≡ Menu

Getting an investment income from investment trusts

Get a growing income from investment trusts

People looking for investment income home in on bad ideas like Premier League footballers sniffing out WAGs with loose morals.

Guided by bad advisers, they put their money into opaque structured products, bonds that aren’t really bonds, and all sorts of offshore nonsense.

Every month brings new tales of woe about the sorry results. One recent story The Independent on the ‘epidemic problem’ of investment bonds noted that:

Insurance giant Zurich received a dressing down from the ombudsman after an adviser encouraged a man to unnecessarily move £292,000 into an investment bond, which reportedly came with £17,500 in commission.

But while the products are not new, sky-high commissions continue to lure advisers into recommending bonds, although they are often inappropriate for the investor.

Not only do most bonds carry exit penalties for cancellation within five or six years, they are not always tax-efficient and carry risks which the investor may not be fully aware of.

Don’t be fooled. If you want safety, go for cash or government bonds. If you want a growing income, there’s no getting away from risk.

Incidentally, I’m still waiting for someone to complain that they were miss-sold a product that tripled in value when they only expected it to double.

Funnily enough, people only complain when the bonds do badly!

Investment income from investment trusts

Of course, most reputable banks’ income bonds and guaranteed products do not blow up.

But you’re often still paying over the odds (probably to an advisor) for a mediocre return, and you may not be properly evaluating the risks, particularly if the bond was constructed with derivatives.

And the shame of it is we’ve a proven way of investing for a long-term growing income here in the UK – one that’s fairly transparent and based on enduring investment principles.

I’m talking about stock market listed income and growth investment trusts, which most experienced readers will know about already, I’d hope.

The pick of these trusts have paid regular dividends for decades, with the income rising annually for well over 20 years. The very best have grown their payouts for more than 40 years!

How do they do it?

Dividends: These investment trusts generate the income they pay to investors by investing in FTSE 350 companies that deliver a growing dividend income stream.

Gearing: Most use a bit of debt to increase their returns.

Reserves: By not paying out all their dividend income in the good years, trusts can build up ‘revenue reserves’ to top-up dividend payout in the bad years, and so smooth out the income stream they offer.

And that’s it. Nothing fancy – but it works.

Four great investment trusts

The following four UK growth and income investment trusts have a dividend growth record spanning at least 20 consecutive years, according to their trade body, the AIC.

All boast generous dividend income yields at the time of writing:

Investment Trust Yield
Merchant’s Trust 6.9%
Murray Income 5.2%
City of London IT 5.1%
Temple Bar 4.5%

The right column shows the current annual income yield for each trust

All four companies are generations old, and they manage – and are valued at – well over £1 billion combined. These are not fly-by-night outfits.

The longest period of rising income of my four picks has been achieved by the City of London Investment Trust, which has increased dividend payments annually for 43 years. (Despite this great record, in the recent bear market you could pick up the City of London trust at a 10% discount!)

There are other income-orientated trusts with a slightly less stellar record that are worth investigating, too. One is the Edinburgh Investment Trust, which is under the new-ish management of high-flying income investor Neil Woodford. It’s yielding nearly 5.5%.

There are also a few global and small cap investment trusts with decent yields that you might want to investigate to diversify your income stream.

Risky? Definitely.

If you divided your money between the four investment trusts above, you’d currently buy an attractive average investment income yield of 5.4%. You could reasonably hope that the income will rise over time, too.

With even the very best cash deposit accounts yielding barely 3% before tax (and most much less), that seems to me good value.

True, investment trusts carry annual fees, but they’re not onerous – typically around 0.35% to 0.5% for these giant trusts (although City of London does also charge a rather fiddly performance fee) – and the yields quoted are net of fees.

I’d also argue that investment trusts are pretty simple, compared to the alternatives we discussed at the start of this article.

  • No sudden loss of capital if the FTSE falls below 4,521 or some other particular threshold foisted upon the product by options.
  • No need to invest in Bulgarian ski chalets or ostrich farms.
  • Certainly not a Ponzi scheme.
  • You can sell up at any time you choose.

Yet there’s no free lunch, either.

When you buy an investment trust, your capital is 100% at risk. These are companies listed on the stock market, investing in other companies. If markets go down, your trust will likely fall in value, too.

Now personally, I’d far prefer to put my money into a 50-year old investment trust than a structured product dreamed up by some Aussie maths nerd with a six-month work visa at Merrill Lynch.

But I guess I’m in the minority, given how investment trusts are the preserve of old school investors, and more people put money into not-really-bonds et al.

In fact, let’s defend financial advisers for a moment. While many do sell complicated products primarily because they pay great commissions, it’s also true their clients want the impossible – all reward, and no risk.

Most people can’t stand volatility, which is exactly what led to the creation of structured income products. They are an attempt to limit the downside, but at the cost of capping the upside in the best cases, and of mysterious failures or hidden charges in the worst.

In contrast, the risks of buying shares in an investment trust are clear:

  • The investment income generated could fall.
  • The share price of the investment trust can (and will) go up and down.

To address the first case – falling income – this is a non-trivial risk, but I’d point to the record of increasing payments going back decades.

All four trusts I’ve cited have built up substantial reserves sufficient to offset a moderate level of falling dividend income from the companies they’ve invested in – generally over 100% of their entire annual payout.

As for their share prices, there’s no getting away from fluctuations here. But if you’re investing for the long-term for income, why should you care? What matters is the dividend.

If the market throws a wobbly and share prices halve or double, it shouldn’t matter unless the companies owned by your trust slash their dividend payments, sufficient to reduce your investment income.

Otherwise, as an income investor you can ride it out.

In fact, if you’ve got spare cash it could be an opportunity to buy more of your favourite trust, especially if its discount to Net Asset Value (NAV) has increased.

Ideal for financial freedom seekers

I’ve written before about how I am creating a freedom fund focused on investment income to replace my salary. Investment trusts will be a key part of the mix.

I already own shares in Merchant’s Trust, amongst others. Now that capital gains rules are being meddled with yet again, I think this trust with its attractively high income yield will get more of my money over the months and years ahead.

Please do read my article on investment trusts to ensure you understand the basics. You might also want to read up on how dividend income is taxed (it’s taxed less harshly than cash!)

{ 23 comments }

Ten things I don’t want to pay tax for anymore

Burn public sector spending burn

Britain needs to reduce its £169 billion budget deficit. That means either more public spending cuts or an 8p rise in income tax.

Our annual tax take is already over 37% of GDP — it’s time to take public spending around the back of the House of Commons for a kicking.

Everyone has their own priorities, of course:

  • Even the most frothy right-wingers want taxes to pay for nuclear weapons and other military toys. But beyond that they say make citizens pay directly for roads, health care, and even local policing.
  • At the other end are those who’d tax the rich down to their last bottle of Château Lafite on principle, and decide how to spend the loot later. (These are the guys who get the girls in college, but who lose them later to investment bankers).

Sensible people – even rich ones who don’t want to live in a fortified bunker in Wales – believe there’s a middle road to public spending. Yet the past few years of drunken driving by Gordon Brown has seen us drift away from it.

Here’s a graphic of the UK’s public spending bill:

UK public spending

Click to enlarge the size of public spending (Source: Guardian)

Download this public sector spending graphic as a PDF

With a right-of-center coalition now in place and wielding the axe, it’s time to cut back, and to enable (or force) people to take responsibility for their own lives.

It’s also time for us bloggers to voice our personal public spending peeves!

1. Pointless university degrees

In theory it’s great that 45% of young people now go to university, compared to 20% in 1980. In practice, too many are barely literate or numerate, and are doing pointless degrees. Worse, the graduate salary premium is disappearing, even as these students rack up more debt. I’d refocus public spending towards science, engineering, and maths, and ration social science and arts degrees.

2. Military grandstanding

Britain is no longer a global superpower. Yet our military spending of £57 billion is third highest in the world. We should posture within our means, and retain a cheap nuclear deterrent sufficient to blow up a half-a-dozen capital cities. If Canada and Spain can spend £15 billion, why can’t we?

3. Rich and middle-class kids

Environment degradation due to over-population and over-consumption is my biggest fear. It’s therefore intolerable that I’m taxed so that middle class parents find having kids more affordable, and rich ones can give theirs extra ponies or a bigger first flat in Fulham. I’d scrap all child benefits for any household with an income over say £40,000 a year.

4. Non-working class kids

I don’t mind helping the working poor, but I don’t want to fund feckless layabouts to have kids at our expense. Then again, I don’t want innocent kids to suffer, either. How about some sort of tax clawback for non-working parents? In this scheme, child-related benefits would effectively be a loan, which is taxed back from the non-working parents (even out of their benefits) when their kids reach 18. Having children is a right, but you should pay for it.

5. Quangos

Government spending on quangos is out of control. You don’t spend billions without achieving something, but I doubt it’s very efficient. The justification for quangos is that getting private enterprise and individuals involved means money is better directed. Here’s a different idea – get the State out of the way entirely and let private enterprise and market forces address needs directly. Government can set the rules with tax and regulation to tilt the playing field.

6. Unfunded public sector pensions

Why can’t public sector employees fund their pensions as they earn like everyone else? It seems an anachronistic hangover from the days when the State consisted of a few thousand Whitehall mandarins and everyone died at 60. Ideally the whole public/private pension system should be unified.

7. Defending indefensible criminals

We spent nearly £2 billion on publicly funded legal services last year. Three-quarters of that would probably survive scrutiny, but paying anything to give legal aid to hoodlums who routinely terrorize neighborhoods is galling. Oh for an Australia to send them to. Unfortunately we can’t even deport known terrorists.

8. Obviously polluting transport strategies

Enough roads already. I wouldn’t mind so much if they helped, but all the evidence is they don’t; build more roads and you get more congestion. Visit L.A. for evidence. Perhaps some new toll roads would be a fair compromise.

9. Lesbian socialist empowerment outreach workers

I used to think these were a myth until a much more right-wing friend started sending me Guardian adverts. It’s not just that these roles exist, or that they’re clearly created to appease liberal guilt. The pay is high, too, and the opportunity cost of having well-educated people involved in such nebulous careers is scary. Meanwhile, one lesbian kiss on a soap opera or Barack Obama’s election in the US achieves more for equality in a day than 1,000 of these non-jobs does in a decade.

10. The bloated BBC and its licence fee

I love Radio 4, I love the BBC’s news coverage, and though it never links to me I even love Robert Peston’s BBC blog. But it’s a joke that the licence fee costs £123 million to collect, when it’s a non-negotiable tax. It’s also ridiculous that this publicly-funded channel spends millions on Jonathan Ross and his ilk. I’d scale the BBC back to its radio output (I’d scrap Radio 1), a serious TV culture channel, and a news and current affairs channel. There’s a place for pop music, reality TV and dancing celebrities – it’s called the commercial sector, and it delivers it all without charging me.

Readers, what don’t you like paying taxes for? Get it off your chest below!

{ 23 comments }

Weekend reading: What matters and anti-matter

Weekend reading

Most investors like their shares to go up. But if you’re young or you’re buying for income, it’s better for them to go down.

Cheaper shares now mean higher profits later, or getting more dividend income for your money. You might feel bad about losing in the short-term, but in the long-term bear markets are good for your health.

For these reasons I genuinely shrugged off the FTSE passing briefly below 5,000 yesterday. If you want to read a blog screaming that the world is ending, I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place. Our chips have got cheaper!

Besides, this was a huge week in science that humbles our little efforts to get rich.

[continue reading…]

{ 12 comments }

Video: The end of oil

Lots of readers seem to be very perturbed about the end of oil. I’m not, particularly. In fact, it would help us deal with environment degradation, which is the real big threat we face.

I’m not blind to how society is driven by oil, from transport to agriculture to the manufacturing of plastics and other artificial products. I just think, so what? The Stone Age didn’t end when we ran out of stones. The end of oil will mean the end of the oil age, not of human civilisation.

Solar power, off-shore tidal power, nuclear, geothermal heating, better insulation: they all may have a role to play, or perhaps we’ll invent something new. A lot of alternative technologies look expensive compared to stuff lying about under the ground, but they’re linearly more expensive, not exponentially more expensive. It’s a solvable problem.

Here’s a smarter man than me, Richard Sears, on future energy:

Darn, I just realized he concludes with my ‘end of stones’ quip. I guess we both read the same witty economists!

Many private investors have invested in oil to a disproportionate degree, convinced that in a peak oil future they’ll be the richest folk in town.

Well, I doubt it – the little exploration companies may well get mopped up by the giants at a good profit, and the giants may diversify into other energy sources, but I don’t think it’s a case of one sector to rule them all.

Also, have they seen Mad Max? Be careful what you wish for!

Do you have a view on the end of oil? Let us know below.

{ 18 comments }