≡ Menu

How to screen for promising dividend shares

Once you have established a solid foundation of dividend knowledge and understood the differences between the various types of dividend shares, you are ready to start prospecting for potential income investments.

Today I’ll discuss how you can get started in the dividend research process.

Panning for golden ideas

Poring over each of the 600-plus companies listed in the FTSE All-Share index to identify a few promising ideas is an arduous and time-consuming task.

Fortunately it’s a task that’s been rendered unnecessary by one of the most glorious by-products of the Internet: the share screener tool.

The primary purpose of a share screener is to reduce the vast number of potential portfolio candidates to a handful of names that you can research further.

You simply enter a few key parameters and the screener displays the select companies that fit your chosen attributes.

One important point to make right away is that screener results should not be considered automatic buy lists. Further research is always necessary, as screener results don’t always tell the whole story. (In the next two articles, we’ll discuss this process for researching individual shares.)

A number of helpful screening tools are available to UK investors online, including:

Free screeners:

Premium screeners (i.e. not-free)

If you’re just starting out, the free screeners will do the trick. More experienced investors may want to try the premium screeners, but for our purposes here we’ll just use the free screening tool from The Telegraph.

How to screen for high yield shares

In the previous article in this series, we defined ‘high-yield’ shares as shares with dividend yields between 1.2x and 2x the market average.

With the FTSE All-Share average yield currently near 3.6%, we can begin screening for high yield shares by entering 4.2% to 7.2% into the ‘dividend yield’ parameter about two-thirds down the screener page.

If you try this dividend yield range in a share screener tool, however, you’ll find that you get a list of several dozen companies in the results. For a more manageable hit list of potential high yield investments, we’ll need to enter a few more parameters into the screener to further narrow our search.

With high-yield shares, dividend sustainability is more important than growth potential — a high yield does us little good if the payout gets cut in the subsequent year — so the extra parameters will be designed to help us identify companies with the ability to maintain their current dividend and ideally grow it each year.

To identify high-yield shares that are likely to maintain their payouts in the coming years, we can enter the following five parameters:

  • Index: FTSE All-Share. Whilst there may be good opportunities among AIM-listed shares, most investors will want to hold their dividend shares within the tax shelter of an ISA. They’ll therefore need to own LSE-listed shares and to avoid AIM-listed shares.
  • Return on equity > 10%. Companies that are unable to consistently generate returns on equity above 10% are likely destroying shareholder value. Even though high-yield companies aren’t usually high growth companies, we nevertheless want to own shares that are at least earning their cost of equity each year. Searching for companies that generate at least 10% return on equity is a fair place to start.
  • Dividend cover > 1.2 times. The Telegraph share screener tool does not have free cash flow cover, but the earnings-based dividend cover will do for now. (We’ll discuss calculating free cash flow cover in the next article.) Another way to think about this metric is that a company with 1.2x dividend cover is paying out 83% of its earnings as dividends (1/1.2). This is the absolute minimum amount of dividend cover that investors should demand when researching high-yield shares, in my opinion. Without the ‘margin of safety’ afforded by a well-covered dividend, a year or two of lower earnings could force the company to reevaluate its dividend policy.
  • Five year turnover growth > 0%. Sales are the life-blood of the financial statements, so companies with declining turnover may be steadily shrinking. Companies in a state of secular decline usually feel pressure to take drastic actions to maintain profitability, such as a large merger or massive restructuring plan. Those situations can be messy and all else being equal we want to avoid getting entangled in them, because dividends can come under the chopping block in an effort to boost cash flows.
  • Five year EPS growth > 3%. Similarly, we also want to see at least a little growth in earnings per share. A situation where a company’s EPS is contracting whilst dividends per share are growing is simply unsustainable. Eventually the dividend will come under pressure. Because we want our high-yield shares to grow at least modestly in the coming years, we want to see a recent track record of positive EPS growth.

By adding these five parameters, we get a much more manageable list of shares to research:

High yield screen as of October 17, 2012 (Click to enlarge)

Though we still have some work to do — particularly on valuation — the screen has helped us identify some promising high-yield research candidates. My next article in this series will discuss how to further research high-yield shares once you’ve found them via a screen.

Screening for dividend growth shares

To screen for ‘dividend growth’ shares that may have lower starting yields but have more potential to grow future payouts at high rates, we simply need to make a few adjustments to our screening parameters.

Since we’ve previously defined dividend growth as shares between 2% and 1.2 times the market average, we’ll change the dividend yield range to 2% to 4.3%.

We’ll again stick with just FTSE All-Share stocks in this screen to make sure they are ISA-eligible.

Here are a few more settings:

  • Return on equity > 15%. Companies that consistently generate returns on equity over 15% likely have some type of sustainable competitive advantage. Otherwise, you would expect competitive forces to drive ROE downward to the company’s cost of equity. Although ROE does have some flaws (which we’ll discuss in the next article), screening for companies with ROEs over 15% give us a better chance of finding shares with the ability to produce high rates of return.
  • Dividend cover > 1.5 times. When looking for dividend growth ideas, we should demand more dividend cover than in the case of high-yield shares for two reasons. First, because we want to identify firms with higher growth rates than high-yield shares, we naturally want these companies to retain a meaningful amount of profit each year to reinvest in the business to promote sustainable longer-term growth. Second, by starting with a higher dividend cover ratio, we’re giving dividend growth shares the potential to grow into a lower dividend cover as they mature. A dividend growth share that’s consistently paying out 90% of earnings today, for instance, doesn’t have much room to augment its payout ratio as growth slows and is thus primarily dependent on earnings growth to deliver dividend growth.
  • Five year dividend per share growth > 7%. Just because a company may have the financial strength to increase its dividend at a high rate, it doesn’t mean that the company’s board will do so. For instance, the board could prefer to employ share repurchases or engage in aggressive M&A rather than pay out free cash as dividends. By identifying shares with a track record of raising dividends, we stand a better chance of avoiding companies not fully committed to their dividend programmes.
  • Five year EPS growth > 7%. Whilst companies can artificially boost earnings per share using buybacks, most corporate boards of directors use EPS-based payout ratios when determining dividend policy. If the board is seeing strong EPS growth, then they’re more likely to boost the dividend at a similar pace.

As of 17 October. (Click to enlarge)

As you can see, we have plenty of good ideas to research and from a variety of sectors, too, including financials, commodities, consumer goods, and technology.

We’ll take a closer look at this list of dividend growth ideas after we discuss high yield shares in the next article.

Still more to do

Share screening tools have greatly simplified what was once a time-consuming task of idea-generation. Nevertheless, a successful screen is just one part of a complete research process.

Over the course of the next two articles, we’ll discuss how to use screener results to select the best of the best ideas.

In the meantime, why not try your hand at a few screens and see how they can work for you? And if you have any of your own screening tips, please share them in the comments box below!

You can bookmark all The Analyst’s articles on dividend investing. The archive will be updated as new dividend articles are posted.

{ 11 comments }

Don’t let the fear of RDR stop you from investing

number of fledgling investors have been wondering whether they should postpone their first plunge into investing because of the upheaval caused by the Retail Distribution Review (RDR), going by the chatter we hear in the Monevator comments and across the forums.

Even some seasoned DIY investors appear to be paralysed by the platform fee buboes that keep bursting out on their execution-only brokers.

Switching brokers is possible, of course, but it equals hassle, pain, and expense.

It’s enough to make you stay in cash. Don’t let it!

RDR is moving the goalposts

RDR 2: The FSA Strikes Back

For starters, the new rules on platforms aren’t due to come into force until we’re partying like it’s 2014.

  • RDR Part One ends hidden payments to Independent Financial Advisors (IFAs) on 31 December, 2012.
  • RDR Part Two is going to kybosh stealth payments to platforms by 31 December, 2013.

If all goes according to plan, platform fees will be deducted in plain view from our cash accounts, rather than being sneakily siphoned off via a fund’s Ongoing Charge Figures (OCF).

The idea is that explicit charging will sting, and so cause us to ask searching questions about levels of service.

But the Financial Service Authority (FSA) is still pondering over the final draft of the rulebook. It hasn’t given a precise date for a decision. It may still change its position or delay RDR Part Two altogether. It has form.

What’s more, the FSA is itself going to be abolished and replaced by new authorities – supposedly in early 2013.

It may well feel like the last week of school in there.

Every day counts

Let’s say it takes another year for the FSA – or its successors – to pronounce a verdict, for the platforms to fully respond, and for the dust to settle on a new pricing landscape.

The FTSE All-Share has gone up 13% in the last 12 months. Assume, for the sake of argument, this performance is repeated over the next 12 months.

As a newbie investor, even with only £500 invested, you’d still be up on the £50 or so it would cost to transfer to a new platform with a couple of funds in your portfolio, should you choose to invest now and move if you need to later.

I’m not pretending I know the market is bound to soar over the next 12 months. It could just as easily crash, or flatline like an Ed Miliband joke.

But either way it’s a mistake to allow a minor detail like saving a few quid on platform fees to be the tail that wags your investing dog.

Dithering could cost you the few days in the year that the market goes on a tear. And if your platform proves uncompetitive then transferring out isn’t the end of the world.

Of course, if you’re getting cold feet for some other reason, then that’s perfectly understandable…

Known unknowns

An upheaval like RDR risks more unintended consequences than traveling back in time and chatting up your nan.

Here’s a few of the potential googlies that could keep investors on the hop for a long time yet:

  • RDR may run foul of the EU’s decision not to ban commission in its MiFID II review. That leaves open the possibility of European platforms selling funds to UK investors while eluding the clutches of RDR.
  • Some execution-only brokers will slip through the loopholes created by the FSA’s definition of a ‘platform’. These brokers may well be able to rebate commission in cash with the FSA’s blessing. A final decision has yet to be made.
  • The FSA is also considering allowing platforms to rebate fees as units rather than cash. In other words, they might compete by offering us bonus shares in our funds.

That last one beggars belief, as the FSA has already expressed the view that trail commission is used by fund providers to buy preferential marketing treatment on platforms.

If rebates still exist in any form then that practice is likely to continue by another name.

What to do now

Of course, none of this pondering solves the problem of finding a good home for your investments today.

My best suggestions for no-fee or low fee brokers can be found here. You can partially prepare for the future by choosing a platform that’s already declared its hand on RDR.

Remember the answer to any investing question is about as straight as a journalist in front of the Leveson inquiry, but for passive investors who want to buy index funds in an ISA:

  • Cavendish Online – Claims its no-fee model is likely to survive RDR. It charges nothing bar the TER. You can’t buy ETFs though, should you fancy it.
  • TD Direct Investing – No charges if you have over £5,100 in your portfolio. Otherwise it’s £36 a year. No dealing fees for funds.
  • Selftrade – Beats TD Direct if you’ve got less than £5,100 and will definitely trade once per quarter. Otherwise the inactivity fee is £10 per quarter. Funds are free to buy, but not to sell.
  • Hargreaves Lansdown – Platform charges are £24 per fund per year. No dealing fees. It makes sense if you want a portfolio consisting of one or two funds you can’t get from the first three platforms (e.g. Vanguard LifeStrategy).
  • Alliance Trust – Platform fees are £48 per year and you can buy funds at £1.50 if you make regular investments. Beats Hargreaves Lansdown if you want Vanguard, hold more than two funds, and make eight or fewer regular purchases a year. Otherwise look at Bestinvest.

Note, I haven’t exhaustively searched all 100-odd execution-only brokers in the market. I gotta go eat soon. But this is an informed snapshot. If you can find a better RDR-friendly deal then please let us know in the comments below.

Finally: More Vanguard options

It’s also worth mentioning when choosing platforms that the Vanguard funds will now be much more widely available, as it has struck a deal to appear on Cofunds – the platform that lies behind many broker’s online convenience stores.

Platform fees will apply, potentially along the lines of Cofunds’ Explicit Charging Structure, which amounts to a £40 annual fee plus 0.29% on the first £100,000. That will be a mighty wallop if your platform doesn’t cap it.

So that’s the long of it. The short of it is: it’s a mess but don’t let RDR put you off the investing fun. Monevator will be here to help keep you up to speed.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 13 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

I feel like we’re more than halfway through the financial meltdown. But unfortunately, someone far smarter than me and with a track record in far-sightedness disagrees.

Michael Burry led the tiny band of hedge fund managers who identified the US sub-prime housing disaster before it happened, and made a fortune. In Michael Lewis’ book The Big Short, Burry comes across as someone who gets his edge by thinking the unthinkable, and investing accordingly.

Well, Burry recently said the unspeakable, too, when he returned to his Alma Matter at UCLA to deliver a commencement speech to its keen young graduates.

Such speeches are meant to be rousing and optimistic affairs (Steve Jobs’ is a particularly brilliant example).

But ever the contrarian, Burry warns in his speech that UCLA’s graduates face a grim future, with at least two recessions baked in. And it’s not even their fault:

The speech is a couple of months old, but I’d never seen it before. It was so powerful and unusual to hear the bearish line coming from someone I respect that I had to share.

Michael Burry no longer manages other people’s money, after his investors turned against him when his big bet on against housing stalled before it finally paid off.

So we don’t really know what he’s up to right now.

As of 2010, however, he was buying farmland, gold, and real estate:

Many readers – and most financial bloggers – are much more bearish than me, so perhaps Burry’s continuing fears won’t rattle your cage.

I’m not going to change how I invest on the back of it, either. Like Burry, I try to think for myself.

But I am going to keep it in mind should valuations start to run away.

[continue reading…]

{ 20 comments }

Hey buddy, want to buy a conglomerate?

Conglemerates have an old-fashioned image, but a couple look good value to me.

Important: What follows is not a recommendation to buy or sell shares in any company. I am just a private investor, sharing my notes for general interest. Please read my disclaimer.

From time to time the world goes crazy for conglomerates – those sprawling hodgepodges of factories, farms, listed firms, bonds, gold coins, debts, and fancy art hanging in the company’s lobby.

Of course, if instead of ‘sprawling hodgepodge’ I had written ‘mighty empire’ then perhaps you’d now be thinking they sounded like a better bet.

Such is the nature of conglomerates!

While rationales are made for or against their existence in one decade, only to be turned on their head the next, I think their popularity comes down to perception, or even mere fashion.

Cheap conglomerates and trusts trading at a discount

I don’t think investors like conglomerates at the moment.

If you extend the definition to include family-dominated investment trusts – and I think you can, at a pinch – then I think you can argue that sprawling hodgepodges of all kinds are cheap.

From time-to-time I even wonder if I should liquidate my own sprawling portfolio of investments, and instead simply divide the proceeds between four or five carefully selected mega-holding companies, given the discounts to historical valuations that I see.

It’s just an idle thought, but considering you potentially get to own the same sort of assets in aggregate – but at a discount, albeit minus management’s fees for managing them every year – then it has a certain logic.

When I invested a chunk of money for my mother earlier this year, I included a couple of deeply discounted trusts in the mix for this very reason.

The cut-price holdings of the rich

It’s true that most of the wealthy family-run global investment trusts listed in London haven’t been shooting the lights out performance wise recently, but I don’t think that fully explains their big discounts.

Hansa Trust, for example, was trading at a discount of 30% when I bought it for my mum. The non-voting shares (HANA) have now narrowed to a 25% discount, but that’s still a steep markdown on what’s ultimately a collection of listed companies (albeit a heavily skewed and idiosyncratic one).

Caledonia Investments, which I wrote about last year, has also lurched from pillar to post, and is currently on a discount of 23%. Caledonia recently bought a collection of five US operating businesses that make the sort of widgets and gizmos that define the cliché of a conglomerate. I like its timing, but I doubt the market will be convinced for a while.

Even the mighty RIT Capital Partners is on a discount, albeit just an estimated 5%. It’s more often on a premium. Lord Rothschild, its top dog and major shareholder, is raising the dividend paid by the trust, no doubt because income is all the rage in today’s low-yielding world. That’s quite a reversal, given RIT used to be a go-to investment for modestly high net worth individuals who wanted to focus on capital gains.

An income stream is a handy thing to receive if you’re hanging about for months or years waiting for a discount to close. Caledonia is also looking to raise its dividend, but that hasn’t helped the discount much so far, nor done much for performance.

Even I got bored of holding Caledonia earlier this year and swapped it into something else, since when it’s reliably enough started to rise.  My mum’s investment in Caledonia did better – she’s up 10%!

Two US conglomerates going cheap

Turning to the US, two classic conglomerates I like and hold look cheap compared to their assets, although the nature of the beasts is that as investors all we can do is compare how they’re trading with their stated asset values – and our own best guesses of how much that underestimates their true (or intrinsic) value.

You’ve heard of the first, Berkshire Hathaway. It got so cheap last September that the legendary pair of tightwads at the top, Warren Buffett and sidekick Charlie Munger, started muttering about buying back its shares.

The price swiftly rose above the level at which Buffett said he’d do the deed – that tends to happen if the greatest investor of all-time says he’s going to start buying a company – but they’re still well below most estimates of intrinsic value, which has historically been a better (if uncertain) guide to Berkshire’s value.

I hold and see at least 50% upside in better times just on a reversion to its more usual rating to its assets. And I think it could do even better, given the sort of US focused companies it owns, which should do well as US housing recovers.

Curiously enough, Leucadia National Corporation is run by two old outstanding investors as well – but there the similarities end. Leucadia has historically been a deep value outfit, whereas Buffett now buys quality firms like Coca-Cola and American Express. But, like Berkshire, Leucadia has still compounded book value by an average of over 20% a year for decades. (That’s an incredible millionaire-making rate, just to be clear).

Almost everything these guys have been doing in recent years, I’d do myself – from buying timber firms and a beef company, to setting up a unit with Berkshire to capitalize on an upswing in US mortgages. We might all be wrong, but it’s the reason I’ve bought the shares – together with a price that implies they’re trading below book value. In happier times Leucadia can go for as much as twice book, though roughly 1.5x is more typical.

I could go on and on. Investor AB is a Swedish listed company on a big discount. Until recently the mega-successful Jardine Matheson conglomerate of Singapore was another, though I’ve just checked and found it has come back in recent weeks.

An interesting place to look for potential opportunities in this space is in the holdings of the British Empire Trust, whose manager spends his days trying to find big and diversified concerns going cheap.

Why conglomerates are unpopular

If you’re going to foolishly stray from passive index trackers to bet you’re cleverer than the market, you’d better have at least a few reasons why you think a share price is wrong and you’re right.

I could well be fooling myself, but I can think of half a dozen reasons for conglomerates and the larger, more exotic investment trusts to currently be in the doghouse.

Low income – After not caring about dividends for decades, now income is all some investors want to know about. Berkshire pays nothing, and Leucadia very little. As mentioned RIT used to turn its aristocratic nose up at letting cash go out the door too, but that’s changing. Ditto Caledonia. It’ll be interesting to see if it makes a difference to their discounts.

Opacity – In the wake of the financial crisis that saw hedge funds implode and Bernie Madoff’s wonder-scheme exposed as a sham, investors are less credulous about asset allocators adding value. All the companies cited except for Hansa include unlisted assets on their books – and we’ve seen big discounts on private equity since the crash – while even Hansa is a Russian doll of assets nested into assets. Of the companies I’ve cited, I’m confident Berkshire, Leucadia, and RIT Capital are run by market-beaters, but investors may rationally be demanding a safety margin for now.

Liquidity/optionality – Markets have gone sideways for the past year, so professional investors have been trying to make money by switching in and out of particular sectors according to the appetite for risk. Combined with a general fear of being lumped into something that falls further than the market in a panic, the lack of flexibility when putting funds into a holding company in this environment might be causing some of the discount.

Cheap money – Conglomerates compete with private equity firms and others for opportunities. When money is expensive, the cash flow their businesses generate and their own credit worthiness might be worth more than it is today. This thesis is a bit of a work-in-progress for me, but Leucadia has said it’s been affected by something similar.

Too contrarian – By their nature, good capital allocators are contrarians. Berkshire and Leucadia’s bets on US housing and Rothschild’s and Hansa’s sticking with commodities and emerging markets haven’t been flavour of the month for, well, many months.

Wrinkly management – Elderly managers head up three of these firms (Berkshire, Leucadia, and RIT Capital), and it’s often said they’re being discounted for this reason. I could write a whole other post on why that’s misguided, especially in the case of Berkshire, but that’s for another day. Besides, great investors live longer!

Disinterest / Lack of funds – Ultimately closed-ended funds and conglomerates are subject to supply and demand (in contrast with open-ended funds). The general lack of enthusiasm for equities and the continuing draining of money from the markets by pension funds and other big institutions may be sapping away the bid for these entities.

All of those ideas are subject to debate. For instance, some investment trusts are trading at premiums, especially the income trusts (which fits my thesis) but also the likes of Lindsell Train (which doesn’t, though then again he’s very young).

I think there may be long-term opportunities to beat the market here. But you’ll have to make your own mind up and read extensively into each company if you fancy getting a mogul and his empire on the cheap.

Note and disclosure: Of the conglomerates and investment trusts mentioned, at the time of writing I own shares in Berkshire, Leucadia, RIT Capital Partners, and Hansa Trust. It wouldn’t take much to see me buy back into Caledonia, either – I can’t let my mother have all the fun.

{ 5 comments }