Smoking Pays Dividends

Published in Company Comment on 6 July 2009

Tobacco companies have produced great returns for shareholders.

If you're looking for an investment that's resistant to economic downturns, pays a reasonably high income and has a track record of increasing dividends, you might fancy having a look at the tobacco sector.

Many investors will refuse to invest in tobacco companies on ethical grounds. That is a perfectly understandable position since their main product, cigarettes, if used as advertised will harm the health of the vast majority of its users. It is incontrovertible that regular smoking takes several years off a person's life expectancy and will be the primary cause of death for roughly half of all smokers. That's a more than adequate reason for any investor wanting to have nothing to do with tobacco.

But tobacco is a perfectly legal product and will remain so for the foreseeable future, if only because the nation's finances would be in an even more parlous state without the taxes that tobacco produces. So if you do not have an ethical objection to their business then tobacco companies are one investment that should definitely appear on your radar.

Cheap and Addictive

Warren Buffett once said "I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty." That sums up tobacco; your customers will keep coming back for more to feed their addiction. Sometimes customers buy cheaper brands, which are often produced by the same firm, or buy bootleg cigarettes imported from continental Europe for which the tobacco company has already been paid. Some smokers quit the habit but most just keep on buying, even when their income falls during a recession.

The quoted British tobacco sector contains just two companies, British American Tobacco (LSE: BATS) and Imperial Tobacco (LSE: IMT), both of which are in the FTSE 100 index. Neither firm is dependent upon the UK market; the vast majority of their sales coming from the rest of the world.

CompanyHistoric Dividend yieldHistoric Price-Earnings Ratio
British American Tobacco4.9%13.7
Imperial Tobacco4.0%11.6

British American Tobacco can justify its higher P/E ratio because it has doubled its dividend in the last five years whereas Imperial Tobacco's dividend has increased by 26%. BAT highlighted in its 2008 annual report that the compound annual growth in dividends and earnings per share in the last years were 13% and 11% respectively, which is an excellent return.

In early 2008 Imperial bought the Franco-Spanish firm, Altadis, the makers of Gauloises cigarettes (one of the great symbols of French national identity). Its most recent six-month results showed that Imperial is experiencing a little indigestion with the costs of integrating this business, resulting in a loss. However, if we remove these costs to examine Imperial's underlying businesses, earnings per share increased by 14% which is an excellent performance during a recession and highlights the defensive nature of tobacco shares. Analysts' forecasts for the 2009 dividend are an increase of almost 11% to 70p per share.

Go West

Adventurous investors who are considering tobacco shares might consider looking abroad, particularly towards America. Whilst the unpredictable nature of the American courts used to make American tobacco companies extremely high risk investments, the passing of the "Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement" (MSA) in 1998 has meant that in 46 of the 50 states tobacco companies cannot be effectively sued by private citizens for any harm caused by tobacco. The MSA requires that the tobacco companies make payments to the states over a period of at least 25 years but, in theory, this is all priced into the shares.

The big three American tobacco firms are Altria, which used to be called Phillip Morris, Reynolds American and Lorillard, all of which have higher dividend yields and lower historic P/E ratios than their British counterparts.

Smoke and Politics

Sir Humphrey Appleby said in an early episode of Yes Prime Minister that smokers pay more in taxes than it costs the NHS to treat smoking-related illnesses (the current figures are that roughly £2 of tax is collected for every £1 spent on treatment). Sir Humphrey also pointed out that smokers also benefit society because they don't collect the State Pension for as long as non-smokers, and that they provide a lot of jobs and income from exports. Sure, it's an outrageous statement but it turns out to be the truth.

But the biggest risk with tobacco companies is political risk. Tobacco kills people; the future growth of tobacco firms depends on them spreading the smoking habit throughout the globe, particularly in the newly industrialising countries and the third world, which will increase their healthcare costs. The health lobby is a big worry for the tobacco industry, it is currently facing the possibility of restrictions on point-of-sale advertising (in Canada this was shown to have a minimal effect on sales).

Personally I can't stand cigarettes, but if others want to smoke them then that's fine. Far too many people in today's Britain want to ban any activity that they disapprove of. It's worth noting that the smoking ban specifically does not apply to the bars and restaurants in Parliament. Clearly our MPs do not subscribe to the philosophy of Voltaire who said that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The history of prohibition tells us that banning smoking would be a particularly bad idea. Any politician who tried it would almost certainly be voted out of office and if it was banned, smoking would not drop significantly. Instead we'd end up with "smokeasies", more organised crime and start looking for a new Elliot Ness to clean up the mess.

Whilst there has been a decline in the proportion of smokers over the last few decades in the developed world, the profits from tobacco keep on growing.

Summary

If you are looking for a relatively high and rising income that's largely recession proof, and do not have any major ethical objections, tobacco companies are definitely worth some consideration.

More from Tony Luckett:

Like this article? Get our best articles delivered direct to your inbox at no cost. Sign up for Foolwatch Daily by entering your email below.

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.

supasap 06 Jul 2009 , 12:16pm

if there is anything that proves Marx's point about the ability of capitalism to generate "false needs" in its members it is cigarettes...... the tobacco industry had almost 60% of our society smoking at one point and now it is on the decline.... so to compensate the industry is now expanding in the innocent developing countries of the world and the results are there for all to see, rising lung cancer and heart disease rates.... it is a shameful industry and I am not sure if Warren Buffet would be so flippant if any members of his family were blighted by smoking.... not sure why the MPs still allow it in westminster, after all being professional people they mostly gave it up years ago once the evidence piled in..... can't believe that many of them smoke.... but yes it is unbelievably hypocritical

Proselenes 06 Jul 2009 , 2:48pm

Religion and those using and abusing it have killed hundreds of millions of people over time.

Alcohol causing more general suffering than tobacco, due to drunks and their behaviour.

So why should tobacco be put on a pedestal and made an example of ?

If you were to impose the same restrictions on religion and alcohol as on tobacco then things may be fair.

So whilst religion is free to exploit the poor with fairy story promises, and while alcohol is allowed to be peddled in the way it is, then there is certainly nothing wrong with tobacco.

I have been invested in it for many years, and will be for many years to come.

Tobacco comsuption always goes up in bad economic times, and I was buying lots more tobacco stocks in early 2007.

supasap 06 Jul 2009 , 4:46pm

religion and alcohol have positive functions (although I accept they can be abused)..... for instance for many religion provides a meaning to existence which is comforting to them especially in times of crisis. Alcohol is a mood changing drug and used sensibly has a social function, eg it facilitates men dancing at weddings (it's not going to happen otherwise).... so they both have some positives..... tobacco does not ...... it kills half of its users and people do it because they are addicted and the drug pushers like BAT promote it around the world to make dosh

JerryLow 06 Jul 2009 , 8:55pm

Please, this is a website about finance, not about religion, smoking or non-smoking, etc.

http://www.TopYields.nl/Top_dividend_yields_of_FTSE100_United_Kingdom.php

supasap 06 Jul 2009 , 9:31pm

it is about what we want it to be about

Proselenes 07 Jul 2009 , 1:29am

The whole "ethical" argument is raised in the OP.

People incorrectly say tobacco is "unethical".

What about "sugar". Sugar is an addictive drug in all effects and causes diabetes and many other problems. And yet cereal manufacturers and food makers for many decades have known that if you sugar coat anything then people (especially kids) love it and will buy more and more.

Is that not wrong too then ?

Tobacco has many positives, for example stress relief, its ability to focus the mind and concentration and all the other things that is quite happily avoided being mentioned by most.

No, the ethical argument is total nonsense, as far too many other things including religion, alcohol, abuse of sugar in food, etc.. can all be classed as equally unethical.

Simple fact is its a great business and that makes tonnes of money, and therefore, its a great investment.

supasap 07 Jul 2009 , 9:22am

evidence does not support stress relief nor its ability to focus the mind..... these are myths propogated by hopeless addicts clinging onto some justification for not investing the effort into terminating..... if ethical investing is nonsense should we encourage a UK company wishing to harvest and produce and distribute heroin or cocaine in the name of growth or sound investment.. maybe you would

Proselenes 07 Jul 2009 , 10:30am

There is a whole load of evidence about the benefits, but in a country that wants to stamp it out to reduce the problems of NHS financing, you are never going to hear about that. Fact is the UK wants to stamp it out as the cost to the NHS is too great for them.

Go to China, where tobacco has been the foundation of the rise in power of China (tobacco related earnings - its a government monopoly so they take all profits and all tax - were around 30% of government income). As China has been raised on tobacco tax and profit, is everything China not "ethical" now ?. China likes tobacco as they do not have an NHS, if you smoke and get ill you pay for treatment yourself, which is fair enough, but also you pay nothing into the state coffers for health care as there is no system.

Fact - religion has caused millions to do in its name and continues to this day to rip off the poor with fairy stories. However this is allowed off tax free in most cases. All part of the con.

Fact - abuse of sugar and other food additives has led to massive problems with peoples healths at the expense of companies making bigger profits.

Fact - abuse of alcohol causes more harm to other people than tobacco does. It causes families to split up, children to suffer, people to die, people to be beaten and people to be killed, and yet its part of UK life and not treated as something bad.


Ethical investing ? Total nonsense. Nothing wrong with tobacco at all.

And if you are looking for a company that deals in heroin and cocaine, look no further than the CIA and the Dow Jones.

The CIA runs it worldwide (which is why they have fought 2 wars in Afghanistan - Soviets and Taliban) and remain there, but unable to stop a few farmers growing it........LOL and the Dow Jones and in fact the US economy would not function were it not for the drugs cash (hard cash that all economies need) flowing through the system to keep it liquid.

So if you are a real "ethical" investor the first thing you would not touch is any US company. Then you would not touch anything to do with alcohol or cigarettes, or any company that is in any way a sponsor of anything religious, be it donations or anything else. You would not touch any company that is not "carbon neutral" and you would avoid any country that is a mass polluter or grown on tobacco tax and profit (like China).

You would likely end up with very few choices of stocks if you were an "ethical" investor, and in fact making a profit is quite unethical if you do not really need the cash, thats pure greed.

So stocks and speculation are not ethical too.

There are no "ethical" investors, just people pretending that they are based on whatever qualifications they decide fit their mood and desire.

So, its all nonsense.


Buy tobacoc stocks, earning lots of money and paying good dividends, and tobacco consumption rises world wide every year, so its a growing business.

supasap 07 Jul 2009 , 11:25am

not sure you answered the question, please point me in the direction of the evidence for cigarettes and stress relief and concentration. Secondly, would you welcome a government initiative to legitimise free market competition in the production and distribution of hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine within the UK?

Proselenes 07 Jul 2009 , 12:19pm

Are you saying heroin and cocaine is on the same level as alochol then ?

Links to evidence, by the hundred, but if you insist on one :

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

.

neilsden 07 Jul 2009 , 1:50pm

Interesting. As an ex-smoker I wonder about this.

I detest the tobacco companies and the lengths they go to to hook others into smoking. However, the government won't ban smoking, and for every smoker that generally means:

A) an early death so less pension demands and lower healthcare requirements;*
B) more tax income for the government;
C) perhaps, more income for the shareholders.

* Everyone dies and the cost of death must be relatively similar for smokers versus non-, surely?

Anyway. I'm not as cynical as this sounds, so I don't buy into tobacco companies. They are deviant misanthropes of the worst sort - all take and no benefit.

All in my oh-so-humble opinion of course! ;-)

supasap 07 Jul 2009 , 2:17pm

well the evidence you present needs to be endorsed by the scientific community, not sure if it is, but I do know that in the early days tobacco companies used to fall over each other to get doctors to sponsor their products, if you are refuting the general assertion that smoking is bad for you then you need to counter the thousands of studies undertaken for the World Health Organisation and perhaps more convincingly from a "crude" economic point of view which may convince you more, you would need to question why insurance companies load the premiums of smokers and give higher annuities to smokers ...... or why professional people including doctors have largely abandoned smoking compared to the less switched on underclass.... or indeed can you ask the question why you have discouraged the younger members of your family to indulge in smoking (I am assuming you have)

as for the alcohol, heroin, cocaine question not sure why you don't answer the question I posed to you earlier, this is to test your neutrality to ethical investments...... would you welcome the legitimisation of companies producing and distributing heroin or cocaine in UK in the name of "sound" economics.....

TonyBritten 07 Jul 2009 , 6:40pm

I see that supasap is very active in this discussion. I am an ex smoker, when I was 50 yrs old I had a nodule growing on my thyroid, I was advised my the medics to have it removed because it could become cancerous, so I did.
My father owned and ran a Tobacconist's shop, he died from lung cancer when he was 62; my cousin's husband used to be it Editor for The Guardian, he had to cover 13 floors in the building in which he worked in London, he was a fairly heavy smoker, he died from lung cancer when he was 62. I have to say if anyone wants to invest in British American Tobacco to benefit from their generous dividend then that person must hate human beings and be sick in the head. Take it from me SMOKING KILLS. If you want to invest why not subscribe to a Cancer Charity and then, only then, can you hold your head up high.

supasap 07 Jul 2009 , 8:48pm

well said Tony, I am sure your sad tale could be repeated by many of the older generation who were manipulated by these drug barons like BAT. It is telling that my question about heroin and cocaine has not been answered.

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.