Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 493

The familiar story on dividends, plus predictions for 2023

(Editor's introduction: Peter Thornhill is well-known to our readers for advocating a multi-decade investment strategy based on the long-term merits of industrial companies for income. For example, to show his consistency over time, his previous articles in Firstlinks are here. In this short update for 2022 numbers, he again checks the long-term return from industrial shares, adding a comparison with listed property. He argues that for investors with the right risk capacity and investment horizon, there's only one place to invest).

***

It's that time of year when the data allows me to update the presentation many readers are familiar with, based on my books, courses and articles.

There are many definitions of 'investing'. For me, it means one thing: The use of money productively, so that a regular income is obtained.

This guides my portfolio decisions. I do not focus on the so-called volatility of share prices. Over decades, I see a rising stockmarket producing ever-increasing dividends. And that's income for me.

Industrial share versus cash since 1980

Let's start with my key slide, Australian industrial shares versus cash. Term deposits and cash are where many investors hide for safety, but how do they define risk?

The ‘Covid crash’ of 2020 is like all previous market setbacks. They are relatively short-lived.

Whilst this time, share prices were not overly affected, dividends were severely hit. However, as expected, dividends are recovering quickly as the effects of the lockdown dissipate. If one is in tune with history then this pandemic is no different to those we’ve been exposed to for the last 2000 or so years.

What about Resources and All Ords?

The recent strength of resources stocks supported by supply problems from Ukraine and Russia may lead some investors to argue for inclusion of these companies in a long-term portfolio. Or the broader All Ords Index rather than only industrials. But as the following chart shows, it does not pay off over time.

My 56-year investment 

The next slide regular readers will be familiar with. It is a UK-listed investment company which forms part of my investments resulting from an 18-year sojourn in the Old Dart back in the 70’s.

Despite all the current and prior market turmoil, this chart is always a source of comfort. An income that has risen every year for the last 56 years.

In our home market, there are similar Listed Investment Companies (LIC’s) displaying the same characteristics.

Milton is a great example, although it has now merged with Soul Pattinson.

The Soul Pattinson dividend history is equally comforting.

Another one of my favourites is Whitefield which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year.

My strong preference for this one is the fact that it only invests in industrial companies and no resources.

Despite earnings volatility, the ability of a LIC to smooth their dividends is clearly evident.

Suffice to say that with an ever-growing income stream over 30, 40, 50+ years, one’s life can remain focussed on what is really important: family, friends, and career.

Finally, let's check the long term of listed property?

Firstlinks often includes articles on the benefits of investing in property, including listed securities. It's an asset class that probably appeals to many Australians.

I believe adding property and resources to industrial shares is a no-no. Whilst it may slightly reduce the volatility, the opportunity cost over a lifetime is lead in the saddle bags. Volatility does not measure risk!

Despite some good periods, property suffers times of significant setbacks.

10 predictions for 2023

Like religion, financial forecasting meets a human desire to know the unknowable. It doesn’t matter whether the forecasts are accurate or not, people sleep better at night under the assumption that there’s a predictable future laid out ahead of them. Here are a few of mine for 2023:

1. A lot of things will happen that no forecaster thought to include in their predictions for 2022. These events will include the obvious consequences of the current economic and political environment. So obvious, in fact, that they weren’t included in the predictions.

2. Many things won’t happen that many forecasters did include in their predictions for 2022. This will be a result of unforeseen circumstances, black swan and six sigma events, annual anomalies that crop up one in a million years.

3. A small number of the vast number of predictions about 2022 will randomly come true and the predictors will be proclaimed gurus. This will be despite the fact that it was their 1,000th prediction and the first one they got right.

4. All predictions will be adjusted throughout the year so that the forecaster’s final prognostications, announced on Christmas Eve 2023, will be very close to accurate.

5. Those fund managers who outperform for the year will cite their skills, systems, intelligence and uncanny ability to time the market as the reasons for their outperformance. While acknowledging that past returns are no guarantee of future returns, the past returns will be included in advertising materials in very large font.

6. Those that underperform will cite the randomness of markets and that any one bad year will obviously be followed by a good one, because underlying it all they have superior skills, systems, intelligence and uncanny ability to time the market. Marketing materials will include performance statistics over a more appropriate time frame.

7. Dividends will be more important than capital gains, unless the market goes up a lot. If the market goes up a lot, capital gains will be more important than dividends.

8. Every CEO in the country will be in the top quartile of CEOs in the country. They will get paid accordingly.

9. Markets will fluctuate. The All Ordinaries will go up, down or sideways in both the first and second halves of the year.

10. There will be a new computer trading system that will infallibly make you rich overnight as none of the systems sold over the last 20 years seem to have worked for anyone else apart from the spruikers.

 

Peter Thornhill is a financial commentator, author, public speaker and Principal of Motivated Money. He runs full-day courses in the major capital cities explaining his approach to investing "in the vain hope that not everyone is frozen with fear". 

This article is general in nature and does not constitute or convey specific or professional advice. Share markets can be volatile in the short term and investors holding a portfolio of shares will need to tolerate short-term losses and focus on a long-term horizon, and consider financial advice.

 

72 Comments
Peter
February 25, 2023

Hi Peter,
I've read your book motivated money and I loved it. I'm a 52 year old who began investing only in 2019. My wife and I have never been high income earners, but in that time we've managed to build a portfolio that is now worth over 150k. It's 150k that we didn't have a little over 3 years ago.
We're invested in two LIC's (AFI, WHF) and our individual holdings include CSL, CCP, BKW, WES & MQG. The one thing that I'm struggling with is the fact that because I've started my journey into investing late in life, I feel like I'm way behind in terms of having a solid income portfolio and lately, I've started to take risks in my investing to try and gain a return on capital (you'd refer to that as speculation) to help boost my future dividend income by selling a capital gain and re-investing those gains into my dividend paying stocks. As I've discovered the hard way, there's ramifications and I know that I can never outsmart the market.
Sometimes I wonder how many people are out there who a relatively new to investing and maybe in a similar age bracket and may have the same situational mindset?
Fortunately, we are debt free. However, If only I took the time to discover investing say 30 years ago, then maybe I would've been all out in LIC's. But that's not the case.
Thanks for your writings and your teachings. I enjoy musing over them.

A K Mani
January 31, 2023

Enjoyed reading the article by Peter and also all the comments.
Being a long term investor, I always remember Warren Buffett's two rules of investment.
Rule 1 : Never lose money.
Rule 2 : Always remember rule number 1.
Personally I believe one should invest in blue chips with a long term timeframe.
Financial goals of capital gain plus dividend growth.
Having said that each individual's investment journey is different. One keeps on learning.
Uncertainties are part of the investment game.

Rod
January 31, 2023

Buffett's rules are well known but often confused in the simplicity of the statement.
Rule number 1 and 2 are great but we must remember that no one can time the market and so an investment made today that loses money tomorrow is not a break of the rules, just that if you are confident in your thesis be patient. Do not sell, do not beat yourself up. We just can't time the market and as correctly stated by A K Mani, uncertainties are a part of the investment process.

Michael
January 30, 2023

Oh my goodness! Peter please keep up the good work. I first met you in 1990s and you inspired me to invest better with a simple story of long term compound growth with industrial shares. I enjoy the regular updates of your charts which I have shared with many people. And whilst I have made a few mistakes along the way, I now own a diversified portfolio with a growing income that has allowed me to retire on my terms and enjoy life whilst helping my family & friends. Thank you!!!

bluey
January 30, 2023

Peter, you are a legend, don't stop the advice for a few sceptics. I heard you give a talk some yeary ago which 'motivated' me to buy your book [inscribed fondly inside is "Peter, 2002"]. I then followed a simple 100% equities
dividend compounding strategy. I do it slightly differently from you in that I use ASX top 20 companies rather than LIC's, as I like to be involved, selectively reinvesting the dividends by cherry picking those stocks with lowish share prices. I invest as much spare capital as possible, take part in the capital raisings, and bleed no fees other than 0.2% brokerage. Despite the ASX Resources index performance, I do buy BHP, ideally at low points in the cycle [$8 in 2003 and $15 in 2015] because the dividends are huge; in the last 5yrs they have paid out more than $15 total per share, fully franked.
People sometimes don't understand that investing is a journey not a competition. The journey is different for different people, it will depend on how much you can put in, and what you do with it. Many of my peers have bought property, or paid for financial advisors to invest in tea tree oil, almond plantations, crypto. Others would have used Bernie Madoff or Melissa Caddick.
Peter inspires a simple strategy that has served me well, and in my view remains unsurpassed in 20yrs of reading about investment strategy. At journeys end, when dividend income exceeds likely spending, it becomes somewhat irrelevant what was the actual internal rate of return, how it compared to the S&P500, or Tesla or ETF's.

Dudley
January 30, 2023

"when dividend income exceeds likely spending, it becomes somewhat irrelevant what was the actual internal rate of return":

When Age Pension or capital / longevity exceeds spending, rate of return on capital is irrelevant, except to heirs. Any investment that loses little capital suffices. Guaranteed bank deposits, for example.

Minimum real return required to pay equivalent to Age Pension:
= RATE((97.0 - 67.0), 40237.60, -10000000, 0, 0)
= -13.80% / y

Marco
January 30, 2023

What do you recommend Dudley, or you happy to sit on the side lines and quote equations instead?

Dudley
January 30, 2023

"recommend":
Large income, small expense, pass less rewarding risk to the willing - build and keep stash.

The final goal is to retire (and age) with at least enough capital to provide enough withdrawal for long enough:
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 2%) - 1, (97-67), -1, 0)
= $0.0506 / y

The intermediate goal is to accumulate enough capital at retirement :
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 2%) - 1, (67-25), 0, -1)
= $0.0124 / y

Multiply payments by factor to give required $withdrawal.
For example, if you want $40237.60 / y withdrawal in retirement, $40237.60 / $0.0506 = 795,209 multiplication factor:

= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 2%) - 1, (97-67), -795209, 0)
= $40,263 / y

= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 2%) - 1, (67-25), 0, -795209)
= $9,832 / y

Luke
January 30, 2023

I concur with your comment Marco.

Mart
January 30, 2023

Marco - I love that Dudley has responded with equations !!

Irene
March 05, 2023

I will start to use your method to invest in ASX 20 shares from now on. Meanwhile I have some LIC which performs badly in my personal portfolio. It just seems LIC or EFT are not much better.

Will Wallis
January 30, 2023

There are three issues to consider in designing an investment philosophy:
1. Making enough money - and Peter Thornhill has found and described a very successful method to do this, and it has the benefit that most LIC charge only 0.2 % in fees, whereas active managers charge about 1 %, so there is a 0.8 % advantage to his method. Also, don't worry about being the "best" in a month or a year or a decade - focus on making "enough" in several decades.
2. Using only the time you wish to spend on managing investments - his method requires about 2 hours per month while active methods require much more time and effort - and your time is worth a lot. Most people benefit by minimizing their time spent on managing investments while maximizing their time enjoying life;
3. Deciding what investments to be involved in. Some people would never seek to make money (not even lots of money)by investing in cluster bombs and casinos) while others apparently don't care how their money is used, as long as their is a return. But there is the same ethical component to investment as there is to other aspects of life. I seek out small Australian companies to invest in, and the dividends provide a "good enough" as well as the satisfaction of knowing that my money is working in activities and enterprises that I support and approve of.

Graham Wright
January 29, 2023

I heard of Peter but never read any of his books but I worked out many years ago that LICs are a good investment. But I have not fully devoted myself in the way he has. Why, because I have started later in life and I seek to maximise my returns and try to manage my risk.
Respondees to this article demonstrate the broad spectrum of investors as I have seen demonstrated soo often. Peter is proposing a low risk very long term investment strategy relying on professionals with good records to manage his investments and he prefers the steady, staid industrials for lower risk and more consistent performance. The focus by many respondees on "best" by comparative performance and seeking out-performance to demonstrate they are the "best" places them away from Peter's target readers. Peter has now stated that it is about sufficient and satisfaction with performance, not being the "best". Professionals are a different league to us individual investors, obliged to play by different rules and expectations with an indefinite future rather than an undefined future. They are obliged to strive to be the best and take higher risks accordingly. We individuals can take lower risks to achieve "enough" and "sleep straight in bed"

Fund trustee
January 29, 2023

And as I said elsewhere, that's fine but most of us who work in the industry aren't allowed to take such a casual approach. I wish everyone could accept that, even if the Super Fund on whose Board I sit, delivered the goals we stated for our various options, that this was enough. It isn't. We have to be above median, beat benchmarks, deliver superior performance or we get forced to close down. I'm not with Christian Super but I know many of their members are angry about what happened.
This isn't being critical of Peter or those who follow him. But I hope that everyone who agrees with him is willing to take the same casual approach when they evaluate how their - or any - Super fund is going. I hope they write letters to the editor of mastheads critical of "the underachievers" and calling for their heads, asking in those letters for the editors to check whether the fund achieved its stated objectives or not. If it's good enough for you to accept that Peter's approach is good enough without comparing it to any other then it should be good enough for those of us doing our best for the members of the funds we govern and manage.

Graham Wright
January 29, 2023

Fund trustee, I agree with you. Fund managers are operating under constraints that do not apply to individuals. I prefer LICs because they do not have the constraints that I find unappealing in managed funds. As for casualness by some of us investors, I think we could be the minority. I like casualness because it is easier to minimise risk. You do not have to buy earliest or sell latest to maximise profit. Reduce the risk and the profit by buying a little later and selling a little earlier. An old maxim "Don't be greedy, leave a little on the table for others." Too much of the writings re investing seem aimed at maximising returns while minimising costs, fees etc. There is a contradiction there in that maximising profits comes with increased costs as either additional fees or increased risk and workload managing the investment. Fund managers may cost more but they should get greater returns from their skills in reducing the risks to get the rewards.

Mart
January 30, 2023

Fund Trustee ... I obviously can't speak for Peter, but if you're aware of his background (I'm assuming not) you may know he left the funds management industry precisely for the reason you state: evidence showed that his approach (tutored by UK funds managers I believe) suggested that 'know your client' and the need to adhere to various KPIs meant he couldn't win whilst knowing his approach was the most appropriate in the long run (but having to jump through all the short term hoops you indicate). So he quit and backed his approach. Given the weight of evidence he supplies here (and elsewhere) I think you are being a very cheeky tinker calling it a 'casual approach'. I understand that within your constraints you can't take this approach but at least acknowledge someone has run the numbers and has a story to tell that is compelling. How about you comment specifically on some of the stats that Peter quotes in this (and other) Firstlinks articles and show how you (or others in the industry) have exceeded them? 

Dudley
January 30, 2023

"weight of evidence he supplies here (and elsewhere)": Mr Thornhill does not supply evidential data here nor states where it can be found. Perhaps he does so elsewhere. Where? He does refer to S&P/ASX 200 sector accumulation (total return) indexes dating from 1980. If accurate data from then to present can be found, then anyone can calculate the historic outcomes. Which sector performed best over which time window and which provided the best ("largest smoothest; Sharpest") dividend stream. It can not calculate the future outcome or dividend stream.

Fund trustee
February 01, 2023

OK Mart, I'll bite. I do know Peter's background. So please be a little more respectful yourself and not make presumptions about other people that you don't know. I never said that his approach isn't compelling. He certainly provides evidence that it's been more compelling than resources or listed property over the last 40 years. However, in this article (which is a statistical update of an annual piece he writes for FirstLinks), he doesn't provide evidence about whether it's more compelling than a more diversified global portfolio. A quick check of a couple of fund manager websites shows that global share funds - active and passive - have been well ahead of the total return of the domestic Industrials market over the last 10 years. Even global share funds that have underperformed the global share market's 13% pa have been ahead of the local industrials index. So, there you have it. I've provided some alternative data in the interests of seeking an answer to the question - what's the best investment strategy for our members? If the only option we had on our menu was the Peter Thornhill style fund then I'd expect lots of members to ask at the Annual General Meeting why we didn't have some global shares in at least some of our funds. This has nothing to do with short term considerations as you wrongly suggest is my focus in your comment. This is about long run results for members. And that's all I've been saying about this. I've not said anything to insult Peter's integrity as you infer. I've simply been saying that, while Peter's approach clearly delivers great results, that are adequate for his personal needs and those of many of his clients, yet for those in the industry who have to try to deliver the BEST outcomes we can, there is a lot more analysis needed than to diss on property versus industrials. That to me is a 'casual approach' because there are a lot of other markets to consider that definitely provide valid cases for being included in a growth fund that he hasn't mentioned. If it sounds 'cheeky' to you then that's your interpretation, not my intention. My intention is a lot more overt than that! I've seen the other comments Peter himself has written in response to the debate that's taken place on this article. I hope he doesn't ''pull his head in'' (or whatever phrase he used) and he shouldn't take any of this personally. Let me finish then by saying a couple of things that I haven't said yet that are in favour of what he has written: - the focus on the long term is vital and he's been a persistent stickler for that - his focus on deciding what is the reason someone is investing is also important. I speak to many fund members and other individual investors who are confused about this. It usually comes out at times like the middle of 2022 when the market fell sharply (to ASX 200 around 6,400) and they get worried that they won't have enough to live on. Reminding them that it's just volatility and that the income is solid and the capital will return down the track is important. Peter does a brilliant job at this. - I do actually like the way he favours industrials over resources from that long term perspective and his reasoning about value adding rather than digging stuff out of the ground. However, good quality professional stock pickers can identify when resources companies are doing things like managing costs well and positioning for new markets, etc so I wouldn't go as far as he does in ruling resources stocks out altogether. And that's the last I'm going to say on this topic!

bluey
January 30, 2023

@Graham Wright, I am confused by your comment below where you say there is a contradiction "in that maximising profits comes with increased costs.." You are incorrect, you maximise profits BY decreasing costs. For example a compound interest calculator shows that $1m invested at 9% for 30yrs will give you $13.2m, whereas the same invested at 8% [eg. due to a 1% fee] will give you only $10m, ie. a 32% lower figure. Almost a third less!

Paul Wasserstrom
January 29, 2023

Some simple maths: Peter says he started off with $1000 in investment income in 1988, so assume he had about $20,000 invested. Invest this $20,000 and compound it at 9% and today's value = $380,000, and at 5% fully franked dividends you be getting $19,000. That doesn't take into account him pulling dividends out, so the returns would actually be less. And Peter says he now has $400,000 in dividend income. How do you account for the huge difference? Obviously, he's made A LOT of money elsewhere, presumably selling investment seminars, books and other marketing activities etc. In other words, LICs haven't made him wealthy, and his claims as such are dubious.

David
January 30, 2023

Your assumption that he didn't put any more money into his investment pot from general earnings in the 34 years since 1988 is, perhaps, somewhat flawed.

Peter Thornhill
February 12, 2023

Paul, I was still working until 2007 when I decided to kick off my pension. During that time I was still investing cash contributed to my super fund.
Dudley questions where my data came from and I can confirm that a number of sources provide the accumulation indices (ASX included) and I have the audited results for my super fund.
According to the data provided, the portfolio return before expenses (TWR) was11.06% p.a. and the S&P/ASX 200 Accumulation Index was 7.63%p.a.

AlanB
January 29, 2023

I have Motivated Money in my bookcase and a framed Thornhill course certificate. His strategy of long term investing and reinvesting in sustainable dividend producing industrials to produce a reliable growing income works well. I remember him predicting the future stock market by taking the ASX chart for the last 20 years and changing the dates to the next 20 years to show the wild fluctuations but steady upwards growth we could expect. Remembering his shock announcement that he looked forward to another GFC for its buying opportunities, I splurged without regret during the 2020 panpanic. But forgive me Peter for I have sinned and confess to deviating from Thornhill Orthodoxy by also including some resource companies, REITS, ETFs and hybrids that have met the sustainable dividend criteria. So I enjoy investing time and family time.

Peter Thornhill
January 29, 2023

Well, I've really stirred the possum! I'm a bit concerned with some of the responses, particularly those relating to Resources vs Industrials. I tried explaining with just the numbers but hopefully we can add a chart.

Graham Hand
January 29, 2023

OK, Peter, we've added your chart to include resources and the All Ords in the article, thanks.

Dudley
January 29, 2023

OK Possums, we can compare:
. "S&P/ASX 200 Industrials Total Return"
. "S&P ASX 200 Resources Total Return"
directly using data collected and made public by Standard & Poor:
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-asx-200-industrials/#overview

Select "TOTAL RETURN"; "COMPARE", "S&P/ASX 200 RESOURCES".

The performance winner depends on the time window selected. As ever.

David
January 28, 2023

The performance, relative or absolute, income or total return, of Peter Thornhill's chosen investment approach is just one part of his philosophy. Given the tenor of some of the comments, it appears that First Links has lots of new readers - a good thing for First Links, I'm sure. I didn't think you could be a serious reader of the page and studier of investment and not at least heard of him and understood the general thrust of his arguments.

He normally pops along about now to update his charts, and says absolutely nothing new - and that's sort of a lot of the point of what he does. There is nothing new.

There are other aspects to his overall approach that are less about the numbers and more about making smart decisions - how much of your income, relatively, to spend, being just one of them.

Before embarking on my own Thornhillian investment odyssey, I ran the LIC numbers back as far as I could get them, and analysed what happened over the warp and weft of the investment decades and saw what happened to the income they produced as we went through recessions, the GFC, various other market declines etc. It stayed remarkably stable - and that is one of his points, and the reason he's hot for LICs.

And then came COVID and then the Russian / Ukraine abomination, and still not much has happened. Who knew? He did.

If you start early enough, over decades, you will do very well doing what he does. If you start later, as I did, then provided you have a sufficient capital base, and spend less than you earn, you will do also do very well. It seems to be working for me. Income stability is a wonderful thing which should not be sneered at by those who aren't there yet.

So comparing the investment arc of what is part of an overarching philosophy to the ASX return, or any other index or measure, is kind of missing the point. If you can do better, however you define it, knock yourself out. I don't think you're going to change Peter Thornhill's mind. And it would be a shame if he pulled his head back in and no longer wrote for First Links, but I can't say I'd blame him.

Michael
January 28, 2023

I have known Peter approaching 25 years in our industry and would make the following collection of comments on the above.

Questioning the philosophy – do what is comfortable to your own situation. If you feel your Super Fund needs exposure to Australian Fixed Interest -10% or Global Fixed Interest -13% index returns for 2022 calendar year as your “defensive” component go for it. Fixed Interest is not volatile………So long as you remain in the pack if that is your desire?

Peter’s result over 25 plus years is doing very well set to a higher performing benchmark of Industrials vs All Ords vs All Resources. (Read his book)

If you want pure index, News Corp was around 12% of the All Industrials index pre 2001 Tech Wreck paying paltry income. Knock yourselves out if you want that exposure?

RIO in 6 years 2008 -2013 wrote down $34bn. BHP $10bn write-down in 2016 and that was its second impairment in six months. When will the next CEO go on a spending spree? It’s fine looking at resources now with record commodity prices, a war and supply constraints. Commodity prices aren’t volatile…….

Indirectly with my LICs I realise they have a resource exposure. Choosing to invest directly in a single resource stock like BHP is a choice for all.

Smart Accountant with SOL only for 30 years!

The US share market with dividends and capital gains and tax is a very different beast to the Australian share market with franking credits and CGT and tax.

Greg
January 28, 2023

What are your thoughts on comparing the big LICs and an ETF eg XJN

Peter Thornhill
January 28, 2023

Wouldn't touch an ETF for love or money.

Adrian
January 30, 2023

For over a decade now the vast weight of money is flowing into ETF's not LIC's. This trend will surely continue due to the demographic of LIC investors (tilted to 60 or 70+ years) and the vast majority of young investors favouring ETF's, as well as advisors for reasons of transparency. ETF's are evolving with many now offering smoothed distributions too. My personal experience is that my attempts to improve returns with LIC's have been counterproductive, so I will be sticking with ETF's. However, I believe Peter's general principles of long-term income investing are very sound and they can be implemented with either investment vehicle.

Geoff F
February 02, 2023

Peter,
I thought Greg’s question was an excellent one and I’d always wondered about such a comparison - so I’d be interested to hear the reason for your definitive answer !

chris
February 06, 2023

Adrian sorry there is no way ETFs can smooth dividends because of being a trust structure , expect lumpyness. For the record I am a younger (mid 40s) investor and shared similar reservations ( I hold ETS and LICS) But as my holdings are now well in excess of 7 figures I have a preference for predictibilty of OLD style boring LICS (think ARG,AUI,DUI). Another thing that gets lost (or never mentioned) is LIC returns are AFTER realized tax, ETFs are before, on both a capital and income level.

Fund trustee
January 27, 2023

I think Peter's approach needs to be questioned. There are very good reasons why super funds don't just invest in industrial shares! We'd be crucified for being behind the market return or being too volatile.

James
January 27, 2023

"I think Peter's approach needs to be questioned. There are very good reasons why super funds don't just invest in industrial shares!"

Why? It works for him and many others! The KISS principle in action. Admittedly not for everyone though, especially the faint hearted or less disciplined investors. Know thy self!

If you have enough invested in LIC's etc to provide a growing income stream why not? Is this not largely the purpose of superannuation, to provide an income in retirement? Some LIC's do provide reasonable capital growth over time also. Good companies in LIC's tend to increase dividends over time. Some LIC's are well diversified in different sectors (even including property (AREITS) and cash), rarely sell or churn their holdings as many funds within superannuation do and often provide a more reliable income than lumpy distributions from funds and ETF's.

Fund trustee
January 27, 2023

James, if you were the typical fund member or financial journalist or regulator then my role as a fund governor would be easy. But we aren't actually allowed to get away with that sort of "near enough is good enough" attitude are we? We have to prove that we've done the best we can for our members. We have to publish performance tables and get compared with otger funds and industry benchmarks. It would not be enough for me to go into a Fund meeting and say "let's just do what Peter Thornhill says". Peter's analysis just doesn't do enough to prove it delivers the best results. Good results are not enough.

S2H
January 27, 2023

Got to love Peter Thornhill (and as you're active the comments; thanks for the article). Those ten predictions had me in stitches...

Warren Bird
January 26, 2023

What benchmarks does this investment process meet or beat? It sounds sensible, but what's the evidence that it's the beat overall return for investors?

Peter Thornhill
January 27, 2023

Warren, what is the overall return for investors?

Warren Bird
January 27, 2023

Should have read "best" of course. The total return - income and capital growth - is what I mean by the overall return. Totally recognise that if an investor is drawing on income then this isn't the same thing as a market index return, which is calculated presuming reinvestment of income. But the return that I'm interested in as a personal investor and on behalf of anyone who's money I manage is not just whether I've got a nice growing stream of what accountants call income. It's the combination of what an investor withdraws to live on and the residual capital value that continues to earn income. It's the capacity to draw cash flow from a fund - both by withdrawing "income" and by taking out capital - that matters. The best result might be less dividend income than your portfolio generates but a greater degree of capital growth than your portfolio. I'm sure your approach does very well, but if I followed it would I have more or less in 30 years' time than I would following another approach?

Dudley
January 27, 2023

"what is the overall return for investors?":

Capital growth + gross dividends.

When dividends are reinvested, capital increases. Income becomes capital.
When capital is withdrawn, capital decrease. Capital becomes income.
When dividends are paid, capital decreases. Dividends are income.

Each $ of income, capital withdrawal or dividend payment, is the same as every other $ of income. Fungible.

Up to the quantum fluctuation as to what becomes of income converted to capital by investment.

Warren Bird
January 27, 2023

Dudley, it's actually more nuanced than that, especially in the context of the way I asked the question of Peter which was requesting a comparison with market index measures of returns.
I don't expect Peter's portfolio to be compared with the ASX All Industrials Accumulation Index, because that assumes dividends are reinvested automatically at the market price on the day the stock goes ex. But he's built a strategy that takes the dividends out. So do we compare, at least, with the ASX All Industrials Price Index? That would be a start, at least in terms of the capital value of the portfolio. But since he's not building an index-replicating portfolio we do also need some measure of the dividends he's taking out compared with the dividends paid by the stocks in the index. Sure, his portfolio is earning a nice, steadily growing income stream over the years, but could he have earned more income by investing in a more index-replicating structure? And, could he have even more capital left in the portfolio if he'd pursued a broader approach including resources shares - they mightn't pay the same dividends, but their capital grows.

Dudley
January 27, 2023

"Peter's portfolio to be compared with the ASX All Industrials Accumulation Index":

The change in the net return ratio due to expenditure / capital ratio:
= (1 + Total_Return%) * (1 - Expenditure_Rate%)
presuming constant or averaged rates.

Is any statistically significant difference relative to the 'quantum fluctuation' of prices and dividends?
Is there any skill or just the product of 'coin flips'?
Is any skill all Asset Allocation?

Peter Thornhill
January 28, 2023

Warren, much as I have enjoyed the dialogue via Firstlinks over the years I have realised that I am living in a different universe, and I am beginning to think I should pull my head in. All the commentary, and criticism, following the most recent article, is about numbers and product.
‘This index returns xyz percent compared with your fund, you should invest in these sectors blah blah’. Despite all the holes that we clearly have in our investments, we have more income than we can spend despite travelling a great deal, in style, to connect with family and friends all over the world. So, we donate some of what we can’t spend. Australian Ballet, Brandenberg Orchestra, Royal Botanic Gardens, etc.
After thousands of presentations over the last 30 odd years I had come to realise just how lucky my wife and I were: We were rich beyond our wildest dreams; immediate response; “oh yeah, how much?” Always numbers! I have realised that the difference comes from the fact that we envy no one. We don’t need an extra 1 or 2 percent better return to be happy. We have better things to do with our valuable time.
I can also assure you Warren that our approach has underpinned our prospects. On our return to Australia in 1988 our total investment income was around $1000. Two half yearly dividends from the company I worked for in the UK, Henderson Unit Trust Management. Today it is around $400K and continues to grow because of my love affair with silly old fashioned LIC’s.

Paul Wasserstrom
January 28, 2023

Peter, I thought your system sounded somewhat sensible, but that answers fail to respond to reasonable queries. Makes me question whether you got wealthy through investment selection or simply compounding over 50 years.

Rob
January 28, 2023

Hear, hear!
I have never met Peter or read one of his books, etc. yet I totally agree with his philosophy. I started investing in direct shares in 1999 (aged 36). I changed majority of my direct investments over the ensuing years (through GFC, pandemic, tech wreck, etc.) to mainly LICs plus CBA and COH - that's it. I retired at age 53 (now 59) and we have more than enough income than we will ever need ($150k pa soon to be $180k pa), by being invested 90% into LICs for 15+ years, both inside and outside SMSF.

Dudley
January 28, 2023

"in 1988 our total investment income was around $1000 ... Today it is around $400K":

That is a compound annual growth rate in income of:
= (400000 / 1000) ^ (1 / (2023 - 1988)) - 1
= 18.7%

Whitefield last 20 years: 8.21% ( https://www.whitefield.com.au/company-details/ )

It seems likely that additional capital was invested.

Mark H
January 28, 2023

Peter - I started following your strategy a few years ago... love your approach and philosophy - I managed to semi-retire at 55. We recently achieved what would be our full FIRE number (IF that movement is your thing) late last year (An irrelevant number really as dividends alone provide all we need on the income side without the need to ever tap our capital base) and I intend on pulling the pin on my job share job in April halfway to my 57th Birthday. (My wife has been volunteering for a charity full-time for the last two years (What a nice dividend income allows :-) ) What your approach focused us to do was BUY, HOLD and Subsequently FORGET with our portfolio - no constant tweaking and selling etc... we have just got on and enjoyed our lives

David C
January 29, 2023

Peter please do not “pull (your) head in”.
Your ability to communicate straight forward investing for retirement through dividend compounding, along with the classic phrase spend less than you earn. This has for my extended family delivered spectacular results.
The smiling eyes of my sisters and son when they proudly announce their passive income (and the lifestyle it affords) at family get togethers is priceless.

We are ever so grateful for the seminars, book, articles and mothership slide updates you provide.

I am sure there are other strategies that work as well or maybe better.
That being said we are more than happy with the outcomes of continually increasing our retirement income throughout retirement.
We love our LICs!!!

Luke
January 29, 2023

I don’t think Peters ever made the claim that he started with $1000 investment income and ended up with $400k income after the decades long horizon without adding extra capital. I believe Peter quoted somewhere his long term return of his portfolio is 12% pa compounded.
If you’re trying to catch him out on this technicality you’re missing the point. In my experience Most investors don’t get anywhere near the average market index returns in equities due to lack of diversification or trying to time the market. Both of these can be remedied through the use of an advisor if you lack the knowledge or emotional commitment to enforce this.

If Peters approach angers you, don’t follow it. It is enough for me though! Will other people’s portfolios possibly return more than mine if they water down the cordial with fixed interest or listed property or put money into individual stocks that outperform? Possibly, anything’s possible. I don’t have the time or frankly the skills to make those decisions. But I do know that in a broad share market decline if I can add capital to a broad portfolio of equities, I will access the dividend income stream cheaper. Based on historical statistics 100% equities with a broad based portfolio will give you the most return over the long term.

I made the comment before about the accountant who has solely invested in SOL for 30 years, he was also a financial advisor, he was wise enough to know that the extended Millner family who have controlled and managed SOL for the last 100 years or so had displayed a greater skill in capital allocation than he did and has hence been rewarded, most of his stock was acquired at less than $5/share. Would he have been better investing somewhere else? Possibly. He wasn’t trying to smash numbers out of the park, but follow an approach he is comfortable with that was logical and he could follow for decades.
He didn’t follow the flavour of the month stocks and so didn’t suffer a major hole being blown in his portfolio. He knew the sheer economic force of reinvesting dividends over a 30 yr time frame. I suppose he only got the return that SOL could deliver, but was happy with it. We talked recently and he didn’t know where the share price was at, he sees it once a year when his financial statements are prepared, but he receives a dividend stream that has increased at 8% per annum for the last 20 years! Not bad.

Peter Morgan
January 29, 2023

Thorny, Peter Morgan here, a few other fund managers & me get a lot of credit for Perpetual etc, you & your team played a very big part in getting that place moving. You sold shares & the benefits of investing in them (rather than shoving the funds down planners throats), to this day I have never understood Y other fund managers never followed that model. Every week there is a new fund manager spruiking his best picks in the media, there are 100’s of managers that have appeared many I don’t even know, almost all don’t quote investment fundamentals, best of all their picks are never followed up a year or so later. Anyway you taught me a lot in those early days & the dividend income stories of dividends growing with earnings (as they grew) was one of the best investment articulation’s I have ever seen. Hope all is well & hopefully the above comments are not the kiss of death. (Finally to the readers of this, none of the above is investment advice, please seek it, investing is hard & there is a very big difference between investing & speculating)

Luke
January 29, 2023

A few responses picking short time frames to prove Peter wrong reminds me of the following quote, “Some people use statistics like the drunk uses the lamp post, more for support than illumination”

Dudley
January 29, 2023

"I don’t think Peters ever made the claim that he started with $1000 investment income and ended up with $400k income after the decades long horizon without adding extra capital.":

An anecdote, not validated or qualified and therefore not of any particular use.

A list of annual investments cash / dividend, withdrawals and valuations would be enable calculation of annual internal rate of return and volatility.

The point is to enable today's investor with a time machine to invest cash in the past.

Warren Bird
January 30, 2023

Peter, you shouldn't pull your head in at all. It's just that in 40 years working in the industry I've never been allowed to get away with saying "well, it works for me". And rightly so - I've been managing other people's money and it is their expectations and requirements that I've needed to be aware of. So we need independent and objective statements about what we've done and how we've performed which can be compared with others in the same field. ASIC has only intensified that focus with its heat map for super funds.
Please don't take my question as a criticism. But you are probably right about being in a different universe. All the best.

C
January 26, 2023

I understand your reasoning about industrial versus resource companies however the world has changed due to
geopolitical tensions, overpopulation, and finite resources ( when was the last time a top class copper deposit was found ? ). Mining is essential to human civilisation.
furthermore the big miners have become much more financially responsible and shareholder friendly and have much better dividends than past decades. they can bank profits in boom times and use them to smoothen ( to some extent ) future dividend payouts. Obviously resource companies are cyclical, and I'm not including speculative unprofitable small cap miners, but I believe that to ignore them completely is a mistake. AFI, ARG, BKI and MLT realise this, they hold about 15% in Materials stocks and have done better than WHF. Note that SOL's performance in recent years is largely as a result of holding almost 40% of NHC which itself also has been paying out huge dividends. SOL also owns 30% of Aeris Resources and stakes in a number of small miners. Is SOL's strategy wrong ?
MIN since listing about 20 years ago has delivered the second highest shareholder returns on the ASX200, quoted at 30% p.a. BHP has also been a bonanza for shareholders including massive dividends and company spinoffs.
people who can't stomach the volatility of owning these shares directly should own low cost LICs that hold these companies instead which is easy enough to do with AFI, ARG, BKI, AUI, DUI etc.

C
January 26, 2023

I should have also mentioned new technologies that need minerals eg electric cars, batteries, wind turbines, solar panels etc. Industrial companies can sometimes become obsolete ( such as Kodak and Xerox ), banks, telcos and I.T companies can be disrupted by new technologies, but I cannot see mankind's need for minerals ever going away

Mart
January 26, 2023

It's interesting contrasting this article with Graham H's intro piece to this Firstlinks edition where he states that his $300k investment property is now worth $2m after 30 years of holding on to it. And that he wouldn't have held onto it if it had been easier / beneficial to have sold. That's the learning point for me - buy, reinvest dividends / rents, and sit (unless there's a really good reason not to). In this respect I suspect that BeenThereB4's question of how the ASX200 would fare over a long period would likely be similar (although not quite as good) as to Peter's suggested focus on Industrials?

Peter Thornhill
January 26, 2023

Mart,
No 1. I would like to know the outgoings associated with 30 years of property ownership. My returns are net of all costs.
No 2. The quoted Industrials Index returns do not include the positive impact of imputation credits.
To be honest, if it were the case that owning property was as good as or better than shares; why would anybody start a business?

Michael
January 26, 2023

Thanks Peter have followed your thoughts for years. Just wondering to your thoughts now on the fact interest rates have been falling for 40 years and the increased returns in your graphs show this. Are we now entering a period like the 70's when governments drastically raised rates to curb inflation which had a significant impact on company profits and values. Do you have a view on where we are heading and if your long term view still applies.

Peter Thornhill
January 26, 2023

Hi Michael. You're right about the 70's. We were in England on holiday and had decided to stay. We bought a little terraced house in Clapham, London with mortgage rates around 13%. Within in a year or so (can't remember exactly) they were 16% and rising. My wife fell pregnant and gave up "paid employment" so we were down to one salary.
As our expectations were those acquired from our parents it did not make a blind bit of difference to our lives and mortgage stress was not part of the media rant. I have no idea what impact it had on company profits.
If our experience with City of London Trust is anything to go by, from 1967 onwards it increased its dividend every year from that point; 56 years. Where are we heading? I feel that todays generation have expectations that require today, everything that it took my wife and I a lifetime to achieve. The consequences are therefore inevitable and I look forward to the carnage.

Luke
January 26, 2023

Hi Peter, what are your thoughts on SOL.asx?
I’m aware of an accountant who’s portfolio is just this single stock, been investing in it for 30 years.
I think it would make a great dividend paying stock, it has a great 20 yr record, plus with acquisition of Milton, more of the capital base is made up of quality companies. These companies combined with the other higher returning aspects of SOL’s portfolio can underwrite good dividend growth into the future.

I have a question Peter, that I’ve been pondering. Comparing SOL.asx to BKI.asx. Sol’s dividend growth rate is running at 8% or their abouts with a dividend yield of ~ 3%. BKI’s yield is around 5% with a lower growth rate.
Which company is likely to return more overall dividends to investors if a DRP is engaged?

It’s a bit like comparing CSL to CBA?

I’m using a Mortgage deduced against real estate to buy SOL and BKI. BKI will help me service loan interest easier with dividend, but after the first 5-10 years possibly SOL would reward me more with dividend growth rates.

Mart
January 26, 2023

Luke - hopefully Peter will respond but from past comments he does favour LICs such as SOL (now including Milton), WHF, AFI, and ARG. Not sure about BKI. I suspect you are correct in saying it's a bit like comparing CSL to CBA and trying to future gaze!

Peter Thornhill
January 26, 2023

Luke, I own both. SOL dividend has almost doubled over the last 10 years with unbroken increases. BKI has increased its dividend erratically over the same period by a tiny amount. I know which one I will increase my holding!
Please forget yield, it is indicative of nothing; an abstract number hostage to fluctuations in two variables.

Luke
January 29, 2023

I’m also aware of a grazier who invests 10% of his wool cheque proceeds into BHP every year, has done for decades. He no doubt has done well over the years from this strategy, but I often reflect on what a simple portfolio of LICs would have done for him, I suspect he would have done a lot better.
I witnessed a client with large portfolio > $25M and a commission based broker blow large holes in his capital base by taking positions in Babcock Brown, ABC childcare, Rubicon etc. The basis of his portfolio remained RIO, BHP, WBC, AGL, Newcrest and not enough CSL to make a difference.
Here was a man whose main need was to preserve capital and hold a growing income stream. I suggested adding some old fashioned LICs and SOL for stability of income and to slow the rate of punting in the portfolio.
“We are doing fine with our method, we are above water on our cost” was his reply.
He would want to be, he’d only been investing for 25 years!
In my experience most investors don’t receive anywhere near the average market return, due to trying to ‘pick winners’, ‘time markets’, and other ideas.

I sat in front of a client once, who needed the amount of income each year that only equities could provide from the capital base. I showed her the long term returns of each asset class. The 10 year return from fixed interest looked good because of the decreasing interest rate environment. She seized on this and insisted we invest in fixed interest and avoid equities. I explained to her it was mathematically impossible for this previous 10 return to continue in fixed interest due to returns being inflated by capital gains created by bond pricing in a decreasing interest rate environment and to consider equities in the portfolio. But to no avail, the last I heard she was chasing the alpha in a fixed interest portfolio. Probably won’t work out that well with inflation rearing it’s ugly head.
It never ceases to amaze me how people ignore the advice of a simple strategy of dividend paying companies, managed by experts such as LICs, reinvested, with enough cash put aside to supply living costs for a few years to avoid cashing capital into income at inappropriate times.

Dudley
January 27, 2023

"Comparing SOL.asx to BKI.asx. Sol’s dividend growth rate is running at 8% or their abouts with a dividend yield of ~ 3%. BKI’s yield is around 5% with a lower growth rate.":

SOL gross dividend is ~4.4%.

BKI dividends 5%, growth 5%, dividend return:
= (1 + 5% * (1 + 5%)) - 1
= 5.25%

SOL dividends 4.4%, growth 8%, dividend return:
= (1 + 4.4% * (1 + 8%)) - 1
= 4.752%

For equal dividend return rate SOL dividend growth must be 19.32%:
= (1 + 4.4% * (1 + 19.32%)) - 1
= 5.25%

Rearranging:
= (5% * (1 + 5%)) / 4.4% - 1
= 19.32%

Peter Thornhill
January 27, 2023

Luke & John.
Australians don't want to make things anymore. We used to assemble automobiles; Holden at Fishermans Bend, Ford at Broadmeadows. We now export the raw materials for peanuts and then import the finished goods costing us a fortune.

Dudley
January 27, 2023

"the finished goods costing us a fortune":

The finished goods used to cost fortunes, now peanuts, their fertilisers and iron and coal for tillers are expensive.

BeenThereB4
January 26, 2023

Peter's approach has a lot going for it. I heard him speak many years ago, and took on board some of his thinking.

BUT, could Peter give us a comparative with , say , the ASX 200 (and Accum Index) that includes Resources.

Many Australian investors hold BHP /RIO that have been strong performers (with franked dividends) over the years.

We are a resource rich nation that used to give thanks to being on the sheep's back, but this century with legs in the mining, energy and food grain sectors.

Peter Thornhill
January 26, 2023

BeenThereB4
Over the last 42 years the returns are as follows.
PRICE INDEX ONLY ACCUM INDEX
ASX 200 Resources index 13.5 times your money 43.2 times your money
ASX 200 All Ords index 13.8 times your money 84.6 times your money
ASX 200 Industrials 20.0 times your money 168.4 times your money

Enough difference to be noticeable? The dividend stream makes all the difference.
Digging stuff out of the ground is a necessary mugs game; the real value comes from the manufacturing, technological and intellectual inputs.
A 2011 report estimated 83% of mine production in Australia was attributable to foreign owners, including BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. Although many think of these as Australian companies, BHP is 76% foreign owned, and Rio Tinto is 83%. Between them they constitute 70% of listed mining company resources.
Australia’s mining industry is foreign owned and has spent over $541 million in the last ten years on lobbying Australian governments through its peak lobby groups, which are dominated by foreign interests.

In 2009-10 mining profits were $51 billion, of which 83 per cent, or $42 billion, accrued to foreign investors and it has been getting worse. Australians prefer totally unproductive property, not risky shares.

Luke
January 27, 2023

Peter, I follow the US market and there is a broader range of dividend paying companies there that have huge dividend growth rates over long periods. Like Lowes, Home Depot and other dividend aristocrats. Would be good to see this culture permeate Australia !

John
January 27, 2023

So why is it that the two companies (BHP and RIO) have both in the past 20 years or so divested themselves of manufacturing (eg Newcastle Steelworks, Whyalla steelworks, Sulphide lead smelting) to concentrate on mining??? Obviously the boards of these companies see being a resources based company is better than being a manufacturing/industrial.

Not that I am disagreeing with Peter, just asking for some form of explanation as to why these resource companies don't see what Peter does.

Michael Walmsley
January 26, 2023

Thanks Peter

You have remained consistent for the 31 years i have known you

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

The best strategy to build income for life

The data doesn't lie: dividends on Resources versus Industrials

Follow the market trajectory and stop the usual mistakes

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Vale Graham Hand

It’s with heavy hearts that we announce Firstlinks’ co-founder and former Managing Editor, Graham Hand, has died aged 66. Graham was a legendary figure in the finance industry and here are three tributes to him.

Australian stocks will crush housing over the next decade, one year on

Last year, I wrote an article suggesting returns from ASX stocks would trample those from housing over the next decade. One year later, this is an update on how that forecast is going and what's changed since.

Avoiding wealth transfer pitfalls

Australia is in the early throes of an intergenerational wealth transfer worth an estimated $3.5 trillion. Here's a case study highlighting some of the challenges with transferring wealth between generations.

Taxpayers betrayed by Future Fund debacle

The Future Fund's original purpose was to meet the unfunded liabilities of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. These liabilities have ballooned to an estimated $290 billion and taxpayers continue to be treated like fools.

Australia’s shameful super gap

ASFA provides a key guide for how much you will need to live on in retirement. Unfortunately it has many deficiencies, and the averages don't tell the full story of the growing gender superannuation gap.

Looking beyond banks for dividend income

The Big Four banks have had an extraordinary run and it’s left income investors with a conundrum: to stick with them even though they now offer relatively low dividend yields and limited growth prospects or to look elsewhere.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

9 lessons from 2024

Key lessons include expensive stocks can always get more expensive, Bitcoin is our tulip mania, follow the smart money, the young are coming with pitchforks on housing, and the importance of staying invested.

Investment strategies

Time to announce the X-factor for 2024

What is the X-factor - the largely unexpected influence that wasn’t thought about when the year began but came from left field to have powerful effects on investment returns - for 2024? It's time to select the winner.

Shares

Australian shares struggle as 2020s reach halfway point

It’s halfway through the 2020s decade and time to get a scorecheck on the Australian stock market. The picture isn't pretty as Aussie shares are having a below-average decade so far, though history shows that all is not lost.

Shares

Is FOMO overruling investment basics?

Four years ago, we introduced our 'bubbles' chart to show how the market had become concentrated in one type of stock and one view of the future. This looks at what, if anything, has changed, and what it means for investors.

Shares

Is Medibank Private a bargain?

Regulatory tensions have weighed on Medibank's share price though it's unlikely that the government will step in and prop up private hospitals. This creates an opportunity to invest in Australia’s largest health insurer.

Shares

Negative correlations, positive allocations

A nascent theme today is that the inverse correlation between bonds and stocks has returned as inflation and economic growth moderate. This broadens the potential for risk-adjusted returns in multi-asset portfolios.

Retirement

The secret to a good retirement

An Australian anthropologist studying Japanese seniors has come to a counter-intuitive conclusion to what makes for a great retirement: she suggests the seeds may be found in how we approach our working years.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.