Stingy Investor Search - Contact - Subscribe - Login
  Home | Articles | Links | SNW
All-Canadian Trust Guide:
our annual ranking of Canada's best and worst income trusts

A year ago we decided to guide our readers through the murky world of income trusts. To shed some light on the subject, we ranked 100 of the largest income trusts in our first annual All-Canadian Trust Guide. We used entirely objective criteria and assigned each trust an A, B, C, D or F grade depending upon how its numbers stacked up. We figured that our top-rated trusts might provide you with a few good starting points for your own research.

We're pleased to say that our humble efforts yielded solid returns. Our top-of-the-class trusts those rated either A or B gained an average of 29.7% (and that's without reinvesting distributions) since we did our ranking. We think most investors would be delighted with nearly a 30% annual return.

How did we do in comparison to the market? Since there is no generally accepted index for the income trust sector, it depends upon which benchmark you choose. Probably the fairest comparison is to the Barclays Advantaged S&P/TSX Income Trust Index Fund. That fund produced only a 28.1% gain over the same period, meaning our method of selecting trusts added nearly two percentage points of value.

Our picks look even better compared to the average trust in the Bloomberg database, which yielded a total return of only 19.1% over the last twelve months. By that standard, our top-rated trusts finished nearly 11 percentage points ahead of the pack.

We caution readers that the income trust market was a volatile place last year.Your experience depended entirely upon where you sat. Bubbly prices for petroleum propelled oil and gas trusts to huge gains. Financial trusts (think REITs) also enjoyed big advances. But returns weren't nearly as good in other sectors. In the consumer trust area, populated by retailers, restaurants and the like, 21 trusts fell by more than 15% and seven lost more than 50% of their value. Investors who bought the worst of these trusts at their highs got a rude surprise particularly if those investors thought that they were putting their money into conservative bond-like income generators. Most trusts have much more in common with risky stocks than with solid government bonds, and many investors learned that lesson the hard way over the past year.

Looking ahead, we suspect life could get very interesting for trust investors. The party in the oil patch may continue if oil prices stabilize or spike higher. On the other hand, if oil prices weaken, carnage awaits. Rising interest rates could also bite into returns if more generous bond yields woo investors away from their infatuation with trusts. But we are the first to admit that we have no special ability to predict oil prices or interest rates. Instead we analyze trusts based on their individual characteristics and their relative merits.

To do so, we've dug deep into the numbers and graded Canada's top 100 trusts on their ability to provide healthy distributions for a reasonable price. Although we've used some high-powered math to arrive at our ratings, the results can be understood by anyone who's ever read a report card. The best trusts earn an A. Good trusts pick up a B. Solid but unspectacular trusts get by with a gentleman's C. Bottom-of-the-heap trusts go home with a D or even an F.

That faint humming sound you hear as you read our tables is all of us at MoneySense urging caution. Sure, the returns of our top trusts were spectacular last year. But we are not repeat, not saying that you can make a fortune by buying every A trust and dumping every F trust. The market isn't nearly that predictable.

What we will say is that A-rated trusts deserve your attention. They have the ingredients for success over the long haul. On the other hand, you better be careful when it comes to bottom-of-the-class trusts. You may get lucky and blunder into a short-term gain, but our method wasn't designed with a quick flip in mind.

Our grades are based purely on the numbers. We didn't factor in our personal opinions about a sector or a specific trust. Instead, we scoured the Bloomberg database, which provides background financial information on all sorts of trusts. We restricted our ratings to Canada's largest trusts by market capitalization, then trimmed the initial list because some trusts have been around for less than a year or lack the robust cash flow data we need for detailed analysis. (Keep this in mind if you don't spot your favorite trust on our list.) Finally, we doled out marks based on three criteria:


The more money a trust puts in your pocket, the better. We gave high marks to any trust with a distribution yield of more than 5%. A 5% yield is relatively modest by trust standards but it is much better than that provided by most stocks. Just remember that pocketing a distribution is not the same as collecting a dividend. For one thing, you may pay more personal taxes on distributions than on Canadian dividends, thanks to the additional tax breaks that were lavished on Canadian dividends in this year's federal budget.


We like it when a trust is paying a high yield, but we like it even more when we feel confident that the trust's underlying business is in good shape and that it can continue to pay its distribution. To ensure our top-rated trusts are operating with a cushion of safety, we awarded high marks to trusts that pay out less in distributions than they generate in cash flow.

We gave trusts additional marks if they used low amounts of debt, since trusts deep in hock are riskier than less leveraged trusts. We measured each trust's reliance on debt by calculating its ratio of total debt to total unitholders' equity, then comparing that figure against the trust's peers in the same industry.


We awarded the highest marks to trusts trading at low prices in comparison to their cash flow. We measured this a couple of ways, because while we wanted low price-to-cash-flow ratios in an absolute sense, we also wanted a trust's price-to-cash-flow ratio to be low compared to other trusts in the same industry. By using both an absolute and a relative measure of cheapness, we rewarded trusts that provide lots of cash flow for a reasonable price. We also wanted to buy lots of assets for a low price and higher grades went to trusts with moderate-to-low price-to-book-value ratios.

Putting our marks together we arrived at final grades for each of our 100 trusts. Only 10 earned an A, but 20 managed a solid B. We think both classes are well worth your consideration. But don't get too caught up in which trust got an A and which got a B. Feel free to go even further afield in the hunt for trusts with unique or intangible features that may not be reflected in the hard numbers.

Before trading on the basis of our grades, you should make sure the trust's situation hasn't changed in some important way. Be sure to read the firm's latest press releases, its regulatory filings, and recent newspaper stories to get up to speed on all of the most recent developments. It is also wise to limit your trust exposure to a small portion of your well-diversified portfolio. Loading up only on trusts might be exciting but it is also a risky proposition.

The best way to use our grades is as a starting point for your own research. Don't feel confined by our approach. Instead, look up the characteristics that mean the most to you. If you're interested in trusts with a high earnings yield and low debt, it's a simple matter to grab a pencil and underline a few prime choices. Like any screening strategy, the purpose of our trust ranking is to help you distill a sea of data into a few good ideas, which can then be investigated in more detail.

From the Summer 2006 issue.

Globe & Mail Articles

 Dividend All-Stars for 2024
 250 Megastars for 2024
 Extreme yields
 The easy way
 Smaller stable dividend
 250 Megastars for 2023
 Champagne portfolio
 Screaming Value
 Blended momentum
 Dividend monster
 Frugal dividend
 Stable dividend
 Speads and recessions
 TSX 60 for value investors
 Looking at 10-year returns
 Watching for a bottom
 Oh, bother!
 Indexing advice
 Media-shy stocks
 Curse of size
 Market uncertainty
 Be even lazier
 Scary beats safe
 Small, illiquid, value
 Use the numbers
 What value is good value?
 Sculpt for value
 Value vs CAPE
 Graham Rules
 CAPE vs PeakE
 Top value ratio
 Low Beta
 Value and dividends
 Walter Schloss
 Try unloved AIG
 Why I'm a value investor
 New world of ETFs
 Low P/Es possible
 10 yielders
 Be happier
 Dividend Downside
 Shiller's P/E
 Copycat investing
 Cashing in on class
 Index roulette
 Theory collides
 Diving too deep
 3 retirement villains
 Scourge of inflation
 Economic omens
 Analyst Expectations
 Value stock scarcity
 It's all in the index
 How to pick good funds
 Low Beta Wins
 Hunt for dividend stocks
 Think garage sale

MoneySaver Articles
 2 Graham Stocks for 2018
 2 Stingy Stocks for 2017
 2 Graham Stocks for 2017
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2016
 5 Graham Stocks for 2016
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2015
 3 Graham Stocks for 2015
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2014
 4 Graham Stocks for 2014
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2013
 6 Graham Stocks for 2013
 9 Stingy Stocks for 2012
 8 Graham Stocks for 2012
 Simple Way 2011
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2011
 7 Graham Stocks for 2011
 Simple Way 2010
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2010
 8 Graham Stocks for 2010
 Simple Way 2009
 Timing Temptation
 19 Stingy Stocks for 2009
 4 Graham Stocks for 2009
 Simple Way 2008
 Active at Passive Prices
 Unbundling ETFs 2008
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2008
 5 Graham Stocks for 2008
 Is your index too active?
 Graham's Simple Way
 Canadian Graham Stocks
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2007
 8 Graham Stocks for 2007
 Top SPPs
 The Simple Way
 A hole in your IPO?
 Monkey Business
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2006
 Graham Stock Gainers
 Blue-Chip Blues
 Are Dividends Safe?
 SPPs for 2005
 Graham's Simplest Way
 Selling Graham Stocks
 RRSP Money Market Funds
 Stingy Stocks for 2005
 High Performance Graham
 Intelligent Indexing
 Unbundling Canadian ETFs
 A history of yield
 A Dynamic Duo
 Canadian Graham Stock
 Dividends at Risk
 Thrifty Value Stocks
 Stocks in Short Supply
 The New Dividend
 Hunting Goodwill
 SPPs for 2003
 RRSP: don't panic
 Desirable Dividends
 Stingy Selections 2003
 10 Graham Picks
 Growth Eh?
 Timing Disaster
 Dangerous Diversification
 The Coffee Can Portfolio
 Down with the dogs
 Stingy Selections
 Frugal Funds
 Graham Revisited
 Just Spend It
 Ticker Temptation
 Stock Mortality
 Focus on Fees
 SPPs for the Long Term
 Seeking Solid Stocks
 Relative Strength
 The VR Approach
 The Irrational Investor
 Value Investing

Old MS Articles
 Cdn Top 200 2018
 Cdn Top 200 2017
 Cdn Top 200 2016
 Cdn Top 200 2015
 Cdn Top 200 2014
 Cdn Top 200 2013
 Cdn Top 200 2012
 Cdn Top 200 2011
 Cdn Top 200 2010
 Cdn Top 200 2009
 Cdn Top 200 2008
 Cdn Top 200 2007
 Cdn Top 200 2006
 Cdn Top 200 2005
 US Top 500 2018
 US Top 500 2017
 US Top 500 2016
 US Top 500 2015
 US Top 500 2014
 US Top 500 2013
 US Top 500 2012
 US Top 500 2011
 US Top 500 2010
 US Top 500 2009
 US Top 500 2008
 US Top 500 2007
 US Top 1000 2006
 Dividends 100 2017
 Dividends 100 2016
 Retirement 100 2015
 Retirement 100 2014
 Retirement 100 2013
 Retirement 100 2012
 Retirement 100 2011
 Retirement 100 2010
 Income 100 2009
 Income 100 2008
 Income 100 2007
 Top Trusts 2006
 Top Trusts 2005
 Hot Potato
 Buffett Buys
 Stocks that pay
 Value in the S&P500
 Where to invest $100k
 Where to invest $10k
 Summer Simple Way
 A crystal ball for stocks?
 Cheap & safe
 Risky business
 Dividend investing
 Value investing
 Momentum investing
 Low P/E P/B
 Dividend growers
 Graham's prescription
 The case for optimism
 Wicked investments
 Simply spectacular
 Small stocks, big profits
 Value that sizzles
 So simple it works
 No assembly required
 Investing by the book
 Invest like the masters
 A simple way to get rich
 Stocks for cannibals
 Car bites dogs
 So easy, so profitable
 Dogs of the Dow
 Money for nothing
 Yield of dreams
 Return of the master

Advisor's Edge Articles
 Passive Rebundling
 Doing the math

Flip Books

About Us | Legal | Contact Us
Disclaimers: Consult with a qualified investment adviser before trading. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, financial advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. More...