The importance of a mutual fund portfolio

There are three things to consider when building a mutual fund portfolio. First, the most respected investors in history believe in what a mutual fund portfolio provides the small investor. Second, the most respected investors in history may never advocate for a mutual fund only portfolio. And lastly... You can read the full article here.

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.

Index funds: The mutual fund for most investors.

Recently, Etrade began advertising their mutual fund selection. They boasted an inventory of 8,000 mutual funds. Choosing among those available mutual funds can be a daunting task for even an experienced investor. You will need to know not only who you are but what you hope to achieve. You can read the full article here.

Mutual Fund Investing: Buying a mutual fund for the first time

For millions of investors, finding the right mutual fund is as easy as tapping your company's retirement plan. For millions of other potential investors, the mutual fund can provide a unique investment opportunity to build your own retirement plan. You can read the full article here.

The Plight of the Rational (Investor)

For those of you who may not know what rational choice theory is, the behavior of picking what is right for you when it comes to your retirement plan creates what many are seeing as the greatest hurdle. The leap between what is right and what is most cost-effective, is the result of how we compare one move to another. This thinking which gave rise to behavioral studies that made Daniel Kahneman famous has proven to be less reliable than economists previously thought.

Consider the annuity. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the concept of a steady stream of reliable income in retirement is what we all want and stive for. Knowing what we can expect gives us the much needed push to place a single monthly amount as the focal point in our plans for a post-work life. From a rational point of view, knowing what we can live on should drive us to pick this sort of product over any other method. But this is where rational choice theory fails.

If you knew you could determine the amount of income a certain investment could provide the logical (rational) choice would be to gravitate towards that choice. But those that do buy annuities are not governed by that thinking. And those who don't choose annuities for even a portion of their retirement investments seem to be ignoring what would be considered the most rational choice.

Perhaps we should first look back on the way we used to think. There was a time when pensions dominated the landscape. This sort of plan, referred to as the defined benefit plan had its drawbacks: it wasn't portable (you couldn't take it with you if you decided to change jobs) and it was at its most beneficial in the last years of employment (essentially a trade-off for years of sweat equity which became capital equity at retirement). The introduction of plans such as the 401(k) or defined contribution plan changed that thinking giving workers greater mobility (you could take your contributions and any matching employer contributions with you when left provided you worked for a certain amount of time called the vesting period) and of course the much advertised ability to self-direct your investments according to who you are.

These pre-401(k) days also saw a focus amongst workers of paying down mortgage debt in order to gain home equity. While this is still a good idea, it has fallen out of favor over the last three-to-four years for what could be called obvious reasons. Economic troubles aside, we view the pension as prohibitive and full ownership of our homes as all but unattainable.

Three decades later, after numerous bull markets and more bear markets than we feel should have occurred, we are back to thinking that this pre-retirement knowledge of how much we will actually have at when we stop working is not such a bad idea. And while paying down your mortgage hasn't gained the same attention, our thinking about retirement income is gradually shifting.

This shift is based on knowing how much you will actually receive rather than continually trying to calculate how much you can withdraw. But does the annuity provide the best offset between worrying about drawing down your retirement savings too fast and potentially outliving your "nest egg" or learning to live within the confines of a set amount paid to you year-over-year. Some of the decision is based on the ability to adjust spending while you are working, usually with the adoption of a "spend what you make" thinking which upon retirement become a "spend what you can [afford]". Neither work well.

While we are working, our spending increases to meet our income. That option disappears once you are retired replaced by spending that adjusts to you ability to optimize your portfolio to meet the needs you might have. You have no way of knowing what those needs are when you are working and only a slightly better idea what they are once you retire.

According to a recent paper titled "Annuitization Puzzles" Schlomo Bernartzi, Alessandro Previtero and Richard H. Thaler, the the conceptually difficult question of how much is available to spend is answered with the annuitization of retirement savings. In other words, annuities take the calculations out of the mix. Studies have revealed a certain type of withdraw (or drawdown mentality) that many attribute to two basic ideas: fear of health costs and the wish to bequest. These 401(k) retirees focus not so much on how much they will need to spend but how much they will have left to spend should something happen medically and if that doesn't occur, how much they will leave to their estate once they are gone.

The paper makes it clear that conservative withdrawal rates at retirement are usually attributed to wealthier retirees and quicker drawdown rates that are mostly done by poorer retirees are not the problem: it is the calculation of how much is enough. The bequest motive, the authors point out is confusing considering most of those who focus on leaving money behind live on less to leave more for children who quite possibly don't need it and in more instances than not, are more affluent than their parents. Poorer retirees entertain the bequest motive as well but usually find that they need the money in greater quantities sooner than they anticipated.

Can annuities fix this "hard" calculation? Possibly but there are some psychological hurdles. One is the focus on retirement at 65. The less educated you are, the more you focus on this age even if you know that by waiting you will gain even more spendable income in retirement. But also ironically, the better educated retiree is more focused on leaving something to their heirs and in doing so, underspend.

While the choice of annuitizing is difficult, in part because our biases are so strong, the benefits of knowing should come to the forefront. Researchers suggest that if annuities were part of your retirement options in a 401(k), we would use them. Research has also pointed to the pivot point, when we retire and how the markets are doing at that point, as playing a role in the decision. If markets are robust, we don't buy annuities. When we feel less confident in the markets, we tend to purchase annuities.

Annuities do have cost hurdles with a great many people suggesting the fees and expenses as a reason to look the other way. Perhaps the best way to beat these biases is to plan with an annuity long before you make the decision to retire and having the choice inside your retirement plan at an early age could make your future plan more clear. It is no easy choice and it certainly shouldn't be your only choice, but for a portion of your retirement savings it could be the single easiest idea to take the worry out of retirement. Knowing also by default, focuses your savings as well.

Learn more. You can even get approved for no credit loans.

A Boomer POV: Retirement

This is the point where two facts collide. You hear a lot of white noise about the so-called delayed retirement, the I'll-have-to-work-longer-because-my-plan-was-undone tales. Those headlines create anxiousness amongst even those who are prepared to retire as planned. This group second-guesses the plan they have in place even if it is viable. And then you also hear the unbelievable number of retiring Boomers that do take the leap, a number that doesn't seem real: 10,000 Boomers are reaching retirement age each day.

Who are these people? The unprepared and the prepared hurtling headlong into older adulthood. They both had expectations of retiring based on what can only be considered now as unrealistic math. They set goals and they weren't met as planned. A few got it right. Remember, there's no shame in that miscalculation. Folks have been doing it for decades. But your plan is all you really care about and if it hasn't met your expectations, which in many instances were a bit lofty, you resign to work longer. This is where the facts collide.

You know all too well that simply working longer will add to the amount of retirement income you will have but only if you significantly increase your contributions. Few resign themselves to do both.

But the other half of the equation, the Boomers who do retire, are often caught in the same anxiety ridden place. They question whether they made the right choice and more importantly, whether the money they have amassed will serve their purpose, remains hanging over every plan as an unknown.

That purpose is often clouded with not only the unpredictable cost of longevity but whether they might have enough to take care of their heirs - a serious consideration among a wide swath of retired adults and those about to retire. This last consideration is entertained by women more so than men, statistics have uncovered, which is often surprising. Why? This same group of women approaching retirement has often saved less, another unfortunate statistic concerning women and retirement.

Those that do retire should consider where they retire. And while there are many suggestions as to what to do and how to go about it, but a quick survey of your current surroundings will offer a great many answers to your dilemma.

For instance, seniors or those about to become seniors often fail to inventory the services they may need. Once retired, your daily life will require things you had previously not considered. More than just the availability of medical services, more than the infrastructure of city services such as public transportation and well-lit and well-patrolled neighborhoods, your current location needs to stimulate you or at least have accessible stimulation to keep you mentally sharp and involved. This is not how many American cities were designed. Far too many cities and their suburbs require a car. And while this may be seen by many older Americans as a freedom, not being able to drive can imprison some seniors if they find where they live too far away from these activities. Only vast sums of retirement income can change that one item and few seniors, who essentially are on a fixed income, want to reach for their wallet or purse to pay to go shopping.

To pre-Boomers or those who are still working, where you live is not often what you can afford. If you live in the city, chances are you rent. If you live in the suburbs, chances are you have a mortgage. If you have a mortgage, chances are you can't afford it. That's a lot of "ifs" but they are an approaching nightmare for those about to retire.

While many of believe that the cities we live in should adjust to us and our current and future retirement needs, it probably won't happen soon. So retirees look to communities that cater to their needs. This ghetto-izing of seniors, much like Florida and Arizona is not only unappealing to many Boomers, it is not as healthy as it first appears. Sure, these senior-only communities do provide like-minded companionship, concentrated services and accommodations that cater to gradual aging, but they are often culturally void of the stimulation that all walks of life can provide. Being isolated is not the answer.

So what is? Cities are struggling with their finances and as a result are cutting back on services that once were taken for granted. We might be living longer but in far too many instances, your health may compromise that statistic or impact the quality of that longer life. And the cost of where you live - assuming your mortgage is paid off before you retire - is not getting cheaper. Add inflation into the mix and you have eliminated all but the most obvious choice: you have fewer options.

Of course, you can stay put in a house that might be too big and too costly to maintain. This will gradually eat away at your fixed income and reduce your opportunities to engage with the outside world. Now one plans on spending their day at McDonalds sipping bad coffee with fellow seniors, no matter how well-lit, no matter how inexpensive the house brew and no matter if the loitering rules don't apply. But take away any portion of that spendable income and you limit the choices.

Where is the right place? While there is no firm answer, you do have options. For instance, if family is important to you, be sure your family shares this thinking as well. The dynamic of marriage - and I am speaking of your children's marriage - can create some confusion. Deciding that you can rely on your children and their spouses for the help you might need is something you need to discuss well in advance of retiring.

At some point, one of your kids or their spouses may find you in their care. Perhaps not in the day-to-day sense or even the long-term care situation, but in the need to check-in, help with errands or assume a financial role. This needs to be discussed in advance, a discussion that should be instigated by you. This is no easy discussion.

You do need to tell your children what you expect from retirement, even if you are unsure. Answer the hard questions (can you afford to stay in your house for instance) and when the time comes, unfold your finances for them to see. Let them know where you stand and what your plan is.

Boomers will be sold a retirement that is unlike any other before them. If you live longer as the statistics suggest you will, what do you expect of your surroundings? What role does your community play in the decision? What role will your kids have? Retirement is much more than simply amassing cash. It is amassing support. And believe it or not, that is old school thinking, a throwback to the time when retired family members depended on their kids for everything. But those kids, who may not be thinking along the same lines as you need to be involved now, rather than later.

Your Retirement Plan in 2012

This article originally appeared at BlueCollarDollar.com and was written by Paul Petillo

"Time is free, but it's priceless. You can't own it, but you can use it. You can't keep it, but you can spend it. Once you've lost it you can never get it back." Harvey MacKay

One of the key elements in any financial transaction is time. If you want to retire, you must consider the amount of time. If you want to borrow, how long you have to pay it back can be translated into dollars and cents. Investing; timing they suggest can't be down but is important nonetheless.

If you are twenty, time is on your side. If you are thirty, there is time left. If you are forty, time is of the essence. If you are fifty, time is running out. If you are sixty, where has the time gone. And older than that, time is no longer on your side. It accompanies us through life like some dark passenger. It reflect back on us from the mirror. And when we look at our retirement plan, it stares at us without guilt or shame. Time is the truth.

When I first began writing these predictions, and I've been churning out these year end ditties for over a decade, many were laced with optimism, some with an urging that we learn the lesson and move forward armed with knowledge of past mistakes, and still others were exercises in reality. In 2012, we have some opportunities and some problems awaiting us, left on the table as we symbolically turn the calendar wiping out 2011. But it won't leave quietly.

So I have a few thoughts about what you can do - resolutions of sorts but not the drastic sort we make and break almost within hours of promising ourselves at midnight.

Increase your contribution I start with this obvious chant for two reasons: you aren't making a large enough contribution and two, I would be remiss in not telling you this right from the start. And I'm not just speaking to those with a 401(k).

There are the millions of you who are forced to (and because of that are not likely to) finance your own retirement through an individual retirement account. We lament at the worker who literally only has to sign up at his workplace and doesn't. And far too often, we say little about the person who has to sign-up (after finding a fund), commit with a fortitude that is somewhat lacking and to contribute some of their paycheck via direct deposit every week or month. That effort, it seems is a much more involved hurdle.

In 2012, the investment world will be little changed. It will roil and confuse and gyrate and possibly even nose dive - just as it has for decades. It will react to news - if not from Europe form China or even the presidential elections (which ironically tend to be excellent years to invest). This will have you second-guessing your investments. But this will only apply if you have no idea how much risk you can take.

Pay attention to diversification You may not be capable of rebalancing, the act of making sure that your investments are directed evenly across many investments. This is much harder than it seems. As long as you are involved - and that is YOU in capitals - the struggle to keep balance will not get any easier.

For the vast majority of us, mutual funds will be the investment vehicle of choice. These investments will see more movement towards fee reductions. Which is a good thing. Fees will and always have been a subtraction of gains. This makes an excellent argument for indexing.

Choosing six index funds across the following cross-sections of the markets will not solve the problem of rebalancing (some will do better than others) but it will provide diversification. Index the largest companies (an S&P 500 fund), a mid-cap fund (the next 400 companies in size), small-caps (the next 2000), an international fund (an index of the largest countries (those with established banking systems even if they are currently troubled and will continue to be so in 2012), an emerging market fund (after international funds, the most risky) and a bond index (one that covers as much fixed income as possible).

Some of you will wonder if exchange traded funds (ETF) wouldn't be just as good if not better than simple indexing. In 2012, ETFs will continue to drill down ever deeper into sectors of the markets that add risk along with the illusion of an index. ETFs will become more actively managed in 2012 offering you more risk at a lower cost. Cheap doesn't mean better. 2012 will be year of the ETF. If you are unsure what these investments are, consider this conversation I had with David Abner of Financial Impact Factor Radio recently to help explain what these investments are and how they work.

Focus on your financial well-being This refers to your credit score. It continues to impact your financial future and will become increasingly harder to ignore. A new credit rating service agency will add to the difficulty in 2012 and not only will the current scoring impact costs such as insurance, it will seek to trace the breadcrumbs of your financial life more thoroughly that the big three do.

There is little likelihood that the job market will increase as many of our returning troops will flood the marketplace, taking numerous jobs from your kids just out of college. Which means another year with your kids at home. The only answer to this problem is to continue to tighten down your budgets in 2012. As I mentioned earlier: "If you are forty, time is of the essence. If you are fifty, time is running out. If you are sixty, where has the time gone."

And you must do this understanding that inflation - not the reported number but the real number in your grocery bill - will still chip away at your wealth. This means you will move in two opposite directs in 2012: saving and investing more for your fleeting future (at least 6% but 10% would be best) and spending less in the present (easy of you don't use credit).

And the housing market will improve for those who have repaired any damaged credit or who have saved enough of a down payment to buy a house. people are still buying and selling. These people have found that while the market is not accessible to all, it is for those that have done right by their personal finances.

Do all of that this may not seem like a new year - but it will be a better year!

Seeing Retirement with a Financial Planner

On the surface, financial planning has remained the same. You are looking for a path to retirement that will provide you with a secure future, a worry-free post-work life. And financial planners offer you their service as a guide on that journey. But choosing the right one seems to have become more difficult as the industry has converted itself into what they think is more user friendly. How do you chose? 

There was time in the not-too-distant past when financial planners were catering to only the elite investor, one who is already versed in the concept of spending money to keep money. These richer clients understood that making money was the easy part; keeping it on the other hand was tougher. The sort of planners these folks hired were asset-based. This means that if you had wealth, for a percentage of those assets, they would invest to keep it.

They had an interest, albeit conflicted, in keeping your money in motion. Not only would they get a portion of your returns, they might also receive pay from the very products they were suggesting you use. Beyond these conflicts, which have obvious pluses and minuses, their interest was in the growth of your portfolio. They did attempt to cultivate a long-term relationship and the way they constructed their business with ease of access to conversations. And they knew that if they did a good job, they wouldn't hear from you until you stumbled across some idea on your own. They might at the point weigh the option against their own self-interest: less money to manage because, for instance you thought a life insurance policy was a good idea for your estate, would be less of a percentage of the total wealth under management.

Until, of course, things go awry. When the markets nose-dived in 2008, not only did economists and financial students miss the event, but so did financial planners. This exposed to some of these wealthy clients the fallibility of their skills. Paying as much as 2% of the net worth of their portfolios and at the same time, losing value the same as someone who didn't pay anyone for advice, brought the industry to rethink their approach.

Enter the flat-fee financial planner. This seemed like the logical choice for those with not a lot of money but the same needs as those who had much more: they wanted to keep it. The question is, without the incentive to make more based on the strength of the portfolio, it seemed as if this was simply window-dressing planning - they charged a flat fee for people who didn't need a lot of ongoing advice and they didn't offer more than was needed.

Storefront financial planners popped up everywhere. They would take your plan, reconstruct it and channel you into other products, some you might not need. They might suggest refinancing (and they could help). They might restructure your life insurance needs (and they could help). They might steer you towards an annuity (and they could help there as well).

And once that was done and you seemed set, they made money on the commissions these product brought in and did so under the guise that it was all in your best interest. Sometimes it was. The problem was that this yearly or twice yearly visit could cost upwards of $1,000. This might be a good investment for those who are in relatively stable shape. But for many who sought this sort of advice, the money might have been better spent elsewhere.

The next phase of advice giving came as a result of the downturn. While many people lost a great deal of investable net worth, some had un-investable assets. the may have had muh of their net worth tied up in their business for instance, an asset but not one that would be considered liquid. These assets, while seemingly under management would be considered when any advice was given. The concept of protection although came at a cost that sometimes is twice that of the fee-based planner.

The advent of the hourly based financial planner seemed to be a good solution. Much like the service provided by lawyers, the concept of the clock-running seemed to be a good idea for some people. They paid for what they received. The relationship was even more important here than in many of the other types of planning scenarios: planners were paid by the hour so they kept that meter running. Call with a question: and the meter clocked the time. Stop by with a concern: and the meter clocked the visit even as they chatted up your personal life.

Removing the asset-based incentive will keep your financial planner working longer on your plan with results that aren't often eventful. None of this suggests that this group isn't without merit. Far too many people equate the time they spend making money as more fruitful than time spent keeping it. They could, in almost every instance, find the same solutions on their own. Ironically, they could save money by investing some of their own time.

Evan Esar, American humorist who once quipped: "The mint makes it first; it's up to you to make it last." Keep in mind, credentials play a role. Start with the certified financial planner designation and move towards the references. Even if someone you know recommends a planner, do your own background check. Ironically, once you satisfied your inner skeptic, calculate the amount of hours you did and the amount of hours after-the-fact that you questioned your decision.

On today's Financial Impact Factor Radio with Paul Petillo, Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng we discuss the role financial planners can play in your retirement planning. Even as the industry surrounding advice has shifted to a more consumer friendly format, it has become more difficult to chose the right financial planner for the task.

Listen to internet radio with

Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng

of FinancialFootprint.com

on

The Financial Impact Factor

at Blog Talk Radio

Your Retirement, Your Estimations

I understand that it is difficult to sum up all of the issues facing our quest for retirement, from our biases to having to participate in a market that seems almost impossible to embrace. So for the sake of this discussion: Here's the problem facing Baby Boomers. 

Paul Barnes wrote in 1987 that the reason ratios (percentages are used ) is a mathematical one "and is basically used to facilitate comparison by adjusting for size".  What he quickly pointed out was that their use is "only good if the ratios possess the appropriate statistical properties for handling and summarizing the data". It is why, when the information culled from a recent Wells Fargo survey expressed as a percentage, that 25% of the adult population would need to work into their eighties, a postponement of retirement that has become newsworthy of late. The survey even suggested that they accepted the fact.

Now we have always been barraged with percentages: 10% off this, we are the 99%ers that, the markets down such-and-such a percentage for month, the quarter, the year. Whatever it is, it blurs some distinct realities by ignoring, as Mr. Barnes suggested, some important data. And we don't need to go far beyond our own observations to find the underlying reasons why some people (25% evidently) are not retiring historically.

Let's start with the unemployment rate. Expressed as a percentage, perhaps because of the space needed to write such a large number over and over, it is hovering at 8.6%, give or take a re-estimate or revision. And quickly you will be told that to add in the disparaged worker, the underemployed person or even the fully employed person who is getting less and the percentage of people who will not be able to retire based on the typical timeline of a thirty year or even forty year career this number becomes almost impossible to calculate. Estimates push the real unemployment rate to around 14%. If you are older and long past the benefit-of-time growing your savings and a stat in this group, the trouble with these numbers can be even more devastating.

Let's from there move towards the participation rate in 401(k) plans. Or better, how about we look at the number of 401(k) plans there are, which is less than 50% of the workplaces. And that is only for those who don't have access to a 401(k). those percentages get worse when you consider that more than half of this group doesn't do a single thing to prepare for retirement.

And what about the folks that do have a 401(k)? Participation rates are up in some surveys, down in others. Chances are, if you were just hired, you were auto-enrolled in your company's plan. Recent numbers suggest that 90% of those newly hired chose to not opt out. While that is a headline number, the 10% who chose not to participate is more worrisome and adds to the quarter who will not have enough for retirement - although they may not be old enough to embrace the full consequence of that decision. But even auto-enrollment has its problems as two-thirds of those who are automatically enrolled don't do anything to adjust the default investment the plan picked.

Pamela Hess, director of retirement research at Hewitt Associates suggests that "Most employees who are automatically enrolled tend to stick with the employer-provided default contribution rate, so simply getting them into the 401(k) plan at a minimal contribution rate isn't going to help them meet their long-term retirement needs." That minimal contribution rate is often 3% and not close to adequate. In fact, in the larger picture, less that sixty percent of those who are in a plan contribute more than 5% of their pre-tax pay.

Ms. Hess believes that  "Companies should strongly consider increasing the default contribution rate and coupling automatic enrollment with contribution escalation, which automatically increases employee contributions to the 401(k) plan and helps get them to a better savings rate over time." Auto-escalation has helped, a method of putting some or all of the employee's raises into the plan but unless the worker understands the implications of failing to do so, they often don't opt for this benefit.

I have pointed out before that the recovery will need jobs that people want to stay in long enough to benefit from the company match. As much lip service as these plans offer when they match the contribution, vesting is still an issue. Some workers may be deciding to not stay long enough to get the matched contribution, a period that usually last five years and decide to not bother. And many who slashed their contributions have not returned to offering them, pushing participation down in their plans even for those who are fully vested. If these businesses have restored the match, they have often cut benefits elsewhere making the choice of contributing more a financial one with a harsh reality.

So when a survey crosses the retirement radar suggesting that 25% of us are planning to work into our eighties, the number misses some key data. Workers who suggest that a retirement number - a dollar amount base on any number of formulae - is what will determine their time of retirement, the estimates they embrace may be outsized. 

These folks fret over the stock market and construct a worse-case scenario for what might happen if the gains they had hoped for fail to materialize.

And then they turn around and overestimate their comfort zone, attempting to replicate exactly what they have now. Here is where they become discouraged. Previous generations of retirees had something we never had: modest outlooks. Skip back just three generations and the elderly were likely to move in with children in retirement.

When the numbers tell only part of the truth, as if shining a narrow beam of light and describing what it illuminates is all that matters to the discussion, we need to refocus and see what we've been missing. Retiring can still happen when it should - which is when you want and not when your retirement account statement says so based on some target. So embracing a time, which 20% of the surveyed did, is a much more realistic parameter. 

The only question left is how can you do it?

Two answers are worth repeating: you need to become a little more austere in your fifties and save more, much more. The reality of the harsh regime will stiffen your resolve for when work is not what you want to do. It is practice with a safety net. the second is readjusting your expectations and plan for those realities. The investment you make to mentally prepare yourself for this less-than-what-you-had-previously-planned retirement is still a plan and will work. And if its any comfort, the data shows that too many don't even have that!

ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck-to-Paycheck World

I just published my fifth book - this time with Smashwords! And a special offer to readers of this blog, ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck-to-Paycheck World by Paul Petillo is available for a limited time (until 10.29.11) you can use this coupon code to get the ebook for half price or $1.50. The code for the coupon is UJ76Q This ebook is available across all platforms including iPad and iPhone, Amazon and Sony.

Now What: A Plan for Surviving Your Investments

While many of you want to believe that you are on track for retirement - and many of you actually are, confidence is not something you are comfortable with. It wears like a wool sweater on a summer day: protects you from the sun while melting what you are protecting in the process. In other words, there is no happy medium anymore. It seems to have simply left the arena. Or has it?

Ironically, those of you who were able to answer the questions in the previous post, "Now What Retirement?" will probably not be able to do the same in the next segment of our look at "Now What?" as we grapple with investments. Yet retirement involved investing. Didn't it?

In some ways, retirement or the near proximity of it is a form of investing. You did, in all likelihood use the same place where investors flock: bonds, stocks, commodities, perhaps and in many instances, that access came via your 401(k). This is, for the average American, the extent of their investment exposure.

You might argue that your home is an investment. In the truest definition, it is not. It is neither liquid nor accurately valued at the end of each business day. The process for buying and selling is neither seamless or efficient. In fact, every dollar surrounding the buying and selling of a home seems to be a waste. So no, your home is not an investment. Unless of course, it is lumped in with your retirement plan. But the parameters have changed in that event and it becomes more asset than investment asset.

But the not-so-near retirement planners consider each move they make to be investment driven. Then drive as if it were. And in taking the proverbial investment wheel, you need to know what the rules are.

In a skittish market seemingly set off by the slightest hint that all is not so perfect (and when has it ever been?), the temptation to follow all of the bad investor habits we have discussed here over the years is multiplied tenfold. You want to sell when everyone else is selling and buy when they shift course. You worry that what was once a good decision is no longer as good, even though little has changed. Sure, the news is the news and is fluid. But the news is much of the same, recast.

So, as the siren of sell sings in your ear, remember this: Consider risk, not performance. Risk is basically a four letter word for "diversifying your assets across as many classes as possible". While you may not be able to buy individual assets in each of the major asset classes in quantities enough to make diversity work well, you can buy the indexes. In times of turmoil, parking your money in the broadest based places - and they should have been indexed in the first place, protects your money in the same way the wealthy tend to protect theirs.

The smartest investors are not the ones who are all-in. In the case of smaller investors, the emergency account you have built up is similar to the cash reserves that the wealthy might have. If you don't have to sell anything, and that temptation is there when the market begins to slide, because you have money on the sidelines, you can wait it out. And that is why those who consider themselves more savvy as investors still know the real value of a portfolio is the cash available. Even if the only opportunity is surviving until there is one!

No investors ever folds. The investors who have been in it for the long-term know that even if the market news is bad, even if the gyrations seem to be getting closer rather than farther away, even as the concerns have become more global, panic has never gotten anyone a profit. But patience has. You may sell a loss but for tax purposes. And you may sell a gain perhaps because of out-performance or rebalancing. But the wisest investors never sell based on fear.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Behind the Retirement Curve

There is still a great deal of discussion surrounding the fact the women are further behind the retirement curve than they should be. It is estimated that women will need $240,000 in retirement funds compared to $170,000 needed by men. These estimates, in my opinion need some fine tuning. Nonetheless, even if current 401(k) balances are taken into consideration, both groups are still far behind where they should be.

Consider this: Amongst the facts available concerning retirement, one number stands out. The cost of healthcare, the unknown possibility that at some point during your retirement you will need much more than Medicare can provide, will be close to $100,000. This means that both men and women will be left with far fewer dollars to subsist on than they have anticipated.


Consider this: Women still face individual hurdles in the workplace. This gap in pay is closing but not for the reasons you might think. Men faced the biggest problems during the recent downturn and women saw the biggest opportunities in landing any newly created jobs. But were those jobs as good as they should have been?

It has long been a fact that the vast number of women entering the workforce do so at a lower pay grade than their male cohorts. They will find more jobs in smaller businesses and because of that and those employers, they may find the options to save for retirement smaller. In many instances, these smaller businesses have less than adequate 401(k) plans, some merely a shell of of what larger corporations offer.

It is also a problem for women employed in larger companies with adequate 401(k) plans in part because the plan matches are smaller and are not expected to return to pre-2008 levels anytime soon.

It is also well-known that women will not be paid as much as men are or have been paid for similar jobs. USA Network founder Kay Koplovitz suggested recently that women simply don't ask for what they feel they deserve. It might have something to do with the fact that women "lean back" in the initial stages of their careers, looking toward the possibility that they will eventually take time off to begin a family. This false start often gives them fewer chances to achieve a robust retirement and to ask for the money they think and should deserve. Ms. Koplovitz suggests they take the reins of their plans "first, harder, and faster". Taking time off: use an IRA to keep invested.


Consider this: The auto-enrollment of new hires, the majority of which seem to be women, has seen the participation levels in 401(k)s increase. But studies have shown that these new participants invest too conservatively when they are young, giving up some of the much needed risk they should be taking in the early stages of their careers.


Consider this: Women will live longer and even more frightening, may live longer alone.
There are no easy remedies. Yet some come to mind. Yes, women need to invest more and more often. They shouldn't let any career interruption keep them from investing. They should be requesting their employers add annuities to their 401(k)s in part because these products, tucked inside these plans cannot discriminate based on the sex of the contributor. This isn't so outside the plan where actuaries step in and calculate this potential longer life into their equations.

Yes, first, harder, faster is a good mantra to embrace when looking to the future. But women need to ask for better pay, more education about the investments they need, a little more risk and more importantly, retirement plans tailored to their specific needs.

Retirement Planning: It's complicated

I'm a man. So that makes me a relative outsider when it comes to speaking about women and their focus on retirement. It doesn't necessarily mean I have a bias of any sort; simply that understanding why most women - or at least those who answered the latest ING survey about women and retirement, still haven't embraced retirement planning.

The survey uncovered a number of different bullet points that make me ponder the future retirement plans of women. For instance:

• Seventy-eight percent of women say they lack financial savvy about retirement planning. It is extremely hard to quantify savvy. It could mean the ability to approach the subject with confidence, something men only pretend to have. Men, as even more numerous surveys have uncovered, do more research but those same surveys do not suggest that men actually do better than women at investing. In fact, men tend to have a more free-wheeling approach to spending and credit, which if calculated against their ability to retire in a better financial place, leaves them somewhat behind. Or savvy could simply mean they don't focus on what they don't know because the topic is still, even after all we have been through, is not a clear as it should be.
• Thirty-three percent let their significant other make the retirement planning decisions. This is interesting because there are few women who believe that their spouse will ultimately outlive them. Numerous studies have suggested that at the point of retirement, men make decisions about what they have accumulated without taking this longevity issue into account. When some male retirees choose an annuity, they do so without considering their own demise might occur before their spouses. Instead, they look at the monthly dollar amount they will receive and take the highest figure possible. Doing so, eliminates much of the spousal benefit leaving their survivors with far less. Worse, men who chose not to take the annuity choice at retirement, believe they can invest their account and do so at the risk of drawing the balance down to a point where their spouses have little left.
• Thirty percent have no idea what their main source of retirement income will be. I can tell you with almost complete certainty: a woman will have accumulated less over the course of her working career. She will have had interruptions due to children and possibly aging parents and when that occurs, her 401(k) is usually less at the end of a working career and her Social Security, because of those missed years, will also be smaller than her spouses. It is important to keep in mind that divorce and single parenthood also jeopardize the long-term strength of any retirement accounts. Focusing on the present day, while important in terms of staying financially solvent, doesn't provide income in the future. It will however create a more financially solvent future if they have saved no matter what their situation.
• Thirty-seven percent of women blame complicated Wall Street jargon as well as trouble managing their everyday expenses as hurdles that prevent them from being savvy about investing. While women struggle searching for the truth, men fake it. Wall Street jargon is designed to be convoluted and will not change simply because you don't understand it. There are some simple steps you can take that even men ignore: keep investing no matter what the market is doing in the present tense; invest more than you can afford and adjust your daily budget to accommodate it; use index funds across a wide swath of the market; know that savings is safe and investments involve risk but using index funds lowers the risk while lowering the cost of investing.

In all, 65 percent of those surveyed described themselves as "traditional" rather than "modern" women. Of all of the statistics, this is the most gratifying. If traditional means what I think they suggest it does, then this implies prudence and pragmatism, curiosity but skepticism, and most importantly, an approach that takes the whole into consideration rather than the self-centered approach most men tend to use. If traditional means understanding the impact of credit, the belief that they will live long in retirement, and that they care more for their loved ones and want to see them do well, then this is encouraging.

All they need do is get in touch with only a few of the things men do when it comes to investing; but certainly not all. Because men don't statistically do better at investing; they simply do more of it.

Notes on Investing: Baruch and Lessons Learned, Part three

In part one of this review on one of the greatest investors, Bernard Baruch, titled “Notes on Investing: Baruch and Lessons Learned“, we looked at what he has learned from his own mistakes, errors that we all make and of which numerous books have been written in anattempt to correct our own investor and totally human fallibilities on the subject. In part two, we looked at, among other things, the art of investing and getting a good night’s sleep.

• I can’t tell you how many times I get told that having several projects in the works is multi-tasking. It is not and Baruch more or less felt the same way about what and how to focus. His belief that traders tried to be too many different things at once, concentrate on too many things at the same time and in the end try and parse all of that information in something worth investing in, something profitable, was futile. If you are going to be an investor, you will need to, in his opinion do “one thing at a time, perfect it, and do it well.”
• In the days before behavioral finance took hold, in the days before efficient markets were thought to exist, value investors were trying to teach people how to invest.  They knew that that more you knew about the business you invested in, the better your understanding of the risks such an investment posed. To incur a loss in Baruch’s experiences as well as from what he witnessed in his cohorts, suggested that “they [knew] too little about the company’s management, earnings, prospects, and possibility for future growth.”  And Baruch, also guilty in the early days of investment career, fell into the same trap as many investor still do today.  ”They tend to trade beyond their financial capital capacity.”
• Baruch also knew that companies were dynamic entities and need to change over time to survive. It was how they changed that matter. “Successful speculation requires staying on top of changes in industries and companies that either create new industries or improve on existing industries.” These improvements needed to come with some chance of success. Unlike the speculation during the Internet bubble, where products were scarce and promises of profits abundant, the businesses you invest in need to have something tangible in place before they start exporting the next new thing. He believed that “The majority of your profits will come from these two…..The shrewdest traders throughout history all adapted the skill of reactionary change, as the market constantly presents new and different opportunities.”
• In recent years, the study of our emotional involvement has taken over for some previous thoughts on how we trade. And Baruch recognized these flaws early on, was able to tamp down his demons and become successful. It is no easy feat. He remarked, almost in passing: “Without control over your emotions, there is very little chance for profitable success in the stock market.”
• In the current atmosphere of the media and what seems to be instantaneous reactions to every detail of news, one thing has never changed. In the discussion about which wags the dog, it is not the markets that do the damage, but the reaction to the economic factors at play. “The market,” he suggested,  ”does not cause economic cycles but merely reflects them and the judgments of what traders believe business and the future will be like.”
• He believed in buy low sell high but also believed that no one could actually do it. “I made my money by selling too soon.” Market axioms aside, timing is not possible.
• perhaps one of his greatest observations of investor foibles involved when and why investors bought and sold. “It is much harder to sell stocks correctly than to buy them correctly.” Further suggesting, quite possibly from his park bench view of the world going past, that a “stock went up, the average investor would hold because he wants more gains – he’s exhibiting greed. If the stock declines, he also holds on and hopes the stock will come back so he can at least sell and break even – he’s hoping against hope.”
• Sitting, staring a a screen while you invest doesn’t make someone who loses any less a liar. What it does do is completely removes the blame from being laid at the feet of someone else. You invest and if you don’t do well, you have no one to blame. “Whatever failures I have known, whatever errors I have committed, whatever follies I have witnessed in private and public life have been the consequence of action without thought.”
• Baruch did not think that anyone was capable of predicting. But we do and we listen to folks who suggest that one this news or that, the market will go higher. They don’t know. You don’t know. To which he suggested that “Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”
• Once agin, Baruch is right on this point. But this is no easy task and I wonder if this is what Ben Graham meant when he said that there isn’t an investor in all of us, only in some of us. Baruch pointed out that the key to successful investing hinged on control: “Only as you do know yourself can your brain serve you as a sharp and efficient tool. Know your own failings, passions, and prejudices so you can separate them from what you see.”
• Baruch was haunted by his mistakes and took numerous hours to reflect on those missteps. We, on the other hand, beleiev we should stay in the game, or get back on the horse. Baruch knew that only by going on a sort of self-induced recess would he be able to understand where he’d been, the wrong turn he’d made and why he did what he did. Do you do the same? Are you willing to take money off the table to reflect on how well you did – or didn’t? If you knew, as Baruch knew all too well that “The main purpose of the stock market is to make fools of as many men as possible”, why would continue to fight a force that only thoughtful reflection and recollection will help you overcome?

Successful investing is a fleeting, almost elusive thing. Seems as though there are millions of books and websites offering something, some rope to grasp, when it comes to investing. I even offer a few of my own. In the end, it will come down to how well you do and recognizing that if you don’t do well, you should push yourself away from the table. Investing is not for all of us. And at the same time, it is. We still need to invest for retirement. But using individual stocks is not the way most of us should pursue it.

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