as flowing into the cistern through a dividend pipe, but flowing right back out through a dividend-withdrawal pipe. Such a person might say that she is not making “withdrawals” if they just take the dividends directly, but she really is, because if not taken immediately as cash, the money would flow into the cistern. The same reasoning applies to pension or Social Security income. You may take it directly, but it is helpful to view it as flowing into and out of the cistern. It provides a better picture of the dynamics of retirement funding.
Similarly, someone who loads up on growth stocks during their accumulation years, then converts those assets into income by selling portions to fund retirement, is clearly making withdrawals. The “bet” is whether the unsold assets remaining in the cistern will simultaneously expand enough to make up for the assets sold. Similar reasoning applies to someone who buys an annuity: She makes a big withdrawal to buy the annuity, but the annuity itself then creates an inflow of income that lasts the rest of her life. The “bet” is whether the income will eventually exceed what it cost to purchase the annuity.
So the cistern analogy is strategy-neutral. I believe that viewing retirement funding in this way allows for more reasoned comparisons of strategies. It’s no secret that I believe in the efficacy of accumulating assets that bear rights to receive increasing dividends, and that I think that it is a superior retirement strategy to relying principally on accumulating assets that hopefully will expand in value via increasing prices to offset withdrawals. But I do not kid myself that when I spend those incoming dividends or Social Security checks, I am not really draining a little bit out of my cistern each time too.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
July Rally Yanks Timing Outlook Into Positive Territory; Time to Wade Back In?
1. Summary
The stock market rallied strongly in July, although not a straight-line fashion. The market’s volatility continues to have the Timing Outlook jumping around too. The last five readings have been negative-positive-negative-negative-positive. Today’s value is positive at 7.5, significantly better than 4.5 last time.
To repeat a message from the last several Timing Outlooks: The Timing Outlook is least useful when the market is gyrating, as it is pretty sensitive to short-term (2 to 3-week) market moves. Despite the strong (if choppy) July, we have been in a volatile market since mid-April. If U means up and D means down, the weekly market changes since mid-April have been D-U-D-D-U-D-U-D-U-D-D-U-U-U-D. This week is too soon to call.
(click on chart to enlarge it)
My Capital Appreciation Portfolio has remained 100% in cash since early May. With the July rally, let’s look at the criteria for re-entering the market. As noted in this article, I look for:
• 9% rise over two weeks, with at least 7/10 days positive
• 3% rise over 3 weeks, with at least 10/15 days positive
• 4% rise over 4 weeks, with at least 14/20 days positive
• 5% rise over 5 weeks, with at least 17/25 days positive
• Etc.
An astute reader has pointed out that I actually overlooked a “Buy” signal in early July. As of the close today (Thursday), we are just short of 3-week and 4-week “Buy” signals. The percentage increases are sufficient, but the number of positive trading days falls 1-2 short in each case. I will be watching the trading ranges more closely, and if a “Buy” signal comes along, I will re-enter the market with a portion of the portfolio’s cash, with any purchase protected by a sell stop.
Subjectively, this is a hard market to have confidence in. Q2 earnings reports are coming in strong, but economic factors and the general “feel” of things does not inspire confidence. Nevertheless, if the criteria generate another “Buy” signal, I will be buying. Gotta go with the system.
As usual, my Dividend Portfolio remains 100% invested. While its value has been dancing along with the market, its main goal—generating ever-increasing income streams—is still being met. None of the stocks in the portfolio has cut or frozen its dividend this year. Many have raised their dividends. The holdings are not protected by sell stops.
2. Market Performance Since Last Outlook
(“now” figures are as of close Thursday, August 5, 2010)
Last Outlook (7/19/10): 4.5 (negative)
S&P 500 last time (7/19/10): 1071
S&P 500 now: 1126 Change: +5%
S&P 500 at beginning of 2010: 1115
S&P 500 now: 1126 Change in 2010: +1%
S&P 500 at close 3/9/09 (beginning of bull market): 677
S&P 500 now: 1126 Change since 3/9/09: 66+%
3. Indicators in Detail
• Conference Board Index of Leading Economic Indicators: The most recent report showed a decline in this index. The index has had a couple of declines in the past few months, rendering it ambiguous. I require three straight monthly increases or decreases to label this as positive or negative. Indicator remains neutral. +5
• Fed Funds Rate: No change. The Fed and people speaking for it continue to reinforce the idea that rates will not be raised anytime soon. With the Federal Funds rate near zero, this indicator remains positive. +10
• S&P 500 Market Valuation (P/E): Morningstar shows the current P/E of the S&P 500 is 15.2, up from 14.3 last time. This indicator stays in positive territory at any value below 17.4. +10
• Morningstar’s Market Valuation Graph. Morningstar’s proprietary market valuation graph is at 0.98, up from 0.93 last time. That keeps this indicator in the neutral range, which is any value between 0.90 and 1.10. +5
• S&P 500 Short Term Technical Trend: The market has rallied, in fits and starts, since the beginning of July. It has now reclaimed the value it had in early June. This short-term technical indicator uses the two shorter SMAs. The configuration is Index > 20-day > 50-day. That is the best configuration to indicate a rising market. Positive. +10
• S&P 500 Medium Term Technical Trend: The mid-term indicator uses the two longer SMAs (50-day and 200-day). The lineup is Index > 200-day > 50-day. This is an ambiguous configuration. Neutral. +5
• DJIA Short Term Technical Trend: This chart looks basically like the S&P 500 chart. Positive. +10
• DJIA Medium Term Technical Trend: Same as the S&P 500. Neutral. +5
• NASDAQ Short Term Technical Trend: The NASDAQ’s chart has the same configuration as the other two. Positive. +10
• NASDAQ Medium Term Technical Trend: Same as the other two. Neutral. +5
TOTAL POINTS: 75
NEW READING: 75 / 10 = 7.5 = POSITIVE
The stock market rallied strongly in July, although not a straight-line fashion. The market’s volatility continues to have the Timing Outlook jumping around too. The last five readings have been negative-positive-negative-negative-positive. Today’s value is positive at 7.5, significantly better than 4.5 last time.
To repeat a message from the last several Timing Outlooks: The Timing Outlook is least useful when the market is gyrating, as it is pretty sensitive to short-term (2 to 3-week) market moves. Despite the strong (if choppy) July, we have been in a volatile market since mid-April. If U means up and D means down, the weekly market changes since mid-April have been D-U-D-D-U-D-U-D-U-D-D-U-U-U-D. This week is too soon to call.
My Capital Appreciation Portfolio has remained 100% in cash since early May. With the July rally, let’s look at the criteria for re-entering the market. As noted in this article, I look for:
• 9% rise over two weeks, with at least 7/10 days positive
• 3% rise over 3 weeks, with at least 10/15 days positive
• 4% rise over 4 weeks, with at least 14/20 days positive
• 5% rise over 5 weeks, with at least 17/25 days positive
• Etc.
An astute reader has pointed out that I actually overlooked a “Buy” signal in early July. As of the close today (Thursday), we are just short of 3-week and 4-week “Buy” signals. The percentage increases are sufficient, but the number of positive trading days falls 1-2 short in each case. I will be watching the trading ranges more closely, and if a “Buy” signal comes along, I will re-enter the market with a portion of the portfolio’s cash, with any purchase protected by a sell stop.
Subjectively, this is a hard market to have confidence in. Q2 earnings reports are coming in strong, but economic factors and the general “feel” of things does not inspire confidence. Nevertheless, if the criteria generate another “Buy” signal, I will be buying. Gotta go with the system.
As usual, my Dividend Portfolio remains 100% invested. While its value has been dancing along with the market, its main goal—generating ever-increasing income streams—is still being met. None of the stocks in the portfolio has cut or frozen its dividend this year. Many have raised their dividends. The holdings are not protected by sell stops.
2. Market Performance Since Last Outlook
(“now” figures are as of close Thursday, August 5, 2010)
Last Outlook (7/19/10): 4.5 (negative)
S&P 500 last time (7/19/10): 1071
S&P 500 now: 1126 Change: +5%
S&P 500 at beginning of 2010: 1115
S&P 500 now: 1126 Change in 2010: +1%
S&P 500 at close 3/9/09 (beginning of bull market): 677
S&P 500 now: 1126 Change since 3/9/09: 66+%
3. Indicators in Detail
• Conference Board Index of Leading Economic Indicators: The most recent report showed a decline in this index. The index has had a couple of declines in the past few months, rendering it ambiguous. I require three straight monthly increases or decreases to label this as positive or negative. Indicator remains neutral. +5
• Fed Funds Rate: No change. The Fed and people speaking for it continue to reinforce the idea that rates will not be raised anytime soon. With the Federal Funds rate near zero, this indicator remains positive. +10
• S&P 500 Market Valuation (P/E): Morningstar shows the current P/E of the S&P 500 is 15.2, up from 14.3 last time. This indicator stays in positive territory at any value below 17.4. +10
• Morningstar’s Market Valuation Graph. Morningstar’s proprietary market valuation graph is at 0.98, up from 0.93 last time. That keeps this indicator in the neutral range, which is any value between 0.90 and 1.10. +5
• S&P 500 Short Term Technical Trend: The market has rallied, in fits and starts, since the beginning of July. It has now reclaimed the value it had in early June. This short-term technical indicator uses the two shorter SMAs. The configuration is Index > 20-day > 50-day. That is the best configuration to indicate a rising market. Positive. +10
• S&P 500 Medium Term Technical Trend: The mid-term indicator uses the two longer SMAs (50-day and 200-day). The lineup is Index > 200-day > 50-day. This is an ambiguous configuration. Neutral. +5
• DJIA Short Term Technical Trend: This chart looks basically like the S&P 500 chart. Positive. +10
• DJIA Medium Term Technical Trend: Same as the S&P 500. Neutral. +5
• NASDAQ Short Term Technical Trend: The NASDAQ’s chart has the same configuration as the other two. Positive. +10
• NASDAQ Medium Term Technical Trend: Same as the other two. Neutral. +5
TOTAL POINTS: 75
NEW READING: 75 / 10 = 7.5 = POSITIVE
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Financing Retirement IV: Asset Allocation
In the previous article in this series (immediately below this one), I stated that in conventional retirement planning, there are three critical steps:
Under Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), it is said that proper asset allocation insulates your entire portfolio from the ups and downs of one single class of securities. It is commonly accepted that your selection of individual securities is secondary to the proportions in which you allocate your investments in stocks, bonds, and cash. I believe that the rule of thumb is that 70% of your investment results will come from asset allocation, not from what securities you pick.
Asset allocation for retirement is a hot topic. On June 18, The Department of Labor and SEC held a joint hearing related to target date funds, many of which underperformed the S&P 500 in 2008-09. Target date funds have rapidly gained popularity since they were introduced in 1996. At the moment there are nearly 300 of them, with $176 Billion in assets. Their attraction is that, once you designate your retirement date, they offer the automatic achievement of the first two bullet points above.
In MPT, the hypothesis is that stocks are riskier than bonds, but that they hold the promise of better long-term returns. As the AAII says in its beginning investor series, “Stocks are more volatile than bonds, but have historically provided higher long-term returns.” Historical data supports this. It is hard to find a 30-year period, ever, that stocks have not outperformed bonds. But at shorter timeframes, stocks are considered riskier because of their price volatility. Thus the conventional wisdom is that the way to make your portfolio safer as you approach (or are in) retirement is by switching from stocks to bonds in your overall allocation.
As I stated in the last article, the problem I have with that thinking is that (1) it presumes that all retirement income will come from selling off assets, and (2) it ignores the fact that some stocks generate income themselves.
In the two AAII articles, there is not a single mention of dividend stocks as a separate asset class that may have different risk characteristics from all stocks as a class or bonds as a class. There is not even a suggestion that they might form a different category of stocks. The omission is puzzling, because stocks are traditionally sliced and diced into so many categories that supposedly offer different risk/reward profiles within the broad classification of “stocks.” Thus you get categories like U.S. Large-cap, Mid-cap, Small-cap; Foreign stocks, often nowadays themselves divided by size, country or region of the globe; Emerging markets; Value vs. Growth; and so on. But the simplest, most obvious categorization of all—do they pay a dividend?—is ignored.
It’s an important distinction. Dividend-paying stocks tend to move less (in both directions) than the market, meaning that they have a different risk/reward profile. Their dividends yield positive income even when their prices are falling. The companies that raise their dividends regularly tend to keep doing so even when the market as a whole is falling. The dividends themselves, being always positive (there is no such thing as a negative dividend), change the risk/reward profile. And studies show that the best overall returns come from dividend-raising stocks.
So the question begs to be asked: If the goal of a retirement nest egg is to provide its owner with sufficient income in retirement, and some stocks provide rising income streams by their very nature without the necessity of selling them, then why are those facts ignored in conventional retirement planning? Why are they ignored in asset allocation discussions?
It is certainly a paradigm shift to think of dividend stocks as a separate asset class, but for purposes of this article, that’s just what I am going to do. Here’s why: Traditional methods of classifying assets divide them into three major realms: Stocks, bonds, and cash. Stocks are evaluated on their prices; and bonds are evaluated on their yields. But dividend stocks have both characteristics: Their prices vary (but in a more muted fashion) with stocks generally. And their yields provide income, but with a growth kicker that most bonds don’t have—dividend-growth stocks are rising income instruments rather than fixed income investments. (In some texts, you will see the phrase “fixed-income investment” used interchangeably with “bond.”)
It’s almost like MPT has a huge hole in it. It does not miss the obvious income-producing ability of bonds—after all, that’s what a bond is, a debt instrument. The income it produces is interest on the money lent. MPT does not miss the price-appreciation potential of stocks, nor the short-term volatility they have displayed over the years. So why does MPT miss the income-producing ability of dividend stocks, the rising income-producing ability of habitual dividend-raisers like the Dividend Champions, or the muted price volatility that is characteristic of dividend stocks?
I cannot answer that question. But my conclusion is that for those who get it, dividend stocks, especially dividend-growth stocks, should not be lumped in with all stocks when it comes to making asset allocation decisions. A retiree’s portfolio can safely contain a higher percentage of dividend stocks than is normally associated with the low level of risk tolerance of a retiree. And the reason that is true is precisely because the dividend stocks throw off a continuing income stream and do not have to be sold to produce retirement income. Thus, maintaining a fairly high percentage of your retirement portfolio in well-selected dividend stocks is not too aggressive or risky for a retiree. It is safer.
- Maximize your capital before you retire.
- Make your capital a lot “safer” as you approach retirement.
- In retirement, withdraw capital at a “safe” rate, typically figured to be 4% in the first year, then raised each year by 3% to account for inflation. That withdrawal converts what was capital into retirement income by the process of selling assets.
Under Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), it is said that proper asset allocation insulates your entire portfolio from the ups and downs of one single class of securities. It is commonly accepted that your selection of individual securities is secondary to the proportions in which you allocate your investments in stocks, bonds, and cash. I believe that the rule of thumb is that 70% of your investment results will come from asset allocation, not from what securities you pick.
Asset allocation for retirement is a hot topic. On June 18, The Department of Labor and SEC held a joint hearing related to target date funds, many of which underperformed the S&P 500 in 2008-09. Target date funds have rapidly gained popularity since they were introduced in 1996. At the moment there are nearly 300 of them, with $176 Billion in assets. Their attraction is that, once you designate your retirement date, they offer the automatic achievement of the first two bullet points above.
- They maximize your capital via diversification and an ideal stock/bond ratio while you are in the accumulation years of your life. Investors with different risk profiles can select from among funds that are more or less aggressive. “Aggressiveness” is always equated with what percentage of stocks the fund contains. At a young age, the most aggressive fund may contain 90% or more stocks. Even at retirement, an aggressive fund may still contain 75% stocks.
- They make your nest egg safer as retirement approaches by automatically shifting from equities to bonds as you grow older, theoretically arriving at a perfect mix just in time for your retirement. “Safety” is always equated with holding more bonds and fewer equities.
In MPT, the hypothesis is that stocks are riskier than bonds, but that they hold the promise of better long-term returns. As the AAII says in its beginning investor series, “Stocks are more volatile than bonds, but have historically provided higher long-term returns.” Historical data supports this. It is hard to find a 30-year period, ever, that stocks have not outperformed bonds. But at shorter timeframes, stocks are considered riskier because of their price volatility. Thus the conventional wisdom is that the way to make your portfolio safer as you approach (or are in) retirement is by switching from stocks to bonds in your overall allocation.
As I stated in the last article, the problem I have with that thinking is that (1) it presumes that all retirement income will come from selling off assets, and (2) it ignores the fact that some stocks generate income themselves.
In the two AAII articles, there is not a single mention of dividend stocks as a separate asset class that may have different risk characteristics from all stocks as a class or bonds as a class. There is not even a suggestion that they might form a different category of stocks. The omission is puzzling, because stocks are traditionally sliced and diced into so many categories that supposedly offer different risk/reward profiles within the broad classification of “stocks.” Thus you get categories like U.S. Large-cap, Mid-cap, Small-cap; Foreign stocks, often nowadays themselves divided by size, country or region of the globe; Emerging markets; Value vs. Growth; and so on. But the simplest, most obvious categorization of all—do they pay a dividend?—is ignored.
It’s an important distinction. Dividend-paying stocks tend to move less (in both directions) than the market, meaning that they have a different risk/reward profile. Their dividends yield positive income even when their prices are falling. The companies that raise their dividends regularly tend to keep doing so even when the market as a whole is falling. The dividends themselves, being always positive (there is no such thing as a negative dividend), change the risk/reward profile. And studies show that the best overall returns come from dividend-raising stocks.
So the question begs to be asked: If the goal of a retirement nest egg is to provide its owner with sufficient income in retirement, and some stocks provide rising income streams by their very nature without the necessity of selling them, then why are those facts ignored in conventional retirement planning? Why are they ignored in asset allocation discussions?
It is certainly a paradigm shift to think of dividend stocks as a separate asset class, but for purposes of this article, that’s just what I am going to do. Here’s why: Traditional methods of classifying assets divide them into three major realms: Stocks, bonds, and cash. Stocks are evaluated on their prices; and bonds are evaluated on their yields. But dividend stocks have both characteristics: Their prices vary (but in a more muted fashion) with stocks generally. And their yields provide income, but with a growth kicker that most bonds don’t have—dividend-growth stocks are rising income instruments rather than fixed income investments. (In some texts, you will see the phrase “fixed-income investment” used interchangeably with “bond.”)
It’s almost like MPT has a huge hole in it. It does not miss the obvious income-producing ability of bonds—after all, that’s what a bond is, a debt instrument. The income it produces is interest on the money lent. MPT does not miss the price-appreciation potential of stocks, nor the short-term volatility they have displayed over the years. So why does MPT miss the income-producing ability of dividend stocks, the rising income-producing ability of habitual dividend-raisers like the Dividend Champions, or the muted price volatility that is characteristic of dividend stocks?
I cannot answer that question. But my conclusion is that for those who get it, dividend stocks, especially dividend-growth stocks, should not be lumped in with all stocks when it comes to making asset allocation decisions. A retiree’s portfolio can safely contain a higher percentage of dividend stocks than is normally associated with the low level of risk tolerance of a retiree. And the reason that is true is precisely because the dividend stocks throw off a continuing income stream and do not have to be sold to produce retirement income. Thus, maintaining a fairly high percentage of your retirement portfolio in well-selected dividend stocks is not too aggressive or risky for a retiree. It is safer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
