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.

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.

The Weight of Indexing

Even simple is no longer so. And when it comes to index funds, that often suggested answer for everything an investor should do but doesn't, the boringly mundane investment that tracks rather than participates, the it-beats-actively-managed-funds choice of the passively prone, there are now choices. There have been for years in the form of exchange traded funds (ETFs) sold as shares of stock on the open market. But this might be different in ways that deceive rather than simply suggest there are nuances.

Index funds rely on the ability to price securities efficiently. Unfortunately, the markets are not as efficient as they should be with investors often making decisions that make little sense when it comes to determining what a security is worth. And when those bad decisions are made, other investors follow. But that flaw can be overlooked in favor of the low fees (no trading means no costs unless the index changes), low turnover (no trading means the portfolio stays intact) and good diversification (spread out across a wide swath of the market).

Yet if it were only that simple. Those low fees can vary wildly over various index funds and those same index funds may appear to be the same. Buy an S&P 500 index fund you so often hear experts suggest and although they make no effort to hide the average-ness of this investment, in fact, heralding its mundaneness as the very reason you should buy it, that isn't enough.

Traditional index fund are market weighted. This simply means that these funds have holdings that are based on the amount of investor dollars each holds or the company's capitalization. The top 10 companies in an index fund often make up the lion's share of the invested index (20%). So if a market swing like the one that happened in 2008 occur, the whole index stumbles, brought down by the behemoths at the top. That can be problem and it can impact the investor's interpretation of average.

So enter the revamped index fund. The "alternate-index" fund hopes to realign the weighting in these funds to equal, offering the investor an equal share of every stock in the top 500. That means that the largest stock would only get 0.2% of the invested dollar while the stock on the cusp, the one that barely has a presence in the weighted index, would also have 0.2%.

These funds hope to keep the image of low cost and low turnover (considered a tax advantage) in place. By equally weighting the fund, the goal is to outperform the weighted index. There are other entrants to the index world, all hoping to take advantage of what is seen as flaws. That's right, in order to sell the idea that one ndex fund is different than the other, you must point out why.

The alternate index fund arena has spawned other types of funds that offer indexed stocks based on the dividends they pay or even the earnings they post, sometimes even as a combination. The chase to out-perform might seem like a worthwhile idea, but the reality is quite different. When you begin to slice these indexes in different fashions, you expose different opportunities for volatility. And keep in mind, this is the stock market we are talking about.

Unlike their weighted brethren, many of the alternative-index funds rebalance more often due to shifts in stock prices. They also benefit over traditional index funds when the marketplace favors the mid-sized and small-cap companies in the index. if the investor is seeing opportunity in smaller more nimble members of the index, the index does better. Quarterly rebalancing shifts the index back to its 0.2% of each strategy but in doing so, sells winners (losing the tax advantage somewhat and increasing turnover during incredibly volatile times).

Are these worth a look? Possibly if you believe the value will remain in the smaller and mid-sized members of the index. If you are anticipating a large-cap rally, the the traditional index fund will prevail. The question is: do downturns such as the most recent one favor one or the other? In terms of raw numbers, yes. When the markets stumble in tandem, the alternative-index funds tend to do worse, even with a mostly short-term record. But even though the fall is equally as difficult to stomach, it is the recovery that most investors focus on. And during a recovery, the alternative-index fund tends to do better.

Just when you thought the index fund was your friend, it turns out that it has a split personality. Does this mean you should avoid index funds? Not at all. In fact, if you do want to own them, I suggest (which is different than advise) you do so in a Roth IRA rather than in a 401(k) type of account. Their tax efficiency is not worth the trouble in a tax-deferred account as long as capital gains taxes remain low.

Using Mutual Funds in 2011 for Investment Success

Everyone wants investment success. And everyone has the tools at their disposal to do so. If that is the case, why aren't our retirement plans doing far better than they are?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next up, my predictions for 2011.

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

Without a Clue about Money, Retirement and Investing

By now, most of my regular readers know what I do not like in the world of financial products. The annuity galls me (a mix of insurance and mutual funds that doesn’t do either well), the ETF (which mimics the indexed mutual fund but allows you to trade it just like a stock and pay for the privilege of trading just like a stock) and any tool that gives you the impression that you can set it and forget it.  There are others, but at the top of that list is the target-date fund.

The products are all hyped and re-hyped by the those that sell them as the easiest way to wealth.  The belief that sales people from the world of finance care about your well-being or what is known as fiduciary responsibility, may be the biggest mistake the vast majority of us make.  And the folks who make these mistakes are often wary of every other type of sales approach in every other facit of their lives.

So why, when it comes to target date funds do they simply believe the following: pick a date in the future and our mutual fund manager will adjust and readjust the underlying holdings of the account to protect your hard earned money, so, that when you retire, you will have a conservative allocation of funds that will serve you well into the future?

Click here to read more about target date funds from Paul Petillo, managing editor Target2025.com

The Once-Bitten 401(k) Investor

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

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


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

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

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

Read more here.

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

Surprise! Green Goes Black: SRI funds beat the S&P 500

They have long been derided by mainstream investors.  And in many cases, with good reason.  Socially Responsible mutual funds were small (higher risk), cost more (generally at the top of the list for fees-charged) and unable to beat the usual benchmarks most funds are held against.  That is until this year.

As it turns out, investing in socially responsible funds would have done the investor a world of good while doing the world some good.  We all know now that actively managed mutual funds outperformed the S&P 500 index in 2009.  While critics suggest that this is cyclical - and they may be right on some counts - the fact that 65% of these SRI funds who focus on businesses doing the "right thing" not only for their shareholders but the world in which these shareholders live, took much of the investment world by surprise.  Read more to find out whether it is socially responsible to outperform.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com

Should You Shift Your Investment Style Now?

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

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

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

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com.