Investing

Ben Stein Offers Four Lessons From the Recession

by Flexo on November 20, 2009

The United States must be approaching the end of the recession when economists begin offering their retrospectives. Even if the data are pointing to an end to the recession, in technical terms, the economy is a long way from recovery. Just look around at the people out of work. Even those who have maintained their jobs are finding it difficult to qualify for mortgages, keeping the real estate industry itching for more handouts like the extension to the home buyers’ tax credit.

And some economists are not convinced that the worst is over. We may be in the lull of a double-dip recession. Wherever the economy is, making predictions, like critiquing wine, is often no more accurate than randomness.

For Fortune Magazine, economist and actor Ben Stein contributed four of the lessons he learned during the recession.

Economic forecasting is still an extremely difficult gambit
Financial market forecasting is even more troublesome
The amount of lying and deception by the financial sector of this country has been breathtaking
The government has no special abilities to forecast or predict a darned thing

Ben Stein is usually a strong supporter of the financial industry, so it’s nice to see him pointing out some of the flaws inherent in the system. He goes on to reassure investors that staying invested in stocks and bonds while keeping enough liquidity is the best way to weather recessions in the long term. If the second dip rears its head, I would like to believe it will provide more opportunities for investing for growth over the coming decades.

Are you prepared for the next recession?

Photo credit: simonhn
4 lessons from the recession, Ben Stein, Fortune, November 19, 2009

{ 3 comments }

4 comments

2010 Roth Conversion: Good Idea?

by J.J. on November 17, 2009

Over the next couple of weeks, six finalists will be auditioning for the opening of “staff writer” at Consumerism Commentary. Each will be providing two guest articles to share with readers. After the six writers have shared their guest articles, readers will have an opportunity to provide feedback before we select the staff writer.

This article is presented by J.J., a financial adviser and published financial author.

Roth IRA conversion rules are changing next year. Even if you make more than $100,000, you’ll be allowed to convert Traditional IRA money into after-tax Roth money. You can even spread the tax payments out over a few years to make it easier if you convert during 2010.

Does it make sense to do so?

We’ve touched on the 2010 Roth conversion rules before. Let’s dig deeper into why it may or may not make sense to convert.

Why convert?

The 2010 conversion rules may help some taxpayers. In general, the opportunity is more attractive if:

You think tax rates are headed higher
You’ve been making nondeductible IRA contributions
You have a high net worth or you want to leave more for your heirs
You want to diversify the tax status of your money, just like you diversify your investments

Higher tax rates

With higher tax rates in the future, you can get your tax payment out of the way now — at a lower rate. What might make tax rates higher in your retirement years? You could have higher earnings, lawmakers could raise tax rates overall, or both.

With all the talk of government bailouts and broken entitlement systems (like Social Security and Medicare) it’s easy to see why rates could go up. The government needs money, but the solution may not be as simple as an income tax rate increase. There are other ways they can drum up cash:

Consumption or value added taxes (VAT)
Change how much you and your employer pay for Social Security
Change limits on retirement plan contributions
“Forget” to change certain limits with inflation (IRA and retirement plan contributions, compensation recognized for Social Security and retirement plan calculations, etc)
Change the laws and make Roth distributions taxable (or potentially taxable, like Social Security benefits)
Other strategies I’m not smart enough to understand

If you’re betting on higher tax rates, make sure you understand how the bet can go wrong.

Nondeductible contributions

If you’ve been making nondeductible contributions, you’ve practically made Roth contributions anyway. In fact, you probably couldn’t deduct the contributions because you make too much money. For you, the conversion option is worth investigating because it would allow you to get the earnings out tax-free – as opposed to just the contributions.

Ideally, you’ve been making nondeductible contributions in recent years, and you have little or no earnings in the account after the recent market decline (sometimes there’s a silver lining). If so, the tax hit may be minimal. However, you should look at all your IRA accounts in aggregate to figure out how much it’ll cost.

Diversify, diversify, diversify

Diversification is another decent reason to consider converting. Most people have all (or a majority) of their retirement savings in Traditional pre-tax accounts. They’ll have to pay income tax as they spend that money. Since we don’t know what tax rates will do, it may make sense to hedge your bets.

If you have a choice of funds (pre-tax and post-tax) in retirement, you can choose whether or not to increase your tax bill in a given year. Suppose you do some consulting work and earn money – it may make sense to take a Roth distribution that year. On the other hand, you can take Traditional distributions when you have little or no taxable income.

Estate planning

If you’re fortunate enough to have an estate planning problem — or just more money than you need — then Roth money can come in handy. By converting, you pay taxes today so your heirs can take tax-free distributions (unless they change the rules and start taxing Roth distributions, of course). You also remove money from your estate when you pay the tax bill.

You’re required to take distributions from Traditional IRAs during your lifetime, starting after you reach age 70.5. The government wants you to generate some tax liability on all that money you’ve been protecting, so they force you to dribble it out over your remaining years. Roth IRAs do not have this requirement, so you can leave more for your heirs.

Proceed with caution

If the idea attracts you, don;t rush into anything. In the coming months, we’ll learn more about the complexities of the 2010 conversion rules, and how the landscape may change (for example, will tax rates increase in 2011 and 2012 — making it less attractive to spread the payments out?). Unless tax rates in your retirement years increase substantially, you probably won’t hit a home run by converting. However, you might come out ahead or just enjoy having more flexibility in retirement.

Remember that if you earn over $100,000, you’re already in a fairly high tax bracket (at today’s rates at least). A conversion won’t be cheap, and you should pay the taxes due from savings available to you outside of your retirement accounts.

Give your eyes a break and listen: a recent Consumerism Commentary podcast has more insight into the 2010 conversion rules.

Will you take advantage of the Roth conversion rules next year? Why or why not?

{ 4 comments }

5 comments

The Trouble With Target Date Funds

by J.J. on November 10, 2009

This article is presented by J.J., a financial adviser and published financial author.

Target date funds are under scrutiny in Washington as lawmakers figure out if they work the way they’re supposed to.

Also known as lifecycle funds, these funds become less risky as time goes on. They’re popular in 401(k) plans and other retirement plans because they make diversification easy. You select one target date fund from your plan’s menu, and that fund spreads your money among numerous underlying funds.

Most people are told to select the fund that has a number closest to their retirement year. Plan to retire soon? You might choose the “2010 Target Date Fund.” If you’re 26 years old, you might select the “2050 Target Date Fund.”

These funds are also common in 529 college savings programs where they may be called “age based” funds. The concepts are the same, so we’ll talk in terms of retirement for now.

For some, especially those who will not put time and energy into studying their investments, target date funds are a fine choice. They offer diversification and continuous re-balancing. They may have exposure to things (alternative strategies, commodities, or sector funds) you can’t find on your plan’s menu or that you don’t have enough money to buy into.

However, they’re far from perfect. Let’s cover a few of the major problems and what you can do about them.

What’s the right mix?

There are dramatic differences in how they’re constructed. For example, consider two funds with a target year of 2010. This would be a fund designed for an older investor — planning to start spending the money within a year — who presumably does not want to take much risk.

Fund Company A’s 2010 fund might have 26% in stocks, but Fund Company B’s 2010 fund might have 72% in stocks. Indeed, that’s exactly what happens. Morningstar published a study showing equity exposure in 2010 funds, and results are all over the board. Do most 65-year-olds want 72% of their money in the stock markets?

Critics suggest fixing this problem by standardizing equity exposure for each target year, or at least requiring more understandable charts showing the fund’s risk level. Some investors may be comfortable with high risk portfolios, but they should at least know what they’re getting into.

Who’s running the money?

Target date funds are made up of 10 to 30 underlying funds. Are those funds any good?

Critics argue that some fund companies put poor funds into their target date funds to feed money into those poor funds. If that’s the case, the Large Cap Value portion of your target date fund may be run by an under-performing manager or team. Of course, this is less of a risk if the fund company only uses index (or passive) funds.

The best target date funds are probably multi-fund-family funds. For example, T. Rowe Price’s target date funds are composed entirely of T. Rowe Price mutual funds. John Hancock uses different money managers to subadvise pieces of their target date funds. This lets them use best-of-breed managers for some portions of the portfolio and index funds for other portions.

Note that I have nothing against (nor do I endorse) either of the above companies; this is just food for thought.

What about fees?

It’s always hard to tell how much you’re paying with a mutual fund. Target date funds are especially tricky because they’re made up of many underlying funds. Most companies disclose “overlay” fees, the fee for creating the mix of investments and managing it over time, in a prospectus, but few investors look under the hood.

Multi-fund-family funds may have arrangements that create potential conflicts of interest. Why is one manager used instead of another? Hopefully it’s because of superior management, but you know it’s not always that simple.

Finally, some say that target date funds have excessive equity exposure because equity funds generate more revenue. That may help explain why a 2010 fund has 72% in stocks.

What can you do?

Target date funds are designed to make life easy, so requiring you to do homework kind of defeats the purpose. However, they’re out there and they may be your only option (or the best option available to you). It pays to know how they work and how you can improve your chances:

Ask for help. Your 401(k) provider, financial advisor, or DIY investment company should be able to help you figure out what you’re investing in.
Look under the hood. Understand how much is in stocks, bonds, foreign assets, and other assets. Are you comfortable with that mix?
Make changes. If you don’t like what you see, use something else. If you’re limited to your employer’s retirement plan menu, consider using other investments. Talk to the HR department about your concerns.
Bend the rules. Target date funds are designed for you to put 100% of your money into a fund with a target date near your retirement date. You can always use a different year to increase or reduce risk, or you can put 80% into the target date fund and 20% into another fund.
Lean on regulators. Let them know what’s important to you or hope for the best.

Tell us about your experience with target date funds. Why do you use them or avoid them?

This is a guest article by J.J., one of six finalists interested in being Consumerism Commentary’s staff writer.

Photo credit: eyeliam

{ 5 comments }

8 comments

Should Target Date Funds Be Standardized?

by Flexo on November 4, 2009

The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) is setting up a new division to oversee new financial products, and this group is starting with target date funds. These are mutual funds usually taking the form of baskets of other mutual funds, designed to target a certain year of retirement. As the year approaches, the fund automatically changes asset allocation, usually between stocks and bonds, to become less risky.

I’ve pointed out some of my concerns with target date funds here before. Mainly, they could be too conservative and it’s easy to hide fees. Mary Schapiro, the head of the SEC, pointed to the exchanges from stocks to bonds. The cost of the sales and purchases is buried in the daily price of the target date fund, and there is currently no good way for customers to understand how much they are being charged for the re-balancing of the portfolio they could do on their own.

Schapiro also noted that there is no standard across companies. A target date fund designed for those who plan to retire in 2050 with one fund manager may have a different allocation between stocks and bonds than a 2050 target date fund with another fund manager.

Here is a comparison of the asset allocations for the funds designed for those retiring in 2050 from Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price.

	Vanguard	Fidelity	T. Rowe Price
Domestic Stocks	72.0%	69.5%	67.2%
Foreign Stocks	18.0%	20.0%	22.9%
Bonds	10.0%	10.4%	7.2%
Other	0.0%	0.1%	2.7%

The variation seems small but could have an significant effect on returns by retirement in 2050. If target retirement funds were standardized across companies, customers could accurately and easily compare returns between fund managers, understand the level of risk, and have the opportunity to make better investment decisions.

I am not convinced there is a need for this. Any fund’s composition is described in detail in the prospectus and in on a multitude of financial data websites like Yahoo Finance and Google Finance. What isn’t clear are the true fees. We do know that Vanguard’s fee for their 2050 fund is 0.19%, Fidelity’s is 0.82%, and T. Rowe Price’s is 0.79%, but that only tells part of the story. Whenever there is turnover — stocks are sold and other stocks, bonds, or other investments are purchases — fees are generated but wrapped tightly into the daily price of the fund so it is barely noticeable.

Asset re-allocation is the purpose of target date funds. Even if the underlying funds, those in the basket, are low-turnover index funds, the managers may be rearranging the index funds in the basket often. For those disciplined to handle the responsibility of occasional re-balancing themselves, and it’s not that difficult, I suggest avoiding target date funds.

Target date funds have lots of fans because it’s a form of automation, and automation in finances is usually a good thing. There is a danger of automation leading to complacency and a false sense of security. If you choose target date funds, familiarize yourself with the details and evaluate whether the pre-packaged re-allocation system is worth the thousands of dollars or more you could be losing in hidden fees and with a risk profile that doesn’t match your income needs and tolerance.

Would you like to see target date funds standardizes so a “2050 Fund” from one company matches a “2050 Fund” from another company? or should companies be left to determine what strategy is best for their customers?

Photo credit: viZZZual.com
‘Target Date’ Funds Get Senate Scrutiny, Daisy Maxey, Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2009
SEC to look at retirement investing risks, Marketplace, November 3, 2009

{ 8 comments }

9 comments

$50 Bonus for New Prosper Lenders

by Flexo on October 30, 2009

Peer-to-peer lending institution Prosper is offering a $50 bonus for new lenders who sign up for for the service and bid on two loans. Peer-to-peer lending is an interesting way for people to qualify for loans and to lend money to others. In an economy where savings account interest rates are under 3% or 2%, it’s tempting to put cash to better use through these direct loans. There is a possibility to earn much more than you would by putting cash in a savings account as long as loans are chosen carefully and you’re willing to accept risk.

There is something appealing about working outside the banking system. Peer-to-peer lending takes a specific power of the financial industry and puts in the hands of individuals.

I tried Prosper a few years ago. A friend of mine was looking to consolidate his credit card balances, but was looking for a better option that putting several thousand dollars onto one high-interest card. His plan was to apply for a loan on Prosper and use the funds to pay off his credit cards. He would then only need to worry about one payment each month with a lower total payment and a lower interest rate than what he would likely get with a credit card.

When he asked me about Propser, I offered to help him out by bidding to provide a portion of the funding for the loan. The idea of being an investor appealed to me, but unfortunately, the state of Texas prevented him from participating on Prosper at that time. It is my understanding that he would qualify only for an interest rate higher than allowed by the state.

My adventures with Prosper ended before they began. And I won’t be able to get started. As I began to research investing in a portfolio of loans at Prosper and bidding on individual loans, I was greeted by this message:

Unfortunately, at this time lenders in New Jersey are not able to bid or transfer money to Prosper. If you have portfolio plans, they have been paused. You may transfer money out of your Prosper account as they become available from loan payments.

If you reside in a state where Prosper is allowed to do business, consider signing up for an account and qualifying for the $50 bonus. What is your experience with Prosper?

{ 9 comments }

15 comments

How is Your 401(k) Retirement Account Performing?

by Flexo on October 7, 2009

I’ve been investing in a 401(k) retirement account since I joined the ranks of the corporate employed seven years ago. I started with a small percentage of my income, just enough to take advantage of the full company match. As my income increased, I diverted a larger percentage to the 401(k) with the hopes of retiring with a sizable nest egg decades later. I’m at the point now where I am contributing the full amount allowed by law.

This plan has worked well for a while. But like most people in similar situations, my 401(k) suffered damage over the past year or two. I figured that over the course of my career, I’d hit a recession at some point, and I suppose I am lucky that I am not forced to retire and begin drawing income right now, with the account value depleted.

Here is a graph that depicts my 401(k) account value since January 2004.

The cost basis, or the amount I invested, is represented by the line and the market value of the account is represented by the bars. Ignore the bump in the cost basis at the end of 2004. That should be a smooth curve. From 2005 through most of 2007, my account was performing quite well. Soon after that, the value fell below my cost basis. I was losing money on paper.

I continued to invest in my 401(k) every other week. Even with increased investments, my account has not caught up to my cost basis. The Employee Benefit Research Institute and the Investment Company Institute recently released a report that shows that many investors have been able to bring their 401(k) account balances above the level recorded at the beginning of 2008. I fall into this group, but at the beginning of 2008 my account value was higher than my cost basis. As of today, the total value of my 401(k) is below my cost basis.

In other words, if I had been putting the portion of my paycheck that I had been investing in my 401(k) into a bank account — or even kept cash under my mattress — I would have fared better. So far. The good news is that while I was investing throughout the past few years, I was, I hope, purchasing funds at relative bargain prices. If stock market performance returns to average over a long period of time, I should be in luck; those bargains will pay off.

What is the state of your 401(k)?

401(k) investors: Hit hard in ‘08, doing better now, Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com, October 6, 2009

{ 15 comments }

3 comments

Three Detailed Income Strategies for Retirement

by Flexo on September 26, 2009

Earlier this week, I reviewed common financial rules of thumb and offered a quick evaluation of how each rule would likely perform if accepted by an individual as the final word. One of these was the rule that convinces retirees they will be financially secure if they withdraw 4% of their nest egg for income one year and continue withdrawing the same amount adjusted for inflation each year.

Walter Updegrave has a much more detailed strategy for retirees who would like to make their money last from age 65 to 95 and beyond. He offers three alternatives that one can follow depending on their assets and their needs in retirement.

Three strategies for retirees

The first strategy is for retirees who have enough income from Social Security and pensions to cover basic expenses and who are confident in their ability to manage their portfolio.

For those in this situation the 4% withdrawal rule has a chance of succeeding — having your money last 30 years — 77% of the time. If you need more income than 4% would provide, you’re risking not having enough to last that long. For example, someone retiring today with a $1 million nest egg could withdraw $40,000 that first year. But if you’re 33 years old like me, you better plan on having much more than $1 million when you retire; thanks to inflation, an income of $40,000 thirty years from now will probably not be sufficient.

In order to maintain a 4% withdrawal rate, according to the article, is to maintain a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds. And by the way, a bad year in the stock market could wipe you out.

The second strategy offered by Walter Updegrave is for retirees who need more income for basic expenses than is provided by Social Security and pensions or who do not want to subject their portfolio to as much risk as required in the first strategy.

Take part of your nest egg and purchase a lifetime immediate annuity. This will provide you with steady paychecks for the rest of your life. According to the article, recent annuities pay out 8%, so you would only need $500,000 to make that $40,000 income mentioned earlier. These are most beneficial for people who live longer because money is pooled with other investors. Those who die earlier help fund the incomes of those who survive in retirement longer. The problem with annuities is your money is often locked inside them, and you can’t get it if you need it without paying steep penalties.

Walter Updegrave also offers a third strategy for retirees who need more income than Social Security and pensions provide but want access to more of their money. In addition to a portfolio of stocks and bonds, and an immediate lifetime annuity, add a variable annuity with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit to the mix.

Variable annuities are flexible but they are also expensive. Rather than 8% like the lifetime immediate annuity above, a 65 year old is likely to receive a 5% return. It is not rare for these accounts to charge a fee of 3% of your account balance each year. The author suggests that the optimal mix between these products and investments would be 25% of your portfolio in variable annuities, 25% in immediate annuities, and the remaining 50% in the diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds.

The problem with annuities

The sale of annuities, particularly variables annuities, is riddled with problems. These are very popular products for salespeople because they make a lot of money for the companies that sell them. It’s not rare for salespeople to misrepresent the product. Often customers are not given the full information regarding withdrawal penalties.

Here’s an example of an 86-year-old man who was pressured into buying a product he did not understand and would never benefit from. Dateline investigated annuities salespeople and found more deception in the industry. Ben Stein, however, credits variable annuities for making his parents rich, though it might be important to note that a Ben Stein’s long-time working partner is Phil DeMuth, a registered investment adviser (salesperson) who benefits financially when more people are convinced that annuities are good products.

How to make your money last, Walter Updegrave, Money Magazine, September 23, 2009

{ 3 comments }

8 comments

5 Reasons to Take Another Look at DRIPs

by Clare on September 2, 2009