A basketful of economic uncertainty leaves planners scrambling.
It's worth recalling from Aesop's story that when
the couple sat down to slaughter their goose that laid golden eggs,
they were hoping their fecund fowl might have golden guts, too. Turns
out it didn't. With no eggs left, what then? Eat the principal?
Many retirees today worry about the inevitability of
having to do exactly that, since they're in a market with less income
to crack open. After all, the ten-year bond is at 4.76% and stocks are
volatile, and, in some people's minds, the economy may be even ready
for another recession. These bare trees make it difficult to juice the
market for the 4% to 5% in income retirees expect from their portfolios
to live happily ever.
No one scoffed at the idea of eating into principal
in the 1990s, when the portfolios were practically sweating
double-digit returns. But now that game has changed.
"Maybe six or seven years ago you had a line of
thinking that people should just go for the gold and manufacture income
by redeeming whatever percentage you need to live on each
year-somewhere between 5% to 10%-and the appreciation of the growth
portfolio would take care of the income needs," says Brian McMahon,
president and CIO of Thornburg Investment Management in Santa Fe, N.M.
"Of course, what happened between 2000 and 2002 is that if you had a
$100,000 portfolio, it got cut to $60,000 or $70,000. Maybe it's down
to $50,000. Anybody who lived through that realized in short order that
it was not a viable plan."
Though the stock market is up again since the bear
market, planners continue to worry about political instability, higher
energy costs, another possible recession and higher inflation. The
outlook is gloomy to many who have retirees to think about, especially
considering the longer life expectancies of the baby boomers who will
have to stretch out those savings over many more years while facing
higher costs for health care. A quick read of the tea leaves suggests
that even a modest 5% harvest will not be enough for most Americans.
"The practical reality in managing those portfolios
every day is that the retirees have other things coming up," says
Daniel Genter, president of RNC Genter Capital Management in Los
Angeles. "They don't plan for taxes, don't plan properly for other
medical expenses and don't plan for any cadre of things such as
children and grandchildren always nipping at them for assets. It's
uncommon to look into an account and see that 5% is the only money they
took out."
With fewer golden eggs, the challenge has been
thrown back on advisors to be more adept, often more aggressive and
definitely more innovative with their portfolios. "If you had a
portfolio six months ago and you let it alone, it would be way down,"
says J. Graydon Coghlan of Coghlan Financial Group in San Diego.
Looking For Juice
One predictable result of the yield crisis is a
renewed interest in dividends, which according to studies are once
again starting to show some star power with both planners and clients.
"In the 1990s, growth got fashionable and dividends
got unfashionable with both payors and payees," says McMahon. "They
said, 'Don't give me dividends, give me growth.' Now the pendulum has
begun to swing back the other way. Not fast, but it has."
According to Standard & Poor's, the number of
companies paying dividends in the S&P 500 index has risen from 350
in January 2003 to 385 in August 2006 (though the number is still far
below its level of 469 in 1980). The '90s were dog years for many of
these stocks, but their lower volatility has today made them more
attractive for investors in an uncertain market, says Howard
Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P.
The need for yield also has a lot of people thinking
differently about asset allocation. It's not that the basic principles
of portfolio management have been scuttled, but there is a bigger push
for more tactical asset management on top of that. Some are knuckling
down, doing the hard work involved in picking individual stocks with
high yields. A number of others are bringing new tools into play: hedge
strategies, commodity plays, master limited partnerships, royalty
trusts, floating-rate bonds, international real estate, nontraded real
estate and private equity, among other things.
One advisor, David Carter of Carter Asset Management
Inc. in Abilene, Texas, has witnessed the despair among colleagues
about the income situation, yet he believes the yield is there for
those willing to look for it. With 65% to 75% of his clients in
retirement, there's a lot of money pumping out of his spigot every
month.
He leads the inquisitive to the Yahoo! Finance Web
site, where he points out a variety of different funds and individual
stocks bearing high yields, the kinds of things he adds to his quiver
of traditional mutual funds. Among the funds he keeps on a short list
are the Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust, which had a cash yield
of 8.9% at the end of August; the Royce Value Trust, which invests in
small-cap stocks and yielded 8.70%; and the Cohen & Steers REIT
fund, which yielded 8.10%.
He also has a finite list of stock picks that
includes Provident Energy Trust, an open-ended income trust whose
subsidiary acquires and develops crude oil and markets and stores
natural gas liquids. The company yielded 9.80% at the end of August.
Another pick is Citizens Communication Co., which provides
communications services to rural areas and small and medium-sized towns
and cities as an incumbent local exchange carrier. Yet another is
Tortoise Energy Corp., which invests in master limited partnerships
related to energy. These last two companies yielded 7.30% and 6.40%,
respectively. Thornburg Mortgage Inc., a mortgage REIT, meanwhile,
yielded 11.8%.
"There are people who would argue with me about some
of these positions," Carter says. "They may think they are ill-timed or
have more risk exposure for a retirement portfolio. But I've been
working with these for years and years. This isn't some
Johnny-come-lately idea, where I was sorting for yield and not looking
at underlying fundamentals."
Dividends Making A Comeback
Dividends have become attractive for several
reasons. One of the most important is that the taxes on them were
sliced to 15% with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2003, which brought them in line with capital gains taxes. Before that
they were taxed as regular income and could be as high 35%.
Genter, whose firm invests for institutions and
high-net-worth individuals, says his firm's portfolio seeks double the
cash flow from dividends in an S&P portfolio. "The S&P gets
1.8% and we get 3.5%," he says. "Cash flow is double the S&P, and
yet you're still only taxed on 15%, so net after tax is just about the
same as that on the taxable money market fund or CDs. That's cash flow,
not appreciation. So you also have the upside potential of market
appreciation."
Genter also points out studies that say a higher
percent of total return is going to come from dividends. The icing on
the cake, he says, is that high-dividend-bearing stocks have happened
to be outperforming the market as a whole recently. As of Aug. 31,
2006, the S&P 500 Index total return (which includes dividend
payments), was up 5.799% for the year, while the return on the Dow
Jones U.S. Select Dividend Total Return Index, which comprises the 100
highest-dividend-paying securities, is up 9.59% for the year, according
to Morningstar Inc.
These companies are usually value plays, and not
necessarily sexy. Their earnings are not as high as those of a tech
company. But they are predictable and much less cyclical. And more
important for retirees, they put money in the bank.
The trick to finding the good picks, dividend mavens
say, is to find out which companies are really dedicated to paying
their shareholders back and not hoarding the money. One of these
gimlet-eyed company watchers is asset manager McMahon. His Thornburg
Investment Income Builder fund, which focuses on high-dividend-yielding
stocks, has built a cult following, mostly among planners, since its
2002 inception, growing to $1.6 billion. The fund is interested in
companies that pay a good dividend today, promise a rising dividend in
the future and have the goods to deliver.
Of course there are skeptics. Those who are more
wary say that companies paying high dividends are often depressed and
will likely get more depressed-their dividend strategy a sign that they
have too much cash sitting around and too few ideas about what to do
with it. They also say that chasing such dividends is a good way to
lose your shirt. But McMahon believes that this is just an alibi for
companies that hoard earnings. He says the highest divided payout
ratios subsequently grow the most because it's a sign of capital
discipline.
"If you go back over the last five years," McMahon
says, "and just looked at the highest-paying companies, you would end
up with Kodak and General Motors and things like that which had the
price beaten up. The ability to earn the dividend they were paying
deteriorated a lot. ... The people who have smarted from dividend cuts,
all they know is to look down the pages of The Wall Street Journal and
look at what the highest dividend is. I don't think that's the smartest
thing to do. It will lead you to a lot of companies that are getting
ready to decrease their dividend."
Alternatives
Another planner singing the song of innovation is J.
Michael Martin of Financial Advantage Inc. in Columbia, Md. His firm
avoids the broad indexes and employs a mix of deep-focus value funds, a
small number of individual stocks, short-to-medium high-quality bond
funds and huge cash reserves. He balances these out with some
hedges-such as an ETF fund called StreetTracks Gold Shares ("An
indirect way to own gold bullion and not mining company stocks," he
says)-and a Rydex fund called Rydex Inverse Dynamic OTC that shorts the
Nasdaq 100, "doing the exact opposite of the Nasdaq times two."
"We believe the market is signaling a tremendous
amount of risk," Martin says. "Geopolitical and business cycle risk. We
think the business cycle is ready to roll over because of consumer
issues, which is mostly housing issues."
Sooner or later, he says, he believes these risks
will catch up with the market, "and that it will slap its head." The
Rydex fund is just a way of addressing an expensive market where it is
most vulnerable-in technology.
"If you look at the market and you think it's
expensive, and you see risks that are not in the price, you can do
something about it or do nothing-and say the market is the market. I
agree that in the short-term you can't figure it out. But you can say
whether it is cheap or expensive."
The firm also has an outsize position in energy, he says, because the
market is currently behaving as if the increases in the price of oil
are temporary, and he doesn't think they are. Michael Ling, a CFP
licensee with Berkeley Inc. in Boise, Idaho, has gradually shifted away
from a 12% to 15% position in REITS three years ago
to two newer strategies: royalty trusts and master limited partnerships.
"A couple of years ago it became difficult to find something of good
value and we started investing in royalty trusts," Ling says. "In this
country, anyway, they are attached to natural resources-energy. We
didn't necessarily anticipate that oil prices would do what they've
done, but it's been fortuitous in that regard. We still like royalty
trusts, but that can be volatile." Though the name "limited
partnerships" can give some people the shivers, he says the MLPs are
one of the few asset classes almost negatively correlated with
large-cap U.S. equities.
Zach Ivey, a planner with First Financial Group of
the South Inc., says his firm adds to its diversified portfolio of
mutual funds, ETFs and bonds another alternative class-nontraded REITS.
Nontraded real estate has been criticized for its lack of liquidity and
unattractive pricing, but Ivey says that it offers several attractive
features, the most obvious being steady income of 6% to 8%.
"You have something that appears to be noncorrelated," he says. "It's
not trading on a market, so it is not subject to the whims of market
real estate. Traded real estate trades more like small-cap stocks."
Others have poked their noses into international
real estate to round off their portfolios, and many are betting on
commodities. "We think we're in a long-term bull market for
commodities," says Lou Stanosolovich, president of Legend Financial
Advisors Inc. in Pittsburgh. "While they've run up over the last four
or five years pretty heavily, we think, at least as we are doing our
readings, that we see more instances. Take industrial metals. It takes
an enormous amount of money in a very long period of time even in Third
World countries to open a metals mine. ... As a result, we're seeing
greater demand for industrial metals."
Though he says an economic slowdown could hurt price
appreciation, it doesn't take away from the fact that supplies are
dwindling, and that oil and gas are in the same situation.
Could We All Be Right?
In the end, none of these strategies is any more
right than the other, and these planners stress that the most important
thing to ask is, "Is it right for the client?"
"There are so many talented advisors," says Keith
Newcomb of Full Life Financial in Nashville. "The global fact set is
the same, but different advisors, talented in their own right, are
implementing different global strategies with the same fact set."
"I think it's a mistake generally to get focused on
the current market environment and lose sight of the longer term," says
Dan Moisand of Spraker, Fitzgerald, Tamayo & Moisand LLC of
Melbourne, Fla.
A person in good health today, he says, is going to
have a long retirement to look forward to, and however you slice it,
will want to have a good chunk of that money in equities to stay ahead
of inflation and taxes. And you don't get extra yield without taking on
extra risk. The main thing is to articulate these ideas to clients and
assuage their fears.
"When the markets were bad, we were counseling
clients not to think we're stupid," says Moisand with a laugh. "Now
that the markets are good and they're too excited, we're counseling
them and trying to tell them that we're not all that smart."