The Worst Stock Myth Of The Decade

Published in Investing on 24 August 2010

Shares have fallen over the last 10 years. It still feels like we're in recession. It must be time to completely avoid the stock market. Or is it?

Two enormous recessions. Unparalleled government bailouts. An entire lost decade of growth.

It's been more than 10 years since the tech boom, and most of us have about the same net worth as we had in the first place -- or possibly less. The result of this flat and oftentimes irrational stock market has been a media rush to call "an end" for the average buy-and-hold investor.

The rumour mill is circulating and in full effect: Get out of the stock market before it's too late!

Is this the beginning of the end for the stock market, or will predictions of shares' demise turn out to be the worst myth of the 2010s?

Where exactly are you going?

From 1980 to 2000, scholars like Jeremy Siegel and others were touting the wisdom of long-term, buy-and-hold investing; individuals and academics alike were virtually all on the same page. 

In fact, one survey by a US Securities Industry Association in 1999 showed that most investors expected to earn a rate of return equal to about 30% -- confidence was at an all-time high!

Nonetheless, according to a recent article in US publication The Atlantic, the modern diversified portfolio, the ease of which we use technology, and the growing popularity of funds have possibly combined to erode our equity returns.

In fact, while most savvy investors used to expect an annual return of 8%-10%, there's plenty of chatter about that number being much closer to 4%-5% for years to come. 

One US company, Smithers & Co., an asset allocation firm, has forecasted that the next 10 years in the US stock market will deliver a paltry 1.8%. So where do you go from here?

1. Savings: While it would be nice to allocate a large portion of our nest-egg in savings, it just isn't possible anymore. After introductory periods expire, savings accounts offer near-zero interest rates.

2. Bonds & Gilts: Corporate bonds and bond funds have had a great run. However, even the global bond guru Bill Gross expects lower returns. According to Gross, because rates have nowhere to go but up, "bonds have seen their best days." And this comes from a man who manages a $214 billion bond fund. Ouch. Gilts are not much better. The 10-year gilt currently yields a somewhat paltry 3%.

3. Government: There may have been a time when you could save what was possible and expect your employer and the government to fill out the rest. Most final salary pension schemes are now closed, and the state pension is under ₤100 per week for a single person.

The bottom line is that regardless of what pundits will say about the stock market, it's the main option you have left. You need individual shares to protect your portfolio.

Get back to basics already

Years ago, investing in dividend shares was all the rage. But then the market took off, technology and globalisation changed the way we invested, and dividends became boring or old-school. 

Investors expecting those 30% returns certainly weren't going to find them in dividends -- hence the flock to the fast-growers and the small-caps with unlimited potential.

Yet things have changed, and if you're not investing in dividend shares right now, you're missing out on an amazing opportunity. Throughout history, academics have proven that dividend-paying shares outperform their non-paying brethren. 

The Motley Fool presents an Exclusive 'Behind the Scenes' look at the revolutionary Champion Shares PRO share-tipping  service! CLAIM YOUR ACCESS To get a sneak peak of the information and tips normally only available to paying subscribers,  CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE PRIORITY WAITING LIST

So in order to avoid the greatest myth of our decade -- that shares can't provide above-average returns -- you've got to start investing in dividend shares. In particular, you need to find shares that pay great yields, that reasonable dividend covers, and that have illustrated a knack for increasing their dividends over time.

To help you in your quest, we've highlighted five shares that not only fit the criteria above, but that are trading at cheapish valuations (to help ensure value).

CompanyForecast
Dividend
Yield
Forecast
Dividend
Cover
Forecast
P/E
Ratio
Vodafone Group (LSE: VOD)5.8%1.810.0
Tesco (LSE: TSCO)3.5%2.412.1
Reckitt Benckiser (LSE: RB)3.6%2.014.3
London Stock Exchange (LSE: LSE)4.0%2.59.8
Melrose (LSE: MRO)3.8%2.411.2

All five of these shares fit the ideal dividend mould -- they pay good, sustainable yields, they have plenty of room to grow, and they are trading for more-than-reasonable prices. In addition, we tried to choose shares that would help create a diversified portfolio, so a number of sectors are covered, from telecoms to industrial engineering.

Don't believe the hype

There will always be people -- whether it be friends, colleagues, or professionals -- that employ fear mongering as a way to express their philosophy. However, while we agree that our investing world has certainly changed, we disagree with the notion that returns will be dismal and that you must avoid shares to ensure your financial safety.

Investing in dividend shares is still a prudent, reliable, and wealth-generating way to keep you on the fast track toward retirement. You may not get rich overnight, but you can certainly sleep well knowing that you didn't get bullied in the wrong direction.

More on the economy and the markets:

> For two weeks in September we will be opening the doors of our Champion Shares PRO newsletter service. In order to keep our exclusivity, only a select number of our readership will be able to join us. This is your chance to guarantee your place! Click here to join the priority waiting list.

> A version of this article, written by Jordan DiPietro, was originally published on Fool.com. Bruce Jackson, who has an interest in Vodafone, has updated it.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

theglorioustwelf 24 Aug 2010 , 12:52pm

I agree that dividend paying shares are important - I just loved the dividend that LLoyds TSB and RBS paid - and don't forget HBOS. BP's dividend wasn't that bad either. Aviva paid a good dividend too, which has now been cut for the last couple of years.

Yes dividend shares are worthwhile, but I see the certainlty of future dividends as certain as future share growth

SanMiguel101 24 Aug 2010 , 1:24pm

Long term investing is dead until they reign in the HFT computer programs. Also, all shares moves as 1 at the moment - check the correlation graphs on ZH's site.
You mas as well be a trader at the moment or expect very little return from long term investing until this is corrected.

Afrosia 24 Aug 2010 , 1:37pm

Banks have always been highly cyclical industries though. I don't think anyone would expect a bank's dividend to follow the same upward pattern as, dare I say, GSK? Although GSK does have the whole patent expiry/lawsuit issues to contend with!

BP on the other hand.....

kman2525 24 Aug 2010 , 1:42pm

So how about some comparisons -dividends v."shorting" ? And if the latter, pitfalls and advantages.

mali7 24 Aug 2010 , 1:45pm

Wake up, day light robbery, and it is legal! the stock market is taking wealth away in seconds from PIs

Dozey1 24 Aug 2010 , 2:38pm

Like SanMiguell101 I believe the HFT computer programs need controls. I pay 0.5% duty on every purchase, and cannot see why these computer transactions should not also pay duty. As it is they are parasites eating away at the free market in stocks and shares.

GiantTrainSet 24 Aug 2010 , 3:59pm

The fact we are seeing headlines saying get out/stay out of the stock market means it is probably exactly the right time to get into the market!

keirfamily 24 Aug 2010 , 5:04pm

I used to be keen on 'buy and hold' but this relied on growth - either global or sector. With 'peak everything' rolling at us like a tidal wave I'm not sure growth can be relied on in the 21st century. Maybe in BRIC and emerging markets, but watch out for political dangers.
Strictly, the subject heading is wrong - with shares under-performing cash for the last 10 years we're not discussing a myth but a truth, at least for this decade!
I suggest that the investing paradigm has changed - we're not fishing (maximise your score) but playing golf (minimise your mistakes). With inflation 10 x the Bank of England interest rate (before tax), we're in Red Queen territory - it takes our best efforts to stay where we are.
Get used to this?

bouleversee 24 Aug 2010 , 6:51pm

I had lunch with some old friends the other day. In the course of conversation I made the comment that these days companies seem to be run more for the benefit of the employees than the shareholders (Ihave lost a packet on shares over the past 10 yrs or more, including Glaxo, Vodafone and Tesco). My friend's husband used to be the chairman of a large plc (better not say which) and his totally unsympathetic comment was that he never used to bother about the shareholders and only worried about the staff. Another guest said that that attitude might make it difficult to raise money; the ex-Chairman said they never had trouble in raising money. I felt it prudent to button my lip but I wonder whether he raised it from shareholders or banks; I doubt the latter would be prepared to lend it for nothing. Says it all, really, doesn't it? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that buying shares is a mug's game. I go on buying them and losing, with few exceptions, but really one might just as well back a horse in the 3.30 and it's just as addictive.. Not much point in having a large divi if one loses a chunk of capital. Timing is everything (recent purchases of Reckitt, Anglo American, Balfour Beatty, HMV, Shell, De la Rue, etc. etc. all of which looked a good buy, and were touted as such, all showing significant losses). Hopefully, they will be OK further down the line but I don't see the ones I bought 10 yrs or so ago ever getting back to the purchase price. In the meantime, the emoluments to staff, including shares options which dilute the equity, especially to the top brass, have rocketed. What exactly did Stuart Rose do for M&S for all the millions it paid him? I've had M & S for years, too, and still showing a loss. Am coming to the conclusion that the best thing we pensioners can do is to spend our savings and then hold out our hands to the State when we need nursing care. Or give our dosh to our children/grandchildren as they won't be able to afford homes or pensions.

F958B 24 Aug 2010 , 8:27pm

A good portfolio of low-P/E, high-yield, non-cyclical shares would have done very well during the last decade.....

Excluding dividends, for the last ten years, capital gains alone would have been:

CNA +65%
SSE +100%
SVT +60%
IMT +280%
BATS +400%
ULVR +70%
TSCO +60%
MRW +70%

...and imagine how good the returns would be, if dividends were included and compounded?

Many others (NG., UU., SBRY) have barely changed in price over the last ten years, but would still have paid decent dividends along the way.

Yet more high-yielders were taken over at very profitable prices, such as GLH (Gallaher Tobacco) and KEL (Kelda Water).

If people would stop chasing the high-risk market darlings and go for something solid, non-cyclical, boring but dependable, they would get the kind of returns that they dream of.
The beauty of non-cyclicals is that their future is much easier to forecast and they don't fluctuate as wildly because their steady earnings act as an anchor. They generally give slow but steady growth and good dividend payouts.

Long term investing is not dead. It's just that everyone today is hyperactive and seeking instant gratification and the glory of big winners in glamorous industries.

My portfolio has always had a slow turnover and appears, to most people, to be very boring. I've always had a lot of criticism from family and friends that I'm not adventurous enough and such ridiculous commens as: "you should buy shares for growth and to sell at a profit, not for dividends".

But the "boring", "past its best" stuff or other unloved investments have given me excellent and steady returns, averaging about +15-20% per year, for the last decade.
Those are life-changing gains, of the kind mentioned in a Fool article a few days ago.

A wise old chap once said to me, something along the lines of:

Invest like a rich man, since the rich are measuring an investment by how much of their wealth they might lose (being careful of the downside and opting for steady returns), whereas most people measure an investment by how much profit they hope to make (only thinking of the upside and not paying attention to the potential downside).

norcoastactivist 25 Aug 2010 , 10:51am

f958b You are right on the money with your comments. I used to chase profits and ended up losing capital. I now look for low p/e,high yield shares and the difference is very much noticeable. The comment of 'invest like a rich man' is spot on too

Terrapin1 25 Aug 2010 , 12:19pm

Cherry picking a period to show massive returns is pointless- we can only buy/sell today, but shares,overall, unless you wanted to cherry pick, have done badly.
Property has done ok, and has little downside.

giveusaquid 25 Aug 2010 , 1:45pm

As an employee I want the company I work for to be run for employee benefit, after all it is my efforts that are helping to grow the business. As a shareholder I want the business to be run for shareholder benefit. But caring about financial return and remembering the people that are helping to bring about those returns don't always go together.

Company shareholder schemes are a great idea, that way when you get laid off so the business can continue to provide increasing returns for the all important shareholders you at least have the benefit on the flipside :)

TheThrilla 30 Aug 2010 , 6:10pm

Gold, silver and other precious metals - even if it is a load of copper piping.

emptybarrel 01 Sep 2010 , 7:47am

Terrapin,

Property has plenty of downside if the government debt bubble collapses.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.