Hi FIG, 16% yield is not a typo for CRN. When CRN listed they promised to pay 100% of their free cash flow to shareholders for the first year of listing (FY19 - December year end). Because the share price (or valuation multiple) is so low the dividend yield is extremely high. In future years, CRN has a dividend payout policy of paying out 60-100% of free cash flow. Longer term there are two things to keep in mind in regards to CRN's dividend: 1. CRN's free cash flow is linked to the coking coal price. So you still have to take a view on the underlying commodity price. This will be related to what happens to coking coal demand and supply in the future. 2. If CRN does not have any major capex plans there is no need to hoard cash given their debt free balance sheet. If this is the case its likely CRN may have a payout ratio of 100%

On Bullet-proofing your equity income portfolio -

Hi Rosemary, unfortunately I don't know of any free service that provides PE charts on ASX companies. We subscribe to FactSet to get our charts.

On Bullet-proofing your equity income portfolio -

Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. CSL and Berkshire Hathaway are fantastic businesses because both companies have retained most of their earnings to reinvest at high rates of returns (for CSL its their core plasma business and for Berkshire you are buying Warren Buffet's investment acumen). Nothing beats finding companies with a long runway of capital deployment at high rates of return. I would even put Amazon in this category (my favourite company in the world). So you are right, one could sell a portion of the portfolio to effectively generate income. There is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, it is very hard to spot these long term compounders in real time with high accuracy. It's very easy in hindsight. For every CSL and Berkshire Hathaway how many fake 'growth' stocks are there? The Nifty Fifty stocks in the 1970s were all high quality businesses that showed strong growth in the past at that time. Only one company, Walmart, continued to generate out-sized returns over the next decade. Everything else fizzled. From a pure statistical point of view the probability of finding long term compounders is going to be low. It doesn't mean we shouldn't look but we should also understand that the odds of finding them is going to be low. The only thing investors have in their control is to work out whether there is enough margin of safety to take on the investment risk (the risk of being wrong). Managing risk is critical for retirees as it reduces their sequencing risk in their retirement.

On Bullet-proofing your equity income portfolio -

Hi Duncan, unfortunately I don’t know of any website that provides historical PE data for the Australian market. It would be great for retail investors if this was available.

On The year of investing dangerously -

Eric, thank you for your comment. The stock market can be extremely bipolar - loving stocks one day and hating them the next. Hence, to stay out of trouble the best way is to view them as businesses rather than chase the price. However, in a synchronised global slowdown some companies that are thought to display robust fundamentals - competitive advantage, capable management, reinvest in the business etc - may (in reality) not be that strong. It's surprising what comes out of the woodwork when a company doesn't have an economic tailwind behind them. Hence, the message of this article is to be careful of buying the dips in a global slowdown. If you are adamant the business fundamentals remain strong then take advantage of cheaper stock prices when Mr Market is suffering a depressive moment.

On The year of investing dangerously -

Shaun, thanks for your comment. My point about 'ubiquitous' meant that ALL growth companies irrespective of business model got bid higher. This shouldn't happen in normal markets, which is why I called it a bubble. Apple and CSL certainly do have different business models hence have different drivers that affect their profits.

On The year of investing dangerously -

Stefan, good question. SYD’s dividend is about 2x their accounting profits. But SYD does not set their dividend policy on accounting profits as there are large non-cash items (eg. depreciation). Since their restructure from Macquarie Airport in late 2013, SYD has paid 100% of their dividend from cash profits. Hence, SYD’s dividend is sustainable. Page 14 in SYD’s FY17 results presentation highlights the difference between accounting profits and cash profits. There are two follow-up questions you may ask: Why does capex not equal depreciation like normal companies? This question relates to the useful life of the asset. Infrastructure asset useful lives are very long versus industrial companies. If you divide SYD’s depreciation by the PPE, it implies that the useful life is around 20 years based on Australian accounting standards. However, SYD’s concession to operate the airport last to 2097. There is a mismatch between actual useful life (79-year concession life) and accounting useful life (about 20 years). For example, SYD depreciates their runways over 30 years even though the assets probably last 100 years. Sure, there will be maintenance capex but the bulk of the capex was made upfront and won’t be repeated. Given that SYD’s capex program over the last couple of years has been elevated and will continue to be in the next few years you should expect higher depreciation affecting their accounting profit. Why does SYD not retain some earnings like normal companies? This question relates to the capital structure of SYD. If SYD retains earnings their balance sheet will degear more aggressively. At a 100% payout ratio on cash profits, the balance sheet is already degearing but at a slower rate. SYD is a very unique business where they can have an elevated capex program funded from debt while their balance sheet is degearing at the same time.

On Defensives: Perception vs Reality -

James, thanks for your comments. Correlation does not mean causation so please read my previous “Run for the hills” livewire post to understand how the US and Australian economies have diverged in recent years. And yes you are right, SYD and many other Australian companies access international bond markets. However, these interest rates are priced based on Aussie rates (plus a margin if they want to hedge). I’m sure it’s possible for Australian companies to finance their operations with Japanese debt or any other denomination but no company does this as this is a clear sign of mismanagement.

On Defensives: Perception vs Reality -