Skip to main content

Even with recent share-price gains, the yields on defensive stocks, such as McDonald’s, average 3.2 per cent, which is meaningfully above the average of 2.1 per cent for cyclicals.

Chris Bolin/The Globe and Mail

You can call Tuesday's action in the stock market a rebound from Monday's rout if you want to.

But when you scratch the surface, the way up looked a lot different than the way down – and not just because the gains were about half the previous day's losses.

More importantly, the S&P 500 on Tuesday was led by a mix of defensive and cyclical stocks – consumer staples and health care stocks were among the top performers for the day.

Story continues below advertisement

Conversely, Monday's nerve-rattling decline hit cyclicals far harder, with energy, materials, industrials, consumer discretionary and financials bearing the brunt of the selloff.

So it goes in 2013, where defensive stocks have been crushing their cyclical peers on the way up and the way down, raising questions about whether this latest phase of the bull market is being propelled by caution rather than optimism.

Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ, believes the charge into defensive stocks is only partly owing to bull-market latecomers staying clear of so-called high-beta sectors – which tend to be more volatile than the overall market – out of concern of a repeat of scary market turbulence.

Mostly, the favouritism is tied to a frantic search for yield. Defensive stocks have considerably higher dividend yields than cyclical stocks, on average, at a time when government bonds are yielding next to nothing.

But this preference for defensive stocks, whose gains are 50 per cent more than cyclicals since the bull market's latest sprint began in mid-November, could be causing some market distortions: Defensive stocks within the S&P 500 have heftier valuations.

Mr. Stovall noted that they have an average price-to-earnings ratio of 17, based on estimated earnings. That is well above the 13.5 P/E for cyclical stocks and the 14 P/E for the entire S&P 500.

Defensive stocks are also pricier when looked at from a technical perspective: The average defensive sector is 10 per cent above its 200-day moving average, versus an average of just 2 per cent since 1994.

Story continues below advertisement

By comparison, cyclical stocks trade just 4 per cent above their 200-day moving average, versus a long-term average of 3 per cent.

If that looks like a good reason to avoid defensive stocks for being too, well, offensive, Mr. Stovall offers one good reason to stick around: Dividends.

Regular payouts contribute meaningfully to long-term gains and they tend to lower volatility in portfolios. And even with recent share-price gains, the yields on defensive stocks average 3.2 per cent, which is meaningfully above the average of 2.1 per cent for cyclicals.

"So even though stocks have soared, and the higher-yielding defensive groups have led the way, S&P Capital IQ equity analysts believe several stocks paying yields of 3 per cent or more are still attractive and deserve a second look by investors," he said.

These stocks are: McDonald's Corp., Altria Group Inc., General Mills Inc., Lorillard Inc., Chevron Corp., Pennsylvania REIT, Bank of Nova Scotia, General Electric Co., Waste Management Inc. and South Jersey Industries Inc.

Even broad baskets of dividend payers come highly recommended. S&P Capital IQ has an "overweight" recommendation on the SPDR S&P Dividend exchange-traded fund, which tracks stocks within the S&P 500 that have increased their dividends every year for at least 25 consecutive years.

Story continues below advertisement

Investors are paying a lot for dividends right now. But with payout levels historically low amid high corporate cash levels, the expectation that dividends will continue to rise looks like a safe bet.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.