Being able to retire rich, or at least comfortable, is the goal of almost any investor. However, it's much easier said than done. In a recent Wells Fargo survey, respondents between the ages of 50 and 59 said that they had, on average, about $29,000 saved up. With pensions all but gone, and Social Security targeted for cuts in the future, it's hard to count on anyone but yourself. But $29,000 isn't going to cut it for most people, so you've got to get involved in the stock market in order to grow that nest egg. Getting in the game is the easy part; choosing the right stocks is the hard part.
Making prudent decisions
Generally speaking, I look for four traits in a retirement stock:
- Valuation: Investors of all ages want to make sure they're not overpaying for a stock, but this matters even more in retirement. Retirees don't have the long time horizon that younger investors have, so it's essential to make sure you don't overpay in the short term.
- Dividends: Most retirees need a combination of both growth and income, as they'll be depending more and more on their portfolio to help with everyday expenses. Companies that pay dividends not only offer immediate income, but they've also proven to outperform nonpaying dividend companies over long periods of time.
- Growth: Investors love dividends, but everyone wants to see their stocks rise over time. Growth can be as big a part of your portfolio as a steady dividend. It's important to note that you don't need a high-flying stock that's going to shoot to the moon; a company that can grow and outperform the market is hard enough to find, so steady growth is highly covetable.
- Low volatility: Retirees want to invest in great growth stocks just as much as anyone else, but they also want to be able to rest well knowing that their portfolio won't be taking them on a roller-coaster ride. At the end of the day, most retirees would rather own a sturdy company that lets them sleep at night than a company that whips up and down with the gyrations of the market.
Although some companies are definitely more geared toward retirees, which companies you choose to invest in will be dictated largely by what you already have in your portfolio. Small, mid, and large caps can all play a role in your investing strategy, so I chose to evaluate all varieties of stocks in this regular series.
So how does The New York Times stack up?
In order to check out the valuation of The New York Times
The New York Times doesn't pay a dividend. While we'd love to see every company pay a dividend, sometimes there just isn't enough cash to go around. Other times companies may focus on growth initiatives or share buy backs in order to reward shareholders.
Next, we want to ensure that The New York Times' stock has the ability to rise over the next five, 10, or 20 years. A company that's growing its net income has the best possible chance to see its share price rise over time. Of course, we can't predict the future, but we can look back to get an idea of how the company has performed in the past in order to try to ensure future earnings growth. Over the past five years, The New York Times has shrunk its net income by 10.5% annually. Unfortunately, The New York Times has run into its own share of problems, and the financial collapse of 2008 certainly couldn't have helped either. So the company has been unable to grow earnings, which doesn't exactly mean that it won't in the future, but it's certainly not the greatest of signs.
One of the best measures of volatility is called beta. Beta measures the impact that the movement of the stock market will have on a particular stock. For instance, a beta of 1.0 signifies that The New York Times will move in tandem with the market; a beta of 2.0 means that the stock will move up twice as much as the general market, and vice versa. In this particular case, The New York Times has a beta of 1.6, which is pretty high. Generally speaking I like to see a beta below 1.2 for retirees.
Let's look at the competition
We've taken a look at The New York Times, and maybe you think it's passed all the tests, or maybe you just don't feel comfortable with the results. Either way, it's beneficial to see how a company stacks up in its industry, because it's just as important to understand a company's competitors as it is to understand that particular company. Here are The New York Times' stats when compared to three of its closest competitors:
5-Year Net Income CAGR
|The New York Times||11.7||0%||(10.5%)||1.6|
Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.
Each company has traits to like and traits left to be desired. Either way, it's beneficial to look at the industry picture and not just The New York Times in isolation.
Of course, I can't decide for you whether this is the best stock for retirement, but it has passed only one of the four tests, which isn't all that impressive. I'm not saying there aren't good things about the NYT, but you may get more bang for your retirement buck elsewhere.
Interested in adding any of the companies above to your watchlist? Click below to get the latest commentary and analysis.
- Add NYT to My Watchlist.
- Add GCI to My Watchlist.
- Add MNI to My Watchlist.
- Add NWSA to My Watchlist.
Worried about which stocks you chuck from your portfolio and which ones should stay? Read " Toss These 3 Stocks Out With the Trash ."
Jordan DiPietro owns no shares of the companies mentioned above. The Fool owns shares of and has established a ratio put spread on Wells Fargo. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.