Are These The Ultimate Retirement Shares?

Published in Company Comment on 9 October 2012

Which of these five shares would be best for a FTSE-beating retirement fund?

The last five years have been tough for those in retirement. Portfolio valuations have been hammered and annuity rates have plunged. There's no sign of things improving anytime soon, either, as the eurozone and the UK economy look set to muddle through at best for some years to come.

A great way of protecting yourself from the downturn, however, is by building your retirement fund with shares of large, well-run companies that should grow their earnings steadily over the coming decades. Over time, such investments ought to result in rising dividends and inflation-beating capital growth.

In this series, I'm tracking down the UK large-caps that have the potential to beat the FTSE 100 (UKX) over the long term and support a lower-risk income-generating retirement fund (you can see all of the companies I've covered so far on this page).

Over the last week or so, I've looked at British Sky Broadcasting Group (LSE: BSY), Tullow Oil (LSE: TLW), Antofagasta (LSE: ANTO), Compass Group (LSE: CPG) and Imperial Tobacco Group (LSE: IMT). Let's take a look at how each of them scored against my five key retirement share criteria:

CriteriaAntofagastBSkyBTullow OilImperial
Tobacco
Compass
Group
Longevity4/53/53/55/54/5
Performance vs. FTSE4/53/55/55/54/5
Financial strength4/54/54/53/54/5
EPS growth3/54/54/53/54/5
Dividend growth2/54/52/54/55/5
Total17/2518/2518/2520/2521/25

Catering vs. big tobacco

The two top scorers in this group of five were catering outsourcing giant Compass Group, and the UK's second-largest tobacco firm, Imperial Tobacco. I suspect that Compass is overlooked by many private investors, but a brief look at the figures suggests that it shouldn't be -- it is far larger than its two obvious peers in the FTSE 100, G4S (LSE: GFS) and Serco (LSE: SRP), and is potentially much less politically sensitive. After all, outsourcing catering is far less contentious than outsourcing police or defence activities.

I was impressed by Compass but there is no denying the ongoing appeal of big tobacco, from an investment perspective if not an ethical one. Imperial currently trades on a P/E of just 12.3, versus Compass' rating of 17.7. As a result, its yield is also superior, with Imperial's shares providing an income of 4.1% at present, against the 2.8% paid to Compass shareholders. That could make a big difference to your retirement income and although tobacco's prospects may one day be extinguished, I suspect that the global popularity of smoking will comfortably outlive all of us.

Not retirement shares?

BSkyB's rise to become a fixture in 10 million British households is highly impressive, but from a retirement perspective I am nervous about depending on a business that relies on fast-changing technology. It's a good business, but not one I will be adding to my retirement portfolio.

Scoring level with BSkyB on 18 points was Tullow Oil, an independent oil company that has managed the rare trick of sustaining its growth over two decades to become a FTSE 100 company. Tullow's track record of drilling success is one of the best in the business and this may well continue, but as a retirement share it is currently far too expensive -- it's P/E of 31 gives it a dividend yield of just 0.8%.

The final share in this review is copper miner Antofagasta, a successful company but not one I would add to my retirement portfolio, thanks to its tendency to invest almost all of its fat profit margins in risky growth projects, resulting in a feeble 0.9% yield and uncertain prospects -- albeit with the potential for substantial future returns.

An expert tip

Although doing your own research is important, one way of identifying great dividend-paying shares is to study the choices of successful professional investors.

One of the most successful income investors currently working in the City is fund manager Neil Woodford, who had £20bn of private investors' money under management at the end of January 2012 -- more than any other City manager. Neil Woodford's dividend stock picks outperformed the wider index by a staggering 305% over the 15 years to the 31 December 2011.

You can learn about Neil Woodford's top holdings and how he generates such fantastic profits in this free Motley Fool report. Many of Mr Woodford's choices look like excellent retirement shares to me and the report explains how he chose some of his biggest holdings.

This report is completely free and I strongly recommend you download"8 Shares Held By Britain's Super Investor" today, as it is available for a limited time only.

Warren Buffett buys British! The legendary investor has recently topped up on his favourite UK blue chip. Discover what he bought -- and the price he paid -- within our latest free report!

Further investment opportunities:

> Roland does not own any of the shares mentioned in this article.

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.

QuantumDealer 09 Oct 2012 , 11:49am

"BSkyB's rise to become a fixture in 10 million British households is highly impressive, but from a retirement perspective I am nervous about depending on a business that relies on fast-changing technology." - I hope that this means you managed to avoid buying any APPLE shares for your retirement portfolio then!

BigJC1 09 Oct 2012 , 12:23pm

Quantum Dealer - Good point on APPLE, they are one bad iPhone away from oblivion (ie Nokia, RIM), and that could be the iPhone 5. So difficult to justify as a long term retirement bet.

On BSkyB I agree with the author, VoD services for movies and increased cable are shifting the pay TV landscape. Ultimately I see BSkyB as simply a sports channel provider

QuantumDealer 09 Oct 2012 , 3:10pm

BigJC - I was not referring to APPLE now as an investment idea but if you had used the principle "...I am nervous about depending on a business that relies on fast-changing technology" 5-10 years ago as the author suggests, he would have not invested in MSFT, APPLE, GOOG, IBM as well as non-tech names such as ABB, GE, Siemens, Pfizer, Bayer etc. etc. who employ fast changing technologies too.

Most stocks involve some kind of technological advantage / input these days whether it be from a new or evolving manufacturing technique to produce cars or new drug synthesis programmes or a semiconductor fabrication plant so to avoid all on the basis of "fast-changing technology" could mean you miss several interesting stocks all at once.

BigJC1 09 Oct 2012 , 3:42pm

QuantumDealer: For every Apple there is an Apricot (remember them, probably not, but you would have had you had shares in them) or a Psion.

I was lucky/quick enough to make some sizeable gains in the five year run up to the Tech Crash of 2000 after backing some great computer games, bio-tech and software businesses. However, that was not my retirement pot I was playing with and I was also smart enough to syndicate across several technologies (some were dogs and some only burned brightly for a brief period).

I agree that most businesses use technology to gain competitive advantage these days but I am not smart enough, or no longer close enough to the science, to invest in those technologies. Apple, a bit like RIM, have developed technologies to fill a need that most people didn't even know they had. But like rare orchids, they come, they blossom and they fade quickly. As such they are a high risk retirement strategy (and that comes from someone who has 40% of their current portfolio in banks !).

QuantumDealer 09 Oct 2012 , 4:32pm

So if you do not feel comfortable investing in tech related industries and stocks due to "not (being) smart enough, or no longer close enough to the science, to invest in those technologies", can you confirm to me that you know and can explain how to price an interest rate swap? Or a CDS swap? Or an FX forward? I am assuming that because you own so many banks that you must therefore be proficient in pricing these complex financial structures and valuing banks accurantely based only on publicly available information disclosed by the banks themselves?!!

Tech stocks or stocks that use tech to gain a competitive advantage appear relatively simple to evaluate compared to banks when approximately 99.99% of all finanical analysts couldn't even spot that Barclays, Lehman, Bear and Merrill's were close to bankruptcy less than 24 hours before this was due to occur.

I think that Intel paying a 4% dividend may be easier to understand as a company than Barclays at a 2.7% dividend, as an example, given the complexities of each business model evaluated independently.

And the difference between AAPL and RIMM is simple....absolute quantity of sales, sales growth, absolute earnings and earnings growth! I am still not suggesting that AAPL is a good investment idea for the future necessarily but what I am saying is that if you had followed sales & earnings + sales and earnings growth trends for the 2 businesses you had plenty of time to back one and dump the other. You didn't have to understand the technology to do that...you just had to review the fundamentals.

BigJC1 09 Oct 2012 , 5:26pm

QuantumDealer: Nope its just that everyone I know uses banks, will continue to use banks and has to use banks. I just see them as an undervalued utility that has fallen on bad times. I could be wrong, I often am, but I see the upside of a healthy, well capitalised banking sector being a massive lift in share value.

Psion was easy to understand that why its shares were up at 4000, today they are around 80. I don't need to second guess banks, they are too big to fail and needed by all. Surely with decent management and some good IT they can make decent money eventually. In the meantime I am happy with the 3% they pay.

For what it's worth if I had Intel or Apple I would probably sell, I think they are over the curve.

BigJC1 09 Oct 2012 , 5:26pm

QuantumDealer: Nope its just that everyone I know uses banks, will continue to use banks and has to use banks. I just see them as an undervalued utility that has fallen on bad times. I could be wrong, I often am, but I see the upside of a healthy, well capitalised banking sector being a massive lift in share value.

Psion was easy to understand that why its shares were up at 4000, today they are around 80. I don't need to second guess banks, they are too big to fail and needed by all. Surely with decent management and some good IT they can make decent money eventually. In the meantime I am happy with the 3% they pay.

For what it's worth if I had Intel or Apple I would probably sell, I think they are over the curve.

QuantumDealer 09 Oct 2012 , 6:10pm

I think Psion may only now have found its niche which is why it has been bought by Motorola. The tech bubble inflated a company with limited sales at a time when blue-sky thinking with regards to sales growth were in fashion. It had the right idea but I think, looking back, it was too early. I am afraid I never understood the stock price reaching £40 in the parabolic fashion in which it did at the time.

Anyway, I digress...I too am invested in banks. But I did so only very recently. I purchased STAN at an intraday low on the day after they were slammed by the NY regulator and bought BARC at an intra-year low earlier in the summer. But I must admit that 40% of your total portfolio sounds a little high to be in a distressed sector. A retirement portfolio ought to be something to help you sleep at night, not keep you up at night (I am not at retirement age but am just quoting the title of the original article above). However, I do think the banks will mean revert to money making organisations in due course. It may take another 3-5 years in the case of BARC to be fully fighting fit again and yield a similar amount as before the crisis (unsure that this will ever happen though in reality).

As an aside, what financial stocks do you hold?

I realise this conversation has moved on quite a bit from our earlier discussion, which I enjoyed, with regards to technology etc. - one thing I was surprised you mentioned above was that "everyone I know uses banks, will continue to use banks and has to use banks" in relation to why you are heavily invested in banks. Do you regularly invest in everything you and your friends use then?

Don't get me wrong, I have (on occasion) bought shares in companies I use or whose products I have been personally impressed by but I prefer buying shares in companies that make money...whether I like them, or what they do, is a by-product.

BigJC1 09 Oct 2012 , 8:09pm

Quantum Dealer: I like to invest in things that have a strong demand, have good brands and massive customer bases, which banks have, it's almost impossible to function without them. A bit like you I've gone for STAN, HSBC, LLoyds and Barclays investing gradually on the way down, more so when bad news was announced or when Europe was at its gloomiest or past misdemeanour's arose.

The 40% is part of my overall portfolio, I ring fenced elsewhere what I wanted for retirement and keep that mainly in the safer, high yield stocks (like Tesco Yikes !!).

Good to see Barclays have increased their UK customer base 10% today and that Lloyds are arguing over when they will restart dividends. My personal favourite is Lloyds because I think the fundamentals and management team of that business are the best and conversely the most undervalued. Lloyds used to routinely make £4bn as did HBOS, if you look at core profits and current/proposed cost savings I think in the 3 to 5 year time frame you mention we could see some interesting gains and strong dividend flows.

QuantumDealer 09 Oct 2012 , 9:42pm

I bank with Lloyds but don't invest in them. I am concerned their CEO keeps having health-related meltdowns and taking months off at a go - not a good sign of the internal state of a business but given I have been with them since I was 7 I have decided to remain loyal as the personalised service I get at the little branch I bank at make me feel so special, which is rare these days in the world of big banks!

I have more faith in the new CEO of Barclays who I think will do a tremendous job. He has turned the stock from being on a 'Diamond discount', to a premium.

I have watched shares in STAN for a couple of years waiting for their premium bubble to burst finally. When it did, I pounced aggressively at the very lowest price it hit on that infamous STAN wash-out day during the summer (£11) - (yes, I timed it very well in hindsight).

I have also thought that HSBC is the bank to own due to its US property exposure which must have been written down to zero during the fin. crisis. US housebuilders are showing decent signs of life and that should assist HSBC a bit from here, I reckon. The yield is pretty attractive too. BUT I am sticking to my 'no more than 2 stocks per sector' rule and so I am currently fully loaded on BARC and STAN right now.

With regars to your opening line above "I like to invest in things that have a strong demand, have good brands and massive customer bases"...on that basis, I own ULVR. I am a bit concerned with ULVR's current valuation but will hold it for now until I have done some more work on it. I also own TSCO but again bought at a price below where we are today following their troubles. I own it for yield rather than capital gains.

Stocks I am reviewing currently as new purchases are:

Dragon Oil
Genel
Fastjet
Agriterra
LSL Property
R.E.A. Holdings
Wynnstay

...all for different reasons! And you?




BigJC1 09 Oct 2012 , 10:10pm

I tend to focus into particular sectors, hence banks but also Far East via First State Emerging markets fund. Recently I have been looking at Agri in detail and had singled out GEA and AGCO but I'll look at Agriterra.

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.