Achieving wealth through shares...how?

ETF's and LIC's (choose well) are both great passive investments. Trouble is that a number of newer ones may not survive given the small size of the Australian investor base. Hence I tend to favour older/big and boring for a larger part of the portfolio.

I do own a couple of ETFs but LICs are the largest part of the portfolio because of a number of reasons but dividend consistency being one of the more important given we're now retired.

Also the larger/older LICs have been around in Australia for much much longer than ETFs. As for key person risk and/or a sudden change in investment style etc this is unlikely for the older ones given that a large part of the investor base of these are very conservative and rely heavily on consistent income. Plus the investment management team are more likely to be process driven rather than relying on some gun stock picker.

But for the long term passive investor both ETFs and LICs will do the job.

I also agree with the recommendation of reading anything Peter Thornhill has written. And yes Whitefield would be one of his favourite LICs given that it is the only pure listed Industrial share fund available. Even though it is a smaller fund it has been going for a very long time. I happily own this one myself along with numerous others.

A pity just about everything is so expensive at the moment. Having established a reasonable sized share portfolio over the years we don't feel the need to regularly buy nowadays (eg DCA etc). Happy now to do most buying when pessimism dominates the market even if this means only buying every 5 to 10 years or so! What a joy it is when one can buy a growing income stream ridiculously cheap!
 
Happy now to do most buying when pessimism dominates the market even if this means only buying every 5 to 10 years or so! What a joy it is when one can buy a growing income stream ridiculously cheap!

You sound exactly like Mr Thornhill!

Cant wait till im in the same privileged position :)
 
Thank you!

I know what equitymate is trying to say. He is saying the P/E ratio will basically be determined based on the yield the LIC is providing. If the yield changes to 4% P/E jumps to 25.

My point is in terms of earnings and dividend growth it has not done much better than the long term index average and hence the outperformance cannot continue unless LICs earnings increases more than indexes.

Cheers,
Oracle.

No, no, no. I'm doing this for the punters at home ;)

The problem here is you don't understand what a LIC is, despite thinking you do.

He is saying its P/E ratio will be determined by the yield it is receiving from its underlying holdings. This is like 98% dividend yield with minor CG due to turnover (same as ETF). Given that large LIC's will trade +/- 5% of NTA.

By your measure, we would consider VAS P/E as 25x. (4% div). This is the yield it is receiving from its holdings, as it is a pass through vehicle.

Has VAS share price increased due to P/E expansion, the answer is partly yes, but it is the P/E expansion of the underlying holdings The situation is exactly the same. P/E is useless for a LIC.

I agree you should stick to ETFs which will serve you well.
 
Berkshire is essentially a listed investment company isn't it ;)

No, its a conglomerate of wholly and partially owned operating businesses with a stock portfolio. BRK's stock Portfolio is only around 30% of the value of the business. Seven Group Holdings (SVW.AX) is similar in that way; it has wholly and partially owned businesses, and also a listed stock portfolio. Same with Soul Patts (SOL.AX).
 
No, no, no. I'm doing this for the punters at home ;)

The problem here is you don't understand what a LIC is, despite thinking you do.

He is saying its P/E ratio will be determined by the yield it is receiving from its underlying holdings. This is like 98% dividend yield with minor CG due to turnover (same as ETF). Given that large LIC's will trade +/- 5% of NTA.

By your measure, we would consider VAS P/E as 25x. (4% div). This is the yield it is receiving from its holdings, as it is a pass through vehicle.

Has VAS share price increased due to P/E expansion, the answer is partly yes, but it is the P/E expansion of the underlying holdings The situation is exactly the same. P/E is useless for a LIC.

I agree you should stick to ETFs which will serve you well.

AFI is not an index fund. Yes, it is index hugging investment company.

The reason why AFI is priced at P/E of 25 with yield of 4% is because the market believes AFI will be able to deliver the 4% or 22 cents FF dividend. Its valuation is based on market expectation on it meeting that dividend figure. That is all good and fine for now but no body knows what lies in future for AFI and it's valuation will accordingly be determined on it's performance on meeting market expectations.

ETFs valuation is obviously again based on market's (as a whole) expected returns according to it's weightings.

If you think all LICs valuation is determined like the index ETF than I think you are in for a shock. LICs are not ETFs. A LIC which is not very sound fundamentally will be valued at a higher yield and lower P/E ratio.

I guess you can keep your definition on how LICs work and I will keep mine.
Shall we call it day now?

Cheers,
Oracle.
 
Interesting discussion guys, thanks for sharing your thoughts with the rest of us. I think I'll be getting into a bit of both.
 
AFI is not an index fund. Yes, it is index hugging investment company.

The reason why AFI is priced at P/E of 25
with yield of 4% is because the market believes AFI will be able to deliver the 4% or 22 cents FF dividend. Its valuation is based on market expectation on it meeting that dividend figure. That is all good and fine for now but no body knows what lies in future for AFI and it's valuation will accordingly be determined on it's performance on meeting market expectations.

ETFs valuation is obviously again based on market's (as a whole) expected returns according to it's weightings.

If you think all LICs valuation is determined like the index ETF than I think you are in for a shock. LICs are not ETFs. A LIC which is not very sound fundamentally will be valued at a higher yield and lower P/E ratio.

I guess you can keep your definition on how LICs work and I will keep mine.
Shall we call it day now?

Cheers,
Oracle.

I will admit you are tenacious in your ignorance and cannot be helped. For those reading at home, take the time to understand how a LIC is structured and it will all make sense to you. I'd suggest pay special attention to the concept of net tangible assets and how it applies to listed investment companies.
 
Any other books you can recommend? Would be good to get another perspective on generating long term wealth through shares.

Not really other than long term investing through index funds such as popularised by Bogle. Honestly unless you want to trade or perform your own stock analysis (very time consuming and most underperform the indicies or much worse) contrary to popular opinion too much reading may only confuse you or have you chopping and changing strategy.

For the passive, income oriented, long term investor Thornhills approach to shares is a damn good one. He holds many individual industrial shares in addition to LICs. This adds to administration of course. Sticking to a modest number of LICs and ETFs will significantly reduce administration. Buy these regularly and more so during periods of market gloom. Never sell unless you have to. Enjoy the inflation proof income stream!

Your biggest test will be a psychological one depending on your risk tolerance. Can you stomach the ups and downs of the market especially the major ones? Only faith in your investment strategy and experiencing these situations will teach you to deal with this.

So what better approach could you have than the likes of Thornhills who has a lifetime of experience in the share market having been with a number of fund managers and as a long term successful private investor. Having tried trading a long time ago and made many investing mistakes over the years I only wish I had followed the dividend investing approach enthusiastically promoted by Peter right from the start.

Of course there are other ways to get wealthy from shares but the above is just so simple and requires bugger all time to do. But most importantly the probability of creating wealth from this approach over time is very high. And it allows one to focus on more important things in life!

Finally seeing Buffet often gets a mention one could probably forget about reading any books and just adhere to his following approach but here in Australia perhaps consider the large LICs as a substitute or addition to index funds and give more focus to dividend oriented LIC/ETFs given their tax effectiveness due to franking credits:

"Stocks are the things to own over time. Productivity will increase and stocks will increase with it. There are only a few things you can do wrong. One is to buy or sell at the wrong time. Paying high fees is the other way to get killed. The best way to avoid both of these is to buy a low-cost index fund, and buy it over time. Be greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy, but don't think that you can outsmart the market. Very few people should be active investors."
 
I will admit you are tenacious in your ignorance and cannot be helped. For those reading at home, take the time to understand how a LIC is structured and it will all make sense to you. I'd suggest pay special attention to the concept of net tangible assets and how it applies to listed investment companies.

Now that you have established my ignorance and utter disregard for all the numbers I have presented in my previous posts while you have yet to explain me anything of any value except trying to ridicule me and somehow pretend what an investment guru you are. Please enlighten me on concept of net tangible assets for LICs and how on earth knowing just that will help you achieve above average returns since everything I have mentioned is all garbage. Tell me where I don't understand in the below simplified example.

LIC XYZ reports it's NTA on 1 May.

Totals marketable securities held: $100 million
(few million bhp, cba, wbc etc etc shares it holds on 30 April )

Cash on hand : $15 million

Total liabilities : $5 million

------------------------
Pre tax NTA : $110 million

Shares on issue : 110 million

NTA pre tax per share: $1

Subtract Deferred tax liabilities: $10 million
(If entire portfolio is liquidated today)

NTA post tax: $0.91

Check current share price and compare with the pre/post NTA.

Cheers
Oracle
 
This appears to me to be an argument about nothing?

You buy both at pretty much their current NTA (give or take a bit for LICs depending on fashion) - mark to market keeps the ETFs at that point all the time.

The income from their shares / minimal CGs is either reinvested or distributed for the owner to reinvest themselves if they wish - not much to see here.

Their yield is about the same, give or take a bit. Likewise their franking credits.

The only difference is the particular basket of shares they own is different. One is selected by human hand and the other by automatic algorithms based on index composition. Likewise for trading timings and CGT events etc.

There is no way of knowing which basket will out perform the other without knowing how the individual shares they each own will perform - in which case we are back to stock picking, which we don't believe really works over the long term or we wouldn't be doing this in the first place!

The question is, how would you like your shares selected? Human judgement or the blind results of an algorithm? Each has their benefits and flaws and no-one can prove one will perform any better than the other - you just have to pick your poison.
 
say around 2003/2004 you could have picked up shares really cheap eg BHP for around $12, there's triple your money now, quadruple if you sold before the GFC.

With telstra you would have probally covered your capital loss from the dividends it paid. AMP was under $3 a share around that time. All the bank stocks, except for perhaps NAB, are up from 03/04, and any capital losses would have been made up from dividends paid.

Depends how you define "rich". If you sold before the GFC you certainly would have made a lot more $.

Yeah, but it depends on how many shares bought. One of the advantages of property is that it can be highly leveraged, whereas tough to get that kinda loan with shares. If bought property in 2003/04 it would have most likely doubled by now or near it and this dollar gain will be greater than bhp unless you bought significant amounts of bhp at that time, and that is not easy for most Punters.
 
Excellent blog post this morning from Pete Wargent

Equities are a far "cleaner" and more liquid asset class, very well suited to retirees of the right mindset contrary to popular opinion, particularly given the favourable tax treatment of franked dividend income in Australia. No tenants or related headaches. No repair and maintenance bills, Quick and easy to sell parcels of shares.

Property investment suits many long term Mum and Dad investors, despite its illiquidity, and the leverage can see them magnify gains (or losses) at a greater rate, provided they invest well (or badly).

http://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/property-shares-and-confidence.html
 
AFIC Video explaining LIC's here

I see Argo is branching out also

A new ASX listed investment company called Argo Global Listed Infrastructure Limited (AGLI). AGLI has been established to invest in a diversified portfolio of global listed infrastructure securities, with the objective of providing both long-term capital growth and dividend income for shareholders"
 
Back
Top