Avoiding the instant gratification of yield (SingTel, Starhub and REITs).

My blog has pretty useful content in the comments section but many do not read the comments section, I found out a long time ago. 

So, there was a time when I would share the comments in a blog post so that they reach more people. I stop doing that after I found out that Google didn't like it and it affected my blog's page ranking. 

However, I have decided that it really should not matter to me and that making sure that the content reaches more people is more important. 

This was a recent conversation:

redponza said...
Hi AK,
There is a 4th telco getting into Singapore, don't you worry about the intensified competition?

Also, unlike REIT where there is minimum capital expenditure, telco needs to upgrade their network consistently to maintain competitiveness. With the lower yield, and meh growth potential, not sure why it is better than REIT.

In the telco space, isn't Starhub better with a much higher dividend yield?

Thanks.



AK said...
Hi redponza,

SingTel derives less than 20% of its revenue from Singapore. It is truly an MNC.

(Added on 21 Aug 17. Reader:
I look at Singtel's annual report. I can't derive the 20%. It is 40+ % to my calculation. How did u derive it? 

AK:
Well spotted. I meant to say its Singapore mobile business which is, of course, what would probably be impacted by the entry of a 4th Telco next year. That business segment accounts for 13% of SingTel's total revenue.)

As for CAPEX, selling away most of its stake in Netlink NBN passed a heavy baby to other investors. SingTel retains only a 25% stake in the newly listed entity.

If you are worried about the 4th Telco and increased competition in Singapore, you should be more worried about Starhub.

This is also probably why Mr. Market demands a higher dividend yield from Starhub which incidentally also has a higher payout ratio compared to SingTel.

One more thing, we really shouldn't be comparing Telcos with REITs. The yields are not comparable.

SingTel pays out a percentage of its earnings as dividends while REITs pay out from their operational cash flow.

If we were to use the same yardstick for both, we would worry about REITs since their DPU is usually higher than their EPU.





redponza said...
Is telco attractive?

From my point of view, return = dividend yield + dividend growth, taking debt into consideration.
There is lower growth and lower yield in telco, thus I am puzzled why telco is even considered in the first place.

And from a price to book standpoint, they can never beats a REIT =.=

But on the other hand, I saw famous investors grabbing telco companies, hence I must be missing sth here?





AK said...
Hi redponza,

Like I said, they are different animals.

It depends on how we look at investments and how value is created.

Most REITs pay out more than they earn. They do not retain any earnings.

SingTel pay a percentage of their earnings and they retain some earnings so that they become more valuable over time.

I like some REITs and my portfolio is rather heavy in REITs. So, it is sensible to become less dependent on REITs especially when conditions have become less benign for them.

It is about having a more holistic approach.

Frankly, not all REITs are good investments.

We should wonder at the sustainability of distributions.

A REIT could have high CAPEX down the road:

http://singaporeanstocksinvestor.blogspot.sg/2015/08/is-keppel-dc-reit-attractive-investment.html

A REIT could see their assets disappear in the not too distant future:

http://singaporeanstocksinvestor.blogspot.sg/2017/03/viva-industrial-trust-more-attractive.html

So, we must be careful when we lump REITs together to say that REITs can never be beaten in terms of return on investment. The quality of returns and the sustainability are pertinent considerations.

To new readers of ASSI, please read related post #1 below.

Related posts:
1. Instant gratification of yield.
2. SingTel and Netlink NBN Trust.

SingTel and Netlink NBN Trust.

Some people keep asking me what have I bought recently. 

Hmm. Let me see.

Eggs, extra virgin olive oil, butter, dark chocolate, matcha ice cream and some other stuff.

What? Wrong answer?

Jokes aside, to those who like asking me what did I buy or if XXX stock can buy or not, you should know you would be disappointed most of the time with my answers.

You have been warned. ;)

Anyway, in an interview a few years back, when asked what was the first company I ever invested in, my answer was SingTel. 





Like many Singaporeans then, we were given a chance to buy discounted SingTel shares by Mr. Goh Chok Tong who wished for Singaporeans to think about investing in stocks to help grow our wealth. People my age or older would probably remember this.

I am still holding on to those shares and collecting dividends, year after year. 

Is that the best way to achieve greater returns? 

I don't know but I know it generated pretty decent and safe returns.

Since then, over the years, I went on an adventure as an investor, trader and speculator in the stock market. 

I made some money and lost some money. 

I think I must have made more money than I lost or else I would probably be in IMH by now.

In my retirement, I tell myself that I must not be too adventurous with money. So, I bought more SingTel shares in 2015. 

Informed by charts, I added to my investment in SingTel as its share price retraced to what I thought were supports and I did that again recently.




My decision is now partly emboldened by the listing of Netlink NBN Trust which effectively strengthens SingTel's coffers by some $2 billion. 

So, SingTel has become a more valuable company after the sale, more valuable than it was in 2015.

When asked whether I was interested in Netlink NBN Trust at its IPO, the answer was in the negative. A 5% yield just didn't cut it for me.

With relatively high depreciation and replacement costs to be considered as well, a structure that pays out most of its cash flow to shareholders probably means much higher debt in time to come. 

I wonder about the sustainability of its dividends in the longer run. 

To invest in Netlink NBN Trust, therefore, I would demand a much higher yield than 5% as a compensation. 

This could be achieved through a higher DPU which is unlikely or a lower unit price which is probably more likely to happen.

In comparison, I believe that SingTel's dividends are more sustainable. 





There is talk of a special dividend but whether there is going to be a special dividend from SingTel or not does not matter to me. 

With a payout ratio of 60% to 75% of net profits, I will be quite happy with a 3.5% to 4.5% regular dividend yield. Lower than Netlink NBN Trust's 5% but it gives me peace of mind.

Looking at the chart, it looks like there is a chance that SingTel's share price could weaken again in future but it could bounce up first. This is the trader in me talking. 

Don't ask me what could cause this because I don't know.

However, I do know I would like to buy more if SingTel's share price should go much lower, all else remaining equal.

Related post:
1Q 2017 passive income.

Reader regrets ILP but what to do?

Reader:
I was introduced by my colleague to your blog and only started to read it last night. Many useful tips indeed and I really regret not reading it earlier. 

I am single and 47 this year. I bought an ILP from Prudential for an assured sum of $100,000 when I was 27 for an annual premium of $2,000 for death, PD and CI. My surrender value now is about $40,000. 

Shall I follow your blog advice to terminate it and purchase a term policy till 62? 

Currently almost half of my annual premiums is used to cover the cost and will escalate once I enter into my 50s. 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


What is the purpose of insurance?




AK:
(Alamak, paid $2,000 a year for 21 years and now can get back only about $40,000?)
Since you have read my blog on the subject, you know why we should not mix insurance with investment. I wouldn't touch an ILP even with a five feet pole.

We need life insurance if we have dependents. If we no longer have dependents, we don't need life insurance. 

Even if we do not have dependents, if we do not have a meaningful level of passive income, we still need coverage for CI because we might not be able to work for a long time. 





So, before you terminate your ILP, find out first if you are still able to get term life and CI coverage. 

If that option is still open to you, then, terminate the ILP. You will be saving a lot of money to get the same level of coverage.

Related posts:
1. How many 20 years do we have?
2. Without CI coverage?

CPF-SA savings 10 years from now.

The biggest downside of not being gainfully employed is the lack of mandatory CPF contributions.

To ensure that my CPF savings will become a more significant bond component of my investment portfolio in my golden years, I have been making voluntary contributions.




Checking on my CPF account last night, I wondered how much would I have in my CPF-SA by the time I am 55? 

55 years old. That is also when money from my CPF-SA will be moved into my newly created CPF-RA to fund the annuity called CPF Life.





My CPF-SA savings in January 2017:

$215,862

Assuming that CPF annual contribution limit (now $37,740) remains unchanged in the next 10 years and applying the following allocation rates:

Click to enlarge. Source: CPF Board.

Doing voluntary contributions to the annual limit each year, for the next 5 years, about $8,159 each year will go to my CPF-SA. 

Ratio of contribution to the SA being 0.2162.

http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm

At age 50, I would have $308,588 in my CPF-SA.




For the 5 years following that, about $11,699 each year goes to my CPF-SA. 

Ratio of contribution to the SA being 0.3108.

http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm

At age 55, I would have $441,344 in my CPF-SA.





Of course, all else being equal, the number is likely to be bigger 10 years later as the calculations do not take into consideration the additional 1% interest payable on the first $40,000 in the CPF-SA.

Although it is not $1 million, $441,344 is nothing to scoff at either.





This is why I have told some rather worried readers who are pretty risk averse and who are not investment savvy to seriously consider using the CPF-SA as their primary tool to achieve greater financial security in their old age.

As simple as ABC? 

As simple as CPF.

Related posts:
1. AK showing off his CPF-SA.
2. Average HDB household and $1M.