Showing posts with label equity investing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equity investing. Show all posts

Friday 17 December 2010

UK: Investors told forget savings accounts, think of shares

Investors told forget savings accounts, think of shares

Britain's 38 million savers have been urged to invest their money in the stock market after being warned that for many of them it is now a "waste of time" putting their cash into a savings account.


The FTSE 100 is yielding a better rate of return than most savings accounts Photo: AFP

By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor, and Garry White 10:00PM GMT 14 Dec 2010

The warning came after official figures indicated that the cost of living had increased once again in November, making it nearly impossible to earn a real rate of return on any bank or building society savings product.

As the London stock market closed at a two-and-a-half-year high, experts said that for many savers taking the risk of abandoning a deposit account and placing it in a high-yielding collection of shares was a more sensible option.

The dearth of decent savings products was laid bare by figures from the personal finance website Moneyfacts which showed that there were just three accounts – out of a total of 2,203 on the market – that paid a real rate of return, and only one for higher-rate taxpayers.

Darius McDermott, the managing director of Chelsea Financial Services, an independent financial adviser, said: "The simple fact is if you have £1 and you invest in cash, you will lose out once you take into account tax and inflation. Most savings accounts are just a waste of time.

"But if you put that £1 into to a good high-yielding fund you will make a return. Of course your capital could increase or it could fall. That's the risk, but I would put my £1 into equities every single time."

RELATED ARTICLES



The Consumer Prices Index climbed from 3.2 per cent to 3.3 per cent, the Office for National Statistics said, while inflation, as measured by the Retail Prices Index jumped from 4.5 per cent in March to 4.7 per cent in November. The RPI is widely accepted as the truest measure of the cost of living because it includes housing costs.

A sharp jump in the price of clothing and food was blamed, taking economists by surprise, many of whom expected many retailers to cut prices in the run up to Christmas. There are fears inflation will carry on climbing next year because of the incresase in VAT from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent and higher gas and electricity bills.

Just one account, an Independent Savings Account from Santander, can beat the RPI level of 4.7 per cent, offering a return of 5.5 per cent, but this is only for customers prepared to adhere to strict conditions.

Just two further bonds – a type of fixed-term savings product – offered by the Yorkshire Building Society and Barnsley Building Society offered a real rate of return for basic rate taxpayers, with a rate of 6 per cent.

Two months ago Which?, the consumer watchdog, calculated that the average saver in Britain is missing out on as much as £322 a year because of "pitiful interest" paid by the majority of accounts.

For any investor prepared to take a risk on their capital, the stock market looked a far better option, many experts said.

Mark Dampier, head of research at stockbroker Hargreaves Lansdowne, said: “You need to keep emergency money in the bank, but it’s self-evident that UK income funds are yielding more than bank accounts and these funds look good value at the moment. I am upbeat on prospects for the stock market.”
The yield on the FTSE 100 index of leading shares – the annual rate of return that investors can receive in the form of dividend payments – is 2.9 per cent, with many individual blue chips paying a far higher rate. For example, shares in oil giant Royal Dutch Shell are currently providing a yield of 5.1 per cent, with insurance giant Aviva yielding 6.2 per cent.

If the shares are held in an Individual Savings Account, the income is almost entirely tax-free.

Mr McDermott said: "Savers have to face the truth at the moment. If they have built up a pool of capital over their lifetime and they want to live off the income, putting it cash is the wrong decision."

Last night the FTSE 100 index closed up 30.36 at 5,891.21, the highest level for two and half years, as investors good economic data from America, raising hopes the world's largest economy might avoid a double-dip recession.

Many experts, however, warned that the rising levels of inflation would eat into consumers' disposable income making it far harder to put money aside as savings, be it a bank account or in shares.

The average family will be more than £300 worse off next year, even after receiving a pay rise, because of the impact of rising inflation, a surge in energy bills and a jump in VAT, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), a think tank.

However, even allowing for a 2.4 per cent pay rise, they will have only £176 to spare each week from January 2011 due to the rising cost of living, the CEBR says, down from £182 at the start of this year. The difference equates to shortfall of £312 a year.

This means that over the course of the year families will be £312 a year worse off, even though the recession has ended and experts forecast the economy to grow steadily.

Official data from the Bank of England has already indicated that savers are putting less money aside each month. The so-called savings ratio – a measure of what proportion of a family's monthly income they save – has fallen from 7.7 per cent a year ago to just 3.2 per cent.

Victoria Mayo, spokesperson for Moneyfacts, said: "Inflation continues to antagonise prudent savers who are already struggling to achieve a competitive return on their money.

"Those who rely on their savings to supplement their income have been hardest hit, many of whom are pensioners."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/8202251/Investors-told-forget-savings-accounts-think-of-shares.html

Is it time to take a chance on shares?

Is it time to take a chance on shares?

With the banks offering pitifully low interest rates, more investors are switching their attention to the stock market, says Ian Cowie.

F&C dropped out of the FTSE 250 earlier this year Photo: AFP

By Ian Cowie 8:27PM GMT 15 Dec 2010

Most people regard inflation as a bad thing, and many may be puzzled about why the stock market is hitting new highs at the same time that inflation is accelerating. The explanation is that while inflation robs savers in bank and building society deposits by reducing the real value or purchasing power of the money they set aside, investors in shares can point to more than a century of evidence that this way of storing wealth can cope with rising inflation by increasing dividends and capital growth.

Savers have good reason to resent being punished for their thrift. Some may feel even worse when they realise that the Government is one of the beneficiaries of inflation, because it not only reduces the real value of savings but also of debts – and the Government is the biggest debtor in Britain.

With a massive deficit in public finances, gradually debauching the currency appears to offer a relatively painless way to float off the rocks of debt. Pensioners are less likely to protest about the stealthy erosion of their savings than younger people are to riot about reduced state handouts or higher interest rates. The problem is that trying to have a little bit of inflation is like trying to get a little bit pregnant; things soon get out of hand.

For example, just over a year ago – in October 2009 – the Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation was actually negative. The annual rate of change was minus 0.8 per cent and had been minus 1.4 per cent the month before. By contrast, the RPI is now rising at 4.7 per cent.

If that sounds like small beer compared with inflation seen in the 1970s, then beware: even today's rate of erosion would be enough to halve the purchasing power of money in little more than 15 years. That's much less than the 22 years and six months the average man can now expect to spend in retirement, according to the Office for National Statistics. Or the 24 years and eight months that awaits the average woman at retirement. So there is nothing theoretical about the problem inflation presents to pensioners.


RELATED ARTICLES


Worse still, the Government plans to reduce the indexation – or statutory protection against inflation – that pensioners receive in future. From next April, all public sector pensions will be uprated in line with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI). This produces a lower measure of inflation by excluding mortgage costs and council tax and is currently rising at 3.3 per cent. From April 2012, the Basic State Pension will also switch to CPI.

Cynics argue that rising inflation should come as no surprise, since the Government's main tool for fighting the global credit crunch has been quantitative easing – akin to printing more money. The signs were also there when the Bank of England switched most of its staff pension fund into index-linked or inflation-proofed government gilt-edged stock, as reported by the Telegraph in April last year. And when National Savings & Investments abruptly ceased selling index-linked certificates in July, that removed the only risk-free way for individuals to protect their savings from inflation. Talk about taking the umbrella away, just as it started to rain.

Fortunately, history offers some comfort for those willing to accept varying degrees of risk in order to preserve the purchasing power of their money. According to Barclays Capital, shares reflecting the broad composition of the London Stock Exchange have provided greater real returns than deposits over three quarters of the periods of five consecutive years since 1899. Shares also beat fixed-interest bonds in 75 per cent of all those five-year periods during a century which, remember, included the Great Depression and two World Wars.

While the past is not a guide to the future, the historical evidence shows that the probability of shares doing better than bonds and deposits increased over longer periods. For example, over all the 10-year periods, shares delivered higher returns than deposits 92 per cent of the time, and beat bonds 80 per cent of the time. But shorter term stock market speculators took bigger risks – for example, deposits did better than shares in a third of the periods of two consecutive years.

Against all that, perennial pessimism remains the easiest way to simulate wisdom about stock markets. That's why many experts have been calling the top of this market all the way up. Despite having missed the start of this bull run, they argue that shares are now too high – even though they do not look expensive on some tried-and-tested means of assessing value. The average price of the shares that constitute the FTSE 100 index is now 12 times their average earnings per share. By contrast, the same price/earnings ratio exceeded 31 by the time the FTSE hit its all-time peak of 6,930 in December 1999.

More importantly for income-seeking savers, the average yield – or the dividends paid by shares expressed as a percentage of their price – is now slightly above 3 per cent. But, when prices soared to unsustainable levels a decade ago, the yield on the FTSE 100 slumped to less than 2 per cent.

It's worth stressing that the yield on shares is quoted net of basic rate tax, so 3 per cent net is even more attractive than it may at first appear by comparison with bank deposits, which are quoted before tax. The FTSE 100 yield is also six times Bank of England base rate and, while returns on deposits remain frozen and inflation continues to rise, there is every chance that the FTSE 100 could hit 6,000 soon.

If that sounds far-fetched, here's what I wrote in The Daily Telegraph in August 2009, while the index still languished below 5,000: "After all the worldly-wise men's warnings of a double-dip recession, it should be no surprise to see the FTSE 100 soar. If anything, the continued consensus among most market observers that this remarkable rally has 'gone too far, too fast' should boost our hopes the index will breach 5,000 soon.
"The reason is that economies tend to grow over time and shareholders own the companies that create this wealth. So, medium to long-term savers – like those of us saving toward paying off the mortgage or funding retirement – need not worry too much if share prices fall next month. That might be a problem for fund managers, who must answer to a board of directors every few weeks, and an opportunity for the rest of us.

"Finally, it is worth considering the personal anxiety of many professionals who are now 'short of the market' or holding cash rather than shares. They can only afford to sit and watch prices rise for so long before they feel compelled to join the fun and keep their jobs."

Shares and share-based funds are not as cheap as they were in August last year. But, as more people have come to feel that the credit crunch is not the end of the world after all, the penny has dropped and inflows of capital from bank deposits into the stock market have pushed prices up.

That raises the risk that buyers today could lose money if prices fall. This is a real danger with shares, which means nobody should invest cash they cannot afford to lose in the stock market – and, as mentioned earlier, the shorter your time horizon, the bigger the risks.

Two ways to diminish these risks are to commit funds for five years or more and to diversify.

By contrast, frozen interest rates and rising inflation mean most supposedly risk-free bank and building society deposits are now a certain way to lose money slowly.

There is little point saving if returns fail to match the rate at which inflation erodes the purchasing power of money. So, while shares and share-based funds offer no capital guarantee, rising numbers of people who must live off their savings or use them to supplement pensions should consider some long-term exposure to shares and share-based funds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/iancowie/8204914/Is-it-time-to-take-a-chance-on-shares.html

Sunday 14 November 2010

Why I'm with Warren Buffett on bonds versus equities

Follow the herd or follow Warren Buffett? That sounds like it should be a pretty simple choice for most investors given the average investor's consistent ability to buy and sell at the wrong time and the sage of Omaha's ranking as one of the world's richest men.



Curious then that Mr Buffett is doing a passable imitation of Cassandra – she who was cursed so that she could foretell the future but no one would ever believe her.
Here's Buffett, speaking last week to Fortune magazine's Most Powerful Women Summit: "It's quite clear that stocks are cheaper than bonds. I can't imagine anyone having bonds in their portfolio when they can have equities ... but people do because they lack the confidence."
And here's what everyone else is doing. According to Morgan Stanley, the speed of inflows to bond funds is even greater than retail inflows into equity funds at the height of the technology bubble in 2000 – $410bn (£256bn) in the 12 months to April 2010 in the US versus $340bn into equities in the year to September 2000.
Over here, too, investors can't get enough fixed income. According to the Investment Management Association, net sales of global bonds and corporate bonds both exceeded £600m during August. Only absolute return funds were anywhere close to these inflows. The staple British equity fund sector, UK All Companies, saw £291m of redemptions and even the previously popular Asia ex-Japan sector raised a paltry £22m.
So, is this a bubble waiting to burst or a logical investment choice in a deflationary world where interest rates could stay lower for longer as governments adopt more desperate strategies to prevent another slump?
The case for bond prices staying high has received a boost in recent weeks as speculation has grown that the US government is contemplating a second round of quantitative easing. Printing yet more money to buy bonds creates a buyer of last resort and would underpin the price of Treasuries even at today's elevated levels.
Indeed, the talk on Wall Street has turned to a measure the US government has not employed since the Second World War when a target yield for government securities was set with the implied promise that the authorities would buy up whatever they needed to keep the cost of money low.
Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, referred to this policy in his famous "Helicopter Ben" speech of 2002 when he reminded financial markets of the US government's ultimate weapon in the fight against deflation – the printing press. It really is no wonder that the price of gold is on a tear.
For a few reasons, however, I'm not convinced that the theoretical possibility that interest rates could go yet lower Ã  la Japan makes a good argument for buying bonds at today's levels.
First, to return to fund flows, extremes of buying have in the past been a very good contrarian indicator of future performance. Equity flows represented around 4pc of total assets in 2000 just as the bubble was bursting. At the same time, there were very significant outflows from bond funds just ahead of a strong bond market rally.
My second reason for caution is illustrated by the chart, which shows how little reward investors are receiving for lending money to the US government (and the UK, German or Japanese governments for that matter). Accepting this kind of yield makes sense only if you believe the US economy is fatally wounded and that the dragon of inflation has been slain. I don't believe in either thesis.
History shows very clearly that investing in bonds when the starting yield is this low has resulted in well-below-average returns if and when rates start to rise. Between 1941 and 1981, when interest rates last rose for an extended period, the total return from bonds was two and a half times lower when the starting point was a yield of under 3pc than when it started above this level. Investing when yields are low stacks the odds against you.
My final reason for caution is that there is no need to put all your eggs in the bond basket. Around a quarter of FTSE 100 shares are yielding more than 4pc while the income from gilts is less than 3pc. More income and the potential for it to rise over time too. I'm with Warren on this one.
Tom Stevenson is an investment director at Fidelity Investment Managers. The views expressed are his own.

Tuesday 12 October 2010

Dive back into the market

By Michael Laurence from smartcompany.com.au

It's not too late! That's the key message for cashed-up investors who feel like a deer caught in the headlights and cannot make up their minds whether to re-enter the sharemarket.

On the surface, this may seem a tough call given the S&P/ASX200 has risen more than 60% from its bear market low almost exactly 12 months ago to reach its highest point for 18 months.

And yesterday, the market burst through the 5,000-point barrier – a key psychological marker in its extraordinary comeback.

The bottom-line is that investors have powerful reasons to believe the market will keep rising for some years, and they shouldn't overly focus on returns forfeited to date if they were out of the market.

As Prasad Patkar, portfolio manager for Platypus Asset Management, realistically says: "The quick bucks have been made". No longer are "companies priced to fail which we knew weren't going to fail."

But Patkar believes there is a solid case for cashed-up investors to re-enter the market now – provided they are investing for the long-term and not chasing quick, easy money.

The strongest corporate reporting season for years and expectations for rising profits on the back of improving local and global economies suggest to many market professionals that shares are in the early stages of an extended bull market. Further, companies are enjoying the rewards of sharp cost-cutting during the GFC.

David Cassidy, chief equity strategist for UBS, has a simple message for cashed-up investors who are thinking about re-entering the market: "Equities are still moderately undervalued. Valuations still look quite reasonable – particularly on forward earnings."

Cassidy expects the market to reach 5,500 by the end of the 2010 calendar year. And he believes that inevitable market dips in this volatile market will produce good buying opportunities for investors who are ready to jump.

Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy and chief economist for AMP Capital Investors, says to cashed-up investors who can't make up their minds whether to now re-enter the market: "My view is that the market is still heading higher [but] with more moderate gains." His year-end target for the S&P/ASX200 is 5,600.

"If history is any guide, there is much more upside to come and we are nowhere near the peaks," Oliver adds. He points out that the average cyclical bull market in Australian shares lasts four years and produces gains of 132%. "But so far we have only seen a portion of that."

While Oliver says shares are no longer trading at "dirt cheap" prices, they are not expensive. Their price/earnings multiples (P/E) are still below their long-term average of 14 times. And he expects that corporate earnings will rise by 20% over the next 12 months.

Oliver says AMP Capital Investor's figures for its investors show that there are "lots and lots" of people who moved into cash during the bear market and are still in cash today.

Prasad Patkar's "gut feeling" is that the market will be higher in 12 months time. But over the next two months, he expects the market to move between 4,500 and 5,000 until the world economic outlook becomes clear.

Ideally, the best time to buy would have been 13 months ago before the market sprung back into life. But investors rarely manage to correctly time the market – picking the best time to buy or sell – and attempting to do so usually results in losing money.

Perhaps keep in the back of your mind for the next market downturn that you will pay a high price for missing the sharpest rebound in share prices which usually occurs in first year of a market's recovery.

Here are five tips for moving cash back into the market:

1. Drip-feed your purchases: Don't put all of your cash back into the market at one time – invest progressively in equal proportions every month or quarter, over perhaps 12 months. This will reduce the possibility of investing shortly before an abrupt fall in prices. And you will average-out your buying costs.

2. Buy in market dips: This volatile market will inevitably produce dips in prices. Cassidy and Oliver say this is a time to buy.

Oliver suggests that a strategy is for investors who are drip-feeding their way back into the market – as discussed in strategy one – is to progressively buy more stock during market dips.

3. Keep gearing at cautious levels: Reserve Bank statistics show the outstanding debt on margin share loans is on the rise again – after falling from a record high to a long-time low in the GFC fallout.

A particular danger now is getting carried away with market optimism and taking excessive debt, which caught out numerous investors during the bear market.

4. Consider mixing an index fund and direct-share strategy: Among the biggest beneficiaries of the market rebound to date, have been investors in low-cost, market-tracking index funds.

But with the highest gains from this recovery surely behind us, more investors may decide to use the strategy of investing in both index funds to replicate a chosen market and carefully-selected direct shares and/or actively-managed share funds.

In Patkar's view, this a stockpicker's market after the extraordinary gains with particular opportunities for investors who are highly selective. (Platypus Asset Management is an active funds manager.)

One of the risks with stockpicking of course is selecting duds yourself – or not having a professional adviser or fund which succeeds in its stockpicking.

Cashed-up investors wanting to re-enter this market could consider using an index fund as the core of their share portfolios and direct shares/and or actively-managed funds as "satellites". The performance of your widely-diversified core portfolio should mirror the market.

This core/satellite approach is a safer way of re-entering the market than relying on a small number of selected shares. This would be particularly the case for inexperienced investors who are uncertain about where to invest.

Many more investors are turning to low-cost exchange traded funds (ETFs) that track a chosen market such as the S&P/ASX300 as the core of their portfolios. ASX figures show the market capitalisation of exchange traded funds listed on the local market rose by 150% in the 12 months to March 31.

5. Look to potentially winning sectors for direct-share component of your portfolio: Market professionals believe that certain sharemarket sectors will standout at this stage of the recovery. Here are a few suggestions of Cassidy, Patkar and Oliver.

Oliver: "We are very positive in resources given the China growth story." He expects resource company earnings to rapidly increase. And he also points to the consumer discretionary sector such as electronic retailers (which should benefit from increasing employment and household wealth); airlines (with the stronger Australian dollar keeping fuel prices down and rising passenger numbers); and telcos (given share prices have fallen so much).

Cassidy: Sectors that he is "comfortable" with include mining, mining services, banking and media.

Patkar: "Health care is an outstanding source of out-performance, depending on the dollar." He specifically includes Sonic Healthcare, Cochlear and ResMed. Patkar also points to consumer discretionary (naming JB HiFi and David Jones, praising their business models); and banks ("powered through crisis" and should reverse bad-debt position over next 18 months or so).

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1043390

Tuesday 5 October 2010

What's your naked position?

By Allison Tait
March, 2007

Money talks, so they say, but how much finance-speak sounds like double Dutch to you? Here, we define 20 common terms you'll hear in relation to money.

Actuary: think uber-accountant. An actuary makes calculations and valuations in relation to insurance funds, super funds and other investments, using mathematical, statistical, economic and financial analysis. The emphasis is on the long-term stuff in financial contracts, such as how much risk is involved.

Asset: things you own that have value. This could be cash, property, equipment …

All Ordinaries Index: they talk about it every day on the news, but do you actually know what it is? Basically, it's the overall measure of the daily performance of the Australian share market based on the weighted share prices of around 500 of the nation's biggest companies.

Bear market: it sounds cute, but it's actually not great — it's a share market in which prices are going down.

Blue chip: the basis of a great, long-term share portfolio. Blue chip is a term for the shares of leading companies, where management is excellent and the foundations are strong.

Bond: effectively a loan to a company. Corporations and governments issue bonds as debt security, in return for cash from lenders and investors. A bond holder lends money to the issuer for a set term, in return for interest.

Bull market: nothing to do with running with bulls in Spain … rather, it's a share market in which prices are on the rise.

Capital growth: the difference between what you paid for an investment (such as a house) and what you can sell it for, if it's increased in value.

Cash management trust: this may be for you if you're interested in investing but don't have a lot of cash. By pooling the funds of many investors, the trust can buy large volumes of short-dated securities, decreasing transaction costs and resulting in higher returns to trust members. A flexible investment option.

Deductible: a beautiful word come tax time. Refers to expenses that can be offset against taxable income — contributions to superannuation funds, for example.

Depreciation: it sounds like a negative, but can have a positive effect on your tax liabilities. Depreciation recognises that assets tend to lose value as they age, so the cost of the asset is written down over the life of that asset. Considered a non-cash business expense, it can generally be offset against taxable income.

Dividend: the amount a shareholder receives out of a company's after-tax earnings. You can either take the money and run or reinvest your dividends back into the company in the form of more shares.

Equity: there's been a lot of talk about this in recent years as people realise how much money they have tied up in their homes. Basically, it's the value an owner has in an asset (in this case, a house) over and above the debt against it. Take the amount your house is worth, subtract the amount you still owe the bank and what's left over is the equity.

Gearing: a measure of just how in debt you are. How much you've borrowed compared with the assets you hold.

Hedge fund: sounds green and clean, doesn't it? It's actually an investment portfolio, under which the fund manager has the authority to use higher-risk investment techniques, including borrowing funds, to generate higher returns. Not for the faint-hearted.

Market order: "Buy, buy, buy" or "sell, sell, sell". A share will be bought or sold at the most advantageous price available after a market order hits the trading floor.

Property trust: If you're interested in property investment but don't want to put all your eggs in one henhouse, so to speak, this may be for you. It's a collective investment vehicle with ownership of a portfolio of real property, so spreading the ownership. You can buy into a listed property trust (quoted on the stock exchange, prices fluctuate with supply and demand) or an unlisted property trust (arranged directly with the trust's manager, who fixes the prices).

Share (stock): buy a share and you own part of the company — albeit a very small part. A share is essentially a contract between the company of issue and the owner, giving the latter an interest in how the company is managed, the right to share in profits and, if it all goes pear-shaped and the company is dissolved, a claim upon assets remaining once the debts have been paid. Stock is a generic term for shares and, less frequently, bonds.

TFN: otherwise known as tax file number. Every taxpayer in Australia is allocated one by the Australian Tax Office, which then uses it to match income and taxation details.

Yield: how much you make on an investment (the return), usually expressed as a percentage.

*Naked position: oh yes. Make that 21. This is actually not that common in general usage, so we'll leave the definition to the expert: namely, Edna Carew in her book The Language of Money (Allen & Unwin).

"A naked position is also known as a naked option. An option whose writer has not hedged, for example, a writer of call options over shares who has sold the right to buy the underlying shares but who does not own them or the writer of a put option over shares who has sold the right to sell the shares (to the writer); if the holder chooses to exercise the option, the uncovered writer will be obliged to buy the shares at an exercise price which will be a higher-than-market price (otherwise the holder of the option would not exercise). Naked options are high-risk and can involve large losses for the writer."

Hmmm...sounded a lot sexier when you didn't know, right?

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=256795

Thursday 16 September 2010

Unfunded Liabilities And Cheap Stocks

Unfunded Liabilities And Cheap Stocks
Brian S. Wesbury and Robert Stein 09.15.10, 6:00 AM ET

Despite cries of "uncertainty" that reverberate through the financial markets, U.S. equities remain grossly undervalued. Risk premiums are exceedingly high. Too high!

In total, S&P 500 companies reported after-tax annualized earnings of $716 billion in the second quarter and had a market capitalization of $9.3 trillion. In other words, for every $100 in market value, the companies in the S&P 500 were generating $7.70 in after-tax profits--an "earnings yield" of 7.7%.

Comparing that earnings yield to the 10-year Treasury yield (currently 2.8%) reveals a gap of nearly five percentage points, the largest such gap since the late 1970s. And with profits expected to continue their upward climb, this gap is highly likely to increase even more in the next few quarters.

Relative to bonds, stocks are undervalued by a considerable margin. So what's holding investors back? Why are bond flows continuing to outpace equity flows?

One reason is fear of government spending. Current deficits and future deficits related to Social Security and Medicare are one reason. Every dollar the government spends must eventually be paid for by taxpayers. If these higher future taxes confiscate enough corporate profits, then the market will reflect that fact today with lower prices. So is the market discounting these costs accurately? Let's crunch the numbers.

The Trustees report for Social Security and Medicare estimates the present value of all unfunded entitlement benefits are roughly $50 trillion. On the same present value basis, this is equal to 3.8% of future GDP. In other words, rather than taxing 19% of GDP (as the Congressional Budget Office predicts for 2012-'13), total tax revenue would need to climb to 22.8% of GDP--an increase in tax revenues of 20% from everyone and everything that the federal government already taxes. In other words, a 10% tax rate will need to rise to 12%.

Of course everyone realizes that a 20% tax hike would never generate 20% more revenue. A dynamic model would forecast slower economic growth and more unemployment if the government hiked taxes by this much. This is why some are advocating benefit cuts. But, for our purpose here (analyzing the impact of paying for unfunded liabilities) we assume tax hikes are the only method used.

A 20% increase in corporate taxes as well as taxes on capital gains and dividends, would reduce total returns to shareholders by roughly 11%. This would reduce the earnings yield (currently 7.7%) to about 6.9%--more than 4 percentage points above current 10-year Treasury yields.

Don't take this the wrong way. We are certainly not advocating a massive tax hike to fix Social Security and Medicare. Raising tax rates will hurt the economy. Moving to private accounts would be our preferred solution. But the current level of fear about the costs of fixing these entitlement problems is out of proportion to reality. Things are far from perfect, but the stock market is grossly undervalued.

Brian S. Wesbury is chief economist and Robert Stein senior economist at First Trust Advisors in Wheaton, Ill. They write a weekly column for Forbes. Wesbury is the author of It's Not As Bad As You Think: Why Capitalism Trumps Fear and the Economy Will Thrive.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/14/equities-stocks-investing-opinions-columnists-brian-wesbury-robert-stein.html?partner=popstories

Tuesday 14 September 2010

Why History Says Stocks Are the Best Buy Right Now


One persuasive argument for why stocks are a better buy than bonds today is that, for the first time in over half a century, the Dow Jones's dividend yield exceeds the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds.
There's really only one way to justify this: panic-driven fear over deflation that could make the Great Depression look like a sissy. The market is saying, and saying loudly, that dividend payouts are going to be butchered over the next 10 years. By a lot. Unless you think this is likely -- and if you do, bask in your bond bubble -- there's practically no way to justify the current divergence between dividend and bond yields.
Or is there? One popular argument making the rounds comes from a group who says the past 50-some-odd years of bonds yielding more than stocks was the anomaly, not the current reversal. Their evidence seems bulletproof: Before the 1950s, stocks almost always yielded more than bonds. And shouldn't they? Stocks have a nasty tendency of blowing up, and stockholders stand second in line to bondholders, so investors are right to demand extra yield. Only from the 1950s to circa-2009 was this view thrown out the window.
If you think of markets from this historical perspective, the implications are grim. Perhaps the past 50 to 60 years was one giant equity bubble that's now fraying at the seams. Perhaps we've been fooling ourselves for generations, glued to a cult mentality that says stocks are forever and always superior to bonds, amen. With that cult dying bit by bit, perhaps we're headed back to the pre-1950s days when stocks consistently out-yielded bonds. Woe is our future, basically. That's the argument I've been hearing a lot lately.
But there's a major flaw in it. And it's a simple one: To accurately compare dividend yields over time, you have to assume that dividend payouts as a percentage of net income stay the same. But that's not even close to how history has played out.
In the 1973 version of his classic book The Intelligent Investor, Ben Graham -- Warren Buffett's early mentor -- notes an important shift:
Years ago it was typically the weak company that was more of less forced to hold on to its profits, instead of paying out the usual 60% to 75% of them in dividends. The effect was almost always adverse to the market price of the shares. Nowadays it is quite likely to be a strong and growing enterprise that deliberately keeps down its dividend payments ...
His point, of course, was that dividend payouts as a percentage of net income were falling. And that's exactly what happened. From 1920-1950, the average S&P 500 company paid out 72% of net income in the form of dividends. From 1950-2010, that number dropped to 51%. From 1990-2007, the average was 45%. Over the past year, it's down to 33%. Today, some of the most profitable and fastest-growing companies -- including Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL), Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), and Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO) -- pay no dividends at all. The slow-growers -- like Altria (NYSE: MO), Verizon (NYSE: VZ) and Consolidated Edison (NYSE: ED) -- are where you find yield. That was unheard of 60 years ago.
More than anything, this explains why stocks consistently out-yielded bonds before 1950. Back then, stocks were essentially just high-yield bonds with variable-rate coupons. Today, companies tend to hoard net income to finance growth, acquisitions, and buybacks. It's inane to compare the two periods without adjusting for that paradigm shift.
What happens when you do? Well, if you model the past to assume that S&P companies have always paid out 33% of net income as dividends, like they do today, then prolonged periods of stocks out-yielding bonds become incredibly rare. There would have been only two such periods in modern history: from 1940-1944, and 1947-1955.
And what's neat about these two periods? They were both phenomenal times to buy stocks. In the 10 years after 1944, stocks surged 161%. In the 10 years following 1955, investors were rewarded with a 145% return -- and both figures don't include dividends.
History is pretty clear on this stuff: When stocks out-yield bonds, it's a great time to buy them. Some patience may be required, but the rewards for those patient few are invariably awesome. Today, with the average large-cap stock out-yielding Treasuries, there's little reason to think patient investors won't be rewarded like champions 10 years from now.
Ben Graham gets the last word: "The market price is frequently out of line with the true value. There is, however, an inherent tendency for these disparities to correct themselves."

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/09/10/why-history-says-stocks-are-the-best-buy-right-now.aspx?source=ihpdspmra0000001&lidx=2

Tuesday 2 February 2010

Reviewing the basics of investing in equities

Although investing in equities is risky, it is a sure way to beat inflation - especially if
  • you are patient and
  • have a long time horizon.

Five important don'ts when you want to buy shares

Mistakes to avoid when you invest in equities

Do not buy on tips or rumours.  Consult someone who has long experience of equity investment.

Do not buy with borrowed money.

Do not buy shares in boom times when everybody is buying and sell in bust times when everybody is selling.  Or put differently:  do not buy when shares are at a high and sell when they are at a low - you will make a loss!

Do not invest in a share that has been in the spotlight recently - the price might already have been driven up significantly.

Do not buy a share just because the price has dropped substantially and you think it is a bargain.  There might be sound reasons why it has dropped.

Two important strategies to help you avoid large losses: STOP LOSSES and REBALANCING

Stop losses and rebalancing are strategies to help you avoid large losses when you invest in equities.

Stop-loss strategy

A stop loss is a specified minimum price at which you will sell a particular share in order to stop the loss.  This is a good strategy with which to protect yourself against large capital losses.  You decide on a percentage loss that you are prepared to take on your investment, and sell when it reaches that percentage.  Stop losses are implemented when the buying of shares (normally not unit trusts) takes place, i.e. an instruction is given by the investor to the stockbroker to buy 1000 shares in XYZ at, say $10,00 and to implement a stop loss at, say $9,00 (the investor perceives XYZ to be a somewhat risky proposition).  The investor has done his sums and comes to the conclusion that the maximum loss he can bear is $1000, hence he limits his potential losses to $1000 by implementing a stop-loss strategy ($1000 divided by 1000 shares = $1.00 per share; $10.00 per share - $1.00 per share = a stop-loss level of $9.00)


Rebalancing

This strategy is best explained by an example.  Following the analysis of your investment profile (time horizon, risk tolerance, and investment objectives), you decide to invest 50% of an amount of $1000 in equities and 50% in other asset classes, such as bonds and cash.

Assume that after a year your equities have decreased to $400 and your other investmens have increased to $800.  This means your original $1000 portfolio is now worth $1200.

Rebalancing means that you adjust your portfolio constituents to get back to a point where half is again invested in equities and half in bonds and cash.  You will therefore have to sell some bonds and buy some equities.  This is an important strategy to keep your portfolio diversified and in line with your time horizon, risk appetite and investment objectives.

Costs of a standard equity transaction

The cost of a standard equity transaction is made up of:
  • a stockbrokers's fee,
  • taxes,
  • a levy for the adminsitrative cost of the electronic settlement system,
  • insider trading levy and
  • other compulsory administrative charges.

Brokerage

Your broker could charge you a percentage of the value of your trade, depending on the size of the trade and the nature of the service required.
  • All brokers charge a minimum per deal, even if your order is very small.
  • If your investment is too small, the charges could dilute your returns considerably.  Your investment would need to deliver sizeable returns before expenses are recovered. 

The stock market provides a market for setting prices based on supply and demand

More about the stock market

The stock market provides a market for dealing in listed shares, and for setting prices based on supply and demand.

It is for this reason that prices of equities fluctuate.

Just as in any open market, prices will go up if there are more buyers than sellers and vice versa.

Most of the buying and selling occurs electronically today.

The performance of the stock market is often gauged by the performance of an important index.  An index reflects the performance of a grouping of shares. 

The best known index in the world is the Morgan Stanley Capital Internation (MSCI) Index, which represents the biggest shares in the world based on market capitalization.  When the prices of these shares dip, the index will also go down, and vice versa.

For each country, the main index consists of the biggest shares based on market capitalization.  There are also other sub-indices (financials, industrials, mining, etc.).  Each of these indices represents a certain grouping of shares based on their market capitalisation.

Listed and Unlisted companies.

You can hold shares in companies that are
  • listed on the stock market or
  • in unlisted companies. 
The bulk of equity investments are in listed shares. 
  • Companies list on a stock exchange in order to gain access to more capital, and
  • they must comply with stringent criteria set by the stock exchange to protect investors.

Be very careful when you invest in unlisted shares. 
  • Unlike the listed companies, the unlisted companies are not scrutinised that closely. 
  • Shares in unlisted companies therefore carry a bigger risk and
  • are also much more difficult to sell as there is no open market.

Inflation is your ultimate enemy. Your other enemy: IMPATIENCE

Inflation is your ultimate enemy.  But impatience can be an even worse enemy when it comes to equity investing.

The important thing when you invest in equities is time.

Over the long term - 10, 20, 30 years of longer - equities offer you the best chance to generate returns that will beat inflation. 

To buy equities only to keep them for a short while is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

You therefore have to be aware of
  • your time horizon and
  • your risk appetite
when you decide to invest in equities.

You should be aware that huge fluctuations can occur and that the portion of your equity holdings should decrease the closer you get to retirement.

Equities carry the highest risk. Why, then, invest in equities?

You can also make a lot of money investing in equities.

During the long term, US stocks gave a historical compound annual return of 11% to its investors.  During the period January 1960 to December 2000, you could have earned a compound after tax return of 16.9% a year on your shares on the South African stock market.

Equities are one of the few asset classes that give you a real chance to fight inflation over the longer term.

The reason for this lies in the nature of equities.  Equities are investments that give you part-ownership in a company.

Companies issue shares because they need money (or capital) to expand. 
  • When you buy shares, you own part of the company, including its assets. 
  • That explains why, although the value of money decreases with inflation, your investment in a good company can increase as the company grows and the value of its assets increases. 

Note that we say a 'good' company
  • Not all companies are good companies and not all share prices will increase over time, simply because not all companies will expand and grow. 
  • That is why it is important to be clever when you make equity investments.

Besides your share in a company's capital (i.e. its assets less its liabilities), you can also share in its profits by way of dividend payments to the company's shareholders.  This is another reason why investment in equities provides one of the few opportunities to safeguard the REAL VALUE of your capital.  The term 'real' is very important in investment terminology.  It means that you have taken the impact of inflation into account.