Hitting Back At Critics

Published in Investing Strategy on 5 June 2009

The high yield portfolio strategy has attracted a fair amount of criticism in the last couple of years. Stephen Bland offers his views.

In a bear market like this, the high yield portfolio (HYP) strategy hasn't exactly been short of critical comment. If people decide to have a go at it, they naturally will do so during a period of poor performance.

Back in time

I'll mention some facts first, based on my HYP1 which was the first public portfolio I set up on the Fool back in 2000 for an investment of £75,000 split equally by £5,000 into each of fifteen shares. It is non tinkering so that changes arise only when there is mandatory corporate action of which there has been a lot over the years. Its eighth year to November 2008 produced record income of £5,040, up 46% in the seven years since the first year's income of £3,451.

The capital had fallen substantially since 2007, but in November 2008 it was still slightly above cost with a gain of 2.4% at £76,825. For comparison the FTSE100 at November 2008 was down 33.4% in the eight years since HYP1 commenced. I make that an outperformance of around 53.8% on capital alone excluding income. On top of that the higher income than the 100 index would have boosted the comparison in favour of HYP1 on a total return basis even more, for those that wish to look at it that way.

I think this is not bad even though the capital in my view as I have stated repeatedly is very much of secondary concern. I know some people don't always see it that way, especially critics of the strategy, so in the process of refuting their repeated claims about how bad an idea they think this is, those are the facts.

The current value is a little higher at £79,051, though it has actually dipped below cost at the worst stages of the last year or so. At the risk of stating the obvious, a portfolio of shares, any shares, has to fluctuate, can easily go well below cost and the investor has to be able to tolerate that.

Income takes a hit

For the forthcoming year to November 2009, the income of HYP1 will take quite a hit due to the prevalence of reduced and suspended dividends by such a wide range of companies. My rough guess based on forecasts is that it will be down by about 35% on 2008, giving an estimate of £3,300 or so which is slightly below the first year's income. On the capital value at November 2008 of £76,825, that represents a forecast yield of some 4.3%.

Okay that's the current state of play on HYP1 and on capital it sees off the critics I'd say. And it's the critics who go on about the capital, even though that was never the principal thing. To date, it's beaten a bank deposit slightly and the index substantially.

Harder to answer is the projected income fall because income is the primary reason for HYPs. My response is to ask what income alternatives there are for an ordinary investor which offer similar risk and liquidity etc. Looking at a popular safe income investment like bank deposits, the return has fallen very much further. Depositors in need of income would be delighted if it was down by only 35% instead of the more likely 80% or more in some cases. Actually, interest rates on a large number of accounts are now as near zero as makes almost no difference.

In a recession many companies will cut dividends. The current one is particularly severe in that respect. But what also happens that is that interest rates fall too as governments try to stimulate demand. The two events of dividend and interest cuts are likely to go hand in hand.

The difference is that the sector diversification of HYPs has a moderating effect on dividend cuts. Even in these times not all companies cut payouts by the same proportion and indeed many have made, and are forecast to continue, increased dividends. The effect is that portfolio income is nowhere near as badly affected as the worst shares in it. I'm not saying that it is impossible for every single company in an HYP to suspend dividends and give you zero income, anything could happen, but it is extremely unlikely.

What's the alternative?

Naturally it's no fun to see your HYP income fall but compared with the alternative of what may be perceived as safer income from bank deposits, HYP income has held up reasonably well in these very tough circumstances. You can't say that about interest.

The other point on this comparison is the relative volatility of interest rates compared with the far more stable HYP income. Over time interest rates are all over the place, the range is very wide. A few years ago interest on a deposit account was several times what it is now. HYP income does not fluctuate by more than a fraction of the range seen in interest. Volatility is one way of looking at risk so on this basis deposit interest is actually far riskier than HYP income, though the trade off is that the capital is stable with the former.

Making the comparison even worse, outside of a tax shelter interest is taxed at your marginal rate whereas almost all UK dividends are tax free to basic rate payers and suffer a lower imposition than does interest for higher rate payers.

It's hard therefore to see how HYP income, can be criticised on a comparison with bank deposits for the income seeker.

Thus the evidence so far, and at eight and half years we haven't hit the really long term yet with HYP1, is that on both income and capital it has stood up fairly well given that I am measuring it at a really bad time. I would have preferred it if the HYP income was not hit quite so hard but I think my forecast of something like a fall of 35% will be fairly typical of portfolios for this year. That should recover fairly smartly as those companies which suspended dividends recommence payouts in due course.

> More on the high yield portfolio.

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.

bimber 06 Jun 2009 , 1:58pm

It seems to me that an HYP is suitable for 2 different types of people. Firstly, someone who wants to take a risk on the stock market but doesn't have the skill or inclination to learn about and keep up with where the best investment options might be, and secondly someone wanting an income in retirement.

For the first type we should compare HYP performance with income reinvested against the performance of a simple index tracker such as the FTSE100 or FTSE250. According to the above, it's done very well.

The second type would use a HYP as an alternative to an index-linked annuity (though it may be best to have a more secure income alongside an HYP). I don't think a savings account is good for comparison. Does anyone know what income could be had for a non-smoking male aged 55, 60 or 65 for £75,000 in 2000 when HYP1 was launched? As mentioned above, the taxation policy is relevant here.

RiverCactusMario 08 Jun 2009 , 12:39pm

"The second type would use a HYP as an alternative to an index-linked annuity (though it may be best to have a more secure income alongside an HYP)."

Don't forget that you can't pass on your retirement pot to your heirs once you've traded it in for an annuity. HYP investors get that possibility in return for less security. A HYP generally gives you more versatility.

Neil

loudbarker 08 Jun 2009 , 1:29pm

TMFPYAD does not refer to the records of HYP2, HYP3 and HYP 4. Readers should be made aware of these portfolios. HYP1 is onlypart of the evidence available about HYPs

ChaircatMidge 08 Jun 2009 , 3:17pm

So far as HYP2 is concerned, a quick look suggests to me that the capital today would be worth in excess of £100,000 compared with an original spend of £75,000. Income might have been approximately £5,000 last year. There has been plenty of corporate action since it was set up, so I have had to make a guess at the income.

Income in the first year of HYP2 was £4,600.

Considering that HYP2 kicked off with Lloyds, DSGI and Bradford and Bingley, I think it is showing that a diversified HYP does the business.

Somebody else can have a look at HYPs 3 and 4.

peteyperson 08 Jun 2009 , 5:01pm

This is not a fair comparison because someone living off the income could have done so with HYP1, but would have had to sell some stock each quarter to account for the lower income from a staight index (or actively managed) fund over the last eight years.

These capital sales would have been done often in down years (2000-2) and more recently again, and so raising 2% of capital for living expenses might have cost up to 4% of the portfolio balance each time. As capital dwindles, you're forced to sell a higher percentage of what remains as you own fewer shares paying out even smaller amounts of income from the indexed/active fund.

Someone living off a HYP portfolio simply lives off the income, has no need to touch capital, other than to opportunistically rebalance. Thus, the straight comparison to the index isn't really real-world accurate at all. Trinity study showed that a 60/40 US stock/US bond portfolio blew out after just 30 years (from rolling 30 year periods) because of too many equity sales in the down years. William Bernstein has also shown how you lose 1.5% annually from equity sales in downmarkets.

HYP is seen by many as being more risky, but in terms of portfolio survival risk it's actually far less risky. You mute the capital price volatility and reductions in income are far smaller. The far smaller reductions can be plugged with a modest allocation to low-returning 1-3 year Treasury bonds. Even a 10% allocation, with a 5% income HYP portfolio dropping by 1/5th to 4% income means using 1% allocation of the bonds per year. You can plug the gap for a whole decade, not sweat the downmarket (invaluable for those who would panic and sell at the lowest point!) and still own all your equities.

This compares to a 60/40 typical portfolio where you're eating thru capital or the bonds and needing to rebalance later, leaving less equity to make money for you as you grow older. With HYP you'd need declined income sustained over 15-20 years before you're rebalancing the equity.

UK market delivered 1.06% annualised real return 1945-2003 (per Barclays research). You experience high volatility for almost zero real return, pre fees. Relying on perfectly timed capital sales at juicy prices to fund your retirement reliably is lunacy. Relying on 8-10% market return for a decade to reach your magic retirement number is crazy too because all your plans depend on the market - a single point of failure. Compound up from income on investments and avoid that risk as you accumulate instead. Costs in retirement are also smaller as your stock trades are already bought & paid for, rather than index fees that keep on coming year in, year out. It's a no brainer once you 'get it'.

Petey

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.