Wednesday 14 December 2011

Guinness Anchor Christmas cheer: Remember to Reinvest the Special Dividend



Investing is simple, but not easy.  Here is the rough calculation of the returns from Guinness for those who bought and held for the long term.
20.8.1992  Bought Guinness @ 4.38
13.12.2011  Guinness is trading @ 12.98
Investing period:  19 years
Capital gains:  8.60
Capital gains CAGR:  5.88%
Dividends paid in 1992:  36.4 sen  DY based on cost:  8.31%
Dividends paid in 2011:  54 sen  DY based on cost:  12.33%
Average DY over the last 19 years:  10.3%
Total average yearly return from Guinness = 5.88% (capital gain) + 10.3% (dividend) = 16.2%.

This is yet another stock that has returned 15% per year to its shareholders over many years consistently.


The total average return per year from Guinness = 16.2%.  
Let us translate this into CAG returns over the 19 year period.

Assuming the dividends were not reinvested into Guinness:
The total returns from this investment are as follow:
At end of 19 years, the 4.38 initial investment would have grown to 12.96.
The amount of dividend collected over the 19 years was 8.94.
Therefore, the initial 4.38 has become 12.96+8.94 = 21.90 over 19 years.
This gives a CAGR of 8.84%.

The DY of Guinness over many years range from 5.4% to 7.0% (average 6%).  

Assuming the dividends were reinvested at the end of each financial period back into Guinness and that theaverage DY was 6% for each investing year.
At the end of 19 years, the 4.38 initial investment would have grown to 41.60.
This gives a CAGR of 12.58%.

Assuming the dividends were reinvested at the end of each financial period back into Guinness and the DY for each period was the lowest of 4% for the 19 years.
At the end of 19 years, the 4.38 initial investment would have grown to 28.42.
This gives a CAGR of 10.34%.


.. and if you have bought GAB in Jun 2008 ...

Counter   Purchase Date   Price      Current Price       
GAB      04-Jun-08           5.35           13.14

Total % gain (excluding dividends)  145.6%.
This is a CAGR of 25.19% over 4 year period or 35% over 3 year period in its share price, excluding dividends.   Smiley


There are times when you can buy these great stocks cheap.  You will get fantastic returns over the initial few years of your "good 
timing pricing" in your investing.  Over the long period, the returns will attenuate to those of what the stock delivers over its long term.


(The above calculations of returns exclude special dividends.)

A surprisingly large part of the overall growth in most portfolios comes from reinvested dividends rather than in appreciation of the stock prices. A yield of 3% may appear small but over a period it makes a big difference. Choose some investments with a solid history of dividends and use them as the ballast in your ship.
--------------------


Wednesday December 14, 2011

Guinness Anchor Christmas cheer


Special dividend higher than last year’s full dividend
GUINNESS Anchor Bhd's (GAB) shareholders are getting some Christmas cheer when it came to light on Monday that the brewery will be disbursing a special single-tier dividend of 60 sen per 50 sen share for the financial year ending June 30, 2012 (FY12), which, notably, is even higher than its full-year FY11 dividend per share (DPS) of 54 sen.
If you were paying attention though, this would not have been a total surprise. StarBiz had previously reported in October that GAB's management was looking at ways to reward shareholders, a move not uncommon among cash-rich brewers.
A report by OSK Research analyst Jeremy Goh on Nov 29 had highlighted the possibility of a higher dividend, either through a higher payout ratio or special dividend. “In fact, we do not discount the possibility of a special dividend,” he said at the time, adding that GAB has a cash pile of RM164mil, or 54 sen per share.
In a follow-up report, Goh said that with the just-announced dividend, the DPS for FY12 would almost double from 61 sen to RM1.21, based on a 90% payout rate. This, he said, translated to a “very attractive yield” of 9.9%.
But in Malaysia's relatively small beer market where two players dominate GAB's latest move inevitably prompts the question: will its closest rival,Carlsberg Brewery Malaysia Bhd, soon do the same?
Carlsberg's shareholders might seem to think so. While both shares were on the top gainers list yesterday, with GAB adding 70 sen to RM12.98 and Carlsberg 31 sen to RM8.46, the latter's stock traded more than twice as heavily. As many as 469,700 Carlsberg shares changed hands versus GAB's 221,600 shares.
Analysts, however, are not counting on a bumper dividend from Carlsberg. As at Sept 30, it had RM82.7mil in cash and RM94.2mil in loans and borrowings as opposed to GAB, which had zero debt and RM164mil in cash and cash equivalents.
An analyst said that based on historical performance, Carlsberg's dividend payout averaged 50% to 70% against GAB, which paid out 90% of its earnings in FY11.
Nonetheless, Carlsberg did reward shareholders with a 58 sen dividend last year after it acquired Carlsberg Singapore Pte Ltd for RM370mil in the fourth quarter 2009.
Another analyst pointed out that while Carlsberg and GAB were fierce competitors, they had not been known to compete on the dividend front.
On the rationale for GAB's distribution of a special dividend, analysts said it was to optimise the brewery's capital structure. An analyst explained that GAB had to choose between making an acquisition or capital management, and since the choice of acquisition targets in Malaysia was limited, it opted to distribute cash to shareholders.
“Even when Carlsberg made an acquisition last time, it was in Singapore,” she noted.
GAB also recently proposed to issue RM500mil in debt notes for capital expenditure (capex) and working capital. Of the RM80mil-RM100mil capex to be spent in FY12, RM40mil has been apportioned to a new packaging line and RM30mil to upgrade its information technology infrastructure. The debt papers were given an AAA rating by RAM Ratings.
OSK's Goh, in his Nov 29 report, had also said that GAB was debt-free prior to the debt issuance, which raised its weighted average cost of capital (WACC) to 7.1%. The new debt notes, he said, would bring its WACC down to a more efficient 5.4%, assuming an effective tax rate of 25%, and the company's debt to equity ratio to 47:53.
On whether another extraordinary dividend was in the offing from GAB, its finance director Mahendran Kapuppial told StarBiz: “We do not have any plans for further special dividends.
“Historically, we have paid between 85% and 90% of our profit after tax as normal dividends to our shareholders and we do expect this to continue in the future. Looking at our current debt to equity ratio, the board felt that a one-off special cash dividend is appropriate.”


----------------------------------

Why Buy and Hold Will Always Be a Sound Investing Strategy

It seems like the debate regarding the merits of the "buy-and-hold" investing strategy is alive and well. We always find these discussions amusing, because we believe that it is such a pointless discussion. There is no general argument or case that can be made to support the buy-and-hold strategy or to negate it.

The only true answer to the buy-and-hold argument is it depends on what and/or when you buy-and-hold.

  • If you buy the right company at the right price, then buy-and-hold is a great strategy. 
  • If you buy the wrong company at any price, then the buy-and-hold strategy is a dumb move. 
  • Also, if you buy the right company at the wrong price, then buy-and-hold would once again be a bad move.


3 Reasons You Must Invest In Dividend Stocks (Dividend growth investing)


3 Reasons You Must Invest In Dividend Stocks

Written by Tyler 

As a dividend growth investor, I am frequently asked why I don’t invest in high growth stocks and, more importantly, why I believe investing for dividends is a more appropriate strategy.
In bear markets there are great buying opportunities for dividend growth stocks that are offering yields above their historical averages.  Opportunities to buy great dividend growth stocks at above average yields is a great way to finance your retirement and increase the compounding effect of your future income from these stocks.
Here are the 3 most essential reasons that I prefer dividend investing: 
1.) Dividends offer investors fantastic flexibility.
Dividends give you tremendous financial flexibility throughout your investing life. While you’ve got an income from working, you can reinvest those payments to speed the process of compounding your wealth. Once you’ve decided to retire, the cash thrown off by dividends spends just as well as any other source of money!
What is even better, a rising dividend payment can help you fight inflation by providing you more cash every single year.
2.) You can’t fake money in your pocket. 
Dividends also have the added bonus of being exceptionally difficult for companies to fake. After all, it’s difficult to convince lenders to loan money to a company if that company is going to turn around and hand it over to its shareholders.
As a result, to sustainably make and increase those dividends, the business needs to generate serious cash on both a regular and repeatable basis.
3.) Dividends are paid from the company’s cash flow. 
Perhaps most important, a company’s dividend payment comes from its operational success and not from the panic, hype, or analyst interpretations that influence its stock price. Throughout these rocky market periods, dividend payments allow us to make money even when the stock price moves lower.
Why Invest In Dividend Paying Stocks?
  • Quicker compounding.
  • Increased financial flexibility.
  • Cash in your pocket without selling.
  • A hedge against inflation.
  • An check on the company’s accounting.
  • Cash Flow in a down market.
With all of the benefits of dividends, it’s obvious why they can be an integral component of one’s portfolio.
Did I miss any benefits of dividends?  If so, let me know in the comments! 

Tuesday 13 December 2011

UK: No savings account beats inflation

UK:  No savings account beats inflation
Savers will struggle to erode the effects of rising inflation as there as the savings number of products dries up.

A sign warning of inflation
No savings account beats inflation Photo: .Keith Leighton / Alamy
Today's inflation figures show that the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) fell during November from 5pc to 4.8pc.
In order to beat inflation, a basic-rate taxpayer paying 20pc would need to find a savings account paying 6pc per year, while a higher rate taxpayer at 40pc needs to find an account paying at least 8pc.
However, there is not a single savings account on the market that taxpayers can choose to negate the effects of tax and inflation whether it is CPI at 4.8pc or the Retail Prices Index (RPI) at 5.2pc.
The effect of inflation on savings means that £10,000 invested five years ago, allowing for average interest and tax at 20pc, would have the spending power of just £9,210 today.
Sylvia Waycot, spokesperson for Moneyfacts.co.uk, said: "Savers continue to lose out to inflation even though the rate fell today. With returns so low and inflation unsteady, people don't know which way to turn."
A growing number of people are falling into an eroding spending-power trap which has already wiped nearly £800 off the spending power of £10,000 in just five years, said Ms Waycot.
"Over the last year the number of savings accounts that beat inflation for basic rate taxpayers has dropped successively from 57 to absolutely none, which must leave savers wondering why they save at all," she said.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/8953110/No-savings-account-beats-inflation.html

Singapore becoming 'less attractive' for expats


Singapore becoming 'less attractive' for expats
Singapore’s reputation as a destination of choice for expats in Asia has been hit by a triple whammy this month


Expats in Singapore are rejecting apartments in favour of landed properties.
Singapore is now a more expensive destination for expats than Hong Kong Photo: E.J. Baumeister Jr. / Alamy
Two measures by the government last week have made the city less attractive to non-Singaporeans – the biggest being a 10 per cent hike in stamp duty for any foreigner wanting to buy property in the city.
Stamp duty was only three per cent at its highest rate, so this move is seen as a strong curb to discourage foreigners from buying homes in Singapore.
Foreign purchases made up 19 per cent of all private property transactions in the second half of 2011. This compares to just seven per cent for the first half of 2009. Low interest rates, political stability and a strong economy have all led to a surge in property investment from wealthy foreigners.
Ku Swee Yong, chief executive at Singapore-based estate agency International Property Advisor, worries that “we leave foreign investors with a bad taste in their mouths.” He said: “Many foreigners are here to work and settle their families down and they need to own one home for shelter over their heads."
Last week the government also scrapped a scheme that lets graduates of foreign universities stay in Singapore for one year while they look for work.
The Manpower Ministry previously granted an employment pass eligibility certificate (Epec) to foreign university graduates in the hope to encourage high-calibre students to enter the labour force. But it said the scheme was not meeting its targets.
In the third setback for the city state, Singapore has also overtaken Hong Kong as the more expensive city for expats to live in – the first time this has happened in more than 10 years, according to the latest cost of living survey conducted by ECA International.
Within Asia, Singapore is now the sixth most expensive city to live in while Hong Kong has dropped to ninth. Tokyo is still the costliest location for expats.
George Hackford, a British expat who has lived in Singapore for more than five years, said: “From my point of view, I have seen 'real' inflation rise steeply in the past two or three years. This is mostly in the areas of luxury goods, which are often bought by expatriates.
"Rents have obviously increased substantially but so too have items such as alcohol, groceries and taxi fares. In general, prices of imported electrical goods such as computers and cameras have also inflated strongly. It seems to me that published inflation rates seem to be out of kilter with real prices.”

Should investors stick with the winners of 2011?

Should investors stick with the winners of 2011?


The eurozone crisis has plunged many investors into a state of gloom. But some shares and funds have still made money this year. Are these the assets to hold on to, or should we look elsewhere in the new year?

Wimbledon 2011: Novak Djokovic has finally fulfilled of his his youthful promise, says Boris Becker
Novak Djokovic won his first Wimbledon title this year - but does past success mean future returns for investors? Photo: EDDIE MULHOLLAND
With the euro crisis posing as many questions as Jeremy Paxman in an episode of University Challenge, it is difficult to know what lessons can be drawn from the past year's performance of funds and shares.
Almost all the world's major stock markets are in negative territory this year. Despite this, some funds and individual shares have done exceptionally well over the past 12 months. Is their performance likely to continue, and how are the experts rebalancing their portfolios?
Figures from Morningstar show that almost all the best-performing funds of the year are corporate or government bond funds. These have benefited from investor panic, with prices rising as people sought safe havens.
Baillie Gifford's long-dated gilt fund rose by nearly 22pc in the period – beaten only by Legg Mason's Japan Equity Fund, which has been boosted by a faster-than-expected recovery following the Japanese earthquake. Index-linked gilt funds also did well out of rising inflation.
Are these funds the place to be for the next 12 months? John Chatfeild-Roberts, who runs the Merlin funds of funds for Jupiter, said not. His advice came with a caveat: "If you had asked me a year ago I would have said gilts were too expensive, and I would have been wrong. They are even more expensive now."
He said that if you valued gilts and US Treasury bonds like shares they would look overpriced. "There's no long-term growth, and a price to earnings ratio of about 44."
Instead he urged investors to think carefully about the nature of risk when picking funds and stocks, given the situation in Europe. His Merlin funds hold a number of good performers from the past year, including star fund manager Neil Woodford's Invesco funds. Mr Woodford has seen his High Income fund gain around 11pc in a year. He holds cash-generating stocks including large pharmaceutical companies.
Mr Woodford said he was confident that by picking strong companies with sustainable earnings growth his portfolio would continue to thrive in 2012. "The increasingly tough economic outlook is not a surprise to me – I maintain my view that the developed world faces a prolonged period of low economic growth," he said.
"However, I also continue to believe that there are certain types of company that can thrive, delivering sustainable dividend and earnings growth in this environment."
Nick Raynor, an investment analyst at the Share Centre, is also banging the drum for defensive sectors. His research shows that the top performers this year come from sectors such as food, drinks and pharmaceuticals. "The majority of defensive sectors have held up well and are among the highest performers for the period," he said. "In 2012 we expect this to continue and the markets to remain unpredictable until the uncertainty with the eurozone is resolved."
The top-performing share for the year so far is Arm Holdings, which has risen by 46pc. The chip maker is doing well out of the fact that there is greater demand for mobile phones, and more advanced chips as phones get "smarter". Other top performers include Shire Pharmaceuticals, up by 43pc, which has made advances in market share and has been buoyed by takeover rumours.
Not everyone is confident that even defensive stocks are the answer. Douglas Chadwick of Saltydog Investor, a newsletter for those who control their own Isas and Sipps (self-invested personal pensions), said: "Wait for the market to confirm your opinions before trading. You've plenty of time to capitalise on a recovery."
His portfolio has risen by 7.2pc since its launch on November 23 2010. However, since last week, Saltydog has advised people to put 100pc of their money into cash.
But advisers agree that trying to time the market is an impossible task. Ted Scott, director of global strategy at F & C Investments, believes that those in cash may miss out on recovery.
"With each emergency summit proving to be more disappointing than the last, investors have lost faith in eurozone policymakers to provide a solution that will work," Mr Scott wrote in a research note under the heading "A great opportunity to buy equities will emerge".
"This has contributed to a collapse in investor sentiment with fear the overriding emotion in today's markets." But he added: "If a satisfactory solution for the debt crisis were to be found, the reversal in investor sentiment could contribute to a very strong and sustained rally." Equity fans can only hope that Mr Scott is right.


Five investment hazards

Five investment hazards
After HSBC is fined for mis-selling investment bonds, we look at the products that tempt buyers to take inappropriate risks.


Danger Toxic Hazard sign
Investment hazards to avoid Photo: Alamy
As we draw closer to the ban on commission payments on financial products, which will take effect in 2013, there is growing concern about a rise in the mis-selling of products and fears that some advisers and salesmen are grabbing what they can now.
"I've never seen so many cases of poor advice as I have in the last six months – from advisers 'churning' pension plans to selling unregulated products such as overseas property investments," said Philippa Gee of Philippa Gee Wealth Management. In some cases, she said, advisers were pocketing between 8pc and 10pc of the investment.
"We never see clients who have been mis-sold a National Savings product or a cheap tracker fund," said Ms Gee. "Inevitably, they've been sold a product they don't fully understand and are taking too much risk with their money. But the adviser has received a generous commission fee for it."
Alarm bells should ring if any adviser recommends a product where there is a toxic mix of high charges, commissions and complex terms. This doesn't mean that there aren't certain cases where such products may be appropriate. But evidence suggests that these are few and far between. Despite this, such products are sold to thousands of consumers each year.
With less scrupulous advisers making hay while they can, and the difficult investment environment perhaps tempting consumers to take risks, we look at five products where you should always think twice before signing on the dotted line.

Investment bonds

These made headlines this week when HSBC was fined £10.3m for selling bonds to elderly customers to pay nursing home fees. Regulators ruled that the bonds were mis-sold, given that the customers' average age was 83 and that there were penalties on withdrawals within five years, as well as a degree of investment risk.
These bonds aren't sold just to people needing long-term care. They are routinely offered to those with a sizeable cash sum to invest, whether they're saving for retirement or supplementing a pension. Ms Gee said: "Whenever I see a customer who's been ripped off, they've almost always been sold an investment bond."
These bonds are typically sold by insurers and allow customers to invest in a range of underlying funds. Their main advantage is that investors can withdraw 5pc of their capital each year without incurring a tax charge. But if the investment growth is less than this, capital can quickly deplete.
Most people are investing tens of thousands of pounds in these bonds (the average investment with HSBC was £115,000) and advisers earn commission of 6pc to 8pc. Investors should ask whether a diversified spread of low-cost equity or fixed-interest funds would be better. Ms Gee said: "Undoubtedly these bonds are oversold. I've advised hundreds of clients, but there's only one case I can think of where this was the most suitable product."

Structured products

These purport to offer a simple solution to nervous investors: get exposure to equity returns without putting your money at risk. Sadly, you will get far less than the market return (most investors don't get dividends, for example) and your capital could still be at risk.
Behind this persuasive "sell" are complex products that rely on derivatives and expose you to counterparty risk. Before signing up, make sure you are clear what the risks are and what return you will get. Santander recently sold "guaranteed" bonds which, it later admitted, weren't fully guaranteed, because of counterparty risk.
As with many types of investment, it's a mixed bag, with good, bad and downright ugly versions. Some structured deposits will be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), so even if the bank selling it, or the counterparty underwriting the deal, went bust, up to £85,000 of your money would be protected. Others are "structured investments" where money can fall at twice the rate of the stock market in certain conditions. Always ask what the downside risk is, both in terms of market falls and the unlikely event of a bank backing it going bust.
"If you are not happy with stock market risk, I would not advise being in the stock market at all," said Ms Gee. "A well-diversified portfolio can often be a better way of managing such risks."

Multi-manager funds

Here, investors are paying a double layer of charges, often without any significant boost to performance. David Norman, the joint chief executive of TCF Investment, pointed out that the typical TER (total expense ratio) on unit trusts was 1.7pc, but on a multi-manager fund the average was 2.3pc, with many funds charging closer to 3pc.
These figures don't include dealing costs or any upfront fees. Some multi-managers don't include the charges on exchange-traded funds either, meaning the published TER may bear little resemblance to the charges deducted from your fund every year.
"Long-term investors are looking to beat inflation," said Mr Norman. "Historically, equities deliver 4.5pc more than gilts. But if you are paying more than 3pc to get a 4.5pc return, it's like trying to go up the down escalator."
These aren't just niche products, aimed solely at high-net-worth investors. Increasingly, these are the default options offered by a banks, including HSBC, Santander and RBS. Mr Norman added: "The principle of diversification is good, so these funds seem a simple, sensible option. But in a low-return environment it's important to keep an eye on costs. Most of these funds are charging too much."

Inflation-linked bonds

Popular at present are bonds where returns are linked to the retail prices index, rather than the stock market. With RPI now standing at 5.4pc and most banks paying less than 2pc, it's not hard to see why they are selling well. But investors should ensure they understand the more complex terms and conditions. If an account pays RPI plus 1pc, this does not mean you get 6.4pc today. Most are five-year accounts, and the return will be the difference in prices between now and the maturity date. Many people are expecting inflation to fall next year, once the rise in VAT drops out of the year-on-year calculation. As with structured products, there may be counterparty risks as well, although most are "structured deposits" that will be covered by the FSCS.

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs)

ETFs don't pay commission and have very low charges. So how can consumers go wrong? Sadly, they are far from simple products. There are physical ETFs, where the manager holds the shares or commodities of the index being tracked. But there are also synthetic versions, where there can be tracking errors and problems with liquidity if too many holders try to sell quickly. Many of these rely on complex derivatives. Worse, some offer "geared exposure", where the fund borrows to boost returns – but this can magnify losses if the market is against you.
Richard Saunders, the chief executive of the Investment Management Association, warned customers to make sure they knew what type of ETF they were buying. The term ETF is often used to describe their riskier cousins, known as exchange-traded products (ETPs), which don't offer the same level of investor protection. Investors should also ensure they look at all charges. The iShares FTSE 100 ETF has an expense ratio of only 0.4pc but annual platform charges make it more expensive than the Fidelity Moneybuilder UK Index fund or the Vanguard FTSE UK Equity Index fund.
Gary Shaughnessy of Fidelity said: "Fees reduce the value of your investments, so everyone should be clear about what they are paying. It's like deciding to fly with a flagship airline or its no-frills rival. There's more to the comparison than the eye-catching price in the advert. If you've been stung by extra charges for baggage, checking in and so on, you know that what matters is the total cost."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/8946740/Five-investment-hazards.html