Why you should stick with defensives for 2010

By MoneyWeek Editor John Stepek Dec 17, 2009

John Stepek

Share with
friends:

Comments (14) Print this article

Things seem to be looking up across the world.

In Britain, unemployment figures came in better than expected yesterday. And in the US, the Federal Reserve was a little more upbeat. It won’t be raising interest rates for a while, it said. But most of the Fed’s ‘special liquidity facilities’ – the various programmes set up to prop up the banking system during the crash – will be allowed to expire at the start of February.

Naturally, stocks took a bit of hit on this news. Why? Because any hint of an improving economy takes us one step closer to the point where money starts becoming more expensive again.

And investors are right to worry about that. Because when the cheap money is yanked away, we’ll quickly find that it’s pretty much all that’s been propping the economy up…

Take unemployment figures with a pinch of salt

Britain's unemployment data was better than expected. The jobless total rose by 21,000 between August and October, to 2.49m. But this was the smallest increase in nearly two years. And the claimant count – the number of people claiming unemployment benefit – actually fell by 6,300 in November, to 1.63m. That was the first fall since February 2008.

All very encouraging. But you need to take it with a pinch of salt. As David Wighton points out in The Times, one of the things holding unemployment down has been weak wage growth. "Nearly half of private sector settlements have been pay freezes." This makes it easier for companies to afford to keep people in jobs.

Also "much of the strain of the downturn has been taken by workers seeing their hours reduced. The number of people working full-time is still shrinking fast." The total number of part-time workers is at a record 7.7m. And recruitment of new staff is clearly in the doldrums – the number of 16-24 year olds out of work also hit a new record.

The trouble is, these sorts of measures – low wage growth and reduced hours – are temporary. If the economy doesn't improve strongly, there's every chance that these inch-by-inch cuts will develop into full-blown job losses.

There's a lot of pain to come in the public sector

More to the point, the public sector hasn't even begun to feel the pain yet. In the three months to October for example, state workers received an average annual pay rise of 2.8%. That compares to 1.1% for the private sector, reports The Telegraph. And the public sector actually added 23,000 jobs over the quarter. Local councils, says The Telegraph, have had to start laying off staff, with the majority of the new jobs created by central government. For a government that's meant to be focused on cost-cutting and sorting out our deficit, that doesn't look like much of a squeeze.

Post-election however, there will have to be big cuts, regardless of which party's in power. Alistair Darling's not prepared to spell it out to us yet, but if he wants to cut the deficit in half any time soon then some departments are going to have to suffer deep spending cuts. And rising taxes – particularly the National Insurance hike scheduled to come in – won't do anything to encourage private sector job creation.


Special FREE report from MoneyWeek magazine: When will house prices bottom out - and how will you know?

  • Why UK property prices are going to fall 50%
  • When it will be time to get back in and buy up half price property

Britain's conflicting unemployment picture illustrates a bigger problem which stretches across the global economy. The slashing of global interest rates and the printing of money by central banks meant that it became easier for consumers and companies to service their debts. It's propped up the housing market very nicely, for example, as my colleague Dominic Frisby discussed yesterday. The banking system has also been propped up by a certain amount of fiddling with accounting rules.

It's far too soon for a return to 'business as usual'

Some people are already asking: "Was that it?" They're looking forward to things getting back to 'normal'. They're not expecting any great fireworks next year, but they don't expect things to get any worse.

But they are almost certainly being too complacent. The global economy is still very imbalanced. Governments have taken on a lot of the debt that the private sector once had. The big worry is that all this cheap money might just have been plastering over the cracks. As soon as it's whipped away again, we'll find that there's nothing to hold up the underlying economy.

That's why markets were very ambivalent about the Fed's mildly upbeat tone yesterday. And the notion that the flow of cheap money might end sooner rather than later had risk-averse investors heading for the dollar again this morning. That of course wasn't helped by the fact that Greece has also received another downgrade, this time from credit rating agency Standard & Poor's. The more troubled the eurozone looks, the less attractive the euro becomes.

The coming year will be tough for stocks

We suspect that money will remain cheap for longer than markets expect. Central bankers, terrified by Japan's lost decades, aren't keen to press the button before they absolutely have to. But even that wouldn't be especially good news for stocks. As the Financial Times' 'market eye' column points out on its website this morning: "What investors should be really concerned about is if the Fed doesn't feel able to raise rates soon-ish. That would suggest equity investors have priced in a much rosier economic scenario than will prove to be the case."

So either way, the year ahead is going to be a tough one for stocks. We've said it before, but we'll say it again: stick with defensives and look for a decent dividend yield, because those are the stocks that will hold up best in the year ahead. My colleague Tim Bennett looks at some decent prospects in MoneyWeek magazine this week, out tomorrow . If you're not already a subscriber, get your first three issues free here.

Our recommended article for today

A bite from the gold bug is good for your wealth

Gold hit record highs recently. And in the long run, it's only going to head higher. So think about buying in now. Dominic Frisby explains this extraordinary bull run, and how and where to buy gold.

Comments (14)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Bob Roberts

    (17 December 2009, 11:54AM)  Complain about this comment

    Got admit that I am very confused about all this information about being defensive about stocks - because, as other Moneyweek articles in recent days have suggested, that a sharp shock is long overdue in the markets... and at the same time being told that the central bankers will keep money cheap, which I take to mean low interest rates, for longer than people expect...

    Not only confusing but surely you can only believe in a big market correction happening soon or in low IRs continuing and hence money flowing into stocks... but not both?

  • 2. Bob Roberts

    (17 December 2009, 12:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    John, this article has not grabbed the MW readership's attention.

    Write about house prices and you get loads of comments and posts.

    Write about defensive stocks and pain for the public sector in 2010 and I think the only way you will get some comments is by saying the public sector should be put in the stocks.

    I have a suspicion that MW readers are all waiting and praying for a housing price crash in the UK.

  • 3. Sceptic

    (17 December 2009, 12:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    Bob is right. Financial commentators hedge their bets but you can't entirely blame them. The future is unknowable.

    Poor guys, even the numbers they have to work with are open to question. For example, who verifies the growth figures of the BRIC nations ? Impressive projections like 8% and 10% growth are repeated incessantly. Enron anybody . . . ?

  • 4. Ricardo

    (17 December 2009, 03:09PM)  Complain about this comment

    It seems to me that MoneyWeek are talking a great deal of sense here. Defensive stocks paying a decent dividend are the *only* thing worth holding, and, they haven't raced away with the current market rally. Also a bit of Gold for protection.

    Why would you hold cash at zero return while the fundamental cost of living keeps rising (fuel, energy, food) ? And with the current political uncertainty and massive debt government bonds don't look very clever. Banks ? Forget it. In fact anything in the financial sector, forget it, for years. It's broken and needs fixing.

    Stay safe and earn a decent return whilst doing so. Makes sense to me.

  • 5. Bob Roberts

    (17 December 2009, 03:33PM)  Complain about this comment

    Isn't the fundamental flaw in saying to hold defensive stocks that pay a dividend negated when you believe that a sharp shock to the markets is overdue?

    If the markets are going to fall sharply, as Moneyweek believes, then any dividend you may get from such a stock could be totally wiped out by the drop in that share price? If there is a sharp shock to the global markets in the coming months then surely virtually all stocks would be affected?

    If the markets paniced tomorrow and fell dramatically the world over then even the likes of, as but one example, Tesco would be hammered as well. A big fall would wipe anything you got in dividend and, more than likely, leave you nursing a sizeable loss?

    Or am I missing something here?

  • 6. Geoff Daniel

    (17 December 2009, 03:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    I share Bob Roberts concern. Where do you put cash right now? I came out of stocks (too early!) when the FTSE rose past 6000, at what seems a long time ago. But my cash is held in sterling and has devalued. I did buy oil, but I can't bring myself to invest in gold - still don't really understand why it is worth anything!

    Defensive stocks may be better than the rest, but when markets slump, pretty much all the majors drop with it. What's a 6% Dividend of the stock drops 20% in value over the year?

    There have been differing viewpoints in MW on exposure to dollars or dollar-based assets. Recent articles have been bullish on the dollar eg 'Could next year be the year of the dollar?' (Dec 16). But on Dec 2 we had 'Debt will drag the dollar down' by a US commentator. Whither the dollar?

  • 7. Ricardo

    (17 December 2009, 04:19PM)  Complain about this comment

    Quite right, dividends are vulnerable. At all times. Especially during falling markets. But the public tends to shrug its collective shoulders when it comes to paying utility and grocery bills, or filling up the car. We just grimmace and bear it.

    Of course it depends on your time-frame but I think there's a case to be made for risking a 20% hit for a regular 4-6% dividend. I guess it also depends on where you see your energy, food, pharma bills going in the future. The pessimist in me doesn't see them getting much cheaper.

  • 8. Bob Roberts

    (17 December 2009, 04:40PM)  Complain about this comment

    I think Geoff has nailed it on the head - what is a 6% dividend worth if you believe the sharp correction is coming.

    If the markets correct by 6% you lose out due to fees, anything over 6% and you are losing on just keeping your cash under the mattress. What is a sharp correction - 10, 20 percent? More?

    Seems alot of people are saying this market is too expensive, frothy and heading for a fall so no share is defensive if you believe that.

  • 9. Andy P

    (17 December 2009, 06:23PM)  Complain about this comment

    Thanks to MW, my portfolio is made up of companies seen as defensive, but with other attributes as well.

    As just one example, National Grid, with about 90% regulated and visible forward income, quite a bit in US so exposed to dollar and benefits from US infrastructure spend. Plus an element of speculation with an LPG gas terminal in the UK with interesting growth potential. Add ticks for the yield, dividend cover, and borrowing secured going forward.

    Another is GSK, balanced exposure EU and US, decent quarterly dividend, swine flu income rising, solid boring product range.

    They are out there (I hope!) if hard to find.

    Also, there is a difference between a shock (eg 9/11) and a correction. Not everything falls in a correction once the dust has settled. In fact if there is a correction and the dollar carry didn't help pump an asset or share up, it might not drop too much at all.

  • 10. Andy P

    (17 December 2009, 06:44PM)  Complain about this comment

    Regarding the unemployment figures, one factor not mentioned by John S is the Tax Deferral Scheme.

    According to a well known national paper, quoting a UK accountancy firm, "Some 18,500 construction firms, 12,500 retailers and just under 10,000 leisure and entertainment businesses such as restaurants and bars have successfully applied to defer paying their VAT, PAYE or corporation tax bills"

    £ 4 Bn has since been repaid, but over £ 1 Bn is yet to be recovered.

    A senior partner of a UK insolvency firm tipped by MW yesterday, Begbies Traynor, says "Extending the scheme, while welcome for some businesses, will only continue to pump up an artificial bubble of future insolvencies and delayed unemployment which will burst eventually when HMRC finally asks for its money back."

    Another example of both govt life support delaying the pain and unforseen consequences of loose policy.

    John S is spot on regards unemployment, methinks.

  • 11. Jim Roper

    (18 December 2009, 05:31PM)  Complain about this comment

    Of course JSA claims are down, they are bound to be, because as we baby boomers reach 60 years of age, we are no longer allowed to register as available for work and must sign up for Pension Credit.
    Pension Credit is means tested so anyone with more than meagre savings does not get anything until they have spent enough to bring down their 'tradable assets' the the Pension Credit threshold.

  • 12. tony

    (13 January 2010, 12:50PM)  Complain about this comment

    re gold ...I asked a relative to buy me['cos I wasnt sufficiently local to London] a one ounce bullion bar,thus taking the plunge at last ,the receipt had scrawled £768,I think the price of gold at the time was $1130/oz.,I have no idea of the exact spot price ,commission or exchange rate .However from guestimates I feel that the cost of the one oz will require an advance in price to at least $1210 before I can think of breaking even .Will I ask again?Probably not !!!!

  • 13. Dave J

    (13 January 2010, 02:32PM)  Complain about this comment

    Tony is right, one email letter I recieve on a regular basis offers gold from an American company at $300 for a tenth of an ounce gold coin. A nice proffit for someone, but as the add keeps reapearing, presumably someone is paying $3000 an ounce for gold.
    The financial world gets more like the government every day, is there no one we can trust?

  • 14. Ian

    (13 January 2010, 07:16PM)  Complain about this comment

    The idea with defensives is that they provide a stable income. The yield may be 6,7,8% or whatever, but if the economy is stalling and a yield of 5% is now acceptable, then the price of these defensives will actually rise.
    This of course assumes that the profits will be stable.....

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>