Mutual Funds: investing in fixed income

Mutual funds are numbered in the tens of thousands investing in every conceivable investment opportunity. They range from equity (stocks) to fixed income (bonds) to money markets, commodities and beyond. And they break down even further to investments focused on domestic offerings to international, emerging markets to total global coverage. You can read the full article here.

Tell Me a Lie: Retirement Planning and the High Net Worth Boomer

You would like to think that we are all truthful. But that may not be the case. Are Baby Boomers, more specifically those considered high net worth, telling a story about their retirement that isn't quite truthful?

Oscar Wilde probably said it best: "What we have to do, what at any rate it is our duty to do, is to revive the old art of Lying.” Nowhere is this resurgence in the falsehood more prevalent than when we tell a surveyor about our finances. When they look extremely bleak, we tell them they look even worse. When they look okay, we tell them they are really good. It is in our natures to tell lies considering we do it when we smile.

Evidently, a group of wealthy Baby Boomers told a survey group from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch that their retirement not only looked promising but was much better than their parent's retirement was. This is pretty lofty talk from a group that just a couple of years ago was not one bit happy with where their portfolios had gone in the wake of the financial meltdown. Now, $250,000 in investable asets is enough to warrant such retirement superlatives as "freedom" and "relaxation".

What changed? True the markets recovered over the ensuing couple of years. But I doubt that this had anything to do with it. many of these folks, like all age and wealth groups did, panicked at the sudden rebalancing of their portfolios by market forces. Unaccustomed to an all-inclusive debacle, many moved into much more conservative type investments and in the process, created their own mini-bubble in the bond market.

The rest of us moved into target date funds, a sketchy hybrid of funds designed to rebalance our aggressive natures for us. If you are older, the fund you plopped the remaining balance of your 401(k) is close to your age - so you too may have benefited from the updraft of conservatively invested enthusiasm. I wrote about this relationship with the bond market a couple of days ago suggesting that if their isn't a bubble in the bond market, it is because it won't pop when it reaches the end of its run; it'll hiss itself into normalcy.

It may be that this group has a better restructuring plan in place or they are simply lying to themselves - and the surveyors. Consider this: $250,000 in investable assets was consider the borderline between the rest of us schmucks and the high-net worth individual. I'm sure that this number is not even close to the actual investable assets these people had. It is our carrot.

One thing that stands out with the group surveyed is the change in attitude about what retirement is. They mostly believe working in retirement is a way to stay physically and mentally engaged. And for many, it is. For those with less than $250,000 in investable assets, it often isn't the case.

But these high-net worth folks worry about the same things you do: the cost of health care, the cost of children still living at home and that there portfolios, no matter how well managed, might not be enough. So they smile when they say they have it better than their parents and do so while lying about how much better.

And these high-net worth folks are not short on advice, even if they didn't take their own. Get a financial adviser as early as possible, they suggest and of course start early. Good pieces of hindsight advice that they were told as they began their working careers - and didn't follow.

About this advice to use financial advisers earlier. Then there was a survey conducted in 2006, when things were going great: housing values were appreciating, the markets were humming along, and early retirement was well within reach or it was assumed to be. And the results show a complete turnaround in thinking from then to now.

Back then - keep in mind these were the good times - another survey was published: In it, the following: "According to a new MyWay Investment Advisors (MWIA - an independent financial planning and investment advisory firm) survey, 98% of respondents would change the way they work with their advisor with 43% saying they wanted to change the amount they paid for the financial advice and services. This compares to only 13% of advisors who would look to improve how they currently operate, including pricing for clients.. The survey focused on how individuals would like to be treated by their financial advisor or investment professional and how they would like to pay for those services.

"The survey targeted the individuals with annual incomes greater than $75,000 and $150,000 to $600,000 in invested assets, including 401Ks. A duplicate survey was sent to financial planners, investment managers, insurance sales people and other financial industry professionals to compare responses." Why has this advice changed? Pricing and the way pricing is structured has evolved. Yet the higher the net worth, no matter what you pay, you pay more than you should.

So which is the truth? Are they happy now or were they happy then? The most telling piece of info coming from that survey: "When it comes to financial advice, however, financial advisors isn't where most of those surveyed go for information. Only 27% utilize financial advisors while over half (56%) get advice from a friend, publications or on their own.

"Of those that have a financial advisor, only 18% are happy with him or her. a whopping 56% say they are dissatisfied and 23% still have not made a decision."

This means one thing. We can no longer look to those we consider net-worth wealthy for guidance in how to become net-worth wealthy ourselves. Retirement has become a reality and an illusion. It is something we want and fear, something we strive for and are repelled by, something that is both possible and impossible. Yes it is a conundrum.

But it is your puzzle to figure out. And the simplest way to do that is figure out if you are willing to live on less than you have now. You don't need a financial adviser to tell you that you probably haven't invested enough. You know that you are probably wrangling more debt that you would like. You know that your contribution to your 401(k) is les than it should be. And you know that your goals concerning retirement are lofty than they are on paper.

Your balance sheet needs to be revisited and often. You need to double your 401(k) contribution now, no matter what age you are. There are numerous, almost painless ways of doing this including channeling the tax relief on your Social Security payroll tax (2% for the next two years) or simply increasing your contribution by 1% for every month of the upcoming year. You have the pieces to solve this puzzle. It all depends on how much you want to lie. The rich can. So can you.

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

How Free is Free when it comes to Retirement Planning Advice?

Fear has become a big business in the world of retirement planning. If you're a Baby Boomer, this fear is heading towards a feverish pitch as you begin to worry that you won't have enough saved money to retire. So offers like the one we are about to from a reputable investment company will give you pause to consider whether this is right for you. After all, these are reputable companies offering what appears to be free retirement planning advice. But how free is free when it comes to retirement advice?

Vanguard has begun to offer you the opportunity to speak with a Certified Financial Planner. Based on what they refer to as extensive research supporting the need for contacting a professional, their new service focuses on those who are 55 years old or older. This is a worrisome group of late and the focus of a great deal of media attention. Being close to retirement is troublesome enough; close to retirement and worried that you will live longer than the previous generation (even if those stats rely on some very broad statistical factors) is even worse.

Being 55 years-old - which qualifies you for Boomer status - is close to retirement. But 10 years - by old school standards of retirement at 65 - is still a good amount of time to fix some problems, but not all. Vanguard studies have uncovered research that this group may be too overexposed to bonds (about 11% are totally into this fixed income investment) or too over exposed to equities (14% are 100% invested in stocks via mutual funds). This is not the idea behind asset allocation, a concept that keeps your money in a wide variety of investments in order to avoid sudden downturns that take the whole of your portfolio down in one quick swipe. Too much in stocks, as many investors were in 2008, resulted in a devastating blow to those portfolios. Too much in fixed income, some worry, could bring a similar event to these investors in 2011.

Asset allocation spreads the risk among different mutual funds within the retirement plan. For some, this suggests that you simply buy a target date fund with your retirement age goal and sit back and ride it out. But in many instances, the simplicity of this sort of investment suggests that you are not as focused (read: worried) as Vanguard would like you to be.

Target date funds are not everything they are sold to be. They can be expensive. They can be at the mercy of the basket of funds that make of the fund itself. they have managers who have never done this sort of seasonal readjustment over ten, twenty or thirty years. And not all target date funds do the same thing at the same time.

Vanguard's answer: your own personal financial planner. And Vanguard's solution to get you to use one: tell you its free. Trouble is, nothing is free including the advice, the readjustment to your portfolio or the ability of Vanguard to right decades of wrongs. the questions that this new programs suggests they will answer for you include some of the nagging questions they assume you have been asking yourself:

• When can I afford to retire?
• Will I have enough saved by retirement?
• How much can I spend in retirement?
• Which investments are best for me?

These are all good questions but basically all the same. A CFP can, according to Vanguard divine an answer following an online questionnaire  that is followed by a 45minute phone call from a CFP where they will examine who and what you are. By the time you finish filling out the form, you will know exactly how much trouble you are in and why. You haven't contributed enough, you havent taken enough risk and you will have to work longer, hope for a robust marketplace and continued low fees and taxes and a hefty dose of good fortune along the way (i.e. good health).

The problem here is that for the vast majority of Vanguard clients, the advice is far from free. In fact, it can be quite expensive in a number of ways. Up front, the cost is free fro those who are considered Flagship or Voyager Select clients. To be considered on of these investors, Vanguard ranks your use of their services in the following way: "Membership is based on total household assets held at Vanguard, with a minimum $500,000 for Vanguard Voyager Select Services®, and $1 million for Vanguard Flagship Services®." And for that you get free advice.

The client with a membership in Vanguard Voyager Services® would need a minimum of $50,000 to qualify for the advice but the cost is $250. If you are like the vast majority of 401(k) investors, both with Vanguard and without, the service will cost you $1,000. And then, the decision is still up to you.

In a recent press release, they described the service and how it could be implimented: "After you review your plan's strategy with the planner, you can implement it on your own, ask us to help you get started, or simply use the plan as a second opinion for your current investment strategy. The ultimate direction—and the investment decisions—are completely up to you." There is no fee schedule should you decide to have them help you.

So here is some basic advice that seems based in common sense but still widely ignored: contribute more. You may have your asset allocation out of whack, you may be invested in target date funds, you may be paying too much in fees for what you have. But the bottom line is you still haven't made the toughest choice of all: allocating more of your paycheck to the problem.

Once you decide to sacrifice on the real life side of the equation, I firmly believe that you will take a more nuanced interest in the retirement side. No one makes sacrifices, particularly the monetary ones that your retirement plan demands without getting involved. The more money you invest; the more you will get involved in those investments.

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

A Change in Municipal Bond Ratings

This article previously appeared as a new feature at Target2025.com: Repercussion- A Retirement Review.

We are far from free of the clutches of the Great Recession.  The hold that the recent economic downturn has had on numerous types of investment portfolios will continue, even if, one the surface, it seems to abated somewhat in the equities markets.  The recent decision by Fitch, a bond ratings company, to revisit their grading strategies of municipal bonds may be simply cloaking the possible maturity wall facing bond investors.

Municipal bonds have historically been rated slightly lower when compared to corporate bond issues.  While the default rate for munis is much lower (0.7% compared to 2.1% default by corporate bonds) these debt securities used for public financing of roads, water, sewer and other public projects have often received a slightly lower rating.  This despite what appears to be a robust fiscal balance which includes increasing tax revenue, the ability to enforce revenue collection, control over expenses gives the municipality better flexibility, and the right of local communities  to tap reserves when needed.

The question is simple: will this change in ratings by Fitch (following a recent change initiated by Moodys), often moving munis up a grading notch provide better transparency or simply complicate the ability for buyers of these bonds to tell the difference?  This is of particular concern for those close to retirement looking to exert more stable control over their accumulated assets, fixing their projected returns and protecting capital.

It is our belief that munis will be approaching the same "bubble status" as mortgage backed securities attained just two years ago.  While Fitch claims to be looking at the long-term ("The aspiration is for Fitch’s ratings to demonstrate broadly comparable levels of default patterns over long periods") they may be looking at more historical data on the sector rather than the possibilities that in the near future, these securities might be facing the same trouble as the rest of the bond market might face in the coming years.

The "Maturity Wall", a point in the future when a great deal of corporate and Treasury bond issues mature and demand for debt might be overwhelmed by too many choices, often at higher prices and lower yields. Seeing that possibility will force investors to flock to munis if they feel as though they are immune.  They may well be in just as much trouble if the projects they are undertaking fall short of funding from the federal government.

More from Dan Seymour writing in BondBuyer

Retirement Planning: Fixed Income is Worrisome

If retirement is the goal, why would you handicap your chances of arriving when you imagined? Evidence of this shift has challenged those imaginations: Year-to-date  (third quarter 2009), the US household sector is shown to have purchased $529 billion of US treasuries. Granted, a great deal of this was due to money flowing into more conservative 401(k) investments via mutual funds. This pace, the purchase of approximately 45% of what the Treasury was selling, is four times that of the previous year.

This sort of immunization has not gone unnoticed. The problem with many of these commitments to a more conservative approach may be creating a bubble of their own.  These types of debt instruments are based on price and yield.  As one goes up, the other goes down.  The more someone is likely to pay for a bond, the lower the yield that is offered. 

If this sort of pace continues, and it looks as if it may as the temptation to be able to even consider retirement strengthens as the economy gradually improves.

But with more people flocking towards these fixed income investments, the price paid will begin to become unattractive, in large part because inflation remains benign.  That won’t last forever.  And when those conservative investors begin to realize that the yield is now negative to inflation, the selling will begin.

The real paradox will then kick in.  Now what? More

Retirement Planning: Close but Not Quite Close Enough

More folks are looking at the past year with notable regret. They are looking at the fate of their investment strategy and wishing they had listened to the few who were warning of the coming investment storm or, promising to change their thinking in favor of a once-bitten-twice-shy approach moving forward.

Those closer to retirement are concerned that their current portfolio balance may not be enough to get them to retirement or, they feel comfortable with the current balance and want to protect whats left just in case. To those who have suffered losses, moving the whole of what you previously owned can be fraught with perils.

Your old portfolio was probably more open to risk and was not forward looking as much as it was now looking. You would check your portfolio and congratulate yourself for your investment savvy, even if the gains were due to market forces you knew little about as long as they trickled into your portfolio. But now we realize that this was not a very prudent approach. And as human nature dictates, we recoil from doing the same harmful thing again. (Although that same human nature is also responsible for our short-term memory, a hindsight look at risk that argues it was probably worth it; I'll try again.)

Leaving well-enough alone, even if it is not as well as you would have liked it to be, is actually the most prudent method for recovering those losses. Selling at the bottom, especially in a mutual fund, does not allow you the time to recoup and, if you you still have a long-term approach, shuns the idea that any recovery will take place. (In a previous post, I suggested that this could take as little as four to six years.)

But what do you do to change the habit of chasing market fads? First, leave the funds you currently own right where they are. This doesn't mean that you should ignore them completely. What it does suggest is no longer funding them if you are within five years of retirement.

Instead, use new money to take a new approach. Fixed income has become much more attractive post-meltdown and for good reason. There are some guarantees that your money will still be there when you retire. Building on your stock allocation with bond funds is not only wise, it has been highly suggested by many planners. (What those planners will also suggest is moving from one fund to another. Not wise.)

Municipal bond funds have become increasingly attractive. The reason I suggest buying munis through a bond fund is the relative inability of the average investor at determining the risk in these bonds. (Yes, there is risk. Some municipalities may be facing dire straights as a result of the current economy and will offer too high a return to attract investors.) But right now, munis have a sizable spread over Treasury offerings of similar duration meaning that, to attract investors, the yield is higher over the same period of time.

To fully appreciate what a bond can do for your portfolio, but a total bond fund that encompasses a broad swath of fixed income debt. Because there is risk and fees, don't think you can simply buy in and forget about it.

Inflation could create problems in the future diminishing the expected returns and making your invested dollar worth less even as the face value of it remains the same. Interest rates could fall as well and investors who purchase bonds outside of a bond fund are more vulnerable - provided they are aware of these two key elements: If you hold a security until maturity, interest rate risk is not a factor. You’ll get back the entire principal upon maturity. But if you buy a bond that is considered a zero-coupon investment, you might face some interest rate concerns. Zero-coupon bonds make all their interest payments when the bond matures and because of that, they are the most vulnerable to interest rate swings.

Credit agencies rate bonds based on numerous factors. The higher the rating, the lesser the chance you will face a default risk. In other words, the higher the rating on the bond, the greater the likelihood you will get your principal back in tact. But on the flip side, the yield for this degree of safety is much lower than on a riskier bond.

Another good reason for using a bond fund is liquidity. Suppose you had one to sell and no one wanted it? And the last big risk factor is reinvestment. A bond you may be holding may be called back, a move that essentially allows the issuer to pay off the bond, return your principal and leave you looking for a similar bond with comparable yield.

Even those these risks persist, a bond fund helps alleviate them. I'm not so sure a Target-dated fund could do as well. In my mind, it would be like fighting a war on two fronts.