Seeking Alpha

While I have been sounding the siren a lot lately about my concerns regarding the balance sheets of many of our largest and most respected companies outside of the Financial sector, I have been all over the concept of "sustainable" dividends for quite some time. In fact, I owe a debt of gratitude to the Seeking Alpha audience for a lot of the feedback that they have shared with me. It was their input that motivated me to launch my second (and my favorite) model portfolio, the Conservative Growth/Balanced Model Portfolio last July. While the challenges over the past 7 months have been immense insofar as investing in a long-only portfolio, it has managed to weather the storm relatively well (- 7%).

I first addressed the idea of looking at sustainabilty and growth of dividends back in May, 2007, which was a couple of months before I became quite bearish on the market. I described a screen that I continue to use with almost the exact same parameters. I followed it up with several updates over the next year. The last one was in July, but there were others in May, March, November 2007 and July 2007. I mention this for several reasons. First, this is an area upon which I have been focused for almost 2 years now. Second, if you review you will find that these stocks on balance have held up better than the market, but they still can and do go down. Third, you might see how I came to view sustainable dividends as more of an offense than just a defense.

As I mentioned, based upon a lot of great feedback from and interest in those articles, I launched a model that would incorporate some of the themes that I had described. I shared in depth with the Seeking Alpha audience my thinking behind the Conservative Growth/Balanced Model Portfolio when I launched in July, and I shared my views on all of the sectors. The last one has back-links to the whole set. I still maintain that if one wants to be invested in stocks (a question worth debating), these are the types of stocks one should own. As I have been discussing at great length recently, the converse is also true: Companies with unsustainable dividends are where one should not be invested. Generally, investors should continue to "Beware Big Bad Balance Sheets".

High debt loads, rising borrowing costs, capital constraints, asset/liability mismatches, slowing or even declining earnings, depreciating inventory, uncollectable receivables, plunging pension assets, useless deferred tax assets, and falling values for assets such as plants, property and equipment will all conspire against many companies who pay big dividends. So, while I have shared some ideas for finding the "good" companies, perhaps it is more important to continue to focus on the ones with the greatest risk.

Whether a company pays a dividend or not, balance sheet issues can wreck equity holders. I have shared many ideas on this front, including looking at all liabilities rather than just "debt", being especially cautious with intangibles, and being aware of debt and bank-line covenants. Today, though, I want to focus more closely on identifying stocks with high dividend yields at greatest risk of cutting their dividends. We have seen several high profile cuts just this week including Dow Chemical (DOW) and Masco (MAS). That DOW cut its dividend isn't that surprising, but it is remarkable given that it had never done so in over 100 years. My data only goes back to the 70s (click to enlarge):

DOW Div

Many companies are like ostriches with their heads buried, maintaining unsustainable dividends, though the DOW capitulation and the subtle change of tone at General Electric (GE) suggest that companies are waking up to the reality of the situation and the need to preserve capital.

Ironically, like a driver speeding up 50 feet before he hits a red light, Vulcan Materials (VMC) increased its dividend yesterday. They actually didn't, they just said they did in their press release, which was corrected later. As you can see below, they are still running the proverbial red light, apparently a bit intoxicated.

So, in terms of creating this new screen, let me first say that this is an optimization exercise aimed at identifying those companies at greatest risk of cutting their dividend. I am trying to define what is "high" as well as to capture the parameters that will best identify risk. In narrowing the field, I will omit mentioning several hundreds of names that could face dividend reductions. My focus, too, is on companies outside of the Financial sector. Here are the parameters I employed:

  • Universe: Russell 1000 (the top 1000 U.S. companies in market cap)
  • Minimum Dividend Yield: 4% (reduces to 224, 140 non-Financial)
  • Payout Ratio (Div/Expected 2009 EPS): >70% (reduces to 97, 57 non-Financial)
  • Net Debt to Capital: >40% (reduces to 72, 38 non-Financial)
  • Tangible Equity/Total Assets: <25% (reduces to 47, 30 non-Financial)

To remove the "duh" factor, I then capped the dividend yield at 11% (so I could include GE still!). Removing all of the Finance names, we are left with 22 (click to enlarge). MAS, by the way, made the list before truncating the extra-high yielders:

Dividends at Risk

A few observations. First, as VMC showed on Friday, not all management teams will act rationally and adjust quickly. Second, as the Spectra Energy (SE) stock offering shows, there are ways around cutting the dividend, but selling stock well below where one purchased it last year isn't exactly building value. Third, I included some current ratios as well to highlight additional liquidity issues. There are many companies with short-term liabilities close to or in excess of short-term assets. Fourth, despite chopping the dividend, DOW is still on the list (payout ratio still too high)! Finally, while most of these stocks are pricing in something bad (including possibly a dividend cut), given the declines that average 14%, there are many that aren't down that much year-to-date.

I highlighted some of the names that I am more confident in their propensity to slash the dividend. I don't know the Utilities well enough to comment, and I appreciate that they generally have better ability to borrow. Still some of these may be worth examining closer if one owns them.

Again, in my opinion, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I would guess that over 1/2 the dividend-paying companies in general will cut or eliminate their dividends this year. I can't help but think that there could be an actual benefit (rotation into) to some of the companies with more sustainable dividend policies over the years (low payout ratio, strong balance sheet, high returns on capital), but, in a bear market, it is difficult to expect much on that front. Don't get suckered into a "high" dividend yield, and don't be afraid of a "low" one if it is truly sustainable and likely to grow once we get to the other side of this mountain.

Depressions or terrible recessions tend to wipe out the poorly capitalized companies, leaving a strong future for the survivors. I can't say if this is a good time to be thinking about buying those survivors (probably too early), but I am confident that they will be a better place to invest than the companies that have to reckon with their balance sheet pressures in the coming years.

Disclosure: No position in any stock mentioned, but I am "short" T and VMC (along with WTW and ABX) in a quarterly stock-picking contest.

Print this article with comments

This article has 23 comments:

  •  
    Thank you for your good work, which is new to me today, so I have a lot of backtracking today. Buying equities for dividend yield is a minefield I have avoided. The concept of 'safe' income has been blown out of the water by the CDO crash.
    Feb 15 11:32 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    if a co that yields 8% or more slashes the div. by 1/2 you are still ahead of the bank's cd's @ 2.75%( a joke). i had a tanker stock that slashd from 38% to 7.80% but im happy with that return.since youcant rely on anybody as all have an agenda you better think for yourself & trust no one.
    Feb 15 11:42 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Barron's lists a bunch of dividend payers.

    Personally, I still believe in the CanRoys for the next two or more years and then the Oil companies they will become thereafter.

    The Gas Transmission companies still pay relatively large amounts: WMZ and KMP.

    My Tanker company will surely drop its payout by 70% but thats still a 10% yield at todays' prices, TNK.

    And there are dozens of Preferred stocks available to pick and choose from.

    Do the research and DD. There are many opportunities to lock in high yields.

    I just went out on a limb to buy the BAC pref. J at $11.20 now 10% lower, If It drops to 9, I will double up. Its a Perpetual Pref. callable in 2012. at an average cost of $10 my yield is 18%. The risk is Nationalization.

    But if BAC is nationalized, we are all screwed anyway.

    Risk Insurance? UGL

    Feb 15 12:37 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Paultaut, indeed, there are plenty of other "income" opportunities that are much better protected than the common stock shareholder of heavily indebted companies. You mention preferred stocks, and I would throw in busted converts as well.
    Feb 15 01:16 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Please note that PPl has complied with an agreement with the PA Public Utility Commission whereby it kept rates steady for 10 years. In 2010, it will be able to increase rates by 30% +. Fast Eddie (Governor Rendell) is trying to stop the increase but PPL's case is solid.
    Feb 15 03:18 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    For those looking for a >10% yield look no further than the beaten down preferreds.
    psy yields >20% and will continue to do so save complete financial disintegration [and then who cares anyway]
    bpp ~ 20% ; pfo>10% ; ffc>15%;

    My opinion: preferreds are way undervalued. Next few years they will provide a common -like return with much less risk.
    Feb 15 03:50 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    i hold 1000 bac-pv-cap11,purchased at $20. the 7% div has been paid quarterly and is guaranteed/cumulative. would you hold, sell, add to your position considering worst case senario?
    Feb 15 06:47 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I would add JPM
    Feb 15 08:30 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Agreed, it is strange to see companies paying out dividends in excess to their free cash flow. This is a bad policy and a simple ruse.

    If they incessantly issue more shares at bigger discounts to pay out dividends then someone should make them aware of how similar their business model is to Bernie Madoff.
    Feb 15 09:27 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    What do think of a (relatively) high-yielding portfolio consisting of: BP, PM, GSK, BMY, PPG, WSO, PBI, VOD, VZ, DUK, PAYX, RYN and ERIE? It yields about 5.9% -- which can be juiced by selling covered calls on a portion of one or more positions. Interestingly, none of your "death watch" stocks are on the list.


    On Feb 15 01:16 PM Alan Brochstein wrote:

    > Paultaut, indeed, there are plenty of other "income" opportunities
    > that are much better protected than the common stock shareholder
    > of heavily indebted companies. You mention preferred stocks, and
    > I would throw in busted converts as well.
    Feb 15 10:20 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Several of those stocks do share many of the characteristics for which I am concerned. In general, if it yields that much and is a common stock, it is probably bad not good.

    BP: Ugh
    PM: Ugh
    GSK: Ugh
    BMY: Not so bad
    PPG: Ugh
    WSO: OK
    PBI: Ugh
    VOD: Ugh
    VZ: Ugh
    DUK: Not so bad
    PAYX: OK
    RYN: OK
    ERIE: OK

    You can sell covered calls against companies with strong balance sheets as well



    On Feb 15 10:20 PM User 357511 wrote:

    > What do think of a (relatively) high-yielding portfolio consisting
    > of: BP, PM, GSK, BMY, PPG, WSO, PBI, VOD, VZ, DUK, PAYX, RYN and
    > ERIE? It yields about 5.9% -- which can be juiced by selling covered
    > calls on a portion of one or more positions. Interestingly, none
    > of your "death watch" stocks are on the list.
    Feb 15 11:33 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Look at HOG - just cut dividend 70%, but unclear how they justify paying a penny of dividend
    Feb 16 12:36 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Wonder what the effect of the tax cuts that go away in 2010 will be on dividend paying stocks? Gotta hurt!
    Feb 16 08:41 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Alan,

    How many of the companies that you have cited in your list have increased dividends for more than 10 years? How many have increased their dividends for more than 25 years?
    Are dividends from all industries at risk, or are the cuts concentrated mainly in one/two sectors?

    Are the companies about to cut having wide moats and strong brands, or are they cyclical or discretionary item?

    My take:

    www.dividendgrowthinve...



    Feb 16 12:35 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I have recently accumulated a small portfolio (10 or 12 stocks) of energy MLPs, midstream and exploration, the yields range from 10% to 20%, do you follow this group, if so what is your opinion on sustainability of distributions
    Feb 16 06:55 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I don't really follow the MLPs that closely. The group is long assets and short debt against them. I would be concerned about counterparty risk. Also, asset prices should decline over time, but the debt doesn't.


    On Feb 16 06:55 PM Winetexan wrote:

    > I have recently accumulated a small portfolio (10 or 12 stocks) of
    > energy MLPs, midstream and exploration, the yields range from 10%
    > to 20%, do you follow this group, if so what is your opinion on sustainability
    > of distributions
    Feb 16 09:23 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Alan, do you follow Atmos Energy, a company I have owned for a number of years?
    Feb 17 08:09 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I don't really know Atmos (ATO). I did take a quick look. It seems like a lot of their business is regulated, which would be positive. The payout ratio is higher than I would normally like to see, but it appears to be ok, especially given that the cashflows don't appear to be too cyclical here. One area of concern is that their short-term debt has ballooned over the past year. I have no sense of how they plan to address this, but it would be my main focus of due dilligence if I were looking to buy (or hold) the stock.


    On Feb 17 08:09 AM Jack K wrote:

    > Alan, do you follow Atmos Energy, a company I have owned for a number
    > of years?
    Feb 17 12:27 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Q and EQ generate much more cash flow than EPS - depreciation is higher than capex, and in Q's case, the company doesnt pay cash taxes (but has taxes on income statement) due to NOL's.
    Feb 17 08:35 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    That's a very fair point. Still, a couple of considerations. First, in the case of Q, interest expense is massive and could rise in the event of continued weak economic conditions. Second, that cashflow has been decreasing rather consistently the past few years. Third, while the company is writing down the value of its PPE, one has to wonder in a shrinking business and in a world of plunging asset valuations, is it really worth the carrying cost of $13 billion. I agree that things don't look so bad when comparing historical cashflow to EBITDA or looking at DSCR perhaps, but this is a company that could struggle over time to actually repay its debt. Negative equity, high debt, lots of intangibles and shrinking revenues aren't a recipe for success in this environment.
    Feb 18 06:53 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I agree that most of the companies on this list are in danger of cutting their dividend. I don't think AT&T will cut their dividend. They just raised their dividend in December and have been rapidly cutting costs.
    Feb 18 01:01 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    As the chart shows, many companies that were considered solid dividend payers a year ago are now teetering on insolvency. Those 5-10% dividend payments have been no match for the double-digit capital losses that investors endured. Many of these companies have been taking on debt at 8-15% interest rates just to send that cash to shareholders. Now those shareholders are just shocked that the value of their company, and its ability to continue paying dividends, has declined.

    Constructe, you're right, that does resemble Bernie Madoff!

    Before we chase ANY dividend, we should ask whether the 100% safe rate of return we can earn on that dividend is less than or equal to the average interest rate the company pays on its debt. If the interest rate on the company's debt is higher than the interest you can earn with similar 100% certainty, then the company is paying you at the expense of your own equity. That is, if your company borrows at 8% to pay you a dividend that you earn 3% on (at a similar level of safety), you've destroyed value for yourself.

    You might as well take out a personal bank loan at that rate and hold the money in a lower-interest account. It's the exact same principle.
    Feb 18 03:07 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    T got two upgrades this week. They also just recently RAISED their dividend. Might be time to consider covering your short position.

    Feb 25 04:39 PM | Link | Reply