Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Retirement Planning: Pick up a Broom


Unlike cleaning up some of the small things that can have great effect, cleaning up a retirement plan is not so easy. And unlike the stat I mentioned on homeownership previously (how 80% of will be in the same house 10-years from now) we change jobs far more more frequently. And for the vast majority of us, this is why we sell our homes.

Looking back, you probably have had numerous jobs, some which you stayed at for more than five years. It usually takes a person that long to become dissatisfied enough to earnestly begin looking elsewhere. Add to that the current job market, which may have pushed you to stay longer than you would have liked. And when you did, you might have money left behind.

During that five years, you became vested in the 401(k) plan. This process of setting a timeline for when those company matches actually match is considered reasonable by law. You may have been enrolled through auto-enrollment and had contributions made on your behalf. Perhaps you made some yourself. That money should come with you. And often it doesn't.

Small companies are often as sloppy with their accounts as you are. If your account reached a certain balance, it might not send a red flag to the plan sponsor to cash you out. Cashing out, I should mention just because I brought it up, is not a good idea for even the smallest amount of money. Under 59 1/2 and you not only pay income tax but a 10% penalty - if you don't roll it into an IRA.

And this is why, even if they still have your money in their accounts, you should roll it over as well. IRAs have two distinct benefits for most retirement planners (not the professional kind, I'm referring to you), the first of which is much more favorable terms for distribution (eventually that 401(k) at retirement will do exactly the same thing: give you a lump sum). And secondly, in many instances, the fees are far less.

That doesn't mean all the fees. But the fees for the 401(k) plan itself which as it turns out, are the real culprits in the battle to have enough to retire. Many plans have shown major improvements in fund selection and investment options. Many more, particularly the plans at smaller companies, have a long way to go. Yet as the funds got cheaper, the administrative costs may have actually risen.

Yes there is an outcry about these costs and most people will tell you to pay attention and even question the plan about these costs. Few will get much in the way of relief though. It costs money to run these plans and unfortunately, the smaller plans have less participation and participation lowers fees. The more money under management, the lower the cost of administering the plan.

So recover those orphan plans and do it as soon as possible. Where you roll it to is not that difficult. Most plan sponsors will offer you options from the same fund family and will facilitate the process. Once you leave though, this door may be closed. You get the money but it would be up to you where to put it.

Wherever it goes, choose the lowest cost option that would still keep you invested, something like an index fund. You may already been re-employed and beginning to vest in another plan. And if that's the case, you will want to keep what fees you do have control over as low as possible.

The other quick fix to your retirement comes with a quick fix to your personal finances. Why do you suppose 28% of 401(k) plan participants have borrowed against their 401(k)s? Is it because they get a no credit check loan at very reasonable rates? Is it because you essentially pay yourself the interest? Is it because of you don't lose your job before you pay it off, it becomes a no-harm no-foul? While each of those answers does suggest that 401(k)s are good for quick emergency loans, they shouldn't be touched.

Do you suppose that of those 28% with outstanding loans, all of them had emergency accounts? Probably not and the 401(k), their precious future livelihood was their only source for cash in times of trouble. An emergency account is not that tough to build and worth the effort even if it does create some sacrifice.

Most financial sages suggest three to six months but suggest it be at your current spending. Done correctly, with everything pared back as far as possible, a single month's worth of emergency cash might actually be worth two additional weeks. So six months might actually get you by as long as nine.

Doing so requires that you figure how much needs to go out (absolutely needs to go out) each month to keep a roof over your head and food on the table. It requires a budget. But one quick glance is about all you need to see all of the additional holes that could be filling up your emergency account, the single most important stopgap measure you could have.

Doing these two things - and continuing to contribute to your plan on a regular basis - will give you a boost that was just waiting to happen.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Consider Your Personal Finance: A Clean-up Suggestion or Two


Sometimes, it's the little things that add up to the big things. or perhaps better put, what Henri Fredric Amiel suggests much more aptly: "What we call little things are merely the causes of greater things". So it goes with most of what we consider personal finance. It is mostly a collection of little things, some missteps, some untapped with potential, others forgotten. So in a season where most of us toy with the idea of cleaning out the garage, I thought we'd look at a few personal finance tips to clean up those accounts.
Who are you?
One of the first things every self-help book will ask you for is some sort of self-assessment. Which is fine but in almost every instance, you already know what is wrong. 

You want to know how to fix it with the least amount of effort and perhaps embarrassment. If you cringed when I made the off-handed remark about "cleaning the garage", you probably have pockets of money laying around you didn't know you had.

Take out your utility bill and read it. Why start there? Because if you're the type that simply pays every bill without so much as a question as to how much this really costs and how can I trim this, you know who you are. Money is somewhat an inconvenience.

And then there is the you who believes in this cycle: You made it, you spent it and you went back to make more. Granted some of you whipped out your credit card, and that's worse - and a much bigger problem than what we're discussing here, but the point is, do you like being the person who simply, blindly and willfully pays for what they don't need?

Do you pay your mortgage?
Of course you do. Most of us do. Mortgages are actually not what you think they are. They are the best forced savings plan ever and an opportunity too few of us take.

Yes, your home is like saving. For a couple of reasons not the least of which is that it isn't an investment, at least in the classical sense of liquidity. You put money towards the eventual ownership of the place an believe it or not, the vast majority of us never move. Statistics have shown that in ten years, 80% of you will be right where you are now.

But there is the question of what are you really saving in your home? Yes, you pay interest and yes, you get a tax deduction and sometimes, once upon a time, we saw the value of our homes increase with each remodel. Which made us feel good even if we didn't move. And that's all well and good. But in the mean time, you are paying a portion of that mortgage payment to debt service. A big portion with most of it piled into the first years of the loan.

To get the most bang for your buck, you need to put a little bit more into this plan called home. The numbers are relatively simple and I've discussed them before. But they bear repeating. Suppose you had a $200,000 mortgage with a 6% loan. Your payment would be about $1200. If you found an extra $100 each month and directed it toward the principal, not only would you trim about five years from a 30-year mortgage, but you'd save about $48,000 in interest over that time - most of it paid in those early years.

Yes the numbers get better with each extra payment you make to the principal, not tagged onto the house payment, but directed at the loan. Some banks will offer you bi-monthly payments attempting to do the same thing. Problem is that you will pay the interest off quicker but not eliminate quick enough to make the switch - which you are locked into - worth it. Trying to make two extra payments a year will turn a traditional 30-year loan into something lasting barely over 20-years. And save almost $80,000.

Next up,  we'll take a look at what you are missing in your retirement

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

The Good, the Bad, the Annuity


Nothing that is good for you can be considered bad and vice versa. Except perhaps when asking a five-year old about broccoli. But the vast majority of adults, fifty years hence wouldn't even consider an annuity for their retirement and if they did, would almost certainly regret the decision at some point soon after. How can annuity be both regrettable and not, good and sometimes bad, bad and almost the best option?

First, a disclaimer: I am not a big fan of annuities - too complicated and too costly and too much insurance. Secondly, as if that weren't enough of reason to dislike them, they are quickly becoming an idea with a certain allure, almost mystique. They have done little to reinvent what they are - aside from some product tweaks along the way, they are essentially exactly what they always were. So why the sudden interest? Okay, it's not really sudden. The thought that is currently being bandied around by many of my cohorts is worth considering. After I tell you what they are.

If I were to offer you a "guaranteed income for life" that grew at 4%, you'd think to yourself that this was too good to be true. If it were free of fees and locked in penalties and all sorts of hidden costs, it would be too good. But this is an insurance product. And I'd be willing to wager you have never met, over the course of your lifetime, an insurance product that is free of some small print just waiting to rear its ugly head the moment you need it. Then they tack an investment portfolio into the mix and you have a recipe for problems. Kinda sorta.

First off, you need to buy the product. When you buy it has more to do with it than the actual need or desire. Annuities come with salespeople in tow and when they begin talking, most of the information you might need to know later gets pushed to later. What stands out is the fixed number, the income for life. Secondly, you will not be the same person ten-years from now and this makes this sort of purchase subject to those shifts in not only who you are but where you are financially.

MetLife explains the difference between the two most common types: the fixed and the variable. A fixed annuity "earn[s] a guaranteed rate of interest for a specific time period, such as one, three, or five years. Once the time period is over, a new guaranteed interest rate is set for the next period. A fixed annuity guarantee is subject to the financial strength and claims-paying ability of the insurance company that issues the annuity."

In other words, you know exactly what it is your are getting into - if only it were that simple. The fixed rate often offered is just barely beating inflation and won't beat taxes. Yes it will be fixed but this also depends on your age and your sex. If you are a woman, you will receive less compared to a man because you will live longer - the insurance side of the deal in the equation.

If you meet a retiree who regrets their decision once they have bought and annuity, it will be because the stock market is doing well. Studies have shown that if the markets are good in the months preceding retirement, the retiree will more than likely opt for investing on their own; if they are bad, they buy an annuity.

When MetLife describes variable annuities, they roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders, knowing that even as the markets are doing better, you still want safety. They describe these products: "Variable annuities typically offer a range of funding options from which you may choose. These funding options may include portfolios comprised of stocks, bonds, and money market instruments. The account value of variable annuities can go up or down based on market fluctuations. Your purchase payments and earnings are not guaranteed; they depend on the performance of the underlying investment options."

But believe it or not, there is a place in your retirement plan where these products belong: inside your 401(k). When asked about them in 401(k) plans: "Eleanor Blaney, consumer advocate for the Certified Financial Planning Board, is blunt, "This is categorically a bad idea."" Of all people, women benefit the most from annuities in these plans. They don't discriminate based on sex. They give women the conservative approach many say they want - and the knowledge of knowing what they will have - and it gives them the opportunity to educate themselves about other potential investments available to them. Plus, it eliminates the choice at retirement that most people can't make. Stuffing them in every 401(k) can help men make the right choice for their wives - who will live longer and benefit from them.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

In Your Retirement Plan: Should ETFs Be Considered?


Mark Twain suggested: "The reason we hold truth in such respect is because we have so little opportunity to get familiar with it." This will be the selling point for exchange traded funds: you will hear that they are less expensive, that they are better than the mutual funds - many of them indexed, and that you should own them in your 401(k).

They will suggest you overlook the cost of trading them, the fact that they tempt you to trade them more frequently than ou would a mutual fund and in doing so, allow you to follow the herd on any given day, a behavioral no-no for every investor. So what exactly is the attraction that they want us to see? Are mutual funds better or worse than ETFs?
The answer depends on who you are. If the sort of investor who believes that they can make small moves to harness big gains, then you should probably avoid the lure of ETFs. Exchange traded funds are mutual funds that can be traded just like stocks. They tend to have lower fees than their comparable cohort the mutual fund but the commissions that brokers charge for these trades tend to erase the advertised returns you might get.

If you are the sort of investor who buys to hold, then the surprising choice would be ETFs. Yet you will need to harness the inner trader in you that wants to succumb to the temptation to trade. This sounds easy. But in truth, is no easy feat.

So let's run some numbers comparing a total stock market ETF sold byVanguard and a total stock market index sold by the same company. The ETF (trade as VTI) carries and expense of 0.07%. The mutual fund version of the same thing (bought as VTSMX) levies a 0.18% fee on investors. The former has no minimum investment,; the later wants $3,000 to begin. So we'll start there and propose a hopeful return over 10 years of 4%.

In the first calculated example, the investor made no additional contributions to the investment. Vanguard does suggest that they charge no brokerage fees but they do charge a $20 annual fee for the account. This might be much higher when accessing these funds through your 401(k) and there may be additional brokerage fees. So we'll assume a $10.00 brokerage fee - as I said, yours might be lower and in most cases, the brokerage charge is on both ends of the transaction.

Based on the above numbers, the ETF, once purchased and held begins to creep past, in terms of raw returns by the third year. By the 10th year, you will have saved about $19.41 in fees giving you a net gain for your ETF of $32.82.

But begin adding to the security on a regular basis (say $200 a month) and the differences are much more notable. To add to the ETF in equal proportions over the same 10 year period would cost you $1021 in commission costs and with this money not working for you, the sacrifice in what each would be worth at the end of the 10-year investment period used in our example in addition to the trading cost would leave you with over $1200 less in the ETF account.

Inside a 401(k), where regular contributions rule the way you invest, ETFs can give the average investor less of an opportunity than proponents suggest they will. In a taxable account, bought without commissions such as Vanguard offers and purchased in large lump sums, ETFs slightly trump their mutual fund siblings.

Will you take the time to learn the truth about yourself before making the decision on which investment is better? You are the debate.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

The Distorted Reality of Performance: Mutual Funds

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 last 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.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

A Long Journey to Even: Mutual Funds at the Halfway Point in 2011

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.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Investing: Can a man teach a woman how?

I'm sure Warren Buffet doesn't mind the title of LouAnn Lofton's new book "Warren Buffet Invests like a Girl". But does he really or is he just showing a sensitive side?

Here is an interview the author had recently with Reuters. And below that, I'll examine some of things Mr. Buffet has said and wonder if they could have been said by a woman. Two things you must know if you don't already: I think women make excellent investors and two, I haven't read Ms. Lofton's book.



Like all quotes, they can and will be taken out of context. And the standalone quotes are just that, standalone, without the surrounding text to bring them to life. Nonetheless, do these next five quotes attributed to Mr. Buffet as Ms Lofton suggests, reveal something about the man investing like a woman, or perhaps as she should?

"A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." Study after study has suggested that women value the opinions of others whereas men seldom do. Not to say men don't look to the successful or experienced for information to help them invest, but given the choice, men will continually say they arrived at a decision on their own, after much thought and consideration. In fact, men look at investing as the result of much "thought" even as they gained lots of opinions along the way.

A woman's ability to network, seek advice, even consult a mentor is at the heart of the every effort to get women to invest more. They value public opinion and make decisions based on what those opinions offer. Could Mr. Buffet simply be suggesting the circle of wise friends, a class of like-minded individuals or simply the educational sources women seek akin to putting too little thought into the process? Score One for Warren investing like a man.

"I always knew I was going to be rich. I don’t think I ever doubted it for a minute." Single-mindedness, bullheadedness, even the slight hint of braggadocio are more than evident in this statement. There are women who have all of these traits and are driving the statistics that suggest women are on the upswing as investors. But the problem remains and was pointed out recently by Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook when she offered this piece of advice to the graduates of Barnard College.

She suggested that women make small decisions along the way that eventually lead them” to a bigger decision, one that leads them to want more balance. Her message to this class of 2011 was “do not leave before you leave. Do not lean back; lean in. Put your foot on the gas pedal and keep it there until the day you have to make a decision, and then make a decision. That’s the only way,” she said, “you’ll even have a decision to make.” As long as women approach the world in this manner, the gap between who women investors are and what their male counterparts have become will persist. Score One for Warren investing like a man.

"I buy expensive suits. They just look cheap on me." Suits, like armor are all in the wearer's ability to pull the look off. Investing is like that as well. It's illusory and easily-lied about trait make it best suited, no pun intended, for men.

Women on the other hand like the research but not the sort of information that is clustered around numbers and charts. Instead, they want to invest and look good when they do. This keeps them from taking any investing (fashion) chance and as numerous studies have shown, means women take far fewer risks. Investments are needed and retirement is a must. But it will never be fashionable because no matter how hard a woman tries, the act feels cheap. Women need to get over that and too not over-think the process. There are some excellent ways to get to what needs to be done when it comes to investing and retirement planning and much of it comes from learning how to budget and creating a debt-less lifestyle. Score One for Warren investing like a man.

"I don’t look to jump over 7-foot bars: I look around for 1-foot bars that I can step over." Women have been stepping over 1-foot bars for quite sometime. And this slow and easy approach to investing is definitely a plus for their chances to be successful when they invest. But the investor we think about, the ones I have spoken to have all pointed to a single investor philosophy: sell before you get hurt.

While I am going to score this one for women, because I do advocate the slow and methodical approach to gaining wealth, there is still too little money being directed at these 1-foot step-overs. But that is a topic hinged on pay and until women reach income parity, they will not feel as well-invested as men. Score One for the women.

"Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can’t buy what is popular and do well." and "Our favorite holding period is forever". This emotional behavior, the herd mentality mentioned in the first quote and the patience to keep with something that has long gone out-of-fashion don't seem to be reflective of the women I have met. Granted, I usually tap the sources closest to me, professional women in my network and the research done academically to form some sort of a conclusion, albeit a moving one,. But I wouldn't be far off the mark to see women (and men) chasing the chance to follow the rest of the herd if the herd seems convinced. Remember, it takes one to turn the tide in a direction and in most cases, the rest will follow. What appears to be a sale or the in the case of men, the next new thing, is in fact a display of our susceptibility to what the crowd suggests we need.

Keep in mind, I'm extrapolating here when I use the activities of everyday life to suggest that this is how we invest. But taking the emotional animal out of the equation is difficult to do and behavioral economist know this as well. As to buy and hold and Ms Lofton's suggestion that his investment style is "girlish", I offer one word: redecorate. Score Tie

I do applaud Ms. Lofton's effort at addressing this topic. Women have a great deal of ground to cover and while doing so, men could benefit from what they are learning. Better 401(k) plans with index funds, higher IRA contribution limits and requiring annuities in every 401(k) would have a leveling effect for both sexes, but much more so for women.  It's just too bad, at this point so far along in the history of these markets, that the icon a woman wants you to look at is a man.