A nice article about how 401k plans are better off with only index funds. I do have a quibble with the article. Index funds generally outperform actively managed funds over the long run due to their lower fees. Looking at the last 10 years, all of the index funds I have recommended for 401k plans have performed in the top half of their peer group, and most in the top third, due to significantly lower fees.
Listen to this interview with the author of A Random Walk Down Wall Street. The book explains the basics of investing in a very simple way and cuts through a lot of investment myths and hype. http://www.npr.org/2015/01/19/377698238/markets-may-stumble-or-skyrocket-but-this-economist-says-hold-on-tight
Our Full Financial Planning clients have the option to review their finances on their mobile devices using the Long Financial Planning mobile site from emoney .
The mobile site gives you a quick snapshot of your accounts, net worth, investments, spending, and budgets with the option to drill down on your transactions and to view documents in your vault. I’ve been using the mobile site for my own personal finances and in some ways I prefer it to the regular website. You can save the mobile site as an app on your phone and create a 4-digit code for access. Once you do this you can use the site just as you would use an app.
To see how to load the mobile site and save it as an app click below.
That is a great question that I get often. There are a couple of things to think about.
In most circumstances rolling your old employer plan into IRA is probably the best option. That option allows you to access low cost funds from places like Vanguard and Fidelity that may not be available in your old employer plan. It also makes it easier for you to keep up with the money, if you change addresses etc.
If you are thinking about rolling your old employer plan to a Traditional IRA and your Adjusted Gross Income (at the bottom of the first page of your tax return) is more than about $112,000 (single) or $178,000 (married) and you do not have a Traditional IRA now, you may want to skip rolling over your old employer plan into a Traditional IRA. Keeping that money out of a Traditional IRA allows you to make a tax-free “back door” Roth IRA contribution by contributing to a Traditional IRA and then immediately converting it to a Roth IRA. In that case you would move your old 401k plan balance directly to your new employer plan if it had lower cost options than your old plan, or leave it at your old plan if the opposite were true.
On the small chance that your old employer 401k balance was in a Roth 401k, I recommend rolling the balance directly into a Roth IRA and not into your new employer plan.
I hope this helps.
The PBS show Frontline aired a great piece last week about 401k plans called “The Retirement Gamble.” The show exposes some of the excessive fees that 401k plan providers charge, and the lengths they go to hide them from employees and their employers.
If you are an employer or employee that thinks that your 401k plan provider may be charging to much, or you do not even know how to figure that out, you can go to www.brightscope.com to check out how your plan stacks up. Or you can contact me if you would like me to review your plan and show you some better options.
NPR’s Planet Money did a great segment on why the Dow is a terrible indicator of stock market performance. It is a price index where higher priced stocks count more than lower ones regardless of the company’s market cap. On top of that it is only 30 companies out of more than 5,000 that are traded. The only thing it has going for it is that it has been around for a very long time. Read more here http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/03/05/173515767/the-dow-isnt-really-at-a-record-high-and-it-wouldnt-matter-if-it-were
Or listen to the podcast: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/03/12/174139347/episode-443-dont-believe-the-hype
Here are some simple tips to create a more tax efficient portfolio:
Invest in Index Funds
Index funds generate lower short-term capital gains and higher long-term capital gains due to much less frequent buying and selling. Short-term gains are taxed every year as ordinary income. Long-term gains are taxed at lower capital gains rates, and most are only realized when you sell your shares.
The idea here is to place assets that produce higher income (e.g. bonds) in tax advantaged investments (IRA, 401k) that will allow you to not to have to pay taxes annually on the income.
Then putting assets that generally produce less income (e.g. stocks) in taxable accounts. You will have lower taxes each year, and when you sell your shares you will pay the lower long-term capital gains rate on your profits.
What about Roth IRAs and Roth 401k Accounts?
Since any gains in these accounts are tax free when withdrawn, it does make sense to put assets that will have the highest long-term growth in these accounts as well (e.g. stocks) as an exception to the rule above.
It will often not be possible to execute this perfectly with all of your income producing assets neatly tucked away in your Traditional IRA and your growth assets in your Roth IRA and taxable accounts.
Also please do not let the desire for tax efficiency overwhelm having the right asset allocation for your long-term needs. Tax efficiency is really a tactic not a strategy.
There are two basic types of mutual funds:
Actively Managed Mutual Fund
In this type of mutual fund the fund manager attempts to pick investments which he or she feels will outperform the overall market. Typically this type of fund does a lot of buying and selling of individual investments, turning over its portfolio about three times per year. The average charge for a actively managed stock mutual fund is about 1.35%. This means that every year the investors in the fund are charged about $13.50 per $1,000 invested.
Passive (Index) Mutual Fund
In this type of mutual fund the manager follows a published index (e.g. the S&P 500). They buy and hold the stocks in the index only selling or buying new stock when the index changes. The turnover in an index fund is usually very low, less than 10%. A low cost index fund has a management fee of roughly 0.15% or $1.50 per $1000 invested.
Why are Passive Funds a Better Choice?
Lower Management Fees
In order to just equal the index fund performance the active fund must out perform it by 1.2% per year (1.35%-0.15%). That may sound easy, but the number of actively managed funds that manage to do this is quite low. On average actively managed and passive index funds perform about the same before fees are considered. Once fees are added in then the actively managed funds underperform passive index funds. The longer the time period the fewer actively managed funds outperform low cost index funds.
Because actively managed mutual funds turnover their portfolio much more frequently than passive index funds they generate much higher short-term capital gains on stocks they held less than a year. Even if the investor does not sell their shares in the mutual fund, and reinvests all capital gains, they still will have a tax bill for the capital gains their mutual fund generates. The short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. These taxes can significantly reduce long-term performance.
A low cost passive index fund, generates much lower capital gains. Most of the gains for an investor are only realized when she sells her shares in the fund. Those gains are much more likely to be long-term capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate.
Actively managed mutual funds only disclose their holdings a couple of times per year. This means that a fund that is considered “Large Cap” may have significant holdings in “Small Cap” companies without disclosing it. This means that the investor has a different risk/return profile that he realizes.
A passive index fund is almost always invested in line with it’s published index meaning that the investor’s risk return/profile is in alignment with what she thinks it is.
So who is pushing actively managed funds?
Often actively managed funds are pushed by brokers who earn a commission from selling them, or a told to sell them by their firms.
Most independent experts agree that investing in low-cost passive index funds is a great strategy for most investors.
Vanguard announced they are changing the incidicies they use to construct some of their most widely held funds including the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, The Vanguard International Stock Market Index, and the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index. Instead of following the Morgan Stanley Capital Indicies (MSCI), domestic funds will follow the University of Chicago’s Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP), and international funds Financial Times and Stock Exchange (FTSE) index. The reason for the shift is to lower the ongoing fund fees. The new indicies charge a lower licensing fee then than the current MSCI ones do. Vanguard does not anticipate a major change in the composition of most of their broad based index funds. They also do not anticipate signficiant capital gains distributions from the switchover.
The only possible hiccup involves South Korea. Right now it is in the MSCI emerging market index. FTSE has it in the developed market index. If you own the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index or both the Vanguard Developed and
This is not the first time the Vanguard has shifted indicies, for example the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index moved from following the Wilshire 5000 to the MSCI index in 2005.
I often read Personal Finance magazines because I know my clients do. In a big picture way they give solid advice about investing — not timing the market, setting up a long-term asset allocation, etc. At the same time many of their articles and columnists are advocating just the opposite. The January 2013 cover story for Kiplinger’s title story is “Where to Invest Now” quoting Katerine Nixon of Northern Trust saying “It’s going to be a pretty good year for stocks.” I have two issues with this cover. First, it implies that market timing can be a successful strategy even when research implies that for most people it isn’t. Second, what the heck does a “pretty good year for stocks mean?”
Opening the magazine we see that they feature a mutual fund manager in a red tie and socks (Cardinals Fan, were told — is that baseball or football?) who only holds about 20 stocks. Why don’t they feature the guy that bet on red at the casino and doubled his money in a few seconds. Arguably a much better result that this guy achieved. When a magazine features the mutual fund manager “winners” they imply that more than luck is involved in their winning ways, when in reality a long-term statistical analysis implies that it’s all luck.
There are two reasons why many people have a hard time buying this.
1. When it’s something we perceive as complicated and don’t fully understand how it works we give greater deference to those who seem to do well. Since we do not understand how the stock market really works those who do well are perceived to have have special skills. Such deference is usually not accorded to someone who flips heads 10 times in a row, a much rarer feat.
2. The mutual fund industry spends vast amounts of money to support this model. If you can make a lot of money convincing investors that you have a winning strategy for the long-term they will give you more money to invest. If you do well in the short-term you can tout your performance to gather more assets and fees. When you do poorly, blame it on the market or shut down that fund and start over again.
I understand that Kiplinger’s and the others have to sell magazines and web views but it would be great if they included a disclaimer by every article recommending individual stocks or actively managed mutual funds that “there is no empirical evidence that pursuing this strategy will be more effective than a buy/hold/re-balance asset allocation strategy using low-cost index funds.”