FT: NY Fed Prez Sounds Alarm—Is Your Wealth at Risk?

Overview of Franklin Universal Trust (FT)

Franklin Universal Trust (ticker FT) is a closed-end fund managed by Franklin Templeton, designed to provide high current income with capital preservation (^[1]). The fund pursues a unique 60/40 allocation between high-yield (“junk”) corporate bonds and utility sector equities, aiming to balance credit-driven income with defensive equity exposure (^[2]). This mix creates an embedded hedge: when economic conditions deteriorate (hurting high-yield bonds), interest rates often fall and bolster utilities stocks, and vice versa – a strategy intended to stabilize returns over market cycles. In the context of recent warnings from Federal Reserve officials about market risks and elevated asset valuations (^[3]), investors are scrutinizing income-oriented vehicles like FT to assess whether its yield and portfolio strategy can weather potential storms.

As of the latest data, FT trades at roughly $8 per share, with a market capitalization near $200 million (^[4]). It currently yields about 6.3% annually (^[2]) via monthly distributions, slightly below its long-term NAV total return (approx. 5.5% annually on a 5-year basis (^[5])). The fund has been in operation for over three decades, delivering steady monthly payouts since 1988 (^[2]). Below, we dive into FT’s distribution policy, leverage and debt profile, valuation, and the key risks that could put investor wealth at risk under adverse conditions.

Dividend Policy, History & Yield

FT pays a fixed monthly distribution – currently $0.0425 per share – which sums to $0.51 annually (a 6.3% yield at the recent price) (^[2]). Notably, this payout was raised in mid-2021 from a prior $0.03/share monthly level, reflecting strong income generation post-pandemic. Since then, the fund has maintained the $0.0425/month rate consistently through 2022–2025, even amid shifting interest rate environments (^[6]) (^[7]). Management’s stated policy is to distribute net investment income (NII) to shareholders and grow the payout over time if feasible (^[1]). Indeed, in late 2021 the distribution was fully covered by income – e.g. 100% of the October 2021 payout came from NII, with no return-of-capital (ROC) component (^[7]) (^[7]). This indicates the fund was earning its dividend through interest and dividends from its holdings.

Partner with Elon Musk — private XAI access

Insider walkthrough by Jeff Brown — learn how to buy in for $500

Tap to reveal how it works ▼

Inside: step-by-step investing guide, timeline for Project Colossus, and the exact link to claim your stake.

Get the Free Report

However, investors should monitor the quality of FT’s yield. As interest rates climbed and borrowing costs rose (more below), NII coverage of the distribution has weakened. A Franklin filing from late 2024 shows that only 61% of a recent monthly distribution was funded by NII, with the remaining 39% effectively paid from return of capital (^[8]). In other words, the fund has begun to use a portion of shareholder capital (or realized gains) to sustain the payout. While occasional ROC isn’t unusual for closed-end funds (and can be tax-advantaged if it derives from unrealized gains), a persistent shortfall between earnings and distributions could erode the fund’s NAV over time. In fact, over the five-year period ended Oct 31, 2024, FT’s NAV total return averaged 5.46%, slightly below its distribution rate of ~6.14% (on NAV) (^[5]) (^[5]). This suggests the fund’s payout has marginally exceeded its portfolio returns, a potential red flag if continued long-term.

Dividend Yield vs. Peers: FT’s ~6% yield is moderate in the high-yield CEF universe. Pure high-yield bond CEFs often yield 7–8+%, while utility stock funds yield less; FT sits in between. The balanced strategy may sacrifice yield peak in exchange for (theoretical) lower volatility. Notably, FT’s distributions are paid monthly, providing regular income. The fund’s distribution policy cautions shareholders not to equate the payout level with actual performance (^[5]) – an acknowledgment that part of the yield could be a return of capital rather than return on capital. Dividend investors should weigh this nuance: FT’s income stream is attractive, but its forward sustainability hinges on earnings improving (or interest costs easing) to cover the full payout.

Leverage, Debt Profile & Maturities

Like many bond-focused closed-end funds, FT employs leverage to boost yields. It currently has about $60 million in debt outstanding (roughly 23% of total assets) to augment its investment portfolio (^[9]) (^[9]). Uniquely, FT’s leverage is via a credit facility with a fixed interest rate of 5.95% (^[9]) (^[9]). This means the fund locked in borrowing costs – a double-edged sword. On one hand, the fixed rate insulates FT from further Fed rate hikes in the near term; on the other, that 5.95% cost of funds is materially higher than the previous financing. Until late 2023, FT had $65 million in five-year notes at only 3.91% interest, which matured on Sept 15, 2023 and were repaid in full (^[9]) (^[9]). Replacing that with 5.95% debt significantly raises the hurdle for the fund’s bond picks (which now must yield well above 6% just to cover borrowing expenses).

Market Meltdown Coming — July 15

Jim Rickards' new book reveals the only strategies that worked during past crashes.

Protect My Money

Impact on Coverage: The rise in leverage cost is pressuring FT’s net investment income. For the fiscal year ended Aug 31, 2024 (a period straddling the refinancing), FT paid $1.27 million in interest expense (^[9]). Going forward, a full year at ~$60M and 5.95% would incur ~$3.6 million interest – roughly three times the interest cost under the old 3.9% notes. Unless the fund’s bond portfolio has been rotated into substantially higher-yielding securities since 2020–2021, this interest burden eats into the income available for distribution. The fund’s managers have likely been deploying capital into new junk bond opportunities at higher yields (today’s high-yield market offers yields in the 8–9% range). Still, the net benefit of leverage has narrowed: whereas a 4% financing rate was accretive against assets yielding ~6–7%, a 6% financing rate leaves less spread after credit losses and expenses.

Maturity Profile: Details on the credit facility’s term haven’t been publicly specified in press releases; it’s presumably a multi-year facility or term loan. The key is that no near-term maturity crunch looms – the previous debt maturity was just addressed in 2023. The 5.95% rate is fixed, suggesting the fund either entered a fixed-rate loan or used interest rate swaps to lock it in (^[9]). This gives FT some breathing room through the current Fed tightening cycle. If rates eventually fall, FT might seek to refinance at a lower rate or increase leverage for opportunistic buys. Conversely, if credit conditions deteriorate, the fixed debt could become a larger drag (since asset yields may fall or defaults rise, yet interest cost stays 5.95%). It’s worth noting FT’s leverage is below the regulatory 33% cap for funds; asset coverage was comfortable as of the last report. There is also a board-authorized share repurchase program for up to 10% of shares, which management can use (prudently) to enhance NAV per share when the fund trades at a steep discount, indirectly managing leverage if needed.

Distribution Coverage and Profitability

A crucial factor for FT is distribution coverage, i.e. how much of the payout is earned versus sourced from capital. As discussed, coverage has slipped recently: only ~60% covered by NII in late 2024 (^[8]), versus ~100% a few years ago (^[7]). Let’s dig deeper into the fund’s income and expenses:

NXT

Is Elon’s Empire Crumbling—or About to Make the Biggest Comeback Ever?

Jeff Brown reveals the “25 trillion” Tesla breakthrough insiders are whispering about.

They mocked him in 2018. They’ll probably do it again. But when Tesla's AI brain flips the switch, ordinary investors could see life-changing returns.

Grab Jeff's Free Report →

– Net Investment Income (NII) consists of interest from high-yield bonds and dividends from utility stocks, minus operating expenses and interest on leverage. Given FT’s portfolio size (~$260M total assets) and asset mix, we can estimate its gross income yield. Many utility stocks yield ~3–4%, and high-yield bonds in the portfolio might yield ~7–8% on average. A rough blend (say 60% of $260M at 7.5% and 40% at 3.5%) would generate ~$14–15M gross income. After a $3.6M interest expense (at 5.95% on $60M) and management fees (~1% of assets, perhaps $2.6M), NII might be on the order of $8–9M. With ~25 million shares outstanding, that’s about $0.32–0.36 NII per share annually – notably shy of the $0.51 distribution. This simple breakdown aligns with the reported need to dip into capital for the full payout.

– Sources of Distributions: According to Section 19(a) notices, FT has been funding its dividends via a combination of NII, realized capital gains, and occasionally return of capital. For example, the October 2024 distribution was sourced ~61% from income and ~39% from return of capital (^[8]), whereas earlier in 2024 some distributions included small fractions of realized short-term gains (from selling appreciated securities) (^[7]). No portion has been classified as long-term capital gains recently (^[8]) – suggesting the fund hasn’t realized large long-term profits to distribute and is instead leaning on current income and principal. This raises a potential red flag: if markets don’t provide opportunities for sizable gains or NII doesn’t cover the gap, continued ROC distributions will slowly chip away at NAV (reducing future earning power).

– AFFO/FFO Applicability: Terms like Funds From Operations (FFO) or Adjusted FFO are typically REIT metrics, not used for FT. In the context of a fund, NII is the parallel to “cash flow”. We focus on NII and realized gains as the “earnings” supporting the dividend. In 2023–2024, rising bond yields have likely boosted the income on new investments, but legacy holdings and equity dividends grow more slowly – so the “earnings yield” of the portfolio is catching up to the distribution yield, but not there yet. Management’s secondary objective is “growth of income through dividend increases” (^[1]), but in the current environment their challenge is simply maintaining the dividend without overreaching. So far, they’ve opted to maintain the $0.0425 payout, implicitly betting that higher asset yields (and perhaps eventual rate cuts) will restore full coverage in time.

Valuation and Comparables

FT’s market price historically trades at a discount to its net asset value (NAV) – common for closed-end funds. At present, FT is priced at about a 4% discount to NAV (i.e. shares at $8 vs NAV around ~$8.30) (^[4]). This slight discount indicates the market is fairly neutral on FT: neither deeply pessimistic (some CEFs languish at 10–15% discounts) nor overly euphoric. In fact, one year ago FT’s discount was wider – by some accounts “deep” – but it has narrowed, possibly thanks to improved performance or investors seeking income in 2023’s volatile market (^[10]). The fund’s board has at times authorized buybacks when discounts are large, which can help support the price (^[11]).

In terms of valuation metrics: – Price-to-NAV (P/B): ~0.96x (^[4]). This is in line with many balanced-income CEFs. It suggests investors are paying $0.96 for each $1 of FT’s assets. A modest discount may reflect concerns about earnings coverage and the utility sector overhang (utilities stocks have underperformed the broad market recently, dragging NAV). – Price/Earnings (P/E): Not very meaningful for a fund, as “earnings” can swing with realized/unrealized gains. GuruFocus shows a P/E around 5.8x (^[4]), but this likely reflects one-time accounting gains; it’s not a useful multiple for future earnings. Instead, investors look at Price/NII or distribution yield. On a NII basis as estimated above, FT’s Price/NII could be roughly 25x (if ~$0.32 NII/year), implying an NII yield of ~4% – again underscoring the gap between income yield and distribution yield. – Yield vs. Peers: FT’s 6+% market yield is slightly lower than pure high-yield bond CEF averages (often 7–8%), because ~40% of FT’s portfolio is in lower-yielding utility equities. Conversely, equity-income funds focused on utilities/infrastructure might yield 5–6%. So FT’s yield appears reasonable for its hybrid strategy. Importantly, FT’s NAV yield (distribution as % of NAV) is ~6.1% (^[5]), close to what the portfolio actually earns if markets cooperate. Many CEFs have NAV yields far above their actual NAV returns, which can signal future cuts. FT’s alignment isn’t bad, if one believes the 5.46% NAV return of last 5 years can mean-revert higher with today’s conditions (higher bond coupons should eventually lift NAV returns, assuming defaults remain low).

Comparables: There are few funds with the exact same 60/40 bond-stock mix, but one could compare FT to holding a junk bond ETF plus a utility sector ETF. For instance, a 60% position in a high-yield ETF (like HYG, ~7.5% yield) and 40% in a utilities ETF (XLU, ~3.5% yield) would produce about 5.7% blended yield – in the ballpark of FT’s 6.3% when considering FT’s leverage and active management. FT adds value if its active selection and leverage can enhance returns above that passive mix. In the past year, FT’s total return (market price + distributions) has been positive (e.g. +12.4% NAV return in the latest fiscal year) (^[11]) thanks to recovering bond prices and utility stock rebounds. But in 2022’s rising-rate environment, FT’s NAV fell, as both bond and utility holdings were pressured. The fund’s valuation will therefore fluctuate with rate expectations: if investors expect Fed easing (rate cuts), FT’s bond and utility assets could appreciate (narrowing the discount or even moving to a premium); if rates stay “higher for longer” or credit fears mount, FT might trade at a larger discount to compensate for potential NAV declines.

Key Risks and Red Flags

While FT’s dual-asset strategy aims for stability, investors face several risks that could put their wealth at risk – especially in the scenario hinted by the “NY Fed Prez alarm” (presumably a caution about financial conditions or asset valuations). Here are the main risk factors and any red flags:

– Interest Rate Risk: As a bond-heavy fund, FT is sensitive to interest rate moves. Rising rates hurt the market value of its bond portfolio and also raise its leverage cost. In 2022–2023, the Fed’s rapid rate hikes contributed to NAV decline and reduced distribution coverage. If the Fed continues a hawkish stance or keeps rates high, FT’s utility stocks might also lag (utilities underperform when bond yields are high) (^[12]). Prolonged high rates thus squeeze both sides of FT’s portfolio. A mitigating factor is that FT’s debt cost is fixed at 5.95%, so additional rate hikes won’t immediately increase interest expense (^[9]). Nonetheless, higher-for-longer rates constrain FT’s ability to earn above its payout – a classic wealth erosion risk if inflation and rates don’t retreat.

– Credit Risk: ~60% of FT’s assets are in below-investment-grade corporate bonds. These “junk” bonds entail default and credit spread risk. In a recession or severe economic downturn, default rates could spike and high-yield bond prices fall materially, denting FT’s NAV and potentially forcing painful choices (like selling assets at a loss). So far, credit conditions have been benign; as of late 2023, high-yield spreads actually narrowed (e.g. from 435bps to 374bps in one period) amidst investor optimism (^[13]). But the NY Fed and other officials have warned about complacency – if a downturn hits, today’s tight spreads could gap out, hitting FT’s bond holdings. FT’s managers likely maintain a diversified bond portfolio (FT held over 850 positions (^[14]), indicating broad diversification). Even so, a few defaults in its bond pool or credit rating downgrades can drag performance. Red flag: we’d watch if the fund’s NAV starts underperforming relative to high-yield indices, which could signal credit issues in the portfolio.

– Equity Market Risk (Utilities Focus): FT’s equity sleeve is concentrated in utility companies (electric, gas, water, telecom). Utilities are generally stable, dividend-paying businesses, but they are interest-rate sensitive and regulatory-dependent. The sector had a tough 2023 as yields climbed and wild-card risks (e.g. California wildfires impacting utility PG&E, or regulatory rate freezes) scared investors. If inflation stays high, utilities may struggle to get timely rate increases to offset costs, squeezing their profits. Also, utilities typically carry high debt; if financing costs rise, that pressures their earnings and stock prices. For FT, a major risk is if the utility sector faces a crisis (for instance, a wave of downgrades or a policy shock) – that could simultaneously hit the equity portfolio and even some of the corporate bonds (if FT holds utility company bonds). The fund’s lack of sector diversification on the equity side is a concentration risk. Investors should monitor the utility sector outlook and understand that FT’s fortunes are partially tied to it.

– Distribution Sustainability: The dividend has been steady, but as noted, coverage is tenuous. A significant risk is a possible distribution cut if earnings don’t improve. Many CEFs opt to trim payouts when excessive ROC persists, to protect NAV. FT has not indicated a cut is imminent, but if high borrowing costs and lower equity dividends persist, the board may eventually recalibrate the payout. A cut could trigger a negative market reaction (CEF investors often sell off on distribution cuts), potentially widening the discount and hurting short-term wealth. This risk factor is closely linked to interest rates and portfolio performance discussed above. It’s a red flag that FT’s distribution rate now exceeds its NAV growth rate (^[5]) (^[5]) – a situation that is unsustainable indefinitely.

– Market Volatility & Liquidity: FT’s share price can be volatile, not always moving in lockstep with NAV. During panics (e.g. March 2020 COVID crash), CEFs often see their discounts widen dramatically as investors rush for the exits. If the Fed’s alarm leads to a market correction, FT could temporarily trade at a much larger discount, amplifying losses for someone who has to sell. The fund’s daily trading volume (on the order of 100k shares, ~$0.8M) is decent, but in a sudden downturn liquidity could thin. This is a reminder that closed-end funds are market-dependent – investor sentiment plays a role in returns.

– Operational and Other Risks: FT employs some degree of active management and possibly derivatives for hedging (e.g. it could use interest rate swaps or futures). There’s limited info on specific strategies, but any derivative use or leverage means complexity. The fund is also relatively small (net assets ~$210M), which could make its expense ratio a bit higher per unit and limit economies of scale. However, Franklin Templeton is an experienced manager in this space, and the fund’s expense ratio is in line with peers around 1% plus interest costs. One minor positive note: FT’s beta is about 0.7 (^[2]), indicating lower volatility than the broad equity market – consistent with its defensive tilt. Still, in a true crisis, correlations tend to go to 1, and FT would not be immune from broad asset price declines.

In summary, the prominent risks to watch are macroeconomic (rates, recession) and income sustainability. The “alarm” sounded by the Fed President about potential wealth risks likely refers to these very issues – overextended asset valuations or unforeseen shocks. FT sits at the intersection of fixed-income and equity market risk, so it demands vigilance from investors.

Open Questions and Considerations

Given the above analysis, there are a few open questions and unresolved considerations regarding FT:

– Can the current distribution be maintained? The fund’s ability to fully cover its $0.0425 monthly payout with earned income is in question. Will higher yields on new bond purchases (now that bonds mature and can be reinvested at 8%+) be enough to close the gap? Or will FT have to keep relying on ROC until a possible cut? Management has not signaled any change yet, but this bears watching in the next annual report or earnings release.

– What is management’s plan in a “higher for longer” scenario? If the Fed keeps rates elevated through 2024 and beyond (as some Fed officials suggest, to decisively curb inflation (^[15])), how will FT adjust? The fund could increase its leverage if opportunities arise, but that adds risk. Alternatively, would they shift the portfolio mix – perhaps lean more into higher-yield bonds or higher-dividend utilities? An open question is whether FT’s 60/40 mix is flexible or basically static. Clues might come from portfolio turnover and allocation changes year to year.

– How will credit quality hold up? We know FT owns a broad basket of junk bonds. Which sectors or ratings dominate, and are there any ticking time bombs (e.g. a large exposure to a distressed industry)? Investors may want to examine FT’s detailed holdings (in fund reports) to identify concentration in, say, highly cyclical B-rated credits, or conversely, a tilt to BB-rated safer junk. The answer will affect how FT weathers an economic slowdown. The fund’s historical resilience suggests decent credit management (it has survived many cycles since 1988), but as we learned in 2008, even seasoned funds can suffer if defaults surge.

– Will the utilities allocation help or hurt going forward? Utilities have been a drag in the rising-rate phase. Looking ahead, if the Fed’s alarm foreshadows an economic downturn (and eventually rate cuts), utilities might shine (as lower yields make their dividends attractive again). However, if inflation stays sticky, utilities could remain under pressure. Does management have the latitude to reduce the equity allocation or shift it (e.g. to energy infrastructure or other income sectors) if utilities face structural headwinds? The fund’s mandate is fairly specific, but not clear if it must stick strictly to utilities. Investors may question if this hedge is still the optimal one.

– How is the fund positioning for Fed policy changes? The NY Fed President’s warnings suggest a cautious outlook. It would be insightful to know if FT is tilting more defensively: for example, shortening duration on bonds, upgrading credit quality, or focusing on regulated utilities with predictable cash flows. Conversely, is it taking contrarian bets (perhaps expecting the Fed to cut rates and thus loading up on beaten-down long-duration bonds or utility stocks)? The fund’s future performance will heavily depend on these positioning choices, which are not plainly visible without management commentary.

– What is FT’s strategy for the next refinancing? Although the current leverage is fixed-rate, that rate is high. If interest rates decline in a year or two, will FT refinance its credit facility or issue a new note at a lower rate to boost NII? The timing and terms of any such move could significantly enhance shareholder value (lower interest costs = more income for distributions). It’s an open point when the credit facility expires and what plan is in place. Investors might look for clues in shareholder reports or inquire with Franklin Templeton about this.

Finally, in light of the “Is Your Wealth at Risk?” question posed: FT represents an appealing income source but does carry risks to principal and income if economic conditions sour. The open questions above underscore that the fund’s future performance will hinge on macro factors and management execution. Prudent investors should continue to monitor Fed signals, credit markets, and FT’s earnings reports. While the NY Fed President’s alarm isn’t a call to abandon ship, it’s a reminder to evaluate whether FT’s risk/reward fits your financial scenario – particularly, can you tolerate some NAV volatility or a possible dividend trim in exchange for the 6% yield? For those comfortable with the profile, FT offers a differentiated income strategy. But as with any investment promising high current income, it’s wise to keep an eye on the fundamentals and be ready to adjust if the warning signs (coverage shortfall, NAV erosion, macro deterioration) start flashing red.

Sources: Franklin Templeton Fund Releases (^[1]) (^[7]) (^[8]), SEC Filings (Annual Report) (^[9]) (^[9]), Stock analysis data (^[2]) (^[4]), and credible financial media (Reuters, Seeking Alpha) (^[3]) (^[5]).

Sources

For informational purposes only; not investment advice.