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
This is a guest article by Scott Treadwell, a long-time Consumerism Commentary reader and graduate student at the University of New Hampshire. Scott is studying finance and is conducting a study in behavioral finance. Please look for the survey below and help Scott conduct his study.
We are only a year removed from the greatest financial crisis that has been seen since the Great Depression, and many voices have vowed reform throughout the industry and have assured us that these events would never happen again. The world of academia, however, needs to catch up to reality. As our engine of intellectual innovation, they should be on the cutting edge, but the same flawed precepts that have been taught to our business and finance students over the past twenty years continue to be taught (although the smart instructors will deliver the material with a caveat).
The standard methodology has been the Efficient Market hypothesis. Since news and information is so prevalent, academics assume the massive army of savvy investors that are active in the financial markets will instantly price the stock at the appropriate value. Given that assumption, most variables in the financial markets including human error are factored out and statistics are easily utilized to measure risk.
However, factoring out the human element was a mistake. Humans are the actors who analyze stocks and choose to buy, sell, or hold, thus determining the stock price. This is true whether the investor is an individual trading in her own account or a manager of a large mutual fund or trust. Based on recent events, it became clear that these three key assumptions surrounding efficient markets were incorrect:
- Prices DO NOT reflect all available information. Not all information that is acted upon is available to the public. Frequent and chronic insider trading nullifies this effect. The problem is not just Wall Street; corporate executives and employees with a shareholder interest in their own company can, and do, cash out before unfavorable information becomes public, although few get caught.
- Public information IS NOT always interpreted correctly. For example, many companies’ exposure to Mortgage Backed Securities was clearly stated in their financials, however that was determined to not be a problem until default rates skyrocketed. Some in the financial community warned that the level of risk was being underestimated for years, but inertia trumped their few voices and valuations remained unchanged, and wrong.
- Human Beings are NOT rational actors. Many precepts of economics are based on the assumption that the average human will optimize his economic interest at any given time by making the optimal decision. If this were the case, impulse consumer buying, groupthink, and stock market booms and busts would never happen. This is like saying that when there is a fire in a crowded theater, people will calmly line up in the reverse order of their seating arrangement and orderly file out of the building because they know this behavior is in their best interest. The concept sounds ludicrous in that context, so why is it applied to financial markets? People panic due to fear, they over-extend themselves due to greed, and they make foolish decisions. In other words, they behave like humans, not robots.
Enter the field of behavioral economics and finance, one that has been on the fringes of academia for many years. Once viewed as a disparate group of contrarians who analyzed strange aberrations in the market, their work was discounted by mainstream. However, in light of recent events, academics and investors are paying new attention to this field and the body of research conducted over the past several decades.
So what is behavioral economics? Essentially, it is study of trading behavior that is not rational. The trading behavior of humans is analyzed to gain insight about financial markets and to account for deviation from normal behavior. Here are some examples of these unique trading patterns:
- emotional or vested attachment to stocks
- panic selling and impulse buying
- recency effect (you are more quick to sell a stock you just bought rather than one you have owned for awhile)
- disposition effect (people are more willing to sell stocks that increase in value and hold the stocks that decrease losers)
Now the next question is, why do you care? Accepting where we went wrong is the first step, however everyone from finance professors to Wall Street professionals need to understand how the forces in play that can shape the investment environment now and in the future. If non-rational human behavior is truly a large factor in the market, we need to be aware of it and consider it as we formulate our individual investment strategies.
In order to gain some more insight about individual behavior, I have a quick survey about your trading habits. It’s quick, easy, and totally anonymous. The goal is to gain as much input as possible. Five minutes of your time will yield great results which I will be happy to share with Consumerism Commentary readers once the data and reports are available.
Please complete this anonymous survey.
Editor’s note: I completed the survey in under two minutes. Please take a moment to complete the short questionnaire and help Scott, a graduate student, complete his research study and earn his Master’s degree. ~ Flexo
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?
Investors make better decisions when they separate emotions from the thought process, but it’s practically impossible to achieve the goal in perfection. Regardless of how hard one tries, emotions will always be present. The best an investor, or anyone who makes decisions about finances, can achieve is awareness of the ways psychology prevents optimal decision making.
I took Kiplinger’s new investor psychology quiz, which focuses on the ways investors’ brains work against us as we try to make solid investment decisions. I answered seven of the eight questions correctly. The quiz was a good reminder of the brain’s subtle ways of changing perception and understanding of a situation.
Here are some interesting aspects of psychology that hinder the best decision-making.
Recency effect
We tend to remember better events that happened most recently. While at the peak of a bubble, like we’ve seen in real estate and stocks, several years of increases hide the reality that bubbles burst when high prices are not supported with fundamental value. Likewise, if you are asked to review your experiences at a restaurant, even if you have visit that restaurant for decades, your most recent experience at that venue will have the most weight.
Here’s how this can damage you: In the midst of a recession, it seems like the stock market keeps getting lower. All we see is bad news like financial scandals and corruption. We forget that over the long term, the stock market has been the best way to grow your money. So we abandon the stock market and miss out on those gains when the economy rebounds.
Confirmation bias
There are certain things we want to believe. Several years ago, a friend told me that “real estate always goes up.” There’s the recency effect again. Also, to believe that any investment can’t fail, we must ignore information that does not fit in with that philosophy. We seek out the studies or opinions that match our own as we look for confirmation.
Here’s how this can damage you: If you are looking to buy a house, it would be smart to look for reasons that the purchase will be financially sound over the long term. You will cite the usual positive aspects of home purchasing, including the fact that it’s an asset likely to appreciate and you receive a small tax break on mortgage interest, but you’ll likely ignore the fact that you’re likely to move out of the house before buying gains its advantage over renting.
Losing money is painful
The brain reacts to losing money the same way it reacts to pain. As pain is something we are built to avoid, we also try to avoid any potential for losing money. On the surface, this sounds like it would be a good thing, producing decisions that are more likely to side with gaining rather than losing. What really happens is that if we are presented with a situation where we have an even chance of winning $150 or losing $100, we won’t take the chance.
Here’s how this can damage you: The fear of losing money and experiencing the associated pain will keep us from taking risks. For people invested in the stock market, the pain experienced when reading those quarterly statements with negative returns causes many to sell at the wrong moment. They’ll miss out on the market’s rebound. While the stock market has a great track record over long periods of time, if you’re only invested when the market is decreasing, your performance will never match the stock market.
Want more? Here’s a list of cognitive biases. Just about everything pertains to financial decisions in some manner.
Photo credit: Martin Pettitt
Mention to your friend that you suddenly received an unexpected $1,000 and I would be willing to bet he could come up with several suggestions for you. Most of those suggestions will likely involve handing the money over to him. My first suggestion is to refrain from telling your friend when you have $1,000 more than you know what to do with. Once that is achieved, it is best to have some ideas in mind just in case this situation presents itself.
Money Magazine has eleven suggestions for people who find they have $1,000 sitting around without a planned destiny.
- Top off your emergency fund. If you don’t have an emergency fund, $1,000 is a great starting point. It is quite easy to open a high-yield online savings account so you can keep your emergency fund close while letting it earn as much as possible.
- Spend five hours with a financial planner. Here Money Magazine assumes you will go to a financial planner who charges $200 per hour. Unless your finances are unusually complicated, skip this suggestion.
- Buy a top-notch stock fund. Here Money Magazine suggest putting your money in actively managed mutual funds. I suggest sticking with low-cost non-managed index mutual funds. Vanguard requires $3,000 to start investing, but the low-cost Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund (SWTSX) requires only a $100 minimum deposit.
- Upgrade your home appliances. I can see this being a legitimate option if you have problems with your appliances or need to switch to more energy-efficient models.
- Help on a large scale You can use the $1,000 for others’ good. Money Magazine suggestions buying sheep for farmers, offering small business loans through Kiva, and planting trees. Any charitable option is a good choice for an unexpected $1,000.
- Join a gym. If you know you can make your gym membership last, this could be a suggestion that saves money through your improved health. Otherwise, a gym membership could do nothing more than suck your money away.
- Beef up your IRA (if you’re 50 or older). Anyone age 50 or older with the appropriate level of income can invest an additional $1,000 above the standard maximum in a Traditional or Roth IRA.
- Pay down credit card debt. This should probably be towards the top of the list. Paying off expensive credit card debt saves you money in interest fees down the road. $1,000 can go a long way to getting out of debt.
- Update your estate documents. Money Magazine assumes you had your estate documents in order at one point. $1,000 should cover updates to your will, health-care proxy, and power of attorney.
- Start a young investor off right. Money Magazine suggests setting up a diversified portfolio for a child using a combination of Schwab’s low-minimum and low-cost index funds.
- Become a star at work. This is the most unlikely suggestion for spending your own $1,000. Money Magazine suggests taking a class, much like the improv class Smithee is taking, or any other course that might provide you with a competitive edge. Self-development is a good idea for your own money, but I wouldn’t spend $1,000 on an activity that does nothing more than increase my value to a corporation.
What would you do with an unexpected $1,000 right now?
What to do with $1,000 now, Money Magazine, October 12, 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
Earlier this year, I added my investment portfolio to the group of reports I publish on Consumerism Commentary on a regular basis. Every three months, I share my investment balances and performances. I include Quicken’s calculation of the year-to-date average annual rate of return for an idea of how each investment is performing this year.
I add to my investments periodically, depending on the investment type.
I invest in my 401(k) every two weeks when I receive a paycheck. Out of the investments listed below, I only add to four investments, in equal amount: Large Cap Value, International Equity, Large Cap Growth, and Commercial Real Estate. My employer matches up to 4% of my salary. Half of the match is invested in company stock and half is invested to match my allocation rules.
At the beginning of each month, I invest $1,000 in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) at Vanguard. This automatic investment usually receives the fund price on the last day of the month, but the funds are not deducted from my linked bank account until the first day of the following month.
Those are my only automatic investments. I also invest in an IRA once a year after completing my tax return.
Here are my investment account balances and performance numbers as of September 30. [click to continue…]
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
Email this article
Print this article
