Mutual Funds Explained

The Forgetful Investor

2012-01-23T06:43:00.001-08:00

In 1933, Junichiro Tanizaki, Japanese author and novelist wrote and essay entitled “In Praise of Shadows” in which he offers a cultural view of the differences between east and west; where the eastern cultures appreciate light and shadows, the west is looking for clarity. He wrote: “Find beauty not only in the thing itself but in the pattern of the shadows, the light and dark which that thing provides.” Today we are going to take a look at some of those shadows or should I say, those investments that have been pushed to the edge of the conversation.

Today on our daily radio show Financial Impact Factor we visit elocution corner, a feature on this show that deals with a phrase or word that we toss about with great ease without any real foundation in definition. Today’s catch phrase: set-it-and-forget-it.

We have had numerous experts on the show who have suggested that indexing and using ETFs to index the marketplace is hands down the best way to approach the world of investing. In most instances, we view these types of investments as set-them-and-forget them. They offer a simple way to track the marketplace but also provide just enough confusion that using them as the whole of your retirement plan is now consider not only smart but at the same time suggest that it is foolish to construct a portfolio otherwise.

And here’s the problem I have: if your indexed investment for example follows the marketplace, in other words, mimics its performance, and that performance is well-documented as being about 3.2% over the past decade, why is the target retirement return still north of 7-8%?

Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research authored two excellent books on the subject of market cycles—Unexpected Returns – Understanding Secular Stock Market Cycles … and most recently … Probable Outcomes – Secular Stock Market Insights.

In his latest book, Easterling lays out four points on market cycles and their effects on investors:

“First, secular stock market cycles deliver returns in chunks, not streams." This refers to the volatility that makes news on a day-to-day basis and the fact that these swings are often much more dramatic that the overall span of an investor's plan.
"Second, most investors live long enough to have the relevant investment period extend across both secular bulls and secular bears." This is the time span contingent that suggest that the longer you remain invested, the higher the likelihood you will benefit from those swings.
"Third, investors do not get to pick which type of cycle comes first." Although you may think you can time the market, our emotions still play a role in how we place our goals and what, if any role the media plays in our decision.
"Fourth, investors need to be aware that they will likely encounter both types of cycles." To this dollar-cost averaging creates a way to master the market swings by purchasing your investments over time and doing so in an even manner.

Easterling continues: "Those who experience secular bears during accumulation are generally better prepared than investors who are spoiled by a secular bull. A secular bull market is a pleasant surprise to retirees who endured a secular bear on the way to retirement. For retirees who grew to expect a secular bull during accumulation, the unexpected secular bear can be considerably disruptive.”

So I ask my cohosts: is set-it-and-forget-it an investment strategy? Listen to the conversation here.

2012: The six resolutions that matter

2012-01-01T02:00:00.000-08:00

This article written by Paul Petillo originally appeared at Target2025.com

Jimi Hendrix once wrote: "I used to live in a room full of mirrors; all I could see was me. I take my spirit and I crash my mirrors, now the whole world is here for me to see." When it comes to the reflection staring back at us, our retirement, like those images, are a search for imperfection. We don't look at ourselves to admire how good we look; we look for flaws. We don't imagine a future; we see the relics of past decisions.

If you consider yourself a Baby Boomer, the reflection in the mirror is an image that polarizes: we are comfortable in the what the future holds or we are worried. There is good reasons for this feeling of either hope or dispair, with no real middle ground. This group has seen the demise of the defined benefit plan (pensions) and the introduction of the defined contribution plan (401(k)). You have seen the greatest bull market in investing history and witnessed two major crashes that have rattled your confidence in the decade following. You are the first generation to realize that your future is in your hands and you were not ready for the responsibility.

If you are younger than a Boomer, you are the first generation to have never seen any other opportunity to finance your future than with a 401(k). And you have come to realize that this is not the plan it was intended to be. 401(k) plans were not designed to be the one and only vehicle for retirement. We were sold a notion that this was the end-all-to-be-all plan that would afford us a better retirement than our parents only to find out that it hinged on two extremely volatile concepts: your ability to consistently earn money and your level of contribution. Your 401(k) became your anchor and your wings.

I imagine that many of you will look back on the highlights of 2011 and find yourself in either one or two camps: you were able to hold onto your job, pay your bills and put some money away for retirement or you will be looking back at a year of indecision, regret and the promise to do better in 2012. You may be celebrating simply getting through it or wishing it never happened. To that, I offer some simple resolutions to embrace in 2012.

One: Revisit your idea of retirement. You can promise to save more money for your future, increasing your contribution to your plan or perhaps, in the absence of a plan, begin one of your own using IRAs. But you do this without really looking at that future. Retirement will not be the same of any two of us. For some it will be a life of struggle, an ongoing effort to make ends meet when they may never met while they were working. For some it will be the realization that the balance between the now and the future relies on a level of personal sacrifice we were smart enough to embrace while we were working. For others, it will simply be a resignation of sorts, a belief that it will never happen.

Retirement is three things: A time when we find new opportunities outside the confines of what we called a career, a place of unimaginable risk and/or a chance to take a breather. It is not a place of no work and all play. It is not a time spent waiting for the end to come. It is not what we imagine because, if we looked closely at that image we see flaws. So we don't look as closely at those who are retired, examine how they live and ask if this is what they had planned. In revisiting the idea of retirement, your concept of that future, consider looking closer. If you don't like what you see, resolve to change it. But don't look away.

Two: Don't reflect on what you've done. You made mistakes; we all have. Some of us took too much risk, some not enough. Some contributed as much to their retirement as their budgets allowed, others did not. Some of us made poor mortgage or credit decisions, others did not. No matter what you did or didn't do, looking back will not improve the look forward.

Looking forward doesn't mean turning your back on on any of those events. It means focusing all of your energy on fixing them. This is a twofold effort, the first being getting the budget you may not have in line with your paycheck and focusing on paying down your mortgage (keep in mind that even if your home is underwater - meaning your mortgage is greater than the value of the house itself - the interest you pay on than loan is eating away at your future invest-able or save-able dollars). Does this mean you should not put money away in a 401(k) plan and redirect every dollar to the day-to-day? Not at all. Keep in mind that a 5% contribution will, in almost every instance, not impact your take home pay.

Three: Don't over think the process. From every corner of the financial world you will hear: rebalance your 401(k). If you chose a minimum of four index funds spread across four sectors, or four ETFs that do the same thing, rebalancing is a waste of time. You diversify so you can capture ups in one market and downside moves in another and your contribution doesn't allow you to buy more when one market moves up and allows you to buy more when it goes down.

We want to think we are in control when in fact, the only thing you actually control is how much money you want to put in. Markets will do what they do best: move. It might be up one day and down the next. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that you do something and in 2012, it should be significantly more than you are doing now.

Four: Stop being selfless. One of the hurdles we are told, for women investors specifically, is their inability to put themselves before their family. This is a cause for concern of course but not a disaster in the making. Take a good long and hard look at your family and ask yourself: could I spend my retirement years living with any of them? Do they want you to?

Five: Embrace the truth. Now there will be an increased amount of pressure from every financial professional to get advice on your investments. This educational effort will evolve in the next several years from long, drawn out seminars on how your 401(k) works to short, ADD friendly videos that last several minutes and offer key points on what to do. The truth still relies on your ability to put more money away. Five percent will net you 25% of your current take home in retirement. A ten percent contribution over the average working career will pay you about 50% of what you earn today in retirement. Fifteen percent contributed to a 401(k) plan with average (modest) historical returns will allow you to live on 75% of your current income. Can you handle that truth?

Six: Stop worrying about it. According to HealthGuidance.org, you are killing yourself with worry. Michael Thomas writes: "Worrying leads to stress and stress has been linked with a number of health problems. People who suffer from high levels of stress are much more prone to cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal issues, weight problems and there has even been a link made between stress levels and certain cancers." Instead resolve to do more saving than you have ever done, spend less than you did last year and embrace the reality of what fixed income is. Retirement is fixed income. Resolve to live like that now.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com

Investing in the New Year: Are Mutual Funds Important in 2012?

2011-12-20T15:30:00.000-08:00

This article originally appeared at BlueCollarDollar.com and was written by Paul Petillo

"Time is free, but it's priceless. You can't own it, but you can use it. You can't keep it, but you can spend it. Once you've lost ityou can never get it back." Harvey MacKay

One of the key elements in any financial transaction is time. If you want to retire, you must consider the amount of time. If you want to borrow, how long you have to pay it back can be translated into dollars and cents. Investing; timing they suggest can't be down but is important nonetheless.

If you are twenty, time is on your side. If you are thirty, there is time left. If you are forty, time is of the essence. If you are fifty, time is running out. If you are sixty, where has the time gone. And older than that, time is no longer on your side. It accompanies us through life like some dark passenger. It reflect back on us from the mirror. And when we look at our retirement plan, it stares at us without guilt or shame. Time is the truth.

When I first began writing these predictions, and I've been churning out these year end ditties for over a decade, many were laced with optimism, some with an urging that we learn the lesson and move forward armed with knowledge of past mistakes, and still others were exercises in reality. In 2012, we have some opportunities and some problems awaiting us, left on the table as we symbolically turn the calendar wiping out 2011. But it won't leave quietly.

So I have a few thoughts about what you can do - resolutions of sorts but not the drastic sort we make and break almost within hours of promising ourselves at midnight.

Increase your contribution I start with this obvious chant for two reasons: you aren't making a large enough contribution and two, I would be remiss in not telling you this right from the start. And I'm not just speaking to those with a 401(k).

There are the millions of you who are forced to (and because of that are not likely to) finance your own retirement through an individual retirement account. We lament at the worker who literally only has to sign up at his workplace and doesn't. And far too often, we say little about the person who has to sign-up (after finding a fund), commit with a fortitude that is somewhat lacking and to contribute some of their paycheck via direct deposit every week or month. That effort, it seems is a much more involved hurdle.

In 2012, the investment world will be little changed. It will roil and confuse and gyrate and possibly even nose dive - just as it has for decades. It will react to news - if not from Europe form China or even the presidential elections (which ironically tend to be excellent years to invest). This will have you second-guessing your investments. But this will only apply if you have no idea how much risk you can take.

Pay attention to diversification You may not be capable of rebalancing, the act of making sure that your investments are directed evenly across many investments. This is much harder than it seems. As long as you are involved - and that is YOU in capitals - the struggle to keep balance will not get any easier.

For the vast majority of us, mutual funds will be the investment vehicle of choice. These investments will see more movement towards fee reductions. Which is a good thing. Fees will and always have been a subtraction of gains. This makes an excellent argument for indexing.

Choosing six index funds across the following cross-sections of the markets will not solve the problem of rebalancing (some will do better than others) but it will provide diversification. Index the largest companies (an S&P 500 fund), a mid-cap fund (the next 400 companies in size), small-caps (the next 2000), an international fund (an index of the largest countries (those with established banking systems even if they are currently troubled and will continue to be so in 2012), an emerging market fund (after international funds, the most risky) and a bond index (one that covers as much fixed income as possible).

Some of you will wonder if exchange traded funds (ETF) wouldn't be just as good if not better than simple indexing. In 2012, ETFs will continue to drill down ever deeper into sectors of the markets that add risk along with the illusion of an index. ETFs will become more actively managed in 2012 offering you more risk at a lower cost. Cheap doesn't mean better. 2012 will be year of the ETF. If you are unsure what these investments are, consider this conversation I had with David Abner of Financial Impact Factor Radio recently to help explain what these investments are and how they work.

Focus on your financial well-being This refers to your credit score. It continues to impact your financial future and will become increasingly harder to ignore. A new credit rating service agency will add to the difficulty in 2012 and not only will the current scoring impact costs such as insurance, it will seek to trace the breadcrumbs of your financial life more thoroughly that the big three do.

There is little likelihood that the job market will increase as many of our returning troops will flood the marketplace, taking numerous jobs from your kids just out of college. Which means another year with your kids at home. The only answer to this problem is to continue to tighten down your budgets in 2012. As I mentioned earlier: "If you are forty, time is of the essence. If you are fifty, time is running out. If you are sixty, where has the time gone."

And you must do this understanding that inflation - not the reported number but the real number in your grocery bill - will still chip away at your wealth. This means you will move in two opposite directs in 2012: saving and investing more for your fleeting future (at least 6% but 10% would be best) and spending less in the present (easy of you don't use credit).

And the housing market will improve for those who have repaired any damaged credit or who have saved enough of a down payment to buy a house. people are still buying and selling. These people have found that while the market is not accessible to all, it is for those that have done right by their personal finances.

Do all of that this may not seem like a new year - but it will be a better year!

Don't Know ETFs: Here's the Expert

2011-11-15T12:07:00.001-08:00

This past week, on the Financial Impact Factor with Paul Petillo, Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng we had David J. Abner. He is the Director for Institutional Sales and Trading at Wisdom Tree and the author of The ETF Handbook: How to Value and Trade Exchange Traded Funds (Wiley Finance)These funds, that trade like stocks have been coming to the forefront of the investment world for almost a decade. But even after all that time, their purpose isn't clearly understood, their benefits less so and the media, suggesting volatility has dampened our enthusiasm towards them. Mr. Abner discusses these products, what they are and why they are important. ETFs will begin showing up in your 401(k) as investor demand and plan administrator's fiduciary responsibility tightens. This increase exposure is good for the funds; but are the good for you?

Listen to internet radio with

Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng

of FinancialFootprint.com

The Financial Impact Factor

at Blog Talk Radio

Melville's Mutual Fund Advice

2011-11-09T12:05:00.000-08:00

There is a passage in Moby Dick where Ishmael reflects on the sight from the masthead. He could have been speaking to the world of investing in mutual funds as much as he was discussing the meditative sights below his perch. Melville writes that from that vantage “you stand, a hundred feet above the silent decks, as if the masts were gigantic stilts, while beneath you and between your legs, as it were, swim the hugest monsters of the sea… The tranced ship indolently rolls; the drowsy trade winds blow; everything resolves you into langour.” And from our desks we watch our investments swim below us, our mutual funds existing in a world of murky depth, and our distance providing perspective on how well they are doing and giving us, at the same time, no perspective at all.

Melville writes a cautionary tale with a well-known outcome. And as we enter the fourth quarter of what is turning out to be one of the more volatile years for investors, where advice on what to do has mostly proved wrong (move to cash, they said to avoid, as Melville writes “the universal cannibalism of the sea”) and to coin a nautical term “stay the course” has proved profitable. We set sail and hope for the best and yet are wary at every change in the investment weather while we worry about what swims beneath the surface.

Such events leave us wanting to gain some control over where we are and what we determined as the course we’ve set. No one enters the ocean of investment choices without wondering if the plot we have set in motion will be the right one. One of the monsters of the deep however may breach the surface of your calm sea and take back the adventure. This will happen if you are not careful. But even care may not help.

It is often recommended that you watch over your investments, periodically rebalancing and adjusting your portfolio to follow the course you may have set. You can, as many do in the final months of the year, increase our contributions to your 401(k)s and IRAs to grab the tax advantage. But that act might not turn out as expected; particularly when the funds you invest in may also be considering a chart change as well.

You can’t invest without considering the tax consequences. You invest, often in a pre-tax way to capitalize on the advantage your plan offers. And when you invest otherwise, you sell what you own to grab the gains you have made and if you are tax-savvy, sell the losers in order to offset those profits. But what if you have no losers? What if the year was good enough to book the profits? What if you are a mutual fund manager and those profits need to be sold despite your best efforts, to satisfy the redemption of less confident investors who may have heard the siren song of another investment opportunity?

Several things you need to consider in the coming months as you contemplate what to do with the investments you own. When Melville wrote: “We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects” he was not writing about mutual fund investors and the thousand fibers that this sort of investment connects us to others like us. Yet mutual fund investors simply can’t and in many instances, won’t consider the group as a whole when making investment decisions – and they shouldn’t. But what you do and how the fund manager reacts matters.

The fourth quarter as I mentioned is often the time when you consider changing your investment balance. And this consideration is often recommended. But the fourth quarter may very well be the worst time to do what would seem to be the right thing to do. The tax implications of selling shares in one fund and buying those of another may give you the very thing you don’t want: capital gains without the capital gain.

Investors looking to purchase shares in another fund might find the fund manager has the same motive: rebalancing. had you been in that fund for the whole year or longer, the capital gains is welcome. Enter the fund in the weeks prior to this event, and you get all of the taxable downside and none of the profit.

It isn’t s if this comes without a warning. A fund’s website will often estimate these distributions and your research (you do research right?) should give you reason to hesitate. What is often less clear, is the fund manager’s reason when it is due to redemptions. Redemptions in mutual funds trigger a series of events. The exiting shareholder must be paid and to pay them, something must be sold. When the redemptions are small, the event is almost unnoticeable. When the exits are packed however, the selling impacts the remaining investors. If it was good year, then gains are sold.

According to Christine Benz, Morningstar’s director of personal finance “The strong market rebound since early 2009 means that many funds now have more gains than losses on their books: In fact, fully half of the equity mutual funds in our database have positive potential capital gains exposure, meaning that they have gains on their books that they haven’t yet paid out to shareholders, and more than 200 stock funds have potential capital gains exposure of more than 50%.”

While a domestic mutual fund may have large profits that may or may not be realized before years end, some emerging markets and International funds will need to satisfy exiting shareholders in greater numbers than in years past. Many of the funds concentrated in areas like China, Brazil or even Latin America are on the small side. The smaller the fund, the greater the impact of an investor exodus. With Europe hanging in the balance, many small and mid-cap funds may find their ship sailing in choppier waters than the previous three quarters.

Of course, if you need to rebalance, do so. But do so with a word of caution. If you can wait, that would be wise and even prudent. But do your homework well in advance of any sudden changes. While you can’t time markets, you can time these distributions. And failing to do so could cost you dearly. As Melville points out: “Ignorance is the parent of fear…”

Mutual Fund Investing: Can You Be Blamed for the Global Crisis?

2011-09-28T16:50:00.000-07:00

It is in our natures to place blame. As Doug Copland once quipped: “Blame is just a lazy person’s way of making sense of chaos.” That said, have mutual funds played a larger role in the ongoing crisis globally? And if so, why do we look to much smaller elements of the equation when the sheer size of these “investment communities” might be responsible, all be it unwittingly, for keeping the embers of (a global) recession burning?

Mutual funds as we all know are investment communities, an organized structure of similarly minded individuals (or as similarly minded as any large group can be) who seek to in many instances, lower the risk of investing by investing as one. With one theoretical manager at the helm, although we know that it can be many managers, we tend to think of them as one unit in most cases, the community gathers around their expertise and know-how in part because we believe we have limited expertise and know-how. We defer the heavy lifting and decision making to someone else. But mutual fund managers also fear us as investors. In part because we blame.

Now, this group think, achieved with only limited knowledge of what is really going on, and the fear of blame, which signals the herd that something is amiss may actually be responsible in a much greater way than previously considered, to have prolonged the fears of additional global slowing even as it should be plateauing, if not showing signs of recuperation. While the evidence to back this thinking is just emerging, the dynamics of the mutual fund do add credence to the theories being developed by Claudio Raddatz, Senior Economist in the Macroeconomics and Growth Unit of the World Bank’s Development Economics Research Group and Sergio Schmukler, Lead Economist at the World Bank.

First, what do we know about mutual funds and those that invest in them. Every mutual fund manager does what she/he can do to keep their finger on the pulse of those who have entrusted their money to her/his expertise. No easy task when the group is numbered among the tens of thousands. This group can find favor with the manager and inject money into the fund at such a rapid pace as to overwhelm the fund or on the flip side, pull so much of their investment out as to make the fund weaker for those who remain.

Although there has been some evidence of late that suggests that funds size has little to do with its overall returns and performance, any moves in either direction add pressure to the fund manager and their investment goals. Add to that the reasons why – disturbing financial news for instance and the pressure compounds. So we have one root cause: investors either looking to increase their exposure in one fund as they escape the other.

This creates the second reason that mutual funds play a bigger role in what the authors of a recent paper suggest: the portfolio adjustments that need to be made because of what the underlying investors are doing. Think of a bad movie, where the audience begins to head for the doors. Those remaining wonder if they should leave as well, even though many will stay for one reason or the other. In a mutual fund, the manager doesn’t necessarily bar the exits so much as adjust the portfolio in the hopes of retaining those that have remained in their seats. And we have this shift occurring to add to the problem.

The last problem is what those remaining investors say to the managers. Their input is sacrosanct and although not necessarily embraced, it is heeded. According to Radditz and Schumkler: “We find that both the underlying investors and managers of mutual funds are behind their large investment fluctuation across countries, retrenching from countries in bad times and investing more in good times.” They posit that unlike investors, the single minded type who understand that when markets sell it is because either the seller has information that no one else does or that the seller doesn’t have the information needed as simply wants out because they see danger on the horizon.

Mutual funds cannot act as agents at a equity fire-sale. They rely on the manager to do as chartered and this is often contrary to what she/he would like to do: bulk up on bargains that they know are selling at less than their true market value. They have information that you may have acquiesced by joining the fund but you simply won’t let them react. So they do what you want even if it does not seem to be in your best, long-term interest, and they sell. They sell to fund redemptions and they sell to retrench. But the key here is they sell.

While the authors of the paper point their evidence on international funds, the ripple effect is felt even in domestic, US-based funds as well that hold companies doing business on an international scale. In “normal times” the authors point out can be simply a retrenchment based on the inability of some countries to do as expected, abnormal times force a larger scale move that impacts the whole of the marketplace.

The information that investors in the these funds creates an imperative for the managers to make some sort of move to retain those investors while catering to those who have left the theater. This creates a supply-side shock to not only the fund but also to the banks of countries these funds might invest in. Call it idiosyncratic risk.

Should we blame te mutual fund? Quite possibly in part because of the mutualized investor is actually in the driver’s seat. They vote with their investable dollars and walk if there isn’t an expected return on their money. The real question lies not so much in the risk that the investors in the fund have or do not want but whether the fund is a bargain even as the risk of what it owns, increased by the departing shareholders, creates. And where does the money go? Into money market investments that benefit banks in the US while taking money from the countries who may need their borrowing/lending increased to help alleviate the crisis.

Mutual Funds and Performance: At the Half Way Point for 2011

2011-07-02T16:47:00.000-07:00

For the vast majority of investors - mutual fund investors in particular, watching the major indices and judging your performance against them distorts the reality of not only where you should be but where you could have been. If you were to look only at the difference between the former highs the markets hit in October 2007 and those at the most recent close on Thursday (the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA +1.36% is around 12% below its all-time high of 14,165, and the S&P 500 index SPX +1.44% is nearly 16% below its October 2007 high of 1,565.) you might be considering jumping back in.

But you would have been much better off had you done absolutely nothing. Back in those desperate times, many people did what the rest of the herd did as stocks began to tumble. You sold. But three years later, that would have proved to be the wrong thing to do. During that period, most folks fled the actively managed mutual fund, particularly the domestic issues in favor of bond funds and in far too many instances, to target date funds.

Let's consider the indices that are often compared to the riskier funds, a benchmark that has proven to be less than accurate in terms of performance. The Dow and the S&P 500 track the largest companies, a group that has struggled to assure the investor that dividends and size were enough to best the market. Turns out, that picking and choosing, as actively managed funds do, would have been the better approach.

Two things come into play. One, these funds tend to have higher fees. Less those fees, you would have still found yourself in a better position than had you simply put your money in a benchmark S&P 500 index.

And secondly, there is the liquidity issue that comes with buying mid-cap and small-cap companies. Liquidity refers to the amount of stock available in smaller companies weighed against the amount of stock held by the principals. This makes these companies more volatile and even under-purchased in indexes that track those larger markets (the Wilshire 5000 for instance may track all available stocks but the indexes crafted based on this index only own.

To complicate matters somewhat, the Wilshire 5000 actually has 5700 stocks in the index, Wilshire 4500 is the Wilshire 5000 without the S&P 500 stocks in it. A Wilshire 5000 index fund (usually called total market index) will probably own around 4000 stocks. A Wilshire 4500 index contains those same stocks less the top 500 companies.

As Mark Hulbret noted in a recent column for Marketwatch, "According to a report produced earlier this week by Lipper (a Thomson Reuters company), 45% of the domestic-equity funds for which they have data back to October 2007 were, as of the end of May, ahead of where they were on the date of the stock market’s all-time high."

So the indexes are lower than where you would have been had you stayed put - of course this is based on the assumption that many of you where using actively managed funds in your 401(k) plans, that many of those funds did not have indexes available and the post 2007 products such as target date funds or even ETFs, weren't a consideration or even an option during those days. You embraced risk and ignored fees and looking at your portfolio, that was probably seen as a good thing.

Does that mean index funds shouldn't be part of your portfolio? The simplest answer is no. Index funds still provide a low cost and low turnover environment to invest in. More importantly, the largest cap indexes add dividends to the mix. This brings these investments closer to the domestic out-performance over the last half of the year.

Diversity in this investment environment, which is still far more volatile than anyone would like it to be, with global issues remaining a major concern, means taking a little less - in terms of performance. You should be in index funds now. To do this would be considered a defensive move for those that kept the actively managed faith.

A portfolio of five, perhaps six index funds, tracking sectors from the S&P 500, a mid-cap index, a fund tracking the small-cap, an international index (which tracks the companies of what is considered the developed world), an emerging markets index (contains investments from countries like China, India, Russia, Brazil and others) along with a bond index. This sort of diversification keeps the low cost features of index funds and avoids any crossover investment (owning the same stocks in different funds).

You can be proud of your investment accumen in getting back to those 2007 highs and perhaps beyond. But show your real prudence and protect what you have done. This economy, both domestic and globally is far from recovered and the stock market is painting a better picture than reality suggests. Being a little defensive at this juncture will keep you in the game without risking what you have gained.

The Lure of ETFs

2011-06-24T17:01:00.000-07:00

I know two things about exchange traded funds (ETFs). There is a high degree of likelihood that your 401(k) will soon have these investments available to you and that some of the basic selling points of why they might be a good choice will be too tempting to pass up. But you should consider the consequences of biting that ETF apple, not just from the consideration of whether the investment is worth the effort, but also from whether you are the investor you think you might be.

So let's first ask whether you understand what ETFs are. At first glance, they seem to be a good choice. They, at least on the surface offer exactly what index funds do and at times, a great deal more. They claim to be less expensive and more tax efficient that actively managed mutual funds and they are. Actively managed mutual funds, even as they have reduced their overall fees in order to placate those who worry that cost is an issue, still charge more than ETFs.

Actively managed mutual funds still dominate the 401(k) world and with good reason. Investors seem to understand, even after several years of concerted efforts by the investment community, that some risk is worth paying for. This is not always the case. The deduction of those fees against any returns you may have had illustrate why these funds are often criticized. Comparing them to an index fund, while often not necessarily fair, further shows that had you paid less in fees using an passively managed index fund you probably would have been a little bit closer to what you think of as profitable.

Passively managed funds such as index funds have passionate advocates. They believe that investing in the low-cost (because they rarely trade and do so only rebalance when the index changes) and in the case of the S&P 500 index, reinvest dividends (over 350 companies in the 500 index do) you have achieved the tax advantage, the fee advantage and because of that, a more profitable retirement dollar.

Both of the descriptions of the two most commonly used types of funds in a retirement account portray the investment possibilities facing most investors. It should be noted that not all 401(k) plans have index funds available to their participants, the option is growing. But also entering the fray is the exchange traded fund.

Now these investments will be tempting. They tout their tax efficiency suggesting that it is even better than an index fund offers. They advertise their transparency and ease of trading (they trade on an exchange just like a stock). And they never fail to tell you that these investment offer the world in a way that has never before been offered to 401(k) investors, a chance to invest in commodities, emerging markets and anything in-between. And because of this ease of maneuvering in and out on a whim, they claim to lower risk as well.

But do they do what they claim they will do? This is debatable. First, they are not index funds. They do not necessarily purchase all of the stocks in an index even as they suggest they might. Instead, many ETFs create their own indexes to follow and seek to invest in places where indexes have yet to trod. Mark P. Cussen, a financial planner for the military wrote recently about a little understood method employed by ETFs to get gains that seem better than the index they are suggesting they mimic. He wrote: "Most of these funds are usually leveraged by a factor of up to three, which can amplify the gains posted by the underlying vehicles and provide huge, quick profits for investors. Of course, leverage works both ways, and those who bet wrong can sustain big losses in a hurry." Leverage is another word for borrowing.

If there is an asset class, there is an ETF looking to exploit it. if you are hearing a lot about a certain class, such as precious metals, the temptation to join in the fray might be too hard to avoid. ETFs allow you to jump in "with the herd" and sell "with the herd". neither are necessarily a good idea and if you keep in mind, the low cost and tax efficiency of doing so are mostly wiped away. In order for ETFs to be both of those, you need to buy in large lots, offsetting the cost of the trade (commission) and you need to hold them for over a year. Small traders, which is the vast majority of us do neither - and won't if you buy them.

I mention "the herd". This mentality os what will drive you to consider this investment once it makes its debut in your plan. Instead, consider the vanilla index fund and what has become known as the tactical strategy. This employs a portion of your plan to just such whims while keeping the larger portion in the funds that will do the best with the least cost.

A tactical strategy might look something like this for young to middle aged investors: seventy percent of your assets in three to six index funds and thirty percent allocated to ETFs or even actively managed funds. Older investors might do the same but keep in mind that many major economic watchdog groups have warned that ETFs could be the next global financial troublemaker. And if that happens and happens quickly, the losses on that side of your portfolio close to retirement might find you less likely to retire when you want.

You will be tempted. And many of you will bite. But don't think that this investment can't bite back. It can and it might and unless you plan for such an occurance, the teethmarks it leaves in your plan might be long-term and scarring.

TDF: Still not Convinced about Target Date Funds

2011-06-04T05:38:00.000-07:00

I have a box and it is blue. By description you can imagine exactly what you need to understand that what I have, although key details about size and shape are left blank and the shade of blue is not fully described. But you get the idea that there is a container and the color is one of the primary ones evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 440–490 nm.

Suppose I have a target date fund and it suggests I will retire in 20-years. Much like the blue box, most of what you need to know about this mutual fund is essentially portrayed in the name. Unlike other mutual funds, whose name seeks to tell you how the fund manager(s) will invest your hard-earned cash in a confusing jumble of confusing terms, target date funds convey a simple message of here and then. Here is the fund you want to get you to a then you need.

Unlike the blue box, there is far more at stake and because of that, a simple title for the investment is easy to understand but at the same time, so deeply layered and nuanced, that it makes the real investors wary and new investors complacent. Recently, Scott Holsople, president and CEO of Smart 401(k) wished that something as simple as a name could do it all for everyone. he wrote: "At Smart401k, we spend much of our time thinking about how to explain things in a manner that’s relatable to the average participant (i.e., someone who doesn’t live and breathe investing and its terminology)."

Don't be jealous Scott. I have yet to find a single redeeming quality in TDFs. Cobbled together and containing questionable funds, they are hoisted on the 401(k) public as the be-all-to-end-all investment, making not only the plan sponsor feel a fiduciarially warm and fuzzy but giving the plan participant the impression that they need do nothing more.

Three things wrong with target date funds that folks choose to ignore.

1. The target is often wrong. If you are young, just starting out and auto-enrolled (which is how these things became popular and abundant in the first place), the target date you choose has little to do with your actual retirement date. It still hinges on the seemingly outdated 65 years old-and-done thinking. Which leads me to...

2. Everybody's target is different. If you are a blue-collar worker for example, the target might be accurate; but not so if you can work beyond. So the glide path, a nice word for "we don't know what we are doing and it has never been done before so use this imagery to explain it how we're going to get you from point A to point B", doesn't apply. Which leads me to...

3. What these fund managers do, none of whom will stay with the fund until it reaches retirement, none of whom invest in the fund and none of whom can explain exactly where the fund is relative to the benchmark (that doesn't really exist) is charge more than a similar portfolio of index funds or even a balanced fund and do so without a track record. Give us your underinvested, your newbies and your (by-choice) dumb investors and we will give them the way and the light, they seem to suggest. Suppose twenty years done the road you find yourself with far less than you assume. What then?

Only a few people have the nerve to speak out against these investment because they seem okay on the surface, they do get folks involved and the risks seem low. But they are going to disappoint more people than they help and I'd be willing to wager that in the next 10-years, folks will sour on the notion and realize that investing in the markets needs to be as simple and as low cost as possible and while TDFs seem simple, they are really just dumbed down versions of what could be something far more engaging. TDFs are an excuse for not educating yourself about where your money is going. Which in and of itself is a bit of a shocker.

Heard about Herds?

2011-05-30T07:03:00.000-07:00

It has been decades since behavioral economics took hold as a science of investor actions. Designed to study the irrational decisions that we all are apparently hard-wired to make, the field grew into a respectable and well-quoted discipline. Which is fine. We know we have incredibly limited potential to redesign ourselves, despite the pushing and prodding in one direction, the look-in-the-mirror study of our own foibles and the instructions on how to improve this very human lot in life. But we muster on. And this is why, even despite the improved access to our 401(k) plans does our retirement still suffer.

Studies done quite recently suggested that most folks will simply accept the status quo if given a confusing situation. Investing is just such a case-study in chaos, less so for the experienced investor, but even for that group, a churning pool of information keeps them struggling to keep up. But the behavioralists insisted that auto-enrollment in a retirement plan would create great strides for the plan and even greater rewards for those who may have - and still do have the option of - opting out.

Auto-enrollment we have found out is a trip through the wardrobe. We may all have taken the first step. But what awaits us on the other side, in almost every instance, is our irrational mind. And in almost every instance as well, a less-than-wonderful 401(k) plan. But more on the plan later. Let's just focus on what we have done recently as we embrace our biases, follow our illusions and believe in the fallacies.

There have been several alarms ringing on Wall Street and those who invest in mutual funds have turned a deaf ear. Herd mentality, the primitive instinct to follow the herd because doubt in the face of danger can present death was considered a valuable possession. Somewhere along the line though, things changed.

In our wonderful modern brains, this instinct has evolved into a trait, or so say the behavioralists, the makes us run towards the danger because everyone else is. What once once a survival instinct is now a suicidal tendency, at least in the world of investing. (Look at it this way: It would be similar to seeing a crash on the highway and deciding that driving your car into the pile would be in everyone's best interest, including your own.) Evidence of this is beginning to crop up and our big "modern" brains are at fault.

There are three types of mutual funds or mutual fund investment strategies that have shown a tendency to attract these kinds of investors: emerging markets, commodities and a category I'd be willing to wager you didn't realized existed, floating rate funds. (Amy Or of Marketwatch.com describes them as "Unlike fixed-rate loans, floating-rate loans can capture rising interest rates and are deemed a good inflation hedge" and with some uncertainty about when if sooner-not-later, interest rates begin to rise, these funds will be able to capture the change in market conditions.

Recent herd-like inflows of over $14B suggest that the usually high load fees and the underperformance of late matter little. It is where, these investors believe they should be. But because, as so often is the case with herds like this, so many have heard the siren's call, the opportunity to make any more moves to the upside have been hampered. That means a lot of people will eventually follow the herd off the cliff, ost of whom bought at the top.

When they aren't betting on debt, they are looking at commodities. These funds, focused on such tangibles as oil, silver and gold will to most of us, seem to be destined to go higher. And if you bought into this sector recently, you have high hopes that it wasn't at the top. But silver suggested it was, as did oil, and the drop in prices found those same people scrambling to get out. Most bought in with expanded exposure in their supposedly well-balanced portfolios and are now paying the price for having believed that diversity was just another word for profit.

And emerging market investors are beginning to realize that perhaps they too have been failing to listen to the global heartbeat. Europe is not finished with its economic woes. Commodity prices may have fallen but they still remain uncomfortably high for countries looking to emerge and now, predictions of slowing growth at expanding powerhouses like China have begun to worry the savvy investor. You newbies are deeply embedded in the herd still.

You may have been auto-enrolled, but the walk through the wardrobe left you in the middle of the Serengeti. And you probably won't get the memo that you are in danger until it is too late. This thinking about getting you in, attempting to educate you, guide you, slip you into an ill-suited target date fund came by way of Thaler and Sunstein's book called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. In is not the same as knowing what to do or how to act when you arrive. The information tsunami hasn't lessened and may have even gained strength over the last several years and investors, particularly the neophytes, will still drown before they learn to swim.

How running with the herd once saved you only to become the complete opposite will remain a mystery. And getting people into these plans by using science to study our unpredictable-ness is still a good idea, even if it seems suspect. But once there, the status quo is good. But who says what the status quo is? You may never get a clear bead on the answer, Until you realize the herd is leaving the room.

Good news/Bad news

2011-05-20T07:03:00.000-07:00

While we have all been, on occasion, asked to choose between the good news and the bad news, when it comes to your 401(k), both sides of the question mean something. Today, I'd like to look at some of the good news, bad news that has been coming out of the world of the 401(k).

Investments
Good news: People continue to contribute to their 401(k). A recent Investment Company Institute report found that only 2.4% of investors using this sort of plan did not contribute in 2010. This is considered a generally good statistic for two reasons: the resurgence of the company match may have prompted more people to begin to contribute more in 2010 than they did in 2009 (3.4% ceased contributing) and two, the stock market rewarded these folks for doing so. This means that account balances also increased.

Bad news: Those who did continue to invest actually pulled money from the equity side of the investment equation. The ICI was confused by the pattern, which typically dictates that when the stock market does well, investors tend to increase their holdings rather than withdraw. The shift they suggest may point to a lower risk tolerance which doesn't necessarily explain why there was an increase in international exposure.

Risk
Good news: There is a much clearer understanding of the risks involved in the investment world. Although there are still a sizable number of senior investors (those at least 65-years-old) who are willing to take above average risks with their portfolios, most recognize the danger in doing so.

Bad news: too many younger folks are unwilling to assume risk via equity investments. While 10% of the 65-year-olds reported they take on above average risk, their counterparts in the 35-to-49 age group admitted that they do as well. Defining above average risk is often difficult to do. Related to a balance of investments, with popular sentiment suggesting a gradual decrease in more volatile investments (equities) to more conservative ones (bonds, fixed income), this group may be making these adjustments too soon in their investment lives. If, as popular sentiment suggests that we will work longer, a 35-to-49 age group could possibly be leaving a certain amount of aggressiveness untapped. If you are thinking that you will work until 70[years-old and beyond, a 35-year old should invest in much the same way as 25 year-old would have just ten-years ago.

Better 401(k) choices
Good news: There has been over the last several years, an acknowledgement of sorts from the plan sponsor world that better choices for their participants is directly correlated to the types funds offered. Fees dominated the conversations held by plan sponsors and administrators as those that used their plans turned their focus on how much each investment was costing them. Plan costs eat away at potential returns. So many plans reduced the number of funds offered and with those reductions, the types of funds offered. The shift to a larger selection of index funds and target date funds may have helped create a better investment environment for those using the plans.

Bad news: As fees were lowered amongst the plan's offering, the plan itself became more expensive. This change in how the fees are levied make both the newly low-cost funds offered simply appear as if this were a bait and switch. Fee disclosure will only increase in the coming years as the Department of Labor looks to better reporting of these costs. The trouble is you may not where to look and may be able to little about these costs. You can sue over poor investment choices. But unless you actually leave the company you work for, the 401(k) you have is what you are stuck with.

Turnover

Good news: The turnover rate in the mutual funds offered by your company's 401(k) has dropped somewhat over the years. This is reflective in the choices. Index funds have near zero turnover, rebalancing only when the index shifts. Target date funds tend to shift in a similar way but don't offer the investor anyway of knowing how much is being turned over in the funds within the funds.

Bad news: While turnover is often equated with higher fees, a certain amount of this activity is generally considered acceptable if the rate of return is increased as a result. Most investors will shift their money into a fund based on the size. And the larger the fund, the more cumbersome investing becomes and because of that, the lower the turnover.

Target Date Funds
Good news: Target date funds have increased in plan usage from a scant $57 billion in 2000 to almost a trillion dollars invested in 2010. The good news here is limited to the success of the fund families marketing strategies and the required auto-enrollment of new hires. Add to that the financial debacle of 2007-2008 and numerous investors in 401(k)s simply saw the risk in these self-directed plans as too confusing. Turning to target date funds seemed on the surface to be the most logical conclusion for most.

Bad news: Target date funds still have some hurdles to jump through before they gain my seal of approval - no that they are necessarily currying my favor. They remain murky at best. Most target date funds, with the exclusion of those that comprise of index funds only, are a fund of funds. This suggests that a fund family, rather than close a poorly performing mutual fund, simply roll the fund into a target date fund. Because of this, there are still transparency issues. Add to that the suggested target date may not be your target, that no two target date funds are at the same point in investment holdings (risk) as a similarly dated cohort, that there is no fund manager who can offer conclusive evidence that this is the best method of rebalancing and lastly, that most users tend to set-it-and-forget-it.

Fees
Good news: As I mentioned, they have dropped over the last several years. But most investors still make assumptions that fall squarely into the "if it is an index fund, then it must cost less". This lower cost is mostly true and is normally attributed to index funds, even though some smaller index funds that track the S&P 500 charge considerably more than their larger counterparts for the same investment. Even with that in mind, an investor can build not only a well-balanced portfolio using index funds alone, they will do so at a much lower cost than any other investment portfolio in their plan.

Bad news: Most target date funds act as if they can do what they do for less, they don't. Some target date funds have expenses and fees that are well north of 0.80%.

Participation
Good news: more folks are using their options across more age groups and accessibilities. Most mutual funds are held inside 401(k)s by twice compared to those held outside. Add to that the growing number of average to lower income households entering this market for the first time using this sort of investment.

Bad news: Education still has a long way to go. Trusting, finding or using an advisor is still the purview of the more affluent investor. The average balances in these plans increased but it suggests that was a result of an increase in the stock market value rather than an increase in participation or contributions.

Mutual Funds and You: Not Always an Easy Relationship

2011-05-04T18:37:00.000-07:00

Even if there wasn’t so much emphasis on the Baby Boomers with the threat that they will upset the whole of the investment apple cart by suddenly taking everything they have accumulated for retirement and flee the markets, mutual funds would still be what they are. In fact, they will always be what you believe they they are.

So what is the attraction? Convenience plays a huge role in why we continue to use this investment. These funds still play a major role in our retirement plans because of access via our 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA). The mainstay of these plans give the average investor, the one who knows they need the markets but are still unsure about the concept of investing, the potential of growing their retirement contributions.

Acting as a collective, mutual funds give these investors broad access to investments they would otherwise not have been able to build on their own. The confusion begins with which mutual fund suits our needs.

In almost every 401(k) plan, even the ones deemed as not so good, the investor has access to index funds (tracking broad markets), target date funds (which target a retirement age or goal and invest using an aggressive to conservative approach) and actively managed mutual funds (those that employ a fund manager to find investments that seek to best the indexes or benchmarks and provide better growth). In a growing number of 401(k) plans, access to ETFs (exchange traded funds that trade like a stock but are essentially index funds) and stocks (individual equity investments) have allowed investors to pursue different investment strategies based on their own assessment of risk.

The ability to use these plans to allocate money towards future retirement goals on a pre-tax basis simply means that this investment will not go away anytime soon. The mutual fund market is considered mature by most standards. It has adjusted to investor concerns about fees (index funds and ETFs offer the lowest costs to investors but are often seen as a slower, or better, a vehicle with more steady growth), the ability to serve those retirement goals by creating built in diversity, and increased transparency. In doing so, they have recognized the threat that index funds and ETFs can do much of the same without the cost.

Behavioral finance, a two decade old study of why we do what we do, has increased our own awareness of risk. This academic and economic examination of us has uncovered numerous biases, the embracing of fallacies and of course or tendency to harbor illusions. This look at the investor mind hasn’t changed what we do all that much. In part because looking at ourselves in the mirror, identifying why we still follow the herd, still have loss aversions, understanding why we still think the past is some sort of indication of the future and continue to delude ourselves with what our concept of reality is rather than what it actually is (think of a mime), is not as easy as they portray it to be.

In other words we sell too late, buy too late, fail to understand that we believe what we see and hear, and attempt to translate those feelings into investment actions. Seasoned investors have a better grip on this inner investor; new investors bring most if not all of the problems investors want to avoid to every action they make.

Mutual funds offer a comfort zone of sorts. Even as we seek to embrace the simplest fallacy: that mutual fund managers know what they are doing because they are in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars. Mutual funds offer us a set-it-and-forget opportunity to participate in the activity of investing without bringing vast storehouses of knowledge about the markets or even ourselves to the experience.

But do they produce as promised? Not always and not always enough of what we expect. Our anticipation of future growth – often based on what has happened – tends to be the first mistake we make. We look at the past performance, the stars a rating agency such as Morningstar might give a fund, the tenure of the fund manager, the turnover (how many times in a given year the fund trades its portfolio; the higher the turnover the higher the costs) and the fees against those returns and make decisions. And then we hope.

Should hope even enter into the equation? It does because of who we are. We have no idea what inflation will offer in the years ahead. Taxes will increase as Social Security benefits may decrease. Which leaves us with two options: invest more and hope for the best. This means that we are using a current self-sacrifice as the template for future returns. I have suggested this on numerous occassions: if you want the “current” lifestyle you lead to be the lifestyle you have in retirement you can either increase your contributions significantly (which impacts how much you have to live on now) or expect to live on less.

So how do we invest using mutual funds? The quick and easy answer is use index funds, spread these investments out across as many varied sectors as your 401(k) offers and increase you contributions.

But you will still look at actively managed mutual funds with a wanton eye. You can buy these as well but do so with great care not to cross-invest. In other words, owning an S&P 500 fund and a large-cap growth fund would give you the same category of investments and the same underlying investments. You might look to making your small cap and mid-cap investments in actively managed funds, where managers tend to be more nimble in volatile markets.

Yet, as in many things in life, there is a bottom line. In mutual funds, it involves education. You should learn what your plan offers and why. You should understand how long you have to invest and for what goals (even if they are far-off in the future and can’t be quantified let alone verbalized). And lastly, that lackluster contributions will most certainly provide you with lackluster retirement benefits. Mutual funds may be what you believe they are but not knowing can cost you.

Do You Know How to Invest?

2011-04-23T05:52:00.000-07:00

There is no easy answer to this question. But in the following three part series, we will take a look at one of the more successful investors to come along in the past century. A humble man prone to self-examination and reflection. Most investors never take the time to do what is necessary to achieve this sort of inner investor peacefulness.

In part one of this review on one of the greatest investors, Bernard Baruch, titled "Notes on Investing: Baruch and Lessons Learned", we looked at what he has learned from his own mistakes, errors that we all make and of which numerous books have been written in anattempt to correct our own investor and totally human fallibilities on the subject.

In part two, we looked at, among other things, the art of investing and getting a good night's sleep.

In part three of this series, we take a look at Baruch, the behavioralist, predating the science and doing so by examining how people react to markets, how he responded to his own inner biases and why stepping back for a spell gives one new and better perspective.

The Plight of the Savvy Investor and the Goldilocks Mutual Fund

2011-04-14T06:10:00.000-07:00

We are a fickle bunch. We think of ourselves as savvy investors, although there is a great deal of room for improvement among all investors to which degree of savviness. Yet we are in almost every instance our own worst enemy. Victoria Holt is quoted as saying: "Never regret. If it's good, it's wonderful. If it's bad, it's experience". Yet still, after several decades of behaviorists studying our actions in the marketplace like so many mice in a lab, we still do the same predictable things time and again.

And perhaps the first emotion we feel once we begin to second guess each of our "investment" decisions is regret. And if the recent selling of actively managed mutual funds by investors over the last year or so is any indication, regret for past decisions is in full swing.

Adding to the chatter that actively managed mutual funds and by default the managers who stand at the helm, is John Bogle, chanting the mantra he has carried since the late seventies. Why, he has asked, would anyone choose to look for more than what an index fund can provide? And as we begin to acknowledge the pull and tug, feel the most susceptible to such cost savings as a lower fees, which is always good, index funds begin to come to the front of our thinking about which investment is best.

But once you begin to believe that getting mediocre returns in the equity markets is the "new" goal, the attempt at saving some money in terms of the fees charged by actively managed funds in exchange for the smaller returns that index funds offer becomes the overall focus. And if that is the sight path you choose, index funds are definitely the right fund to use.

In a recent report in the NYTimes on the subject of this exodus from highly regarded performers over decades to index funds in search of lower fees, one thing stands out in the numbers. This is simply a beast feeding upon itself.

Consider this: You own X amount of shares in an actively managed mutual fund and you sell. But rarely do investors act alone. They are signalled by some change in the wind, some report drilled over and over or perhaps, it is from the suggestion of a colleague. Suddenly, fear sets in and you begin to think that you have the wrong investments. The fees are too high, you think and then anything that resembles a stick snapping alarms you and your fellow investors and you run. And then you regret.

The selling prompts the redemption of shares, which when enough investors sell simultaneously, and enough shareholders accounts need to be made whole as they leave, markets move. And if the movement is great enough, the equities drop. And so do the indexes. So you sell at a loss only to buy shares in a fund you just, via the herd, lowered.

In many instances, the outflows are no reason to believe that the actively managed mutual fund world will implode. In fact, according to Brian Reid, the Investment Company Institute’s chief economist, 93% of the investment assets stayed right where they were as the remainder moved to other investments. Among those investments - more than just index funds reaped the benefit of this change in loyalty to actively managed funds - overseas funds gained as well as funds focused on commodities. Bond fund outflows also helped boost the index fund profile.

And what did this sell-off net the exiting investors? What were they looking for? Believe it or not, index funds that are actively managed. This surprising move has some folks, including myself, scratching our collective heads.

True, the fee structure of index funds is far cheaper that that of the actively managed fund (index funds average about .16% while actively managed funds average about .97% - with many load and closed end funds added into that average and increasing it as a result). But once you let a broker enter the mix, the fee structure changes, coming closer to the cost of the actively managed fund and at a lesser overall return.

Index funds because of the tax efficient structure belong in taxable accounts - as long as the capital gains tax remains historically low. Inside a tax deferred account such as a 401(k) or an IRA, the effect is lost. This is and should be the domain of the actively managed mutual fund. And while you should never lose sight of the role fees play in the long-term performance of your investments, believing that fees are the only driver in achieving steady returns is misplaced.

And while I have nothing against index funds, the growing number of funds that slice and dice the markets do not always lead to lower fees for investors. But talk about index funds enough, and investors won't notice nor take the time to compare one index to another.

Do You Know Where Your Value Fund Is?

2011-04-08T07:52:00.000-07:00

Last week the topic of emerging markets came up on a radio show I host every Friday. Although we only skirt the issue on many occasions, this week the term "emerging markets" kept popping up during the course of conversation with Lauren Templeton and her husband Scott Phillips, both of Templeton Capital Management. These two are value investors and if you have never met one (or two), they offer an unique perspective on the world of investing that is counter to what many of us think it is.

Now I often mention that emerging markets are often mature well before they lose the emergent title. In fact, the grey area between when they cease to emerge and the point when they are considered developed is often prolonged, with noticeably slowing growth and maturing markets. But even then, the unrest that signals investors that there is still significant (and sometimes worthwhile) risk makes the investment worthwhile well past its prime.

For most investors these days, emerging markets are usually considered as the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, or what has become known as amongst investors, the BRIC countries. Many of the four nations have growing GDPs, some doubling every six to ten years. Compared to countries like the US, where GDP doubles about once a generation, it is easy to see why this fast past growth adds to the risk factors.

Growing pains aside, many of these nations still have governments that are either over-involved or not involved enough. Depending on who you speak with, this can be both a good thing and a bad thing. As David Brooks of the NYTimes recently suggested: "emergent systems are bottoms-up and top-down simultaneously". As long as we can't predict with any accuracy which will prevail or better which should prevail given our predisposition to the investment, emerging will always signify opportunity somewhere for the nimble footed investor.

The BRIC countries all run the risk of slowing down with the brakes of banking and government concern with growth and its stepchild inflation pushing hard on the pedal. Some see this as the initial signs that regulation will swoop in eventually, followed by over-regulation and that, value investors feel is the death knell for emergence. What makes a country emerge in the first place?

Chuan Li writing for the University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development breaks it down into four simple, and easy enough for the average investor to understand. He writes: "Emerging markets stand out due to four major characteristics. First, they are regional economic powerhouses with large populations, large resource bases, and large markets. Second, they are transitional societies that are undertaking domestic economic and political reforms. Third, they are the world's fastest growing economies, contributing to a great deal of the world's explosive growth of trade. Fourth, they are critical participants in the world's major political, economic, and social affairs."

In other words, they have all been bitten by the capitalist bug. In the past, countries emerged with assistance. Now they emerge with investment. Companies swoop in and entice governments with their investment approach, the benefits that their involvement in the country will have on its people and that the system works best where the regulation hasn't yet developed to the point of constraint.

But that bug bite doesn't necessarily mean that the country will ever fully emerge. Political systems are delicate beasts that needs to be groomed and sold to the growing economic classes in many of these countries and even after decades of what appears to be peaceful expansion, the simple cost of producing enough to eat can bring the whole of this effort down. By this time, the emerging market investors have left the building. Confidence is a risky business in and of itself and needs to be sold to the growing middle class who for the first time, may have the feeling that they deserve even more.

As Investopedia describes the risks: "The possibility for some economies to fall back into a not-completely-resolved civil war or a revolution sparking a change in government could result in a return to nationalization, expropriation and the collapse of the capital market." Now you may ask, why bring up value investors?

For two reasons: First I always saw them as the patient investor, willing to research and parse every bit of information available, make a decision and quite possibly never see the need to rethink their position. Once made, value investors held their decision sacrosanct, quite possibly putting more money into the investment if the cost fell farther. And two, they always invoked the names of those who pioneers (Ben Graham, David Dodd, Sir John Templeton and most recently and possibly even more famous, Warren Buffet) as their only mentors; all other discussions were off the table.

The lines were blurred when the stocks they picked rose, turning their investments into profits and prompting their exit from the investment. And even though they considered what they did fundamentally sound, they chuckled albeit under their breath as they sold to new buyers. To find value, you must find someone who is willing to sell what you know is worthwhile. To sell that investment, you need to find a buyer who sees only the increased worth of the stock and makes the assumption that it is indeed a good buy if it is now worth more than it previously was.

It makes a growth investor think twice, an index investor think less, a technical investor to wonder what's next for the stock and to the portfolio investor an opportunity to add risk or as they prefer, diversify. But value investors seem to snub the rest of us a merely fools.

Here's a little quiz to help you decide where you fall on the investment curve. Consider Japan. The markets that track Japan have seen net outflows steadily increase over the last several weeks since the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear reactor problems swept its way into the world's focus. If the markets are as Jeff Sommers of the NYTimes recently described it: "It’s as if the world’s markets have been responding to the baton of a mercurial but authoritarian maestro, who changes direction often, but insists that all orchestra members play together as one" and Warren Buffet is spending time touting the investment opportunities in Japan, does investing there suggest value or virtuousness?

Japan is hardly considered emerging, even as they consider nationalizing their utilities, a hallmark of what is considered risk in emerging markets. Can rushing in at the point of this orchestrated exit be virtuous as some value investors suggest, infusing capital as a sign of their belief that the sell-off has gone too far? At what point can this sort of risk be explained away as "doing the right thing"?

Opportunity has often be the domain of the growth investor. Risk is why growth investors do what they do: selling when they perceive the risk to be too great and buying at the point where the risk subsides. Yet value investors claim to do the same sort of maneuvering. Acting less like the lion in pursuit of the wounded zebra and more like the vulture preparing to clean the carcass left behind, value investors create the illusion of running counter to the herd. Or in the orchestration of the markets, playing an instrument that doesn't jive with the whole.

While every investors plays a role in the orchestrated market, value investors seem to want no part of this group. Even as they write the next score for the investor musicians, they refuse to consider themselves for what they are. Backing their decisions with the fundamentals of research is not an excuse nor is it virtuous. It is simply embracing risk differently. Yes, Japan offers opportunities. But to suggest these opportunists are focused on the virtue rather than the profits masks the underlying bug bite: we are all in for the profit and with value investors, that profit is once again, based on your mistakes.

Mutual Funds and SIFI

2011-03-31T03:48:00.000-07:00

Are mutual funds a systemically important financial risk? It seems that so far, the answer is no. To explain what this dreaded SIFI label actually means, the NYU Stern School of Business has developed a risk indicator and alist of the top banks and CEOs capable of bringing the whole system down should their activities run into problems.

Senator Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, authors of the Dodd-Frank comprehensive financial reform law began identifying which institutions could be the most troublesome for the economy as a whole should they fail. It was one thing suggesting that all banks with $50 billion plus in assets be labeled as SIFI. But other institutions could also create risk and in the time since the creation of the reform law, other large entities have scrambled to get out of the way. Ideally, the right balance, not too many and not too few, something the Brookings Institute suggests as a Goldilocks problem, is what the law is aiming to create.

At a recent conference held in February, Doug Elliot asked the question: "So, if you’re going to define systemically important financial institutions you have to have some concept of what systemic risk is. And you have to have some way of measuring it, at least in some subjective manner. And are then setting a threshold to say where does something go from having too little systemic risk to worry about to enough that it should be treated separately here?" Mr. Elliot is well known as a former investment banker, former head and founder of COFFI, his own think tank, and a very prolific and insightful writer on financial reform issues with a book soon to be published titled "Uncle Sam in Pinstripes".

The biggest fear is what is known as a domino effect. Essentially, if a number of SIFI act in unison or a number of institutions engage in the same financial activities with an SIFI labeled entity, failure would knock one, then the next over, creating a systematic breakdown. But identifying who is at the greatest risk is a lot tougher than it sounds. Mr. Elliot points out that both irrational panic, such as a run on a bank creates, and rational panic, such as identifying the problem but making a wrongheaded assumption that whatever the problem is, it isn't really that bad, can both add to the systematic tumbling of one institution, and then another.

The recent crisis had a component about it that it turns out isn't all that unusual. In fact, most of the problems in the recent history all possess the same problems: assets that were overvalued and folks knew it and leverage that was chasing it, even if it knew it was overvalued. This embracing of risk is what causes systems to break and in some cases, have the potential for bringing the whole of the economy down with it.

Given their size, mutual funds were considered as well in the discussion (which can be found here). They are not directly leveraged nor are they intermediaries (such as insurers and re-insurers) or affiliates of larger financial institutions. In fact, mutual funds are generally referred to as pass-through entities. But some funds have worried regulators based on their size. But that size is not threatening if it isn't used as leverage.

The one exception Mr. Elliot pointed out was the money market mutual fund, an entity that many believe is, or should I say, was, as a safe as a bank - at least in the mind of the average investor. A buck, they thought was always a buck, until one moment during the financial crisis, when a MMF declared ti wasn't. Investors were told that there was risk. But with this sort of situation having never occurred, the risk was set aside for most investors.

While mutual funds may have escaped the scrutiny of those studying these financial risks, hedge funds, institutional investors (pensions) and some investment firms have not. Just because some funds fit some of the criteria, of which six are listed, doesn't mean that the Frank-Dodd regulations would necessarily miss this group altogether. They do have size but because of the number of funds available, they provide numerous substitutes for the services and products they provide investors.

There is an adequate degree of separation from other financial firms, an borrowing that they may do (leverage) is clearly stated by most funds in their charter. While many of the largest funds do face some liquidity risk if investors lose faith in the ability of the fund to perform, it usually occurs as a dribble of discontent rather than a one day sell-off. Mutual funds tend to keep a limited amount of cash on hand so a sell-off would be something that whole of the marketplace would be experiencing rather than just a handful of large funds (which all tend to be indexed to the market and not actively managed entities. In truth, funds that become too large, tend to lumber when attempting to move in either direction.

Those large index funds are passive. But some large bond funds may not be but their size keeps any sort of maturity mismatch from occurring. And the existing level of regulatory oversight provided by the SEC is seen as adequate to protect the overall system from any imminent problems.

Although MMF aren't necessarily problematic, as the Investment Company Institute, the lobby arm of the industry points out: "a liquidity backstop could provide reassurance to investors and thereby limit the risk that liquidity concerns in a single fund might spur in-creased redemptions". There is a possibility that hedge funds might see this as an opportunity to roll what they do into into mutual funds. But the regulations provided by the SEC make this not as attractive.

It may be too soon for the mutual fund industry to breath a sigh of relief. While one or more of the 243 rules and 59 studies commissioned by Dodd-Frank may still find mutual funds in the crosshairs of the reform law, the industry believes that this will not happen.

Hope for the Best: Picking Mutual Fund Winners

2011-03-24T07:04:00.000-07:00

Picking winners is an exercise in hope. Picking winners amongst the thousands of mutual funds available in the actively traded world requires more than just hope. Mutual funds, for those of you who may not be well-versed in the subject, offer investors an opportunity to ride with a fund manager to investment success. To determine this success, the fund manager must beat the benchmark that the fund is best judged. These benchmarks are index funds.

Now I have mentioned here before, this is a less than perfect way to determine success. But it is all we have. No actively managed mutual fund owns, in the same proportion, the underlying portfolio of the index fund. Index fund advocates suggest that index funds offer the wide diversification needed to get investors from point A to point B and do so in a passive manner.

Actively managed mutual funds do something quite different. And investors who use them know this. Investors looking for just a little more from their investment dollar believe that there is always the chance that the fund they pick will outperform the index fund benchmark. Few do. But the effort is worth the gamble. So why is it that we look backwards in order to move forward? Is what happened important to what might happen?

When an investor buys an actively managed fund, they have two choices to help enable their decision. The first is what the focus of the fund is. Understanding the underlying investments, how the manager approaches the fund's individual charter, how often the fund needs to readjust to complete that task and whether the fund manager can accomplish this in a cost-effective manner all play into the decision of whether or not to buy in. These are forward looking mechanisms designed to give us some level of expectation.

The second tool we use in the decision making process uses the exact opposite methodology: where has the fund been. By no means is this a necessary tool. Yet it is often employed by index fund advocates to point out the error of the actively managed mutual funds. Based on where these funds have been, indexers point out that had these same investors used an index fund, they would have been better off.

But this is not why people invest in actively managed funds. They do so to fulfill some inner need to do better than average. So why if that is this case, do these same investors, who see themselves as better than average and more savvy than the rest, look in their rearview mirror to get some indication of what the road ahead holds for them?

What was will never be again. None of the fund screeners offered around the web, from CNBC's to Forbes to the brokerages to the Persistence Scorecard offered by the Standard and Poors give you any idea whether the fund you are considering will do good in the next quarter, the next year or even the next ten-years. In fact, all of these screeners suggesting who won in the previous time periods would be useless in picking the next benchmark beating fund.

There are several things to consider when looking to invest in an actively managed fund. At the moment right before purchase, every one is on equal footing. This is referred to as the initial opportunity set. Every fund manager is equally skilled and/or prone to the same luck. The differences lie in the cost of the fund in terms of administrative costs. This is somewhat similar to suggesting that every horse in the race has four legs.

Yet unlike a horse race, where lineage, training and numerous other factors come into play, at the beginning of the race, all mutual funds are essentially equal. Once the new quarter begins, the race is on to beat not only what the benchmark might achieve but what other funds might do as well. At the end of the race, unlike horse racing, the gamblers place their bets. Sounds odd when considered like that, but it is essentially what happens. When the quarter is complete, new investors look for the winners, something that has already occurred and buy in.

The S&P Persistence Scorecard suggests that you will be right about 25% of the time employing a method of picking past winners over the previous five years (a period that seems to be quite a long time). You would have done slightly worse trying to pick a long-term winner amongst the mid-cap sector; slightly better with a small-cap fund. What the Scorecard does not suggest is the shifts among the stocks in the small cap to mid cap to large cap arenas during that period depending on capitalization (a shift that can change with each bull or bear market, mergers and acquisitions or simply with bankruptcies).

In fact, the Persistence Scorecard suggest that the middle of the pack might be a better indicator of what might come. If the top quartile is predicted to not repeat and the bottom quartile should be not considered as potential winners in the future (most at the bottom of the scorecard will probably merge or be liquidated in the future because of this underperformance), that leaves the second and third tier funds as the next winners.

If past indicators tell us anything, it might be to look the other way. Or, they might suggest that last quarter's average will be the next quarter's winner. Whatever it is, some skill and a lot of luck keep the current winners at the top of the rankings. Which is why few do with any success. If you are picking your next opportunity based on what happened, you would be better off with an index fund. I say this because average in the actively managed mutual fund world is a bit more expensive than simply buying the index.

But if you think you know the future, your ability to pick the next winner will make the envy of your fellow investors. And considering the odds, you have about a one-in-four chance of doing so.

Is Average Good Enough?

2011-03-16T06:54:00.000-07:00

There is absolutely no doubt in an index investor's head that those who chase actively managed funds are fools. Not the Motley type, because those guys think much the same about those types of fund investors as well. But the sort of fools you suffer because you know they should know better, you know they are smart enough to do the math and lastly, you think chasing average with a index fund entitles you to a degree of smug for know how inefficient the market is.

And that's fine. An index investors is supremely confident that all will be well with their investment choice. The fact that they were able to purchase it for far less than what the actively invested mutual fund charges and that argument is always pointed out in every conversation about index funds makes the debate somewhat one-sided. Yes it is true that buying something for less is advantageous when it comes to investing. Low turnover (index funds readjust their holdings when the index they track changes) mean lower taxes (an interesting event because index funds sell losers and buy winners when they do readjust) and the combination of all of this seems to satisfy even the most average investor.

But I'm not so sure that actively managed mutual fund investors consider themselves average. Nor do they pursue such a state. In large part, because they already have it. As I mentioned earlier index fund investors like the concept of average. They embrace the inefficiencies in the market and defer the thinking about where the market will move next to the idea that spreading the risk is far more essential to protecting the underlying investment. But that protection comes with a cost.

If index funds are so much better for the investor than those of the active sort, why aren't these the only investments in use. When you look at the differences in investment styles, you find that index fund investors tend to only own index funds whereas actively managed mutual fund investors own both.

Perhaps it is the very nature of index funds. Where in almost every instance, the traditional index fund is employed, the reality of how these funds allocate the money, with the 10 companies in the index usually garnering the top 20% of the indexed dollars might lead those active investors to think that there is a chance that the remaining 490 companies in a typical S&P500 index might offer something of an opportunity.

Investing outside of index funds had been referred to investor ignorance. Betting against what are seemingly long odds of success has a certain attractiveness to the process. Call it the "what if" approach. Back in August of 2010, Lubos Pastor of the Chicago Booth School of Business and Roger Stambaugh of the Wharton School of Business wondered why do actively managed investors continue to chase these funds when the statistics offer evidence that the returns in these investments will be subpar.

To invest is to embrace the knowledge that in every investment there are two players: the one with the reason to sell and the one with the reason to buy. Trusting that a fund manager can determine which is the better side of that purchase is why actively managed funds remain more popular than index funds. True, few are skilled enough to find that pivot point but the professors have found that movement in and out of these funds, based on decreasing performance might have something to do with why they stay in these funds at all.

These investors, at least according to the professors take dispassionate rather than long look at where a fund is headed and readjust their investments accordingly. Nathan Hale of MoneyWatch believes that it instead "represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how investing works". He argues that even though actively managed investors think the additional research they do, the faith in those that they have hired because of their expertise and the fact that they have to work harder to get the returns needed to keep investors investing, Mr. Hale writes that this will "inevitably detract from the returns you earn in the markets".

As long as the comparison of performance is skewed - benchmarks are always used when comparing the two types of investments when few if any actively managed funds hold 500 stocks in their portfolio - the proof of who is right depends on how fully you embrace the concept.

Active investors don't suggest that indexing is wrong and may have been the result of an increase in net inflows to index funds over the last several years as they moved to protect some of their portfolios. They just believe that the opportunity to do better is worth the cost, adjusting their holdings to react to lack of or increased opportunity. Mr. Hale sees this shift as the embracing of index wisdom.

Is it a "recognition of the benefits of an indexed approach" as he suggests? Or is it perhaps the simple fact that using actively managed investments are more involved, intellectually stimulating and make the investor feel like an investor? Is it an understanding that to live as a investor (using every means possible) better than simply chasing average?

Use of index funds will increase as new investors come into the marketplace, uneducated or perhaps under-educated. Auto-enrollment may add to the involvement. The use of these funds by Baby Boomers looking for some equity allocation in the final years of their work-life, realizing that some exposure is better than none may also contribute to the increased use of this passive investment. Time will tell. But actively managed mutual funds, even though maligned by index investors, will always be available to the investor.

Target Date Funds: The Downsides of Bundled Investments

2011-03-06T10:19:00.000-08:00

Here’s the three main problems with target date funds.

One, they are funds of funds, a collection ofmutual funds that do various things in different ways. Unfortunately, very few mutual fund families are rolling their best performing funds into these retirement tools. And in truth, why should they? If the investment public is buying a fund without too much effort, why throw it into a target date fund.

Two, target date funds are often found and the most heavily used in a 401(k) plan. They have been deigned the fund of the auto-enrolled, the new hire who for whatever reason doesn’t have a clue about how a 401(k) works, wouldn’t use it if they did (statistically, this is why these plans are underused and auto-enrollment has helped boost participation with few people opting out once they were in) and probably owns no other investment. If you have found yourself in this type of fund it is because your employer has done a little napkin math and determined when you will retire based on historic norms for retirement (i.e.65 years old). Those historic norms may not be all that accurate, but it is better than nothing.

Third, because 401(k) plans, at least the vast majority of them don’t allow you to do too much shopping around, you are stuck with the fund that your 401(k) is offering. And this is where we run into trouble.

These funds are designed, at least on that napkin, to do what most of us are not too well versed in doing: asset allocation over time. The idea is that we want to go from aggressively invested in our youth to a more conservative approach in our later years. This journey from capital growth to capital appreciation inside one fund has no real track record to speak of. So at any given time, a handful of target date funds with the same target date could be at different points on this aggressive to conservative investment journey.

Enter the Government Accountability Office or GAO. In a recent report, the GAO was asked (it does not say by whom) to answer the following questions about this investment: (1) To what extent do the investment compositions of TDFs vary; (2) what is known about the performance of TDFs; (3) how do plan sponsors select and monitor TDFs that are chosen as the plan’s default investment, and what steps do they take to communicate information on these funds to their participants; and (4) what steps have DOL and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) taken to ensure that plan sponsors appropriately select and use TDFs?

Without going too deeply into the 59 page report, I’ll briefly answer some of the questions. The investments can vary wildly. In one fund they examined, 65% of its assets were still in common stocks in the year prior to the target date. If the goal is to get your money to a safer place over time, this fund failed to do what it promised to do. But they can’t be faulted for trying to get the biggest return for the investment dollar – and to do that you need to take risks – and hey, their are no guidelines to follow, just a sort of linear point A to point B path.

Performance is indeed an issue. We look back on mutual fund performance three, five, even ten years to glean some information about how the mutual fund performed in good markets and bad, how long the fund manager has been at the helm and how they have weathered the various storms that blow across the investment landscape. Target date funds have no track record to boast about – some have good returns, as much as 28% from 2005 to 2009. Others have lost more than 30% of their value in the same time period. Some have only been around for five years or less.

Chances are, because auto-enrollment put you in that fund and you have nothing to compare it to, in large part because auto-enrollment might make you an auto-investor, it doesn’t make auto-smart about investments. To their mutual benefit, plan sponsors are doing what they can to educate their participants. Some do better than others. But the worker is the one who has to show some interest in where their money is going in order for those educational efforts to work.

The last question the GAO attempted to answer about target date funds, the one about the involvement of the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the process presents the most problems. A plan sponsor knows their fiduciary responsibility to offer good investments at the best cost accompanied with access to information. It comes down to all parties talking about you in the following way: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it a duck.

You have to take an active role in what your plan has to offer. Yes, the improvements in how target date funds operate will happen, and possibly without your knowledge. But this is your money that you are counting on in retirement. Do you really believe that anything in this day and age can be set on a path that lasts 30, sometimes 40 years and not need some attending to?

Mutual Funds Inside a Small Company 401K

2011-03-04T10:18:00.000-08:00

It is a fairly safe assumption that big means cumbersome. We often don’t think of large objects as nimble and marvel at them when they are. When it comes to 401(k) plans however, the smaller the plan the greater the issues facing it. Consider a plan like the one IBM offers. They have four tiers of investments for every level of participant expertise. A plan with as many options as this plan offers might seem as though it would be extremely difficult to navigate the problems that often plague 401(k) plans (compliance and management, fees and overseeing the fiduciary responsibilities). Turns out it is quite the opposite.

In many instances, it is the largest plans that have the most people dedicated to making sure that the liabilities that could occur in these plans, do not. That leaves most smaller plans suspect and your retirement dollars in trouble. Let’s break it down in simple terms.

Who’s in Charge?

The larger the firm the greater the chances you will have someone who is dedicated to the plan. They may actually be a retirement specialist, even an attorney who is well versed in ERISA law and compliance. A smaller company will have a greater likelihood of delegating the responsibility to their HR department. The difference in execution can be vast. The larger firm who has experienced people understand the need to review what the plan provider is doing on a regular basis, ensure that the plan is in compliance and the offerings in the plan are suitable for the workforce that use them.

The smaller plan may have too direct a link to the owners of the company. Not that a relationship with the owner has its problems with intimacy, but simply handing down the plan to a staff that might not be as knowledgeable as they should be but versed in the costs of running the business makes for bad bedfellows.

These plans can come with some big problems if this group does two things: relies on the plan provider to check itself for accuracy and execution and believe that they can shave a few pennies off the bottom line. This is not the place to do either of these and failure to do what the plan should can cost the business a great deal more than it would have cost had they done it right in the first place.

Bundled

You might think that, at least on an economic scale, that if you get everything as package, you will save money. In 401(k) plans, this isn’t necessarily the case. When a large firm goes shopping for a plan provider, it knows who its employees are and is concerned with keeping the best for as long as possible. Statistics have proven that the better educated you might be, the greater the use of the plan. Larger companies have a much greater stake in keeping employees using their benefits than do smaller firms. Smaller firms generally try to retain employees through potential.

But when they shop, the don’t go directly to the plan provider as smaller companies do. They enlist the help of a third party administrator or TPA. Yes this adds a layer of costs to the plan but this group also adds an indispensable layer of protection.

With less emphasis on the plan itself, and looking for ways to maximize limited cash resources, smaller firms will often look for bundled type plans. These are bought direct or through an insurance company. And although the emphasize that the products they offer don’t come with the fiduciary responsibility that these plans must have, most small employers and the departments they assigned the plan to, assume they do.

The “Get What You Paid For” Advisor

Small companies, as I mentioned more than once so far, look to cut costs wherever they can. Its understandable. But efficiencies have their limits and those limits can have negative effects in the 401(k). True, they need to manage the costs of the plan so as to make it more attractive to their employees. And true, free seems like a good price. The belief that they can eliminate some fo the costs by not hiring a plan administrator often finds them paying more in fees for the plan that they would have had they simply spent the money in the first place.

Financial advisors need to have experience. If they do not or only have a few plans under their supervision, this is a red flag. In all likelihood, this will lead to compliance problems for the participants, particularly the highest paid employees who tend to use these plans the most.

Why Do I Tell You This?

If you are working at a company with less than 100 employees, the chances are excellent that your boss has failed to do everything she/he could have done to protect the plan and its assets. All you have to do is ask. Ask if there is a third party administrator in place. Ask if there is a financial advisor looking after the investments and is not affiliated with the TPA. Ask if there is attorney involved who is versed in compliance and auditing. these three resources, while on the surface might seem to cost more than they might be worth, act as a system of checks and balances. Call them the product testing team.

If your plan does not have these entities in place, there is a good chance that once the company begins to grow, the plan will begin costing more in the way of employee retention and fees that should have been reduced as the plan grew.

Most folks do not usually think about their 401(k) plan when they look for a job. And once they get it, they often fail to realize some of these problems which could be shaving off potential earnings from the plan. A surprising amount of people don’t even know what or when their vesting in the plan takes place and the smaller the company, the less likely anyone will be able to explain these issues.

Yes, small business is the engine of opportunity in the country and when they grow, all boats rise so to speak. But unless the ship is seaworthy, your “vested” interest in the business could be costing you more than you think.

Does Tenure Matter: Mutual Fund Managers for the Long-Term

2011-02-26T05:30:00.000-08:00

One of the single toughest problems facing any investor is research. The information we seek is mostly conflicting, mostly difficult to understand and worse, readily available for the taking. The trouble is, access doesn't make the choices we need to make about where to put our money any easier.

You might consider the grocery store analogy. You may want to cook a whole chicken for dinner tonight but when standing at the meat counter you find three perhaps four different types of whole birds to chose from ranging from the very pricey organic variety to the very cheap store brand. They look alike, perhaps even clucked alike at one time. But what they are, besides all being chickens, different somehow.

Now mutual fund managers can hardly be compared to chickens. But in some ways, we have the same sort of conundrum facing us when it comes to a mutual fund selection. How much is the fund the manager and does it matter?

Mutual fund managers do have some appeal to certain investors. The longer the term some managers have, the more likely they will remain with the same investment style. Consider the long-term managers at these funds: Parnassus Fund (PARNX) which has had Jerome Dodson as the fund's lead for 26 years, Richard Aster Jr. of Meridian Growth (MERDX) has also put in just as many years and the grandfathers of the industry are people like Albert Nicholas who created his namesake Nicholas Fund (NICSX) and has managed it since its 1969 inception and perhaps the oldest fund manager Bernard Klawans who at 89 years old still runs the small Valley Forge Fund (VAFGX).

But is the same investment style still in style? Yes and no. Markets have remained essentially the same since they were conceived. And although we often consider them as impersonal entities, much like a Watson, they are not. Instead they are made up of people who, for want of a better term, want you to lose. There are two sides to every transaction and good will doesn't enter into the equation. Hiring a professional such as a mutual fund manager - and this is what you are doing - offers you box seats in the battle of who will win and who will lose in the marketplace.

Understanding the nuances of the markets is a timeless venture that involves understanding the players involved. Sure, computers have made the world smaller and faster and more efficient. Companies have broaden their customer bases and in the process made the oceans that separate the world seem like nothing more than a small pond. The world is at our doorstep. But the people at the heart of every investment haven't evolved one iota since the markets were conceived.

It is still not about chasing the next new thing; it is about finding the things that no one really sees as bright and shiny, old investment ideas that have never changed. This is what older managers bring to the conversation. So that would be yes.

On the other hand, the reason these fund managers have remained at the helm for so long has more than a lot to do with who owns the fund family., The four above mentioned fund managers can't be fired from the positions they created. They can only step aside. So too long is perhaps too long.

Each fund manager must do three things. One they must create a portfolio that is sustainable and worth holding. Fund managers generally have ideas about how this is done and new fund managers will come on board and switch things around, selling one security in favor of another. So they initial year is generally a wash in terms of comparisons. By the five year mark, they should have settled in with their strategies in place. So five years is a good judge of turnover - a term that references how much of the portfolio has changed in the previous year. Less is better.

The second thing they must do is create returns that are better than an index and enough to pay the bills. If the expenses are low, this shouldn't be too much of problem provided the markets cooperate a little bit during those initial years in the lead position. Returns are tricky though. Weighed against fees, risk and a host of other obstacles, the number the fund posts can mean the difference in whether investors stay invested or turn a look for something more suitable.

Each exiting investor, aside from a no-confidence vote is a sale which forces a sale which in turn, creates some disruption to the investment plan. Get a lot of investors headed toward the door and no matter how good you think you are, you will not be able to sell enough to make ends meet for the remaining investors. This cascade effect was seen best in late 2008 when numerous investors ran rather than staying put and allowing the fund managers to keep the level head they were hired to have. So they must contend with investors and the markets.

The last thing a fund manager needs to contend with is the shareholders in the fund company. Many mutual fund companies are publicly traded entities which puts the manager in the middle of two sets of shareholders. One demands returns and the other demands returns and both consider themselves the most important part of the equation.

There are more than a handful of mutual funds that circumvent this one manager stewardship by using teams or even people and computers, the former to take the blame should things go awry. But some rules do apply across all mutual funds. New anything is not worth buying. A new fund, a new fund manager and new investment strategy are all worth giving a little time and latitude to before you invest. Let the folks who don't know any better buy first.

Three years is barely enough time to make a performance call on a mutual fund manager; five is better but ten tends to be best. Remember, the three parts to a fund manager's skill: the markets, the investors and the shareholders. Mastery of those masters is never done in a short period of time.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

How do You Invest? Free of Biases, Errors and Expectations?

2011-02-19T07:07:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, our guest today on the Financial Impact Factor Radio was Meir Statman, author of "What Investors Really Want" (McGraw-Hill, 2011). He explained to my co-hosts Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng of FinancialFootprint.com and me the ins and outs of his field of study, behavioral finance and why investors do what they do.

Listen to internet radio with

Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng

of FinancialFootprint.com

The Financial Impact Factor

at Blog Talk Radio

Are Actively Managed ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) Worth a Look?

2011-02-09T09:49:00.000-08:00

Investors are divided into two groups: those that see themselves as investors and those that use their 401(k) accounts to invest for their retirement. The latter group tends to refer to this activity as savings, a word that has long since distressed me for its inaccuracy. The other group, the ones who think they can invest, tend to fall prey to the next new thing or on the flip side, spend a great deal of time and money trying to mimic an index fund. This group wants to be their own mutual fund manager and does everything but charge the trailing fees that a mutual fund does.

So we have one group who "invests" and the other who "save".Both use essentially the same tools and with any luck, practice the same prudent practices. Tempting both groups is the ETF or exchange traded fund. When these we first introduced, about a $1 trillion worth of investments ago, they were heralded as the one thing investors needed to keep their assets where they could get to them, when they needed them.

Trading like stocks, you could buy an ETF in the morning, sell it if you wanted to at noon, and buy it back before the end of the day. This was a genius move on the part of Wall Street and began generating buckets of cash via trades. Mutual fund companies wanted a piece of the action and jumped in as well with ETFs that looked eerily similar to index funds they were already selling.

The cost of the trade was about the only thing you could toy with. So they eliminated that fee. But not to be allowing you to do something for free, they found another way to charge you. Back on January 6th, 2011, I wrote: "a Vanguard spokesman said the company believed “that the ability to attract and retain clients, particularly high-net-worth clients, will improve the bottom line and ultimately result in lower fund expense ratios.” The truth is that instead of charging for the trade, they charge you to hold the ETF in your account."

Now, three years into the first appearance of the actively managed ETF, we wonder if this will be as wildly popular as the indexed ETF (which has sliced and diced the market in such a way that no corner of the investment world is un-indexed and because of that, has added to the volatility in the marketplace, particularly at the close of trading). Perhaps but the wary investor and more than one "saver" should approach these tools with caution.

Does an actively managed ETF cost less than a actively managed mutual fund? The short answer is yes. Mutual funds bought outside of your 401(k) - where fees tend be lower and in some cases, different - have fees for distributions and marketing. While these fees are annoying and do take away from your returns, they are needed to attract new investors, pay for research into which stock is next on the buy or sell list and to pay for the services of the fund manager. Could they be lower? Yes. Have they dropped significantly? Over the last several years, yes. But what about their ETF counterpart?

Without many of those "trailing fees", actively managed ETFs are less expensive. But few people add in the cost of the trade when they think of purchasing an ETF and each time you buy or sell, this acts as a fee - albeit right up front.

Several other comparisons come to mind. The transparency of ETFs, which must disclose what they hold everyday seems on the surface like it would be a grand idea. But when it comes to this type of investment, transparency and rules for trading tend to make this a dangerous place. In an index fund or ETF, the investments mimic an index, set and left alone for a year, sometimes longer.

In an actively managed ETF, which discloses its holdings and must disclose its building or restructured portfolio almost as it executes the trade, it allows investors outside of the ETF to "front-run" the fund and buy at a cheaper price than the fund would pay. This is not good for the ETF manager if the stock they are buying is somewhat illiquid.

Taxes are another issue. Mutual funds tax you quarterly and yearly. Index ETFs tax you only when you trade them and because they don't turnover (trade their securities often) as much, the taxes, once levied are less. Actively managed ETFs only charge you taxes when you sell the fund but, because they trade often, the taxes you will pay will be higher than indexed ETFs.

Now there is little I can say that will dissuade you from buying an actively managed ETF once they become more widely available and have logged a track record (currently, they have less than three years under their belts). If you find them in your 401(k) and they are cheaper than actively managed mutual funds, they might be worth looking at if you are looking at adding some risk.

This investor tool is not going away. And it will add to some additional volatility as traders in these funds move around much more than those that hold individual stocks and/or mutual funds. And that can't be good no matter how you view who you are: and "investor" or a "saver".

It's 2011: Do You Know Where Your Bond Mutual Fund Is?

2011-02-01T06:29:00.000-08:00

Almost every investor in the country owns a bond. This ownership might be via bond mutual funds, investments in individual bonds be it corporate, government or municipal, or through the widely used target date funds. Each is prone to its own troubles.

Bond mutual funds, even though they are managed by expert managers, may be so burdened by the underlying investments as to hide or mask the trouble that may be brewing in this market.

Individual bonds are influenced by the health of a company, the ability of the government to retain its high credit rating or in the case of the municipality, pay off the debt it is owed to those who invested.

Target date funds, the darling of the auto-enrolled 401(k) participant may contain the most trouble in part because you don't have a good bead on what is owned and in many cases, in what proportion.

There are some essential elements of a bond that many simply do not grasp to its fullest. Not the least of which is the effect that interest rates have on these investments. In short, bonds are loans and the way these borrowers pay you back is with the agreed upon interest. Many bond issuers simply refinance those bonds to pay that interest. But what if the interest rate isn't favorable to such financial restructuring?

So let's talk interest rates for a moment and some of the assumed beliefs you may have.

The trickle up effect
We often put a good deal of the emphasis on the Federal Reserve bank and their presumed control over all interest rates. They lend to the largest banks in what is called an overnight rate. Banks increase that rate to consumers at each level of lending, the last rung being the consumer loan for a mortgage or a personal loan.

Those rates are determined by demand, the market forces at play and in many instances, inflation and/or governmental budgetary needs (deficits). The Fed looks at money supply, the other half of the demand equation and depending on how much is circulating - too much and the interest rates remain low, too little and they increase. Sometimes.

Sometimes fear increases those rates as well. Growth forecasts and a strengthening economy normally lead to more demand for capital which leads to higher interest rates. Add to that the increasing possibility that inflation will rise as well. gives everyone who borrows the jitters. They know, should these things happen, the Fed will raise interest rates in the name of stabilizing the economy.

The emerging market conundrum
The world is global - while an oxymoron as a stand alone phrase, it represents a growth not previously seen in the decades prior to this one. Emerging economies are building at a pace that is much faster than anyone anticipated. Much of this growth is coming from China but there are numerous other economies doing the same thing on a slightly smaller scale.

The flip side of that growth is investment and investment needs money and countries, faced with growing populations who no longer worry about saving, instead shifting to spending, force borrowing. This will increase interest rates - probably sooner than we expect. many of us have experienced low interest rates for so long, we consider it to be the norm.

Consumers: should you save or should you spend?
The most common answer is to spend. Popular economic theory is that if consumers fail to spend, the economy will languish. This is actually not the whole truth. If interest rates are low, it would pay for infrastructure improvements much more cheaply than otherwise - and these improvements are necessary if corporations expect to become more efficient in their production of goods and services.
The bottom line, a healthy savings rate actually adds to the improvements that need to be made. It doesn't suggest that folks won't spend. But it does prompt companies - at least in theory to do a better job enticing you to do so.

Is mortgage deductibility important?
Possibly but the impact is lower and more specific than many suggest. Lower interest rates on home loans entice borrowers to buy more house than they need, refinance to increase their debt and those actions pour more money into the economy. Yet at the same time, estimates of lost revenue to the federal government have been estimated to be as high as $104 billion a year.

Raise those interest rates
No doubt, we expect interest rates to remain low. But they should be inching up. According toRichard Dobbs, director in McKinsey’s Seoul office and a director of the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) and Susan Lund is director of research at MGI, higher interest rates would "also limit financial bubbles, restraining speculative and heavily leveraged investment while encouraging more investment that would actually raise the economy’s potential growth rate, such as expanding the country’s broadband network, developing new green technologies, and rebuilding aging infrastructure."

The authors of that report also suggest, a rightly so, that "higher rates would also focus executives’ attention on the return that companies earn on their capital, prodding them to make sure they get more bang for each buck. This could boost the nation’s productivity, which is the key to raising standards of living over time."

Does this point to a bond bubble?

Not necessarily so. What it does however is seduce investors into thinking that all is well and bonds do not come with risks. Gus Sauter, chief investment officer of The Vanguard Group, the largest U.S. bond mutual fund manager with $413.6 billion of fixed income assets as of Dec. 31 wrote that he is "increasingly worried that people aren’t aware of the risks in the bond market. The problem is that when you’re at historically low rates, as we are now … yields aren’t likely to go significantly lower, and at some point when the economy does strengthen, they’re likely to push higher.”

This does suggest that bond investors are overbought, denying the risks involved and ignoring the potential, even probable readjustment in this corner of the market. Will it burst as a bubble might? Not likely but the slow hiss will take the least experienced investors by surprise and it may be too late by the time it happens for them to do much of anything.

With one exception, possibly two. Increase your equity exposure is one. The other, buy short maturities. This last one might make it difficult for individual bond holders to ladder their portfolios. But at least you won't be stuck with bonds that are worth less in an inflationary period.

The Far-off Investment in Mutual Funds

2011-01-13T08:23:00.000-08:00

First off, this is not the kind of thing you want to sink all of your investment dollars in. That might sound like a disclaimer, but the very idea that you could own a mutual fund that acted conversely to the way you want to react, a mutual fund that sold when markets were high and feasted when the markets were in trouble, and did so in many instances without so much as your normal hands-on knowledge, seems radical. You're an investor and you act like one.

Or you're an investor who knows that you aren't rational. And that is most of us. But a new study as uncovered that if you own a mutual fund far from where you live, you will allow it to do what it should do when the time is right. In other words, the farther away from your investment, as Miguel Ferreira of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa in Portugal, Massimo Massa of INSEAD in France and Pedro Matos of the University of Southern California found out, the more you agree with the hedge fund-like attitude the fund exhibits.

Hedge funds have long since known that you need a presence in the place you invest. It wasn't until a paper by Melvyn Teo of the Singapore Management University uncovered the fact that a geographic presence is key to investment success. This sort of "boots-on-the-ground" approach does make sense. If you know your marketplace, chances are you will know all of the nuances about that investment area. But this new study suggests that the farther you are away from that sort of investment, the better the investment does.

In a diversified portfolio, you probably own a few funds that you are taking a risk with - something in the emerging markets, an international fund or a hybrid of the two. Good advice has always suggested that some limited exposure to what occurs in far-away places adds some seasoning to an otherwise straightforward portfolio. Little did many of us know until recently was that this sort of investment will do better because it is so far out of our field of expertise.

Perhaps the worst thing that can happen to a mutual fund manager is the reaction of the herd or herd mentality. Once the herd begins to move in one direction or the other, hence the description, there is little anyone can do to stop the momentum from gaining speed. I don't need to tell you that the most recent example of just such a herd reaction was during the most recent downturn. Once the well-informed investors began to retreat, other investors, via the alerts from the media, began to follow.

For a mutual fund manager, this is the worst of all possible events. Keep in mind, most mutual funds don't keep a lot of cash laying around. When the occasional investor exists, they sell something and pay them off. But when an entire herd heads for the door, the selling simply opens the market wound wider and the bloodbath begins.

Hedge funds don't allow this to happen which allows them to take a position that might be contrary to what the markets are doing. In other words, they can buy what you don't want and sell what you think is hot and make money on either end of the investment equation. But the ability to do this is made possible by the knowledge that their underlying portfolio is not affected by the herd. That's not to say that their investors don't panic, but the lock-up keeps them from mucking up the plan - for the hedge fund manager and the other investors - by trying to head for the door when they probably should be buying more.

Now what Ferreira, Massa and Matos discovered was a sort of geographic lock-up. The farther away from the fund the actual investor was, the higher the likelihood that they would allow the fund, with the local address to do what it needed to do without interference. In other words, the less you knew about what was happening, the better the fund was likely to do. Distance turned these far-away funds into de facto hedge-funds.

In a nod to the hedge fund industry, they wrote: “This intuition is similar to the one proposed for hedge funds: Hedge funds take advantage of mutual fund investors’ fire sales. When mutual funds are forced to sell to meet redemption calls, hedge funds buy the assets liquidated at fire sale prices (Chen, Hanson, Hong, and Stein, 2008). The fact that mutual funds intermediate a way higher fraction of asset under management than hedge funds suggests that this effect represents a large-scale “limits of arbitrage” phenomenon, way more important for the economy.”

In other words, mutual fund managers who essentially swoop into a location, buy what they think is a good buy (not saying that their research is faulty) and fly back to the home office, lack the physical understanding that a geographic embeddedness offers. In other words, if you live there, you know better what is going on. Even in a global economy with the world seemingly wired to give you information in a split second, being somewhere is still better in terms of investments.

As I said when I began, this is not a recommendation to put whatever you have in places far away from where you live. But rather a shortfall of what we understand about where we invest. If there had been lock-ups in place for mutual funds, there is a distinct possibility that the downturn would not have been as severe. While hedge funds use lock-ups to prevent investors from forcing redemptions of what would be illiquid investments, mutual funds could use the same rule to control herd mentality and protect the patient, long-term investor in the process.

Mutual Fund Investing: Predicting the Future

2011-01-01T03:36:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the best way to begin a prediction about 2011 is to see how I did in calling 2010, something I referred to as "Hope for a Decade Lost".

I wrote: "I wondered what economic nationalism would bring. Banks in major countries all were faced with unprecedented decisions, conundrums of epic proportions and no real template in which to test their theories of recovery." This played itself out in revelations about the Fed helping banks cover short-term losses and in doing so, helping to avert the potential for a major global crisis.

"In June of this past year," I wrote about 2009, "President Obama suggested that the Fed have greater power in regulation of more than just banks, proposing that the power of the Fed be extended to the whole of the financial system. With this expansion, the Fed would move beyond its control of interest rates and inflation (both of which were kept abnormally low and will begin their gradual uptick in 2010) to the role of financial police." This did happen but was softer than expected. I had hoped that someone responsible for the mess we are still in to be brought to justice - but that didn't exactly happen.

Read the full article here.

Mutual Fund Investing: So what are mutual funds and how can they improve your life in 2011?

2010-12-30T06:24:00.000-08:00

You have mutual funds if you have a 401(k). Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs)hold mutual funds as the primary investment and despite their use throughout the world of investment and retirement planning, too few people have a positive attitude about what this tool can do for them. Most of the negative propaganda comes in spite of the ease of use, often lower expenses than any other investment tool, accessibility, better transparency (or well on the way to providing better insight) and often, tax efficiency. Some do this with great effort; others revamp their portfolio only when an index is restructured.

So what are mutual funds and how can they improve your life in 2011? There are only two types: actively managed or those indexed to a specific grouping of investments. From there, it gets complicated but getting from there is where the whole traffic jam of ideas begins. It makes no matter, which school of thought you ascribe to if you do at all: everyone needs and actively managed group of mutual funds and a passive group if you expect to do anything worthwhile in 2011.

In the coming year, one which is predicted to be quite good despite my doubts, which I will put forth in couple of days with my year-end look at 2011, diversity will deliver more than simply chasing one ideology of the other. The "indexers believe that these sorts of funds are all you need to succeed in any year. Offset by relatively low costs, these funds make up for hoping that that through diversity they can achieve better than average returns for those who invest in them.

As a group, index investors are a fervent bunch. They espouse this investment as the be-all-to-end-all tool and in doing so, give those who chose the other camp - the actively invested mutual fund - to wonder if they may be right. There are reams of research that indexers point to as the reason why they believe this approach. But passively sitting back and letting the market determine your investment outcome is not for everyone.

Actively managed mutual funds are structured in the same way as index funds: a portfolio of investments (stocks, bonds or both), a manager (be it one, more than one or a computer), disclosure and regulatory rules that they must abide by, and performing as billed, if not better. The difference in who picks what is in the fund. Index funds are determined by an index published by such notables as Standard and Poors or Russell or Wilshire. Actively managed funds contain investments picked by management.

Both bring like-minded investors together to pool their money and in doing so, offset the risk and cost of having to build a similar portfolio on your own. Actively managed funds try and outperform their index counterparts in large part because it is these indexes, right or wrong, in which their performance is gauged and graded. If they do better than an index, investors notice, add their money and create increased opportunities for the fund manager to increase those returns with additional acquisitions.

It doesn't always work and some comparisons are unjust (how can you compare a fund with fewer than 100 holdings to one where 500 are held?) and do not paint a true picture of performance. But in tandem, they might work for different reasons for everyone interested in a more profitable 2011.

In times of turmoil, everyone feels pain. When the whole of the marketplace dropped precipitously in 2008, no investor escaped. Some were damaged more than others but as a group, we all felt pain in some form almost at the same time. Investors who simply plowed money into a 401(k) or loaded up on their own company's stock and thought that investing was a world of do-no-wrong, were given a rude awakening. Those that traded actively on their own and were beginning to feel some invincibility creep into their results were caught unaware as well.

And in the past year, investors in US stock funds did what they had done in the previous three, withdrew more than they invested, Called outflows, they impact mutual funds harder than the selling of shares from your own portfolio. These outflowing funds are produced with the sales of a portion of the portfolio. And every such move impacts the remaining shareholders in the mutual fund.

Inflows, or your money pouring into a mutual fund comes automatically in a 401(k), through deductions into an IRA and self-deposited by individual investors. Yet only a handful of people I speak with everyday likes the idea of a mutual fund as an investment and if last year was any indication, think fund focused on the US stock market alone is not the path to financial success.

Why? We want simple things to work extraordinarily well. Nothing does but we expect it of mutual funds. We want low fees, we want moderate risk and we want to know that our money is safe from market interruptions and taxes. And at the same time, we want growth, to retire early and to have our investments perform without hiccup for decades. Only mutual funds can do this - even if we dislike the idea.

Low fees, moderate risk, safety and tax efficiency is a tall order with three of the four fitting the index fund bill. Safety is subjective and safer, even more so. But no equity index fund alone can do this. No bond index fund alone can do it either. Target date funds, hybrids of other equity and bond funds (and often a basket of such funds from the fund family) promise all of the above but have yet to prove they can deliver.

Yet three out of four isn't bad. Put this type of fund in a Roth IRA and put as much as you can in it, consistently over 2011 and you will do as well as this year has done (which looks to be two back-to-back years of double digit gains for the S&P500 index). Even if you do half as well as the 20% plus gain in 2009, you'll be way ahead of where you'd be otherwise.

In the other group, looking for growth, outsized returns and freedom from hiccups, look to your 401(k) where your employer may be retuning to offering a match in 2011. If they do, this is not so much free money as hedged money. A 6% match added to your 6% contribution gives you a lot more room to assume risk that you probably are. Retiring early is a dream even as we acquiesce to work longer. But it can be closer to a reality if two things happen: you invest more and use actively managed funds in your 401(k) to get there and the market corrects a little in the first half of the year. This means buying more for less and positioning yourself for a good 2011. Not 2010, but close.

Whatever your outlook for 2011, a tandem approach to investing - using index funds and actively managed mutual funds might be the best approach in the next year. Be cautious of only two things: this isn't advise and be careful you don't over-expose yourself in any one sector.

Are you asking the right questions about your portfolio?

2010-12-15T04:54:00.000-08:00

Most questions you should ask yourself about your retirement you do not ask. It isn't because you don't have the question in hand. In many instances you do but you simply fail to seek the answer. For example: when would like to retire is much different that when will you retire. Both queries speak to the same time in your life when your current working career shifts into another realm. But the answers, like the questions, are different.

Target date funds, the darlings of the skittish post-2008 investor, the new-hire and the plan sponsor who believes they are doing the right thing by their employees, the funds that pick a date in the far-off distant future, a point in time when your retirement is supposed to happen don't answer the question the way we all assume. In fact, they may not answer it at all.

Target date funds are designed with, among the obvious pick-a-date moniker, an asset allocation shift over time. If you buy into a fund, such as one that picks 2040 or 2050 as a retirement date, you will have, at least according to the sales pitch, an aggressive to conservative journey spanning the next 30 to 40 years. The idea is that your fund will find the right investments to gradually ease you from being exposed to equities and the potential growth they offer to fixed income and the protection they offer over that time period.

So which fund do you pick if you can't or won't answer the either question? Imagine a 25-year old entering the workforce. They have the opportunity to pick a fund that reflects an investment arc spanning 40 years. Even if they don't understand how to invest or what to invest in, there is little likelihood that this employee will stick with this plan and this fund over that period. Few people buy any mutual fund and devote that sort of loyalty to a fund that almost predicts diminishing returns (all in the name of capital preservation).

As the worker ages, things change. Life happens and in the process, you become more educated, perhaps more risk tolerant (or averse), and you understand the markets better. This changes your investor approach to these funds. You begin to question their strategies, how they allocate the money you dutifully send each paycheck, and whether the fund is doing as advertised. And after all of that, you would have to aks yourself, when will I retire? And if I do, will I keep this fund?

Target date funds come with risks. Many of which are well-known even if they are not well understood. The Labor Department is looking to clear up this confusion for target date investors even if the information is already available - if under used.

Among those risks are disclosure of the fund's asset allocation. Depending on your time horizon, the fund you pick and how that mix of assets changes over time, every target date fund differs in their approach. Now keep in mind, most of us will encounter these funds in a 401(k) plan and have little ability to shop around for a target date fund that does better. Also keep in mind that "better" is a tough call. Any comparisons made between two similarly named funds ends right there.

The Labor Department would also like the the significance of the target date explained. Even the most novice of investors can grasp the target. What they can't wrap themselves around is the fund's investment policy. Few can and because of this, even fewer read this already published information. And what troubles the Labor Department the most about these funds, often given set-it-and-forget-it status in the minds of many of these investors is the inclusion of a including a statement that the fund could lose money - and it might happen close to retirement.

How could something so simple become so complicated? You pick a retirement year (simple) and the fund matures with you (simple) and because there are no guarantees (complicated) and no way of telling whether this is the right fund on the day you put your first dollar in it (even more complicated), how do you know?
Charles Jaffe of Marketwatch believes it is a "to or through" question. Will you have the fund at retirement invested as conservatively as possible or will you be keeping a couple of decades after you retire? Something this simple should be this complicated. The question is really to or through but "why bother"?

I have no problem with auto-enrollment of new hires. I have no problem with educating and offering these new employees some insight on how their 401(k) operates and what it offers. I do however have a problem with the perceived safety of the target date fund in the plan and the seemingly risk-free idea that this is a fund you keep even if the employee will not stay with the company - or that particular fund - forever or at least until that retirement date.

Making target date fund reporting more transparent as the Labor Department proposes is not going to make the task of choosing easier for those considering this type of fund or who have been auto-enrolled in one. Most mutual fund investors know that there is risk - some can even describe it. Most know that there are no guarantees. Yet target date funds seem to offer a false assurance that time is on your side in a way that is not so for other retirement investors. And that is a problem.

Your 401(k) should have been your retirement savior

2010-11-28T11:45:00.000-08:00

Despite the metaphors surrounding what retirement planning is supposed to be: a three legged stool, a three pronged approach, whatever visual cue you need to make sense of the process, your retirement is or at least should be, a lopsided financial affair. It should be something that works as a part of whole but not in any sort of equal sense. Social Security and the state of your financial affairs at the time you decide to quit working is really only supposed to be a small part of the retirement plan. In truth, the most prudent people who plan their retirement do so without any consideration of income from any outside source.

Not so in the years following the Great Recession. The vulnerabilities are now something we have seen first hand and many of us have recoiled in horror. Instead of relearning where we went wrong, we looked for the safest rock to hide under. Perhaps that is why, when the latest report from the Investment Company Institute was released this past November, your defined contribution plan or for most of you, your 401(k) was given equal stature amongst the other two "legs" of the retirement stool.

Social Security was designed to help keep those without from becoming destitute in retirement. Not surprisingly, the report points out this use of the program by those who are the least fortunate, the lower paid worker, as more reliant on those benefits than the higher paid worker. As they look at a post-ERISA world (the 401(k) actually came nto being in 1981), they conclude that this has always been the case and if it has, then so be it.

But the study wasn't designed to be much more than a good-old-boy pat-on-the-back. The ICI sees the distance between the demise of the pension as the sole means for retirement among workers in 1974 as a trip worth traveling. Coming out on the other end of that journey finds the lobby arm of the mutual fund industry rather satisfied. they point out that the median income from a defined contribution plan per person in 2009 was $6,000; in those same 2009 dollars, the same median was $4,500 in 1974.

It is not surprise that many of the remaining firms in the private sector still maintain them. But these plans are not considered a reason to work at these companies when it comes to the younger workforce. Pension breed company loyalty while 401(k)s allow workers to shift jobs when a better offer is available. On the other hand, pensions often leave this same group of workers with no retirement benefits, essentially, at least according to the ICI report, when vesting rules and the timing of benefit accural are used as a rodbloack to getting those benefits for time worked.

But during the time frame they used to conduct the comparisons (1975 to 2009), Social Security now makes up a larger share of retirement income even among those who had assets and other income sources. Based on per capita income at either end of the spectrum, with the lowest income group using just 2% of what the study calls asset income with an 85% reliance on Social Security compared with what the higher income group employs (20% assets and 33% of income from Social Security).

While the ICI celebrates the success of the defined contribution plan that replaced the private sector pension and they point out that those with DC plans are doing better than DB plan recipients in the past, one simple fact remains: we aren't doing enough.

While the answers seem clear: you need to invest more - probably much more than you would be comfortable in making, live smaller now while you are working, and hope that your health, inflation or taxes doesn't take a toll on those accumulated finances. In the face of such daunting news, you could expect a pull back. Instead of increased focus, we would get more ennui. Instead of an emphasis on better educated investment and financial decisions, we should expect more use of what we assume of are set-it-and-forget-it investments such as target date funds.

To answer the question in the title: was your 401(k) intended to be complimentary for retirement? I believe the answer was no. It should have been the investment savior, a Wall Street miracle. Trouble is, now many people. financial professionals included are looking for a way to provide the same guaranteed income that those long-shunned pensions provided. And when they do, we will wish it was 1975 all over again because it will come at a much higher cost than we imagined.

To Index or Not: Mutual Fund Investors still ask

2010-11-15T07:36:00.000-08:00

It isn't like this would be a fair fight. But get two investors who believe in one or the other in the same room, and the index fund investor would declare their style the winner, based on low cost alone. While fees play an important role in the long-term objectives of any investor, particularly those using mutual funds for retirement, the idea of long-term has seen its day come and go. As Tom Lydon of ETFTrends suggested recently: "The notion of buy-and-hold investing shows signs of falling out of favor. Ten years ago, 80% of advisors’ portfolios were buy-and-hold. Today, that’s 30%."

Which leaves the actively managed mutual fund investor, often described as a resident of Lake Wobegon (where everyone is above average) as the beneficiary of this shift ininvestment style. The question that every index fund investor will ask every opportunity they get: how do you pick an actively managed mutual fund if so many underperform?

And it is a good question. But the problem is, how do you make that call if you are essentially comparing these sorts of funds to those that buy across a broad market? An index fund, for the sake of argument we'll use the S&P500 index as an example, buys the top 500 companies. These companies are in the top 500 due to market capitalization. But index funds don't buy all 500 equally, weighting their funds based on numerous criteria.

Among those are as I mentioned, market cap. To be eligible for this index, a company must have $5 billion of market worth (issued stock) with 50% of that stock available for the public to buy. They must be based in the US - it doesn't matter where they do business as long as the headquarters are on US soil, follow GAAP reporting practices and offer sector representation.

The weighting of an index like this, which many investors assume is done much more evenly, actually gives the top ten companies based on market cap, over 20% of the index, leaving the 490 remaining companies to fill out the rest of the index. How would this sort of style compare to a actively managed mutual fund that owns less than one hundred stocks in their fund? Talk to an indexer or as they often refer to their group as Bogleheads, after the man who brought the index fund into existence (there were attempts made earlier than Mr. Bogle's but the ability to do it correctly was dependent on the advent of the computer) and they would quip, there is no comparison.

Yet, this is the very comparison they make, time and again. Their argument does hold some merit. Index funds have lower fees because they trade only when the index changes. (This is an irony lost on many indexers as the these funds must divest any interest they might have in a stock taken from the index and purchase any security the index has added - a sort of counterintuitive move of selling losers and buying winners.) Many still charge 12b-1 fees even if they are in company sponsored plans and act as the default investment. Over five years, performance of the S&P500 index has been north of 15% and that was due to the large amount of value given those top stocks in the index and the dividends paid by many of these large businesses.

Actively managed funds do have more to contend with in terms of trading (more frequently but the best funds do so prudently without changing their whole portfolio in a given year) research (they aren't given a group of stocks to buy as the index publishers do) and their are management fees (the cost of hiring a professional to wade into the marketplace for you). Yes these do impact the overall returns of a fund and as investors focus more on these items, they have dropped significantly in recent years.

So what do you get with an actively managed fund that isn't there for indexers. Obviously, a bit more nimbleness, less buy-and-hold and if your fund manager is good, acceptable returns. Most investors do still look to the performance - and too often in the short-term, as in a year or even a quarter just past - as the tool most likely in their portfolio picks. Doing this at the exclusion of tenure - how long the manager has been at the helm - the fees - they should be low, under 1% with a portfolio turnover in any given year of less than 60% - and should be able to best their peers in both categories, if not the index they are often compared to, over five years or longer.

Indexed funds have pluses that seem outsized compared to actively managed funds. But too often, a one size fits all approach to investing is not suited for everyone and this is where actively managed funds fill the void left by that sort of approach.

Are Mutual Funds that Short a Good Idea?

2010-11-08T06:58:00.000-08:00

Most investors don't understand the idea of a shorting an investment. The concept is relatively straightforward: an investor essentially bets that a stock will go down and if it does, profits from the fall. Going long does the opposite, wagering that a stock will move higher. This was formally the purview of the hedge fund, those high dollar investor clubs with equally high fees, that sought to use every market strategy available to gain ground for those investors.

As I said, this was formerly something of an investment style that was not available to mutual fund investors. But this is a different investment world and the mutual fund industry, in its own way, acknowledges that trend with a group of funds that offer a defensive footprint in the market. In other words, rather than simply assuming that all stocks will go higher, they believe their research and expertise can locate stocks that move in the opposite direction.

Studying an online MBA with an emphasis on finance can get you up to speed on mutual funds. If you don't have such a background, this information will help you understand shorting your investments.

The question is: is this a good investment for your portfolio and more specifically, how do you avoid the lure of their promise to do better than traditional funds or even ETFs? It's no easy feat launching a mutual fund and even though some appear new, they can take a year or more to hurdle regulatory requirements before the first share is offered.

In almost every instance, when it comes to investing in mutual funds, the basis for your decision rests on not only the tenure of the fund manager, but the length of the fund's performance. This backward looking approach doesn't always serve the investor well when it comes to picking a fund based on what it has done compared to where it is now, nor does this sort of comparison reveal the true nature of the fund's ability to best the overall marketplace, a field now numbering over 8,000 potential offerings.

When times are bad, as was the case twice during the last decade, good years can be wiped from the investors view, replaced with averages that make the fund appear lackluster.

New funds don't have that sort of problem. They're new, with no history and no track record. Just a charter and a manager. So new investors are forced to look at the fund family (which provides research and oversight) and the previous experience of the person(s) at the helm. This is no easy trick and requires a leap of faith. Not the soundest of advice; more like a word or two of caution.

According to Dan Culloton, associate director of fund analysis with Morningstar: "They're [long-short mutual funds] responding to the market fears and frustrations over the past 10 years. A lot of it is just pure-and-simple rearview mirror product management." One hundred and fifty new funds have decided that this is a market worth exploring.

Among the new offerings, seventeen are focused on emerging markets. This particular sector is teeming with potential and just as many problems. It is those problems, which can range from anything like political unrest to poor financial infrastructure are widely thought to be the main drivers in such an investment space. And the risks in some of those bets were indeed high. These new funds (some of which can be found here and do not constitute any recommendation to buy) have done quite well for themselves in the years following the downturn in the US stock market.

There is also opportunities to play both sides of the extremely volatile commodities markets. Many of us have watched with great interest the demand for some commodities and understand the risks involved. Yet we a lured by the potential returns this sector can offer, looking for some way to mediate those risks.

Enter the commodity mutual fund designed to play off of those investor fears, the world-wide demand for many commodities in short supply, and the ability to find profit where other investors may not yet be. And because they short securities as well, they bet some investors will not be there for long (the reasons vary from currency policy changes to the perception that something may be overbought and ripe for a bubble pop). You can find a list here.

But are these funds right for you? Yes and no. Yes if you are looking to fill a small corner of your portfolio, perhaps as little as 5-10%. There are great deal of more traditional investments that allow you to see where the fund has been and where it is headed. These still remains the best tools for making a decision on where to invest your money. And no, if you are easily swayed by the relatively high returns these funds have been providing investors over their short-life spans. That temptation can easily allow you to increase those percentages to too high a portion of your portfolio, eliminating the best diversity plans.

And since a vast majority of us will be using or retirement portfolios (401(k)s and IRAs) to do this sort of investing, special caution is worth considering.

The One Fee You don't need in your Mutual Fund

2010-10-31T06:27:00.000-07:00

Mutual funds, as we all know, are a group effort. The thinking goes something like this: the more investors in the fund, the higher pool of available cash for investments. To attract this pool of investors, mutual funds advertise. A 12b-1 fee is essentially the cost of this advertisement. If you are buying a fund from a broker, chances are they were compensated by this fee. On the surface, this costs seems to be one of those cost-of-doing-business fees that for the greater good of the investor pool is levied on all the owners of the fund.

But what if the fund is charging you this fee inside your 401(k)? Should you pay for something that has already been marketed to your employer? This sort of fee was first introduced in the late seventies when investor distrust of the stock market was at an all-time high. Mutual fund companies argued that in order to keep their product viable, they needed to increase the number of investors and the only way to do this was to advertise their product.

Fast forward thirty some odd years later, past the greatest bull market, past the introduction of the 401(k), past the two big bubbles of the first decade of the 21st century, past the default investment in our retirement plans, and the fees still exist. According to SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro, the reasoning for these fees, which are paid by the investors in these funds has passed. In a press release detailing the SEC's examination of this fee, Ms. Schapiro writes: “Despite paying billions of dollars, many investors do not understand what 12b-1 fees are, and it's likely that some don't even know that these fees are being deducted from their funds or who they are ultimately compensating.” That lack of transparency at a time when we want to see what our fund dollars are doing when they are not generating returns is troubling.

So the SEC believes that the need for 12b-1 fees has passed. “Our [SEC] proposals would replace rule 12b-1 with new rules designed to enhance clarity, fairness and competition when investors buy mutual funds.” Yet, like all decisions of this nature, there are bound to be casualties. 12b-1 fees are still used by smaller fund families for the very reasons they were initially adopted: to grow the pool of investors. Larger funds families, who have household names and a firm foothold among investors still levy this cost on its shareholders.

Inside a 401(k), where you are essentially a captive audience, these fees offer no benefit. According to BIll Barker, writing for the Motley Fool "They are not used to improve the research of stocks bought for the fund, nor in any way to improve the performance of the money already invested in the fund." And because of that, he opposes them. So do I.

Without any identifiable benefit to existing and often long-term shareholder, the cost of this fee, often $2 on every $1,000 invested should go away. Inside a 401(k), this fee is something bordering on criminal. In a closed fund, one where the fund is no longer accepting new shareholder but still allows current shareholders to contribute to the fund, 12b-1 fees are an abomination, costing their fund participants millions of dollars. (A mutual fund can close for a variety of reasons, the most popular being that they simply have too many shareholders which makes investing according to the charter difficult.)

If you have funds in your 401(k), tell your plan sponsor to do something about it. This is fiduciary responsibility they may not have been aware they had. If your mutual funds still charge these fees and you agree with the investment community - the folks who put their hard-earned dollars in, not the people who sell these products, let the SEC know. You have until November 5th to voice your opinion. You can do so here.

The Overvalued Emerging Market

2010-10-27T06:27:00.000-07:00

It is easy to be attracted to emerging market mutual funds in your portfolio. If you are investing through a 401(k), you have noticed in your last statement how well they have been doing. Your US equity funds have done well over the same quarter or even perhaps YTD. But the contrast with the mutual funds that might be available to you that invest in other countries might have caught your eye.

Return envy is still one of the primary weakness that investors have. They see a fund that has done well, in this case, almost the entire sector, and we jump, feet first without knowing whether there is a shallow bottom or not. In the world of emerging market mutual funds, that bottom might be closer than you realize.
Emerging market mutual funds have a great deal of headwind to navigate as they get those returns. And just like the days of yore - only two years ago or so - risk is the reason why. Those risks are numerous.

First is the money issue. No country can be considered a viable investment unless they have a good banking system. That statement could be the reason why many stateside investors have looked to other countries for their investment needs. But in truth, the US does have a better banking system than most countries abroad. In its defense, it is able to survive a serious economic blow, put together a plan to recover from it and, although it can be criticized for many of its moves of late, it will still survive even if it is has already shown much of its financial hand. The simplest way to do this si compare a developed and mostly mature system such as that of the US and those in that outperforming emerging market fund.

The second issue is politics. We might have what seems to be a chaotic and disagreeable political system. But because of that robustness, we can be assured that even though we don't know what taxes will be, the discourse on how much we pay will be discussed at length and resolved with compromise. In addition to how the government operates, it is still a business-centric governing body that even when it falters in doing what it considers right, it does what it considers best for the creation of jobs. And even if the US seems to be burdened with regulations, many of which are direct and legislative reactions to abuses, countries overseas have placed these sorts of restrictions before the fact. This keeps investments and innovation under the control and purview of whomever is in charge at the time.

The third issue is economic freedom. While we take capitalism for granted, it si not the case in the largest emerging markets. It is often difficult to comprehend that a country the size of China or India could be considered emerging. But the definition of emerging suggests that while growth seems to be on pace and often well-beyond that of the US and Europe, it is done without the transparency that we enjoy. If China has the ability to drop a trillion dollars in cash into its economy - something a developed country would need to borrow to do - this offers a glimpse of instability.

The fourth issue is risk. By risk I mean your ability to predict and project how much you might make and how much you might lose. Most of us don't do this sort of metric exercise prior to shifting our money from one place to another. We look at all of the basics: return, tenure, return, cost, return, risk, return. And then we buy.

Understanding the risk in an emerging market mutual fund is much harder because of the reasons I have already discussed. But risk comes in numerous forms and the one most likely to derail you is diversity. You may, through your target date funds, your index funds, and even your bond funds, all of which may bill themselves as domestic, may have placed some of your money in markets your are currently looking at with envious eyes. Diversity in a portfolio simply suggests that of there is trouble in one place, not all of the investments you own will be impacted the same. Some will fair better than others.

The fifth issue is investor impatience. Most emerging markets are not near maturity and therefore have a period of time to traverse before they become more reliable. Political unrest needs to be quelled, businesses need to feel as though their investments are safe from political unrest, money needs to be available to be borrowed and infrastructures are solid enough to make it all possible. This is difficult feat in developed and relatively stable economies. Imagine a country on less solid footing, unable to embrace different political outcomes and survive them more or less intact. Which means, the investor who is willing to pay the higher-than-normal fees for such funds, need to wait a much longer time to get back what they have invested in portfolio risk and cost.

This is not to say you shouldn't have emerging market funds. Ten to even twenty percent of a portfolio would be acceptable in most instances. Just be prepared for cloudy days and they will come and you will want to sell. But the developed world needs emerging countries to buy their goods. In that sense, the investment becomes symbiotic and over the long term, you will probably be pleased. But be warned.

(One final note: the exchange traded fund - ETF - market for emerging market investments has grown substantially. In this author's opinion, the risk of selling too frequently and chasing minute returns, as ETF investors are more likely to do, poses just as much a risk as you would face if you simple held this investment for a longer period of time.)

More than Just Mutual Funds: A Peek Inside your 401(k)

2010-10-15T06:08:00.000-07:00

There is no such thing as a simple choice. We may be very familiar with the options available and we may know a large amount of details about those choices. But when faced with making the decision, we often freeze, unable to decide and even questioning the whole process.

Just get behind someone at a fast food drive-up window and wonder how long does it take to order from a menu that rarely changes. Your 401(k), the defined contribution plan that many of us have, puts us in the retirement planning drive-up lane and forces us to make a choice.

Few people ever decide to drive on through without making a selection. Once in the line, you are sandwiched in by the person in front of you, the car behind you and the prohibitive curb. This is your 401(k). This is your 401(k) menu. Order now, pick-up at the second window, pay at the first and be satisfied with your choice in large part because there is no going back, no changing your mind or adding something else on to the pick you have made (without exiting your vehicle, which defeats the whole purpose).

This is where almost every 401(k) plan in this great nation fails. Once you have been put in the drive-up lane, you are stuck. You are essentially given a select number of choices, many of which are easy to determine how much they cost in part because your plan is now loaded with index funds, which basically resembles your dollar menu. Cheap and (portfolio) filing without a lot of extras.

Then the seniors portion of the menu, also bland (and bond-like), suggests that you can get value from your invested money by making sure you get your dollar back - or at least in theory. The kids menu has gotten smaller over the years your plan has existed because there is fear that if this portion of the menu were too large, you might find the restaurant liable for (actively managed mutual funds) choices that were too expensive and fraught with risk. They could throw in a toy but you would want proof that you could purchase this item without ever being dissatisfied.

So they offer you menu items that you wouldn't expect. These are items that would be better suited at a sit-down establishment where the big spenders go - not because they want to spend more, they just want to think they are more sophisticated than the general population. This is the ETF (Echange Traded Funds) choice.

And then we have the value meals. This portion of the menu dominates the process and in effect, bogs most of the line down if there should be someone who is indecisive. These are your target date funds, a combination of mutual funds tucked under one banner which suggest that you can pick a year in which to retire and the item you choose will not only be worthwhile, but will also fulfill its promise.

Everyday, folks drive up to their 401(k) plan and are forced to make a choice. Everyday, your 401(k) plan is scrutinized by regulators. Everyday, 300,000 advisers go out to the field and, well for lack of a better word, advise. That's 300,000 different drive-up windows, sponsored by just as many employers for millions of employees. A daunting task indeed. Which is why you are dissatisfied with the choices: you think that there is a better drive-up window someplace else.

Of those 300,000 advisers, the vast majority of them, according to Fred Barstein, the president of 401k Exchange "half have one employer plan. Half of those have at least three plans. Fifteen thousand or so, or about 5%, have at least five plans. Then there's the 5,000 or so elite advisers, who have at least 10 plans, $30 million and at least three years experience." Mr. Barstein, who is also columnist for the Employee Benefits Adviser site, suggests that the fees that these advisers charge have dropped significantly in the past several years, which is good for the participants but makes it doubly difficult to make a living doing this sort of work.

Not only is the competition stiff, the drive towards least expensive and lowest risk has sliced the revenue stream in half. You might think this would be good for you, the 401(k) plan participant. Turns out, it hasn't been as good as you thought it was. In this particular scenario, these sorts of plans have become more generic, less customized and inelegant.

When an adviser approaches your employer, the sell goes something like this: You want almost zero liability, almost zero costs, and near zero effort on your part and I, the adviser, will do this by offering target date funds and perhaps a huge basket of index funds and, if we can figure out how to squeeze one in, an annuity. None of these offers your employees any guarantees, the adviser might suggest ,except for the annuity, which illustrates a distribution of retirement income and unfortunately comes with a cost (a trade-off of sorts).

Is it any wonder why you sit at the drive-up menu for longer than you should? All of the choices look the same. And then there is the problem of getting you to order the product best suited for you. Here is where they suggest a sort of buy one get one free (or the matching contribution). By the time you get to the drive-up window, you may been sitting in line, waiting your turn for almost a year. Then to get the other half of the buy one, get one free offer, you may have to wait an additional period of time (a vesting period that can be more time than you planned on staying with the company to get).

Then there is the super-fast lane where you are essentially put on a bus, driven through without access to the window at all. The driver, your employer in this example, orders what they believe is best suited for you - take it or leave it. In this situation, you will be dropped into a target date fund and told that you can opt out (go hungry) or stay in and believe that this menu choice is probably the best one for you because someone thought it might be. That someone is the adviser.

Now Mr. Barstein does suggest that at its rawest, it is about selling. Selling a plan involves training, partnering and a constant source of information. Much like fast food drive-up windows, who might consider your health as a passing interest in order to get you to come back, increase their bottom line with a salad and offset fears that their choices are not the best ones available (doing it yourself will always be more satisfying but more time consuming as well), your 401(k) plan is designed to fill you up.

The adviser and the plan sponsor hope you drive off happy and satisfied. As long as you drive off and don't sue them.

Keeping that Balance and Maintaining It: Asset Allocation

2010-10-04T06:56:00.000-07:00

Dan Solin is right when he suggests that no one ever brags about their ability to achieve optimum asset allocation. Its not all that sexy and quite frankly, lacks the sexiness that doing something extreme often nets you. Something like not using asset allocation.

Asset allocation is something of a mystery to most of us although no writer worth her/his mettle would bypass the opportunity to tell you it is one of the keys to investment success. You will hear those who use index funds as a primary driver in their portfolios selling the notion that once you embrace this passive sort of investment, asset allocation becomes second nature. It certainly becomes easier.

To allocate assets is to take and spread risk across many different stocks and bonds. The idea here is that no market performs in tandem. Some corners will remain sluggish while others shoot for the moon. Asset allocation keeps you in both but keeps you involved in a measured way.

Too much of any asset class usually means that asset is doing really well. This is where the tough part comes in. If that asset is doing so well, you probably should begin selling some of it in favor of the assets in your portfolio that aren't doing so well. This sounds sort of counterintuitive and I'll explain why it shouldn't. Even if afterwards, it still does.

Because we are talking mutual funds and not individual stocks, and we will for the sake of the argument, use index funds as an example. A large cap index fund may be in favor with investors because investors are looking favorably upon the companies in the index. But you also hold an index of small-cap companies that seem to be lagging behind - at least as a comparison. To continue to send money to the ever-rising fund, you should take some of the profit off the table and transfer it to your other allocations, balancing your investments at the point you began.

But, you stammer, that fund could go higher. Why sell a winner? Because that is what you do to make money: sell winners. But in order to keep your allocation in balance you shift those dollars to the other funds in your portfolio, buying shares in those funds when they are less expensive.

Should you consider using actively managed funds in this process? Depends on your age and whether you plan on focusing on the balance among the funds in your portfolio. If you have a fifteen year or longer time horizon until you estimate you will begin to tap your account for income, feel free to take your chances.

Index fund users will never stop stressing the importance of fees and the low cost index funds have. And this is important. But fans of the actively traded mutual fund are also focused on fees and equate performance against this measure. But the comparisons are difficult and calling this type of investing successful depends on numerous variables. (From which benchmark is being used to how many funds are spread across how many asset classes, the variables can astound and compound.)

The importance lies in keeping that balance and maintaining it. The only risk you can add to your portfolio is not adjusting your allocations at lest once a year. We are in for a volatile decade, as unemployment strings out, debt continues to be an issue and the tax debates continue and that is not without some pressures in the stock and bond markets. This balancing act wil take time and effort. But the person who bothers will end up with more years of positive returns than someone who fails at this decidedly unsexy task.

The Old Mutual Fund vs ETF Argument or An Investment Stranger than Truth

2010-09-29T13:21:00.000-07:00

Mark Twain once submitted an essay to a contest about the art of falsehood. In it, he suggested that only children and fools tell the truth, citing what he thought of as an old proverb. What really dismayed him wasn't the actual lie, he described that as: "as a Virtue, A Principle, is eternal; the Lie, as a recreation, a solace, a refuge in time of need, the fourth Grace, the tenth Muse, man's best and surest friend, is immortal, and cannot perish from the earth while this club remains" , it was instead the ability to deliver in a successful way. A noble art he called it. Which makes theETF lie all the more true.

What do we know about ETFs? We know they are low cost. But perhaps not as low cost as they might seem. For the investor moving millions of shares, or even thousands, the costs are just as low for them as it is for the investor owning a single share. They are basically index funds. But they are also stocks. And the lie that owning a single share is just as costly as owning a million or so is told so often, individual investors often become dismayed, even disillusioned by the security when they purchase or sell it.

ETFs are not meant to be a buy-and-hold investment. This is actually a truth designed to look like a lie. Folks who buy ETFs intend on selling them, sometimes at the close of the trading day only to buy them again at the beginning. You can do this when the quantities are huge. But when they are small, you are left with some tough decisions. Wait it out and hope that the big investors jump back in or sell on the movement? Either way, you have bought and are left holding.

ETFs have made the market more democratic and safer. On the other hand, ETFs are responsible for the flash crash where the Dow dropped a 1000 points and regained 650 points. Perhaps not directly, but indirect selling in those ETFs and of those ETFs created more volatility than was needed. According to Chuck Jaffe at Marketwatch: "Many ETF investors set stop-loss orders — pre-scheduling a sale to protect profits if the share price drops to some pre-determined level — but that didn’t minimize their pain in the flash crash, as the market busted many of those orders, flying past the limits because there were no buyers at those prices." The truth was that just because you have something to sell, there will be buyers. The lie: someone always wants what you have unless everyone is selling the same thing.

ETFs are not mutual funds. Except when they are. If it looks like a basket of stocks or bonds or whatever is popular and you can't afford to buy each and every company in the sector, you look to make a purchase as a group. That is a fund with a mutual benefit. The fund goes down and everyone loses except when the smart ones get out first. And that is the peril with a fund acting like a stock and trading openly throughout the day.
Some folks just know more than you do and benefit from that. No, they are necessarily seers or prognosticators or even forecasters. They are just intuitive and quick and you are at work and busy and about to lose more than you thought you could.

Markets are not scary, therefore ETFs aren't scary - its investors who are scary. Investors often don't have time to be scared before they are scarred by their own inaction. ETFs create volatility because that is how they are designed. Suppose you knew that something big was about to happen in technology or pharmaceuticals. You being a smart investor wouldn't look for an individual stock; you would buy a basket. And soon as the news panned out, or didn't, out you would go.

ETFs in your 401(k) are a good idea. Perhaps one of the single biggest lies being told by retirement planners. They tout the low-cost, the employee demand and anything else they think the poor guy or gal in HR or in the CFO's chair wants to hear. But ETFs in a 401(k) drips commissions and fees to the plan sponsor and gives the employee the illusion of doing something they really aren't doing.

The ETF lie is true. Odysseus told numerous fictions to a wide variety of people, each crafted to the circumstance of the one receiving the falsehood. The Greeks may have given the liar his due, even their admiration of a lie well-told. But when it comes to your portfolio, when it comes to your circumstance and your willingness to hear what you need to hear, the ETF is crafty fiction indeed. Good for some who understand it. But for those who think they do, it is simply a deception.

This article originally appeared at Target2025.com and was written by Paul Petillo

Which Mutual Fund is Better?

2010-09-09T05:53:00.000-07:00

The world of conservative investing that has developed over the last couple of years has done so with sound reasoning. People who buy fixed income believe that in doing so they are protecting their investments in the safety of debt. That debt, be it from Treasuries or corporate bond issues has seen prices rise while yields drop. yet they continue to put money in what many are now seeing as the next bubble. But many equity fund managers are now suggesting that this bull market in bonds is about to end as unemployment continues and economies around the world still struggle. Are equity funds worried about the investor or the fees they are (or are not) generating?

David Pauly, writing in Bloomberg pointed out that "These managers are concerned about their fees: On a dollar- weighted basis, stock funds on average collect 76 cents in fees for each $100 invested compared with 61 cents at bond funds." Even as money flowing into bond funds increases, PIMCO, the world's largest bond fund company predicts that this bull market in bonds is poised for collapse. When is subject to debate.

We have near zero interest rates, the housing market continues to see price stagnation and there doesn't seem to be any concerted effort by the government to get back into the stimulus game. Unfortunately, it is the stimulus provided by government that has allowed us to get this far, even if "this far" is still short of where we should be in this economic recovery.

Because investors still see the potential for yet another slide into recession, bond fund inflows have increased as a compared to their equity counterparts. While these investors are doing so because the believe that bonds still are far less risky than stocks, they may simply be kidding themselves. Risk, the much needed element in any portfolio seeking to grow, is not something bond investors necessarily believe they are taking when they channel their money into these investments.

That risk is the price. Bonds are priced based on the willingness of investor to pay for safety and the more they believe this, the higher the price goes. As the price goes up, the yield falls.

Should the economy double dip, this bet will be worth taking. But if investors (even if they are prompted by their money managers to get back into the stock market - as Mr. Pauly suggests because of better fees charged by the equity funds they represent) decide at some point that the economy is improving, the sell-off will leave a lot of late-to-the-game investors holding losses they didn't think possible.

Mark Trumball, writing in the CSMonitor outlines this risk: "It's hard to predict when a shift will occur, but at some point, many investment strategists warn, Treasury bonds will become the worst-performing bonds of all. That's precisely because these bonds are considered to be among the safest investor havens during hard times. If a crisis mind-set eases, Treasuries have run up so far in price that they have the furthest to fall." Should this shift occur suddenly, not only will individual investors be in trouble, but large pensions funds who have difficulty moving quickly, will also suffer.

Inflation also plays a role. Bond investors will demand some compensation for the increase in inflation, something that has been so far, benign. Robust recoveries usually indicate an increase in inflationary pressures and there is no indication that this recovery could be described that way. Bond gurus also point out that if the bond bubble should burst, should inflation suddenly spike, the retreat away from bonds will not mirror that sudden retreat investors in equities often exhibit.

Vanguard points out that the safety in bonds is likely to be less dramatic in large part because as bond prices drop, yield will increase. And this will keep many investors with a choice: keep the bonds they have flocked to or sell them for the rising opportunities in the equity markets. But Vanguard's prediction that investors will simply freeze may not take into account the nature of investor behavior. They are in bonds because they were frightened of losing their hard-earned money. But if they see a return to out-sized gains in the stock markets, they may just vote with their feet again.

Vanguard argues that in no matter what happens, bond investors will still do good. In a bad economic situation, the point to historic likelihoods by suggesting the investors who stayed in bonds saw a high relative return. In a good one, they point out the higher nominal returns will occur. They point out that the rise in interest rates will affect the short-term bond more than the long-term. Their analysts see a rise (over the next five years) in 2-year Treasuries from 0.81% to 5.28% (rates for longer termed bonds will rise less dramatically from 4.43% to 5.56% over the same five year period).

But this depends on numerous factors including a steady inflation rate, the continued purchase of US debt by foreign banks, predictable increases in the Feds fund rates, modest GDP increases and you. If you hold steady, these predictions will probably come to fruition. But if things improve in the equity markets and you panic, the bond bubble will burst, albeit slowly, in spite of Vanguard's argument that you will still do okay if you had done nothing.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com

Not Paying Attention to the Cost

2010-07-05T05:10:00.000-07:00

“To live is to choose,” writes Kofi Annan adding that “to choose well, you must know who you are and what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there”. No, Mr. Annan wasn’t trying to offer suggestions on how to run a 401(k) plan for his employees or even what to do when faced with a plan that suggests you can be somewhere it has no intentions of taking you to in retirement. Yet we repeat this thought when we approach our retirement options: choice is good, regardless.

We all understand the importance of preparing for retirement and using the tools at our disposal in our 401(k) is often placing at our efforts at risk in the markets. What we don’t understand is the cost of that risk. More here.

Mutual Funds and Performance Based Fees

2010-05-28T07:06:00.000-07:00

Investors talk a good story when it comes to fees. While much of the conversation is begun by those who advocate index funds or exchange traded funds (ETFs are index funds that trade like stocks), the question of fees, how they should be paid and even more importantly, how much is usually based on why they (actively managed mutual funds) charge the rate they do. If mutual fund fees are so important to the investor, why haven’t they pushed harder for performance based fees?

Often referred to as the fulcrum fee, this method of charging the investor based on how well the fund manager actually did has been attempted in the past (and is currently being adopted by the Janus fund family) but has not received much more than a luke warm embrace. Is it because we simply don’t invest the way the wealthy do?

Mutual Fund Fees, Performance and the Fulcrum

by Paul Petillo, Managing Editor of Target2025.com

Do You Know Where Your Muni Bond Fund is?

2010-05-19T07:10:00.000-07:00

The vast majority of us who own municipal bonds, do so inside of a mutual fund. But munis may be in a bot of trouble with more on the horizon.

We want to believe it simply isn’t so. Municipal bonds or munis, those hometown or home state, often tax exempt debt instruments which are favored among the retired, the soon-to-be retired or those looking for a conservative but well-paid return may be facing a little headwind. But truth be told, you should have noticed.

When you buy a municipal bond, you are essentially buying a project believed to be worthwhile for the city, county or state issuing the debt. They are rated in much the same way as a corporate bond is with a single exception worth noting. If a municipality issues a bond and has difficulty paying the coupon, they often simply raise the local tax rate to cover the shortfall. But like all sorts of funding, the increased tax revenue that would pay for the bond payment shortfall is also in short supply.

Mutual Fund Fees

2010-05-11T06:37:00.000-07:00

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when mutual funds were not highly regarded. They did provide the average investor with the opportunity to purchase their segment of the stock market with the guidance of a fund manager and comfort of knowing that others felt the same way you did. After all, they were giving this fund their money as well.

But not all investors were thrilled with the arrangement and in the day before the internet, the only way you could find out if your fund was charging too much for their services, was to dig. Not all of us were inclined to do so. We were average investors.

More...

Comparing Mutual Funds to ETFs

2010-04-30T17:30:00.000-07:00

If you wonder whether the comparisons most often made between ETFs (exchange traded funds) and mutual funds are done without bias, you would be wrong. To understand why these traded index funds continue sell their attributes based on cost alone is to miss the point. While they do have very low fees, as all passively traded funds should, the believers in this investment tool trumpet their attributes but do so not by comparing them to the benchmarks they mimic but to a completely different type of mutual fund, the actively traded variety.

The actively traded mutual fund can be costly. The reasons for these costs are often quite simple to grasp. Actively traded mutual funds incur additional costs due to trading more frequently, the research required to make those trades, the assumed risk involved and of course the increased management of those portfolios. Although it is common practice to use benchmarks as a way of determining performance of actively managed mutual funds, it is not often indicative of what the fund is attempting to accomplish and how many underlying securities are in the portfolio.

Actively traded mutual funds own only a portion of the benchmark (indexes such as the Russell 2000 or 3000, the S&P 500, or total market). More on this unfair comparison.

Make Your Retirement Work the Way You Want: Self-Directed IRAs

2010-04-23T10:37:00.000-07:00

Many Boomers may have rolled their 401(k) in an IRA (I hoping you didn't cash it out) and in doing so, was faced with which investments were best. Some of us already have IRAs but still crave a little more control and possibly, greater returns. There is a way to do all of these things.

Today we are going to tackle the self-directed IRA. We all know what an Individual Retirement Account or IRA is. Briefly, it is the retirement tool for those of us who may not have access to a 401(k) that defers taxes for retirement. The deferring part is not really as complicated as it seems. In a 401(k), you have your contribution taken out before you pay taxes; in an IRA, you pay with after-tax money and then take the deduction when you file, basically subtracting the taxes from your contribution to be paid later.

How is a regular IRA different than a self-directed IRA?

The differences are not as obvious as the title of these products sounds. An IRA is an investment chosen by you and you direct the funds to it for your retirement. It seems like this should be called self-directed but in reality, it is very different from what the IRS views as a self-directed IRA.

In a self-directed IRA, you become the manager of the whole process. Rather than simply sending money to a mutual, fund company, the most common sponsors of IRAs, you direct the underlying investments. In the previous example, the institution is the middleman. In a self-directed IRA, the institution, whomever or whatever one you chose, does what you tell them to do.

While it might seem complicated and finding good help at a reasonable cost is not that easy, the rules are relatively straightforward. Following to the letter is something you have assumed was done for you in the past; not it is up to you.

Find a Trustee for your Self-Directed IRA

A person looking to open a self-directed IRA is in the same position as someone who is opening a Solo 401(k), which we discussed a couple months ago in our retirement planning for small business owners. You need to find a company that will open the self-directed IRA and act as a Trustee, essentially doing whatever you tell them to do. Then you sign broker-to-broker papers and you are done.

Keep in mind, that if you have a Solo 401(k) for self-employed investors, this process was already completed. If you have what is known as Customized Business Pension, you are also ready to take the next step. Sometimes, a self-directed IRA is referred to as checkbook IRA and the rules may require you to open an LLC or limited liability company. Either of these plans removes the custodian and that makes the investment possibilities immediate and up-to-you.

This is relatively easy and worth the effort. But you do have to be careful. Be sure that whatever the self-directed IRA profits from is paid to the trust and not to you directly. This will be the same as a distribution before they are done without penalty. This means that any gains in the IRA will be tax-deferred. So what you are doing is making your money work harder for you now than it might have been in the past.

You can invest it virtually anywhere: a franchise, rental property, annuities, you name it. You are in charge. The only two things you cannot invest in are life insurance and collectibles.

The Rules

There are few rules to follow when choosing your investments. One, you can’t invest in yourself or the spouse of the IRA owner. For that matter, the Internal Revenue Code or IRC prohibits you from investing with any of your lineal descendants and ascendants. This also includes an entity with combined ownership greater than 50% by a disqualified person(s), a 10% owner, officer, director or highly compensated employee of such entity or a fiduciary of the IRA or person providing services to the IRA.

You can’t sell your assets to the IRA either. You can’t use it to loan money to your kids or pay yourself fees for the work you have done. And you can’t use it to buy the home you live in now.

Opportunities for the Post-Recession World

This types of retirement plans opens a whole slew of possibilities for someone who as an IRA or possibly has been rolled over into one because of a job loss. There are some hard fast rules, which you can check last week’s show link to hear about, but done right, this can create outsized gains your plan may not have created otherwise.

First off, I want to caution you. Not so much about following the rules, but understanding right away, that every investment involves risk and investing in real estate can involve quite a lot of it.

The money in this IRA can be used to buy anything from Single family and multi-unit homes, apartment buildings, co-ops, condominiums, commercial property or land, improved or unimproved, leveraged or not.

The goal here is to find income producing property and have it pay your IRA. Whether you buy the property outright or finance it, the IRA owns the asset, not you.

Can You Finance this sort of loan with your IRA?

Because the IRA owns the property and the property’s value is the collateral for the loan, the only thing you have to figure out is how to pay off the loan. If the property is producing income, it pays the IRA which in turn pays the mortgage holder. Sometimes you can use other assets in the IRA or permissible contributions can be made. This is what is known as a non-recourse loan because you cannot extend credit to your own IRA.

The whole transaction needs to flow through the IRA as if it were separate from you, which it sort of is.

The cost is broken down into two categories. Management fees that the custodian charges. Not all firms who manage retirement accounts can so your choices are limited. I’ve included a few links to begin your research but by no means are these companies recommended. This is relatively small, niche market with only about 2% of the almost $4 trillion invested in IRAs under management.

And the cost of property management, taxes, and repairs is another fee the IRA must pay. With any luck, the property will be able to cover these costs with the rental or lease payments.

Some might say “buyer beware”.

Whenever you have such a small marketplace, oversight is not always done the same way it is done among bigger segments of the investment world. I expect that this particular segment of the world will begin to grow rapidly as folks realize that their old job isn’t coming back, their unemployment insurance is about to run out and they haven’t borrowed from their IRA – so far.

Another reason you should be careful is more about what you know. Buying real estate with your retirement money is actually done best by folks who have some prior knowledge about what they are getting into. Perhaps they were involved in the business before. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done, but the more you bring to the game, the better your chances of winning.

You might also look into a franchise with this money. You can also buy debt. Your IRA can become a lender of sorts buying notes on cars, Treasury bills, even lending money to companies looking to raise capital. Always wanted to invest in a hedge fund, with a self-directed IRA, it can invest. Want to invest in precious metals, foreign stock or partnerships and/or joint ventures; your IRA can do this as well.

A couple of simple pieces of adviceObviously there is the risk factor, which makes this not the be-all-to-end-all for all investors. But if you know what you are investing in and the pitfalls of that investment, you can calculate the costs in advance, this can be like heaven-sent. If you are looking at real estate, the potential is there for people who have the money to pursue some amazing bargains.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com

Supreme Court Rules for the Mutual Fund Industry

2010-03-31T07:10:00.000-07:00

If you are not happy with the way your 401(k) plan adviser has invested your money, then, according to the recent Supreme Court ruling, you should invest somewhere else. In a decision that is clearly a victory for the mutual fund industry and a loss for investor trying to keep fees from overtaking their investment returns, this ruling turns the responsibility of who to invest with back to the individual.

Sound like a loss for the little guy? Read more here.

Stocks Spanked; Mutual Funds Helped

2010-03-26T09:04:00.000-07:00

It has been reviewed and reported over and over. Folks who thought they knew what they were doing in the stock market found out how wrong they could be about not only their investments but their ability to assume risks.

These folks were and many still are, advocates for investment choices. And many have postponed retirement, blaming not themselves and their unwavering belief that the markets would continue to rise but the markets themselves for not performing as expected.

For example, the CBS Marketwatch report suggests, without saying as much, that had you been in mutual funds and done nothing, you would be close to where you were at the end of 2007. But if you were in stocks you sold. And those losses will take a long time recovering.

Sticking with mutual funds that spread the risk over numerous sectors is still the best way to get where you are going. That and consistent, increasing contributions.

Do You Invest with Responsibility?

2010-03-12T09:22:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, on MomsMakingaMillion radio, I discussed the topic of socially responsible investing. I have written about this topic numerous times and will continue to do so as the effort to invest where the right thing is being done continues to expand. Once it was all about ethics and morality. Now it is including shareholder advocacy and community involvement.

Here is a transcript of the interview I had with Kat Bellucci.

Kat Bellucci: A lot of us have become very aware about what we eat, what we buy and what kind of a footprint we leave. And then, when we invest our money, we often don’t consider that the companies we are buying in our mutual funds might be the very businesses we would avoid in the marketplace.
Well ladies, its time to take a look at taking your investments down a path that suits your concerns about the world around and the world your children will inherit?

Paul Petillo: Most investors are narrowly focused. They want to make money. But some investors want to make money without destroying the environment, without violating their personal values and possibly even helping others in the process.

While these types of investments have been around for decades, the cost of doing this sort of investment was not always cheap. The sorts of investments first came across my radar when my daughter, a free spirit who was interested in investing asked me: “are there any mutual funds that are ethical?”

What she was really asking was whether the companies that the mutual funds invested in were screened for more than just performance. While we would like to believe that all mutual funds are ethical; what about the companies they invest in?

Kat: So what describes ethical?

Read the full interview here at Target2025.com

Look for Actively Managed Funds to Achieve Retirement Success

2010-03-06T23:54:00.000-08:00

We have eliminated risk in many of our 401(k) portfolios. We have taken a flight to safety away from the very investments that could have propelled us, at least in the early years of our participation in our defined contribution plans, to the successes we should have had. We turned our backs on the actively managed mutual fund and in doing so, put our retirement plan at risk.

A great number of investors reacted in a very predictable fashion as the Great Recession took hold. They sold their holdings on the way down, in large part because no one could predict how far down would actually be and stopped contributing to their 401(k) plans. Employers, as we have discussed here, suspended their matching contributions for several reasons (no need to spend money where it didn't need to be spent and there was no longer any reason to offer this as an incentive to keep or hire new employees).

Adding to the mad dash to protect dwindling balances, target date funds and bond funds swelled with new contributions. This was, in many instances, akin to stuffing money under the mattress. Not that some these funds did poorly or had mediocre performance, although many did, investors felt protected or at least safe from the chaos and volatility of the open markets. It was a flight to risk-free, or at least, invest-and-forget investments.

Once-Bitten

Historically, the bad news of a falling stock market lasts about six months. This quick, fall-off-a-cliff drop to the bottom is often followed by a market where investors find innumerable bargains. Over the last decade, unlike all of the previous data on the equities market, recent recoveries, this one included have come at record speed. Five years in-between market drops and recoveries is not the norm. But possibly, could be.

This may have something to do with a much larger segment of the investment market coming from 401(k) investments. Although these plans have been around for thirty years, they have not really caught on until recently and even that trend is not fully employed by those who have access to these types of plans. Pensions may have gone away but 401(k) plans have not fully replaced them with the working public.

That fact leaves many investors vulnerable to their emotions and to the forces that promote the marketplace. A recent study done by Hewitt Associates found that the vast majority, or what they termed typical, investor under the age of forty had moved some or all of their retirement funds into target date funds. Those over the age of forty found the move to bond funds more appealing. Both of these investments, albeit conservative in nature, were forgivable. They were doing what any "once bitten" investor would do.

Mutual Funds and Performance

2010-02-26T10:58:00.000-08:00

On Friday mornings at 8am PST, I appear on MomsMakingaMillion radio with Gina Robison-Billups and Kat Bellucci. We discuss topics that focus on how to make their listeners independently wealthy. The discussion has been focused on retirement investments and lately, on the mainstay of our 401(k) plans, the mutual fund.

Kat Bellucci: Last week we talked about taxes and the mutual funds inside our 401(k) plans. Now you want to peel another layer back on the mutual funds with a talk about performance.

Paul Petillo, Managing Editor of Target2025.com:

I don’t know about you, but I have been watching the Olympics with great interest and one thing you have to notice about the sports being played in Canada is how they are portrayed.  Three winners emerge from amongst the competitors and we give them medals.  But those that lost were the best in some other country – just not the best on this world stage.

And if you think about it, they all have plenty of reasons why they didn’t win.  Perhaps the winners had better coaching, better training facilities, better financing, you name it, they came to compete as the best among the rest of their countrymen and women but there was always someone better.  Someone who went faster, farther, didn’t fall.  It is the same with mutual funds.

Kat: How so?

Paul: Mutual funds as we have discussed are nothing more than big teams of investors who hire a money manager to lead them to victory.  He or she is the focal point.  The one we give credit to when things do go right, the one we blame when things go wrong , the one who never seems to be on that end-of-the-quarter podium.  Often, not even close.

We want to win.  The problem is, we want what someone else has, that moment when we can say we did better than anyone.  The spirit of competition, the grass is greener on the other side sort of thinking that gets us into trouble. So the first problem we have is with comparison.

Kat: Good point.  What do up suggest we compare them to?
Paul: There are numerous ways to compare mutual funds and none of them good. The rule of thumb seems relatively straightforward and you will hear this from just about everyone: look for long-term performance, the cost of the fund, and the tenure of the manager in charge.

Kat: And I’d be willing to bet that it is not that easy, is it?

Paul:  No Kat, it’s not.  There are basically two kinds of funds out there.  Passive funds (index funds, mutual funds that follow a published index or some other list) or actively managed funds (the fund manager buys and sells what she or he wants within the confines of the fund’s charter).  Two different types of funds employing two different techniques.
Which makes the subject of performance much more confusing when actively managed funds are compared to indexes. Passive measures are poor indicators of what an active manager holds. This is why, so often, index investors make the claim that not only do passively managed funds offer a cost advantage but because the strategy of buy-and-hold limits volatility, they also increase returns by limiting exposure to unnecessary risk. Your cost for less risk however can be higher than the low cost of these funds. Also consider that index funds do not hold all of the stocks in the indexes they mimic. And actively managed funds hold even less.
Kat:  So passively managed funds like indexes cost less but on the other hand, they limit risk.  And less risk means less reward.  So how do we judge actively managed funds if comparing them to an index is not such a great idea?

Paul: For quite sometime now, the mutual fund industry has warned investors that the past is no indication of the future. They call this disclosure.  And investors use it as one of the default guides when making the choice of which fund to buy.

Over the last decade we have had two huge bubbles and two market reactions to those events. Had you purchased a mutual fund, any fund actively managed or indexed as a bubble reached its peak, the previous five years performance would not have included how bad it did the last time the bubble burst. If the bad year happened six years ago, a five-year performance chart would not have included it. Just by removing the bad year from the five-year returns made many funds appear much better to investors and they flocked to own them again.
Those five years offer the investor an average return. And averages suggest some odd things. If you line-up of one hundred people, ninety-eight of whom are six feet tall, it would not change the average even if the person on one end was ten feet tall and the one on the other end was three feet in height.
Kat: So the past really isn’t an indication of future results?
Paul: These days, to get to the top of a bull market usually takes five years.  The bottom is usually hit in six months. This is a lot different than markets just a couple of decades ago. Bottoms were reached quickly while the top of the market was often a slow slog.
Kat: So we have the performance of actively managed mutual funds as compared by using index funds possessing some flaws. And past performance leaving us with no real picture of the future based on the past, how does one judge performance?

Paul: Without considering fees, look at the worst day the fund ever had and wonder, what if this was the day I began withdrawing money from it?

Kat: Can we talk more about this worst day performance measure next week?

An Attempt to Tally Mutual Fund Fees

2010-02-13T05:07:00.000-08:00

No one ever said it was going to be easy being an investor. Mutual Funds are no different than any other investment. They offer numerous layers, a multitude of nuances and of course, risk. And despite all of the information floating out in the public domain, the ability to tell one fund from the other is still difficult.

So the question is: Can you do the mathematical calculations required to find out how much your mutual fund is going to cost you? Chances are you might say yes, if you consider yourself a very savvy investor, able to filter all of the costs in the prospectus into a final number, understand the tax implications known and as yet unknown, and then be certain that you are right – or as close to right as humanly possible.

But chances are you can’t. Instead you fall squarely into the camp of investors who either have no clue or look at one guiding number and the vast majority of you are 401(k) or IRA investors as well. That number, widely advertised by the one group that lobbies in favor of mutual funds, Investment Company Institute or ICI comes in at an average of about 1.17% for all actively managed funds.

Most financial professionals, understanding that this is the average, suggest it as the top any client or interested investor should pay for the privilege of a little more risk than a simple index provides. Some also understand that this is more a moving target and unless they raise the cap to 1.5% as the max, they may exclude some of the better performing funds in the investment world, even at a slightly higher price.

Read the full article from Target2025.com on mutual fund math.

2010-01-09T16:19:00.000-08:00

If a picture or in this instance, a graph could speak volumes, this one would. In 2009, actively managed funds, despite lower inflows, outperformed their respective benchmarks handily.

In any given year, a handful of active mutual funds will do better than the benchmark index fund. And investors are usually warned, and I obligated to as well, that what is hot today or last quarter, even over the past year in all likelihood will not be so after you invest. This is why it is always recommended to look much further afield, at least five years, ten is even better see how well a fund has performed.

Should you switch your investment style in your retirement portfolio as a result? Read more here.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com.

Resolution Time: Fixing a Few Bad Investment Habits

2010-01-04T09:20:00.000-08:00

Most of us look at the turn of a calendar year with the hope that the investment mistakes we made in the previous year will not be made in the new one. This is noble and in many cases futile. These attempts are usually too difficult to handle, which is why, in many cases you haven't done anything before this point.

But with little effort, you can change how you invest. For the vast majority of us, investing requires far too much time. It requires continued education (which I fully recommend), frequent monitoring (which can involve little more than opening your statement just to make sure your investments are going where you intended) and a clear-cut understanding of where you are on the timeline (beginning to invest or at it for awhile).

Altering bad investment habits is not that difficult. Five Tips for 2010...

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com

A New Year with a New Outlook

2010-01-01T00:13:00.000-08:00

2010 will be the year of stabilization. A year where, if you have a job, you will probably still be working at the beginning of 2011 and if you are not, you may find employment; one where if you are prudent (and by that I mean not-so-conservative but cautious), you will find the equity markets still performing better (but not better than expected); one where we have learned lessons that should not be soon forgotten.

Read the full article from Paul Petillo, Managing Editor of Target 2025.com here.

Mutual Funds in the Next Year

2009-12-16T10:17:00.000-08:00

The difference between 2009 and 2010 will be dramatic. Investors, always looking for the next big move will unwind their positions in conservative funds - albeit late - and move into equity income funds that provide some stability (from large companies that are well-established) and income (through dividends).

The real winners for 2010 will be in dividends and the funds that invest in them. Often referred to as equity income investments, these funds will begin to shine as businesses begin to increase their profit sharing (which is what dividends are) even if they have not begun hiring.

More here.

Mutual Funds Explained: Topic of Fees

2009-12-09T05:27:00.000-08:00

Mutual fund investing should be a simple process. It should be straightforward and easy to understand. Unfortunately, once we get involved, we bring our own set of behaviors to the process.

In our first discussion about performance comparisons for mutual funds, we looked at the downside of simply comparing side-by-side an actively managed fund with one of the indexes that are published. These indexes span a wide variety of categories in order to help investors understand how the broader market has done in relation to the fund they own.

Trouble is, no fund, not even index funds are able to buy in total, all of the stocks in a particular index. Yet, index funds are designed to come as close to the index they mimic. Any wide discrepancies, either higher than the index or lower than the index should raise a warning sign to current and new investors. This could point to a style drift, a process whereby the fund manager looks to stocks outside the parameters of the index to beef up returns. because in the world of mutual funds, one-hundredth of a percentage point can often sway the investor's decision of which fund to choose.

Often, this focus on returns drives the investor to funds that are the wrong ones for a long-term approach. Even almost five years since the publication of the paper b the Wharton School :"Why Does the Law of One Price Fail? An Experiment on Index Mutual Funds," by Madrian, James J. Choi, professor of finance at Yale, and David Laibson, economics professor at Harvard, folks still do not adequately take these costs into account.

In their experiment, they used index funds as the sole investment. The S&P 500 index, which tracks the 500 largest companies trading on the US exchanges should all have identical returns over the same period. The only difference lies in the fees the fund charges the investor. These fees are often touted as the lowest available and with good reason. The investment itself is passive. Managers buy and hold any underlying stocks in the portfolio until the index itself is readjusted.

Their concern before the experiment was based in the question: why, if index funds outperform actively managed mutual funds most of the time when held over long periods of time, such as twenty years or more, would an investor pay higher fees when index funds charge so much less? They pointed out that when an investor considers fees to relative performance, say when an actively managed fund matches the returns of a passively managed index, the investor will not consider fees as an important factor in the process. If both of the funds in this paragraph earned the same 10% over that twnety years, the difference in real dollars would be over $11,000.

To conduct their experiment, the chose only four funds, all S&P 500 index fund. They all varied slightly in overall fees with the performance of these funds almost identical. They could invest all of the hypothetical $10,000 in one fund, or divide the investment among many funds. The reward for outperforming their cohorts was an actual cash prize: the profits generated by the best performance over the course of a year.

They broke the students in the experiment into three groups: one received a prospectus accompanied by a returns sheet, one a prospectus accompanied by a fee sheet, and the last group, the control group, received only a prospectus. In each case, the prospectus was the same as the one any investor might receive upon request.

The result of the experiment indicated that disclosure did have an effect on the students in all three groups. The group with the returns sheet did the worst. Those that received fee information did better. What was most curious about the results: the students with the fee sheets could clearly see that one fund among the four offered the lowest fees yet not one student put all of their money i that fund despite the relative identical natures of the overall investments.

By no means does this say that fees are or should be the only force in your decision to buy a certain fund. But they should enter into the discussion at a much higher level that that of overall performance.

Next up, the role of the manager.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com

A Performance Discussion on Mutual Funds

2009-12-07T09:09:00.000-08:00

The last lines of Matthew P. Fink's book, "The Rise of the Mutual Fund" suggest that although he is a "worrier; nonetheless, I am optimistic". This speaks volumes to the "extraordinary success of mutual funds". Mr. Fink believes that despite the speculation about the maturity of the industry, it is far from falling from its exalted position. This elevated status is due, he writes "to adherence to high standards of fiduciary behavior".

Yet the mutual fund industry continues to be attacked for any number of reasons. The largest component of your 401(k) plan, your IRAs and the driving force behind numerous college savings plans, these investments are often questioned on their transparency, why they charge what they charge and even more commonly, why, if you win one quarter, can you not win the game.

Comparing Mutual Funds
There are numerous ways to compare mutual funds and none of them good. The rule of thumb for a fund is relatively straightforward: look for long-term performance (I have suggested that you also look to how well the fund manager did in poor markets rather than how they did during the good times), the cost of the fund (fees and expenses do not often tell the whole story but offer a telling sign of how much the fund manager trades and why), and the tenure of the manager in charge (an ever shifting picture as fund managers come and go and new managers look to put their investment stamp on the portfolio).

The subject of performance is often more confusing when actively managed funds are compared to indexes. These passive measures are poor indicators of what an active manager holds. This is why, so often, index investors make the claim that not only do passively managed funds offer a cost advantage but because the strategy of buy-and-hold limits volatility, they increase returns by limiting exposure to unnecessary risk. Your cost for less risk however can be higher than the low cost of these funds. Also consider that index funds do not hold all of the stocks in the indexes they mimic. And actively managed funds hold even less.

Looking at Past Performance
Performance also comes to the forefront when we look backwards. For quite sometime now, the mutual fund industry has warned investors that the past is no indication of the future. While this has been disclaimed as a method of disclosure, it is still one of the default guides for new and even seasoned investors when making the choice for which fund to buy.

Over the last decade we have had two bubbles and two market reactions to those events. Had you purchased a mutual fund, any fund as a bubble reached its peak, the previous five years would not have reflected the previous bull market's demise. I clearly remember the sigh of relief as the year 2001 was dropped from the 5 year returns in 2007. No longer would the bad bets made during the internet bubble show up as a stain on the investor information sheets. Ironically, even as some funds dove into the depths, they took the whole market down with them. (As did happen recently in 2008.)

Just by removing the bad year from the five-year returns made many funds appear much better to investors and they flocked to own them again. Averages suggest some odd things. A line-up of one hundred persons, ninety-eight of whom are six feet tall would not change the average if the person on one end was ten feet tall and the one on the other end was three feet in height.

But stock markets rarely have a peak that moves quickly from the bottom to the top whereas the bottom is often reached in less than six months. The top of a bull market takes five years, at least as witnessed over the last decade, to attain. This is not the case for any period prior to this. Bottoms were reached quickly while the top of the market was often a slow slog.

So we have the performance of actively managed mutual funds as compared by using index funds possessing some flaws. And past performance leaving us with no real picture of the future based on the past, how does one judge performance? Without considering fees, the worst day of a fund. Based on the simple idea that, if mutual funds are the primary holding in a retirement account and at one point in time, you will be begin to drawdown that account, picking the worst day to do so gives you a valuable peek at a worst case scenario. That is probably a truer indication of performance that averaging it our over a period in time. You can read more about low-mark performance here.

Next, a discussion about fees.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com

Mutual Funds are Different than ETFs

2009-11-18T04:50:00.000-08:00

The argument is never clear. When we compare mutual funds to ETFs, we often miss the differences between the two in large part because we are discussing two different types of investments, how they should be used and what they are. Folks on the ETF side of the disagreement point out a variety of plus while conveniently leaving the minuses out of the conversation. People who argue for mutual funds are looking for something other than a simple index fund.

The Pluses of ETFs (with the minuses)
The tax benefits that are often touted by the ETF camp rely on the buy-and-hold strategy that index funds offer. It should be noted that when comparing these two investments, one should drop the vast majority of mutual funds from the argument and concentrate only on the index mutual fund.

With any investment, capital gains are a consideration. The only way these two can be compared on a tax basis is when there is a sale. While funds held outside of a 401(k) or other retirement account distribute capital gains on a regular basis, ETFs do so only when sold. An actively managed mutual fund (which is what numerous ETF supporters believe is a fair comparison) can generate a capital gains even if the fund losses money. Actively managed mutual funds shift the holdings in the fund during the course of the year and this does present the possibility that you will need to pay taxes on those transactions. But like index funds, ETFs only shift holdings when the index fund it tracks shifts holdings.

So in this argument, ETFs and index funds are similar in tax efficiency. But when ETFs are compared to actively managed funds, ETFs seem the better choice.

Are ETFs a more simple investment?
While you buy an ETF at a set price (which can also be done with index funds, the main difference is the when the price is fixed - in mutual funds it is at the four o'clock close; ETFs reprice throughout the day depending on how well the underlying portfolio has done) that price can gyrate wildly throughout the day. In fact, much of the last minute swings in the overall market are due to ETF positioning and may offer you a false picture of the underlying worth of the ETF.

Those for ETFs suggest that this one price, one trade principle makes these investments better. But the cost of that one trade can be much higher than the purchase of a mutual fund (actively managed or indexed) and that trade, which is whatever your brokerage account charges, is also a factor in the sale. If you add those two transaction to the cost and the fact that many mutual funds do not charge for the purchase of their shares, the argument about simplicity falls flat.

So in this argument, on the surface, ETFS seem less expensive but only as long as you buy and hold which is not what professionals do with this investment.

Perhaps ETFs are more cost-effective
Once again, ETFs cost you dollars to trade. While this is a fixed cost that can be calculated, mutual funds charge expenses against portfolio balances. This makes any mutual fund purchase, even index fund investments, subject to fee considerations. The lower the fee, the greater the cost-effectiveness. With ETFs, you do pay an underlying fee which when compared to index funds is often higher and you pay commissions on the purchase and sale.

One percent is one percent no matter who charges it but if you can buy one for nothing compared to the cost of a brokerage fee both in and out, the ETF argument runs into problems.

The ETF option
While there are numerous types of ETFs available there are also numerous types of mutual funds tracking essentially the same markets. Mutual funds offer sector investments just as ETFs do. Here ETFs are probably better. The simple reason is the ability to allow you to get in and out of a hot sector without any pain other than the cost of the trade. But for the vast majority of investors, their style is passive. They really want to do the research, make the decision and then let the money and the investment ride.

ETF investors crave action even if they do it under the guise of flexibility. They are essentially chasing the next hot corner of the market while mutual fund investors leave the pursuit up to the professional manager they hired.

So in this argument, ETFs play nicely to the investor who wants to move quickly in and out of a hot sector.

Are ETFs easier to transfer
Of course they are easier to transfer. Held in your brokerage account, the shares are yours to take wherever you want. Transferring assets in a mutual fund (index or actively managed) does require a bit of work and there may be a slight charge for the effort but this argument also falls flat. When moving a fund, those shares must be sold and there is a cost in doing so. But most mutual fund investors spend a great deal of time researching their investments (manager tenure, fees, performance and underlying holdings/investment style) and if they desire to move, it is because something has gone wrong with the fund. In this instance, moving a fund is worth the cost incurred. ETF investors move based on price value alone. And they move to another ETF.

So in this argument, the better research you do the more likely you are to buy an index fund and hold it or buy an actively managed fund and monitor it. Owning an ETF is always a temporary investment and the investor is always looking for another ETF to suit their needs.

Investing in Mutual Funds: The Mean Reversion

2009-11-11T00:01:00.000-08:00

I'll admit as should everyone who writes about investing, there is no silver bullet, no perfect scenario, no predictable table you can follow when it comes to investing. Some suggest that the only way to come close to a comfortable retirement is to invest in stocks. But they have a limited historic return, somewhere in the vicinity of about 6.3%.

Stock funds do worse according to available statistics. The comparisons here get a bit sketchy. In almost every instance, a stock fund, no matter what it invests in, how well it has done, is compared to the Wilshire 5000, an index that represents the whole of the stock market universe.

But in truth, it doesn't even come close. Any sort of index fund that attempts to mimic that index is unable to buy all of the stocks and some buy less than a fourth of what is available. The reason is easy to see and generally accepted: some stocks are simply to small to buy and any investment of any size by any index fund would drive the price of those stocks up. There simply aren't enough shares available (liquidity) to buy.

This comparison suggests that the real rate of return in stock funds is about 3.9% in part, as some suggest, because of fees. And that is if you are fortunate to have the iron-will to stay invested through thick and thin, ups and downs. Sadly, most of us don't.

Our Investment Expectations
We expect everything that is up to stay up and everything that is down to stay down. This leads us to believe that selling a stock fund as it begins to lose share value in favor of a stock fund that is on the top ten lists for the previous quarter or year. Oddly enough, and this is why economist refer to it as the mean reversion, selling on the way down eliminates the opportunity to buy additional shares and a reduced price because we do not expect the fund to recover.

The real trouble is buying a fund at the top with the expectations that there is still additional upside potential. the knee jerk reaction to such a dilemma is to simply buy an index fund and let it ride. The Bogleheads will love this idea. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this emphatic group, they swear by the index fund. It was not a some might think, created by John Bogle of Vanguard but when the age of computers advanced far enough, he became its leading disciple.

Mutual funds present an interesting opportunity even as they seem to offer you more volatility. Even index funds, left alone from the date of your initial purchase, will suffer fits and starts as it lumbers across a thirty or forty year investment career.

Some of us writing about finance will offer you the realistic possibility that a Treasury Inflation Protected Security (TIPS) could do as well as any investor who bought stocks or stock mutual funds. Fine if you are good with 2.6% over a working career.

Because folks usually purchase stocks and stock funds in the hope they will provide some additional growth and risk that will help fund their retirement, pursuing that path might leave you struggling.

The Best Investment Option
The best option remains the hardest one to execute. Ignore the markets in the short-term and invest across a wide variety of investments. begin with actively managed funds. As your wage increases, add more money in the form of index funds that drill into various sectors deeper than a total market index fund might. As you continue to age, add a bond fund or two, domestic and international.

The key is to find low fee funds as compared to their peer group - not to an index. Find a manager who has navigated rough water in the past and emerged with better than average returns. You will have to go back a few years for that. Keep in mind, you are not looking for an average that is comparable when the fund may have lower lows that the funds in its group and an occasional brush with the top ten performers.

In the case of mutual funds, average is good. It avoids the mean reversion problem that many investors have and keeps your risk level at a much higher rate than fixed income. According to Simon Johnson and James Kwak, writing in the Washington Post recently, the goal is to have enough money to buy an annuity upon retirement, in large part because the gamble of outliving your money is simply too great.