It’s very tempting to quickly peek at your investments to see if they’ve gone up or down in the past twenty-four hours. The same technology that makes our lives so much easier, computer software, can drive us insane. It takes almost no effort to log into my company’s 401(k) website. When I’m at home, Quicken is only one Quick Launch icon away. At any given time, morning or night, it can take me less than 30 seconds to determine whether my tune for the day is The Gold Diggers’ Song (We’re In the Money) or Stormy Weather.

This is not necessarily a good thing. While I can usually control myself, I’ve occasionally pulled the trigger and rebalanced my 401(k) asset allocation when I shouldn’t have. These days I pay less attention to detail but I haven’t solidified my asset allocation strategy.

Susan Byrne recently shared with Money Magazine the best investment advice she ever received. Susan, the founder, chairman and chief investment officer of Westwood Management, learned while she was managing other people’s money but doing a poor job with her own assets, to keep her hands off her 401(k) except for once a year.

It’s often best to keep your eyes and hands off. Stick to your asset allocation strategy and rebalance the portfolio annually, automatically if possible.

Perhaps this is true for more than just investments, but I’m often tempted to touch things I can see. I’ve stopped looking at my investments daily, but the next step is to determine an asset allocation and stick with it. Are you tempted to change your strategy, particularly when you see your balance declining from day to day?

The smartest advice I ever got, Money Magazine

About the author: The following is a guest article written by Kevin from No Debt Plan. He writes to help readers eliminate debt, learn how to budget and save, and move themselves towards financial freedom.

The first investment we made in one of our Roth IRAs was in a Vanguard Target Retirement fund. Generally target date retirement funds make good investments; if you are just starting to save for retirement it’s a great investment. Flexo recently shared his reservations about these investments, but today I’ll give you four reasons why we like them.

1. It’s an easy start.
2. Low investment needed to start.
3. You get instant diversification.
4. The fund automatically rebalances based on your age.

Let’s look at these individually.

An easy start. You need only one account (Roth IRA, Traditional IRA, taxable investment account, etc.). You invest in one fund. That’s pretty easy to get going and removes a bunch of hurdles.

Low investment needed to start. With any target retirement fund, the only start up cost you have is your minimum investment and then associated expense fees. We opened our Roth IRA with Vanguard because they are known for having low expense fees, and the minimum investments are only $3,000. Once you invest your first $3,000, you can add as little as $100 to your account after that. The kicker is you only need the one fund to get started, which leads us to…

Instant Diversification. The reason you only need one fund starting out, is a target retirement fund gives you a great deal of diversification right off the bat. Let’s take a look at Vanguard’s Target Retirement 2050 Fund (VFIFX) that we are currently invested in:

• 71.61% Vanguard Total Stock Market
• 10.09% Vanguard Total Bond Market
• 9.97% Vanguard European Stock Index
• 4.39% Vanguard Pacific Stock Index
• 3.62% Vanguard Emerging Markets Index
• 0.16% Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF

With one fund, you’re invested in 5 other major investments. Starting out you probably want a large amount of US and International stock exposure. Even if you just wanted these two things you would need two funds to get that diversification. Two funds means two minimum investments. Add additional funds and you add additional minimum investments. Not so with the target retirement fund. One minimum investment and you suddenly have instant diversification.

Automatic Rebalancing. Rebalancing is the act of sitting down once per year and adjusting your portfolio toward your target asset allocation. Let’s say you hold two funds because you want a 50% US stock exposure and 50% International stock exposure. During the last year, it is unlikely the funds have gained and lost exactly the same. So you end the year and US stocks have been up more than International stocks. Your current portfolio weight is 53% US and 47% International.

Doesn’t sound like a big deal, right? Just 3%. Well, over time that gap can get larger and larger until one day you find yourself with a 75/25 allocation—way out of whack.

With a target retirement fund, you don’t have to worry about rebalancing. If 100% of your portfolio was in the fund (not a recommendation, just an example), the fund will rebalance for you every year. As time marches on you will get closer and closer to the target date for the fund. As you get closer, the fund adjusts the portfolio for you to be more conservative.

Let’s compare two of Vanguard’s funds, the Target Retirement 2010 (VTENX) and Target Retirement 2050, to make the point clear. We expect the 2010 fund to have fewer stocks and more bonds/income generating investments than the 2050 portfolio listed above. The 2010 investments include:

• 44.08% Vanguard Total Stock Market Index
• 40.28% Vanguard Total Bond Market Index
• 6.18% Vanguard European Stock Index
• 4.43% Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities
• 2.69% Vanguard Pacific Stock Index
• 2.27% Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index
• 0.05% Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF

The 2010 fund is 55.27% stocks and 44.73% non-stock investments. The 2050 fund is 89.91% stocks and 10.09% bonds. An obviously difference. Over time, the 2050 fund will start to look more and more like the 2010 fund.

What are you waiting for? For all of you new investors out there, I honestly think a Vanguard Target Retirement Fund is one of the best initial investments you could make.

If you enjoyed this article, please visit No Debt Plan for more thoughts about saving money and avoiding debt at all costs. We would appreciate your comments and reactions, so if you would like to contribute to the discussion, add your comment below.

Consider a hypothetical popular financial adviser with $30 million in investable assets. Her (or his) primary clients may average $500,000 of liquid reserves ready to be directed in any manner as instructed. The typical advice these clients may receive likely involve investing mostly in equities through stock index funds. They have low expenses and are poised to provide decent returns with average risk. This advice may include special consideration of asset allocation, with a slide towards lower risk once in retirement to help provide more reliable income while maintaining capital.

This is sensible advice for the average client, though a financial adviser has the responsibility to tailor his advice to the client’s unique situation.

Let’s take a look inside the portfolio of a $30 million adviser. In fact, it just so happens we have some details on one particular famous financial adviser with television and radio shows, books, and a strong brand image, so let’s use her portfolio as reported in 2007.

Suze Orman has a liquid net worth of $25 million, which doesn’t include her $7 million in real estate. Only $1 million, or 4% of her liquid net worth, is in equities. Suze, whose advice is over-simplified and dumbed down to be understood by the most idiotic of callers and is usually accompanied by “motivational” words of empowerment bordering on mean, doesn’t follow her own advice. Far from it. As of 2007, Suze invests almost exclusively in municipal bonds, favoring “safe,” lower returns over the risk of the stock market. Out of her entire portfolio, Suze invests only what she can afford to lose in equities.

Does her asset allocation and refusal to follow her own rules mean she is a bad financial adviser? While there may be several reasons to seek personal advice elsewhere, her own portfolio isn’t one of these reasons. Her advice is not directed at people with $25 million to invest. While some of the general tenets of her advice, like pay off debt, spend less than you earn except in some circumstances, and avoid costly commissions, hold true universally, some of the specifics like asset allocation are directed toward a certain type of client.

Suze’s personal choice makes some sense. With $25 million, you can afford quite a bit of flexibility. With $24 million in bonds, you may be generating a yearly income of $720,000. (Add to that seminars, royalties, appearance fees, and endorsements, and you’re doing pretty well.) One might levy criticism that she is not securing the future for her heirs, but I’m not convinced of that argument. Personally, I have no idea if Suze has any heirs or future plans, but I would think that she would want to do something with her accumulation when she dies, either provide for a family or provide for a foundation. And I would also think that she wants to build as much as possible to do the most she can to help whatever cause she chooses. So in that sense, she may not be doing all she can to allow her funds to grow.

But her current wealth puts her in a position where she can still reach her goals, and give herself a better chance of doing so by backing off and choosing less risky investments for a major part of her portfolio. You and I, her average clients, can’t afford to forgo the potential for higher returns and must therefore take on higher risk.

The first fallacy is the idea that one piece of financial advice fits all people all the time. The other fallacy is that one cannot give advice without following that same advice. A stunt man can advise an actor not to jump out of a moving car. A parent can advise a child not to handle knives. A police officer can advise a civilian to put down the gun. Suze—or any other financial adviser—can advise her average clients with not much investable assets to invest as much as possible in equities for the greatest return, regardless of her own portfolio.

But when Suze yells at callers, placates the lowest common denominator, or is otherwise condescending, I change the channel. I tend to think her recommended allocation for the average caller is a little on the safe side. However, she’s free to do whatever she likes with her money, and it doesn’t affect the quality of her advice.

Information on Suze’s portfolio from Outing Sue Orman’s Investments, Chuck Jaffe, MarketWatch, March 8, 2007.

Money Magazine is recommending that those wishing to build their net worth over a long period of time simplify matters by putting all their eggs into seven baskets in the form of mutual funds.

1. Fidelity Spartan 500 Index (FSMKX). This fund’s total expense ratio is a minuscule 0.10%. It tracks the S&P 500 index.

2. Vanguard Total International Stock Index (VGTSX). “Nearly 60% of the world’s stock market value resides in companies outside our borders,” so you’ll want a piece of that action.

3. T. Rowe Price New Horizons (PRNHX). New Horizons is a small company stock fund. There are periods of time in which small company stocks have outperformed the market at large. This isn’t an index fund, though, so expect to pay an expense ratio of 0.79%, still low for managed funds.

4. Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX) . If you pay attention to value funds, your investments will return dividends. Literally. This fund currently offers a dividend yield of 2.94%.

5. Vanguard Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX). Got bonds? I don’t. But if your asset allocation calls for bonds, this fund beat the industry average by 14% over the past 10 years and its expense ratio is 0.20%.

6. Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund (VIPSX). First of all, official government inflation statistics underestimate the real increase in prices we see every year, partly because those who calculate the statistics assume Americans “trade down” to lower quality products when prices get high. Thus, inflation-protected securities are likely misguided. Money Magazine has nevertheless included them among the other suggestions.

7. Fidelity Cash Reserves (FDRXX). Cash reserves are good for when you spot a buying opportunity in the market and need flexibility and liquidity to jump. A money market fund like this is decent for at least part of your emergency fund. Personally, since I have some of my retirement accounts at Vanguard, I chose Money Magazine’s alternate, VMMXX. This Vanguard fund features an expense ratio of 0.24% compared to Fidelity’s 0.40%.

Probably more important than the specific funds is the overall asset allocation strategy. Investors spend a lot of time talking about investments, analyzing and choosing the best funds that will help us reach our goals, but asset allocation is just as important. If an investor ignores his allocations, her investments might not provide the results.

Photo credit: epicharmus
The Only 7 Investments You Need [Money Magazine]

Right now, I’m listening to the album, Raising Sand, by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss, released last year. Robert Plant will be 60 years old in August. I imagine he’s not thinking about retirement and we’ll continue to hear new music from him until he finally keels over. Unless you are one of the few who truly love the work they do, by age 55 chances are you’re planning the finer details of your retirement.

If you haven’t started saving money by 55, it’s going to be difficult to prepare for retirement by 65. According to Kiplinger’s calculations, in order to reach $1 million in ten years—and let’s not forget that a full retirement starting in 2018 is likely going to require much more than $1 million—it will take savings of almost $5,500 a month.

The more you have saved at 55, the easier it will be to reach millionaire status. A retirement nest egg of $50,000 reduces your monthly required savings to just under $5,000 for the next ten years. With $100,000 banked, you’ll need to devote only $4,253 each month, and with $200,000 you’ll need to put about $3,000 away.

The article has these suggestions for those 55 right now:

Take advantage of your peak earning years to top off your savings. Add an extra $5,000 in catch-up contributions to your 401(k) savings and an extra $1,000 to your IRA. As you near retirement, reallocate your portfolio to 70% stocks and 30% bonds. Estimate your retirement expenses and your projected income. If you’re coming up short, consider working a few more years.

I imagine most people aren’t going to want to hear that they’ll need to work longer in order to afford a comfortable retirement. If nothing else, young people should look at these figures and realize that it pays off to start thinking about retirement as soon as possible. It’s never too early.

The trick will always be balancing the needs and desires in the present with the potential needs and desires in the future. Saving for retirement implies that one will live long enough to reach a certain age—a goal that is not guaranteed. Saving as much as possible for retirement and delaying enjoyment of your life will be a waste if you die while doing so. Then again, if that happens, you won’t have the chance to dwell on your over-planning for long.

Realize that unless you plan on moving somewhere the cost of living is inexpensive, it’s going to take a heck of a lot of money to retire in a manner you’d like to be accustomed to. $1 million is a nice round number, but even the value of today’s $1 million wouldn’t get current retirees very far. Retire in the future, and $1 million is valued less, thanks to inflation. The younger you are, the higher you’ll need to set your goals.

Image credit: Pet Hawks
How to Make a Million at 55 [Kiplinger’s Personal Finance]

If you’re 45 years old right now and working, perhaps you’re starting to consider when and how you’d like to retire. Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine has some suggestions if retiring with $1 million is art of that game plan. Keep in mind the role inflation plays; $1 million is a good goal, but twenty years from now, it might enough to fund an entire retirement unless you find a way to reduce your expenses. You have to start somewhere, however.

With no savings at 45, you’ll need to accumulate $1,698 in your portfolio every month to meet this goal. If you have $50,000 set aside for retirement, your monthly contribution will be only $1,298. With $100,000, a 45 year old can likely start retirement with $1 million by saving $861 per month.

Obviously, reaching this goal is more difficult the later you start. If anything, this series should be a wake-up call to those with half-a-century until retirement; unfortunately, that’s not the target audience of this particular magazine.

Here are the strategies Kiplinger’s Personal Finance suggests for 35 year old, a category in which I will find myself in just a few short years:

• Contribute up to $15,500 in a 401(k). Thinking back to when I was 25, I was earning under $30,000 at a non-profit organization in New Jersey. Even if a 401(k) had been available, maximizing my contribution to the IRS limit was practically unthinkable. For a 45 year old in the middle of a career, this strategy may be more attainable. At the very least, if your company offers an employer matching contribution, take advantage of that.

  A full contribution to a 401(k) requires almost $1,300 per month.

• Adjust your asset allocation to 80% stocks, 20% bonds. For my preferences, I think even at age 45 there should be less emphasis on bonds. With a large amount of time before retirement, and particularly before the end of retirement, it would be worthwhile to keep a riskier portfolio weighted heavier in stocks. Not only do your funds have to last until retirement, they have to last through retirement. While I stock market downturn towards the end of your career could derail your investments, I probably wouldn’t do much to add bonds into a retirement portfolio until there are 10 years or less until retirement.
• Don’t put your kids’ college costs ahead of retirement. I’ve discovered that this is a mantra favored by most financial advisers. While you or your kids can take out loans to help fund their education, you can’t take out loans to fund your retirement. Does more need to be said? Maybe. If the choice is between helping a relative fund an education they wouldn’t be able to receive otherwise and my own personal retirement luxury, I may opt to assist with the education. This will always be a personal decision.

  Every time I’ve presented this Kiplinger series so far, with suggestions for 25 year olds and 35 year olds, commenters have pointed out the devastating effects inflation has on funds. I’ve covered this many times. In fact, forget about the official core inflation data presented by the government. The price of the things you’ll need to spend money on as you grow older, such as health care for instance, are going to increase at a much higher rate than 3%. Forget about calculations that tell you the future value of $1,000,000 based on 3% inflation. But don’t stop saving for retirement.

  No, if your time horizon for retirement is decades in the future like mine, $1 million will most likely not be enough to support my necessary expenses. Aim higher if you can, but you have to start somewhere.

  Image credit: ohsoabnormal
  How to Make a Million at 45

Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Magazine has some suggestions for saving a million dollars regardless of your age. The only catch is that it’s going to take several decades to get to that point. The passing time has a detrimental effect, however. Inflation will eat away at your purchasing power so $1,000,000 thirty years from now will not be as useful as $1,000,000 now. Regardless, taking these thoughts into account is better than doing nothing.

At Age 35

• Save 15% of your gross income. In addition to whatever short-term savings goals you might have, like a down payment on a house or preparing for children, 15% of your gross income should be saved for your long term retirement goal. Kiplinger’s calculates you’ll need $671 per month invested in the stock market if you’re starting from scratch at this age.
• Shift your assets to 90% stocks and 10% bonds. I think this recommendation could be misleading. I think your assets must be separated into buckets for specific goals, and then the asset allocation must be tied to the time horizon for those goals. For instance, at age 35, it will still be several decades before you can use your retirement funds. I would keep them in 100% stocks (or close to it). Savings intended for a house down payment should be in bonds, CDs, or cash, depending on how soon you’ll need the money. Overall, this could look very different than a 90/10 mix.
• Invest in a 529 college-savings plan. I’m not sure that this piece of advice can be as universal as the magazine suggests. Not everyone has children or other relatives who will be attending college. It’s a good idea for those who are already on a clear path of having a secure retirement and who have family members who can benefit from the tax-free distributions from a 529 plan.

  The monthly $671 you’ll need to devote to retirement assumes you have no savings. If you’ve managed to save $50,000 for retirement by age 35, then you’ll only need $304 each month, less than half. But if you can manage the higher amount, I would strive for that.

  Image credit: Moe_
  How to Make a Million at 35 [Kiplinger’s Personal Finance]

Employees who do not specifically choose to do anything with the retirement plans offered by their employer are being targeted by the Labor Department. Under new rules, individuals who do not make their own choice will be automatically placed into 401(k) plans in which their investments will be allocated in a mix of stocks and bonds, theoretically pertaining to their intended retirement horizon.

Not only are new employees targeted, but the Labor Department is also looking to automatically enroll employees who are simply not taking advantage of their companies’ retirement plans.

Many companies who auto-enroll their employees create a portfolio containing only money market funds or other investments designed for safe capital preservation rather that long-term growth.

There are some benefits to these new rules:

• There is a good chance that the average employee who doesn’t pay attention to their retirement plan will be better off at retirement.
• More investment in stocks will be good for everyone all ready invested in the stock market.
• Studies show (according to the New York Times) that the fewer choices left for the employee, the better the investment results.

• More investments mean those who manage those investments will still have jobs.

  I can think of some related down sides:

• More investments, especially in stocks, means more fees paid by investors, many of which may be hidden.
• Employees with no investment experience may be better off in plans that resemble traditional pensions.

• There is a distinct possibility of losing money if the stock market performs poorly in the next few decades.

  I’ve been staying away from the “lifecycle funds” or “target retirement funds” that seem to be the favored approach to automatic investments for a few reasons. I could pick a retirement date, but I’ll more than likely be incorrect. It’s hard to say whether I’ll be retiring early, on time, or late. My career path isn’t as clear as some other people’s. Also, it’s easier to hide layers of fees in these “funds of funds.” Each layer of fund adds diversification, but also adds more distance between the investor and the underlying companies.

  For now, I’m creating my own mix of mostly stock funds in my 401(k). I’ll write more about my personal asset allocation in the future.

  In Search of Savers: 401(k) Rules Are Changing [NY Times]