Apologies

This page is quite old hence its rather spartan appearance.

Why not check out our Latest Stories page for our newest articles or search our site for anything.

VALUE INVESTING
Income Shares Thrash The Market

By Stephen Bland (TMFPyad)
May 21, 2004

This is the latest two-monthly review of my high-yield portfolios: the first, HYP1, is about 3½ years old and the second, HYP2, is about thirteen months old.

I stress that the primary aim of these portfolios is growth of income not capital, although many people use the concept as a growth vehicle by reinvesting dividends which, in my view, is an excellent idea. Note that these are merely demonstration portfolios to illustrate a high-yield approach with no dabbling. They are not a recommended set of shares, nor would I necessarily choose the same portfolios today. The strategy is intended for the very long term, ideally eternity, and it follows that short-term fluctuations are of little importance.

It is worthwhile emphasising the highly attractive taxation of dividends, compared with other income in the form of savings interest, rents or pension annuities. Dividends are paid tax free to a 10% or 22% taxpayer and higher-rate taxpayers pay tax on them at only 25%.

As regards capital and income, these portfolios should be considered as if they were funds, with the distinct advantage of no charges. Investors in HYPs should not pay much attention to individual share movements, which can be dramatic.

Here are the latest figures; cost includes all purchase expenses.

HYP1 - start date: 13 November 2000

                               £   Orig.    No.  Price   Value  Move
                            Invest price   shs.    now     now    % 

Un. Util. (LSE: UU.) 1       5,000   620    807    538   4,342  -13.2
Gallaher (LSE: GLH)          5,000   416  1,190    670   7,973  +59.5
Scot. & New. (LSE: SCTN)     5,000   490  1,010    416   4,202  -16.0
Royal & Sun (LSE: RSA) 2     5,000   393  1,271     78     991  –80.2

All. & Leic. (LSE: AL.)      5,000   645    768    818   6,282  +25.6
Britannic (LSE: BRT)         5,000 1,020    485    330   1,600  –68.0
Lloyds TSB (LSE: LLOY)       5,000   705    702    423   2,969  -40.6
Intercon. Hotel (LSE: IHG) 3 2,500   380    658    506   3,329  +33.2

Mitchells & But(LSE: MAB) 3  2,500   356    691    253   1,748  -30.1
Boots (LSE: BOOT)            5,000   575    861    632   5,442   +8.8
Land Sec. (LSE: LAND) 4      5,000   771    651  1,085   7,063  +41.3
Ass. Br. Ports (LSE: ABP)    5,000   321  1,542    440   6,785  +35.7
Hilton (LSE: HG.) 5          5,000   232  2,275    245   5,574  +11.5
Rio Tinto (LSE: RIO)         5,000 1,120    442  1,257   5,556  +11.1
Anglo American (LSE: AAL)    5,000   942    526  1,121   5,896  +17.9
Shell (LSE: SHEL)            5,000   572    865    396   3,425  -31.5

Totals                      75,000                      73,177   -2.4
FTSE100 6,274.8 4,438.2 -29.3
Income Yield on capital invested % Year ended 13/11/01: £3,451 4.6
13/11/02: £3,474 4.6
13/11/03: £3,197 4.3
Notes 1. United Utilities cost per share and total holding amended following rights issue. 2. Royal & Sun cost per share and total holding amended following rights issue. 3. Intercontinental Hotels and Mitchells & Butlers were acquired as a result of the
division of the former Six Continents holding into these two new shares. 4. Land Securities reorganised in September 2002, resulting in a cash payment that
was used to purchase additional shares in the company. 5. Hilton replaced Blue Circle, which was taken over for cash at a profit over the
£5,000 cost, the whole of the proceeds being reinvested. This is why the total
original cost of Hilton derived from the above table is more than £5,000. The
start investment of £5,000 has though been retained here, so as to maintain the
original cost of the portfolio at its true figure of £75,000.
HYP2 - start date: 02 April 2003 

                               £   Orig.    No.  Price   Value  Move
                            Invest price   shs.    now     now   % 

Lloyds TSB (LSE: LLOY)       5,000  338  1,479     423  6,256  +25.1
Scot. & New. (LSE: SCTN)     5,000  348  1,436     416  5,974  +19.5
Dixons (LSE: DXNS)           5,000   87  5,762     148  8,528  +70.6
Un. Util. (LSE: UU.) 1       5,000  546    915     538  4,923   -1.5
Hays (LSE: HAS)              5,000   78  6,435     115  7,400  +48.0
Legal & Gen. (LSE: LGEN)     5,000   75  6,696      90  6,026  +20.5
BA Tobacco (LSE: BATS)       5,000  580    862     818  7,051  +41.0
Brad. & Bing. (LSE: BB.)     5,000  297  1,685     274  4,617   -7.7

Hanson (LSE: HNS)            5,000  320  1,563     414  6,471  +29.4
Land Sec. (LSE: LAND)        5,000  736    680   1,085  7,378  +47.6
The BOC Group (LSE: BOC)     5,000  795    628     888  5,577  +11.5
BAA (LSE: BAA)               5,000  465  1,075     538  5,784  +15.7
Shell (LSE: SHEL)            5,000  394  1,271     396  5,033   +0.7
AMVESCAP (LSE: AVZ)          5,000  311  1,609     356  5,728  +14.6
Anglo American (LSE: AAL)    5,000  970    516   1,121  5,784  +15.7

Totals                      75,000                     92,530  +23.4
FTSE100 3,753.4 4,438.2 +18.2
Income Yield on capital invested % Year ended 02/04/04: £4,564 6.1 Notes 1. United Utilities cost per share and total holding amended following rights issue.

HYP1

The estimated value, including reinvested income, would be about £84,756, an increase of 13.0% on the original investment in 3½ years. This is in line with cash.

The portfolio capital is down 2.4%, but remains substantially ahead of the market, which has fallen 29%. A comparison with trackers on a reinvested income basis would show it to be even further ahead, because its yield of over 4% has always been higher than the market.

The familiar pattern of large individual movements continues, with the unchanged losers, Royal & Sun and Britannic, down about 80% and 68%, whilst the top gainer remains Gallaher, up 60%.

HYP2

The estimated value, including reinvested income, would be about £98,052, an increase of 30.7% on the original investment in about thirteen months. This is miles ahead of cash.

The portfolio capital remains well ahead of the market in its short life to date, up about 23%, compared to 18% for the latter. A comparison with trackers on a reinvested income basis would show it to be even further ahead, because of its 6% yield, which is substantially higher than the market yield.

This portfolio also demonstrates large individual share fluctuations, ranging from continuing winner Dixons, up 70%, with a new greatest loser (when compared with my last review): Bradford & Bingley, down 8%. Shell previously held this dubious distinction.

General Comment

Cash is an important target to beat over the long term, for which these portfolios are designed. I would not be too pleased if they beat the market, yet failed to beat cash. To justify investment in equities, they should deliver a handsome premium over cash through long periods in return for their higher risks. Calculated on a reinvested income basis, HYP2 has so far done the business handsomely in this respect, whilst HYP1 is about on par with cash.

If you look at the portfolios on an income withdrawn basis, as though a person was living on that income, then HYP2 is delivering a far higher income than any deposit account (6%). HYP1 paid out 4.2% last year which, at the moment, is marginally below the very best deposit accounts. However, because interest rates were lower before that and its dividends were a little higher, HYP1 was beating cash income in its first couple of years. But that's using the gross figures. Once you take tax into account, the picture is even more attractive, because the more generous tax treatment of dividends.

For those seeking a growth approach with the aim of accumulating capital over the long term, I believe this strategy will leave trackers behind. The early evidence, though too soon to draw any long-term conclusions, is that it is doing just that. What makes it even more likely is the reinvestment of dividends. Because the HYP yields are so much higher than the market, the portfolios have an automatic advantage over trackers, thanks to the compounding of those higher yields over long periods. The lack of regular charges in HYPs doesn't do any harm either.

Here's an example using HYP1 (HYP2 comes out even better due to its higher yield):

The original yield was 4.6% but, in the third year, this dropped to 4.2%; I'll use the lower figure to be conservative. The FTSE 100 yield at the time this portfolio began was something over 2%, but I'll use 2%, to reflect a tracker's charges. If £100 is invested for twenty years at 2% compounded, it grows to £149. But, if it invested at 4.2%, the total is £228. This is a simplified example, as it ignores capital fluctuations, but I wanted to show the comparative compounding effect of different yields. I cannot be certain what will happen to the capital values of the HYPs compared with trackers but, so far, they are winning in that respect too.

In my opinion, given the lack of investor involvement required, indeed advised, and the similar long-term timescales, this makes HYPs eminently suitable alternatives for those considering tracker funds.

In my value newsletter, I pick a long-term hold, high-yield selection each month to show readers how to construct an HYP by purchasing suitable shares at regular intervals. Read it today with a  free thirty-day trial.

Stephen owns shares in Alliance & Leicester, Lloyds TSB, Mitchells & Butlers, Scottish & Newcastle and United Utilities.