Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • Sort of “An Honest Stock Market Update”
    I stopped reading anything from MF a couple years ago. That doesn't answer anything here but not too interested in anything from financial writers.
  • Sort of “An Honest Stock Market Update”
    Hi Guys,
    I just read “An Honest Stock Market Update” article by the Motley Fool’s Morgan Housel. Housel is a very serious financial writer. In this instance, his current work is a satire, but with real world implications. Here is the Link to the short piece:
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/08/12/an-honest-stock-market-update.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003
    I’m sure you will appreciate and enjoy its dark-side humor. Folks always seem to need a plausible explanation for an event even when such a surefire explanation simply does not exist. Things just happen. The article does expose several semi-serious human tendencies and foibles.
    I find it astonishing that financial writers cluster their topics so frequently; this is one such example. Is it a haphazard happenstance or is there a more insidious explanation? Probably neither reason fully explains these occurrences.
    I suspect these writers read each other daily, conclude that some introduced topics likely share a wide common audience, and, consequently, these secondary writers have opinions on the matter that demand a public airing. In that sense, these recent plethora of articles on this same subject are somewhat incestuous.
    The deeper implications of the referenced piece is easily coupled to the “Three Questions” issue that was explored in an earlier set of MFO postings. Here is the MFO Internal Link to those exchanges:
    http://www.mutualfundobserver.com:80/discuss/discussion/14993/jonathan-clements-keeping-your-portfolio-on-track-for-the-long-term
    Both Jonathan Clements and Ken Fisher incorporated a “what you think you know about investing that isn’t necessarily so” as an integral part of their three critical investment question guidelines.
    As investors, we’re all a little guilty of selective data gathering and biased interpretations of those data. We tend to emphasize those data sources that reaffirm our predisposed investment positions, and we often tend to ignore contrary evidence. We do so as an unrecognized bias, and, in so doing, put our portfolios at unwarranted risk with this asymmetric way at completing market research. This is surely not a new or even a surprising discovery. But we pay a price for this natural characteristic.
    Behavioral researcher Thomas Gilovich examined these partialities several decades ago. His early book titled “How We Know What Isn’t So” is very informative on the subject and is a fun read. The subtitle of the book is “The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life”. I recommend you all give it a try. It just might make you a more balanced and informed investor.
    I wish you all better investment outcomes.
    Best Regards.
  • Jonathan Clements: Keeping Your Portfolio On Track, For The Long-Term
    "....Imagine you're advising your neighbors, who are the same age and in a similar financial situation. What portfolio would you advise them to buy? That's probably the portfolio you ought to own." Ding! Great way of expressing it. Thank you, Ted. I must get to my week-end WSJ in print!
  • William Bernstein Discusses Tilting
    "My point is that a 100% or even a 75% stocks portfolio isn't for everyone and Dr Bernstein's 60% stocks portfolio shouldn't be judged against a 100% stocks (S&P 500) portfolio."
    Exactly. The so called "financial experts" at Marketwatch do not comprehend this. One should also know that this is the same outlet that was reporting the price of gold in barrels. We had a good laugh on that one.
    Comparing is more of a ego trip than anything else.
  • Managed Accounts: Too Pricey For Retirees
    From the article:
    "Do these services deliver higher returns? According to reports issued by some managed account providers, including Morningstar and Financial Engines, the accounts deliver a performance edge of more than 3 percentage points a year. But the GAO report, citing data from 401(k) record-keeper Vanguard, found that “published returns for managed account participants” were “generally less than or equal to the returns of” other popular 401(k) investments, including target date funds or balanced funds, which invest in a mix of stocks and bonds."
    Hmmm.....quite a discrepancy.
  • Jonathan Clements: Keeping Your Portfolio On Track, For The Long-Term
    Hi Guys,
    I am a Jonathan Clements fan. I like both his low-keyed writing style and his equally low-keyed, noninvasive financial wisdom. He has long advocated for a long-term investing program.
    It’s intriguing how most business writers favor a short list of guiding principles. Perhaps that better fits their allocated space constraints; perhaps they really believe that, although it’s never easy, investing is truly simple. Whatever the motivation, three reasons seem to be a happy compromise.
    Jonathan Clements is a very conservative investor; Ken Fisher is definitely an aggressive sort. Yet both gentlemen commend a three question format to aid investment decision making. Given the divergent investment philosophies of these two industry giants, it is informative to summarize and compare each wizards three question array.
    The Englishman’s three questions are: (1) What information or insights do I have, that others don’t, to make me think I can outsmart the market?, (2) What can I confidently say about investing?, and (3) If I were starting today from scratch, would I buy the portfolio I currently own?
    The Californian’s three questions from his 2007 book of that same title are: (1) What do you believe that is actually false?, (2) What can you fathom that others find unfathomable?, and (3) What the heck is my brain doing to blindside me now?
    One obvious difference is that Clements posed and answered these 3 questions in a single Wall Street Journal article; Fisher postulated and answered his similar questions in a book of over 400 pages. The length differential aside, both offer solid investment wisdom.
    In somewhat indirect ways, both challenge our investment knowledge base and decision making process. We don’t really know as much as we think we do. Also, both believe that some special insights beyond what the “typical” investor perceives are needed to separate one away from average-like returns. Given his long standing working relationship with behavioral researcher Meir Statman, Fisher more forcefully expounds on our mind games that subtract from the likelihood of our investment success odds.
    In the end, both market experts emphasize that if the advantages gained from positively answering these three salient questions are not present when investment decision time is approaching, the default option should be a passive, Index portfolio. I expected that endorsement from Clements; I did not expect that assessment from Fisher.
    Both Clements and Fisher strongly support long-term financial planning and a long-term investment portfolio. Change should be made infrequently with patience and persistence as the guiding watchwords.
    Given that meaningful and consistent financial advice, I am often puzzled and somewhat saddened by the far too frequent MFO postings that challenge day-to-day mutual fund performance. It is troublesome that folks who wisely elected to pursue the mutual fund route in designing their portfolios are swayed to reevaluate their positions based on some unsettling, singular daily outcome. Mutual funds were not invented to accommodate that type of trading schedule.
    As a sidebar, I only disagree with Sven’s post in degree. It is not “sometimes” better to take the long view when investing. It is “always” better to do so.
    As usual, it is informative to read a Clements’ column. I was just a little surprised at how snugly Clements’ three questions dovetailed into the three similar questions asked in Fisher’s excellent book. I recommend both sources.
    Best Wishes.
  • A Two-Step Plan To Stop Hackers: Keeping Hackers From Your Financial Accounts
    FYI: There are a number of ways that consumers could react to the news this week that Russian hackers got their hands on 1.2 billion username and password combinations.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/your-money/how-to-thwart-hackers-from-financial-accounts.html?ref=your-money&_r=0
  • Bill Gross Gets Vote Of Confidence
    FYI: "We did expect that it will take some months after the dip in last summer's performance at Pimco before it will recover," Chief Financial Officer Dieter Wemmer told Reuters TV.
    "The performance of Pimco's fund is back on track. That is the basis for future results," he said
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USL6N0QE0ZW20140808
  • How to Scare Yourself Stupid
    Hi Catch,
    Thank you for your interest and unexpected reply.
    Not unexpected in terms of a direct topic exchange, but unexpected by the focus change that your post took. Great stuff. I had not thought whatsoever of what beneficial impact a risk understanding would have on our youth if introduced early in the educational process.
    But apparently Gerd Gigerenzer has made that linkage in his “Risk Savvy” book. I have not yet read this recent release, but I have ordered it and anticipate some practical lessons that are exploitable. The subject matter is in my curiosity wheelhouse.
    I always focus attention on the odds of any real world scenario and how to improve them. Along those lines, I purchased Gregory Baer’s “Life: the Odds (and how to improve them)” a few years ago. Statistical data is fascinating.
    For example, Baer reports that the odds of a golfing hole-in-one improve as the distance shortens (no surprise here). It’s 15,000 to 1 at 175 yards and drops to 13,000 to 1 at 150 yards.
    As equipment has improved with time, so has the odds of bowling a perfect game. Currently the odds are 4,000 to 1 for each full game; twenty years ago those odds were a staggering 89,000 to 1. Change happens and matters greatly. Investors must be familiar with past stock market annual rewards to make informed investment decisions.
    Gerd Gigerenzer is an acknowledged expert on risk identification and management. He is an advocate for an early introduction of statistical thinking into schools. Our statistical illiteracy is staggering and detracts from our successes during our entire life.
    Gigerenzer’s answer is to incorporate a multi-component statistical curriculum starting at the sub-high school level. His proposed curriculum would include health, financial, and digital risk literacy segments. Each of these elements would be subdivided into statistical thinking, rules of thumb and the psychology of risk according to a review by Omar Malik.
    Gigerenzer is a popular public speaker. He has recently appeared on a TED video. Here is a Link to one of his talks:

    I hope you enjoy it. I did.
    Thanks again for your comments. They certainly expanded the discussion context in a positive direction.
    Best Wishes.
  • a quick update on Ted
    Glad to see Ted has returned.
    On a related note, as it pertains to Ted's "offending" post, though I'm not a copyright attorney, I did study copyright law while in law school, albeit many years ago. As I understand it, a forum or blog can issue portions of an article so long as the excerpt is quantitatively small and does not cause the newspaper financial harm. When Ted published the post it made me want to click through to the original article--which I ultimately did. I'm sure that this forum wants to steer clear of copyright violations, and I don't have any issue with a moderator making sure that the site isn't subject to liability.
    I'd suggest that David issue guidelines for the "reposting" of articles. If and when he sees those guidelines violated, he can gently remind offenders and can edit the posts accordingly. Beyond this, I think that censorship directed against individual posters should be frowned upon.
  • Vanguard Demonstrates When Active Management Pays, with the author's justifiably angry response
    Vanguard as a "non profit"?
    To some extent, isn't Vanguard a non-profit to the same extent that Hollywood movies don't make a profit?
    Hollywood accounting is kind of strange - many of the most popular movies never make a profit, so that if you get your points/participation on the "back end" - after everyone else has been paid - you will be waiting forever before you get profits.
    See the following wiki link for a discussion of Hollywood accounting:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
    Here is a brief extract from the Wikipedia link: (see link for full text)
    =======================================
    Hollywood accounting can take several forms... The specific schemes can range from the simple and obvious to the extremely complex.
    Three main factors in Hollywood accounting reduce the reported profit of a movie, and all have to do with the calculation of overhead:
    Production overhead: ...
    Distribution overhead: ...
    Marketing overhead: ...
    All of the above means of calculating overhead are highly controversial, even within the accounting profession....
    =====================================
    Vanguard may be a non-profit in the same way that Hollywood movies don't make a profit.
    Also - for true non profits - other than "Vanguard" - the non-profits are subject to some fairly rigorous reporting with respect to their operations, expenses, and staff salaries.
    Again - Vanguard does not provide anything close to this sort of disclosure. It's not a non-profit. It's more like a co-operative, where the members of the co-op don't have a lot of visibility as to what is really going on with respect to the co-op's financial arrangements.
    IMHO ...
  • Let's Iron out some things
    Hey guys! Managed to find Internet on the beach. My brother who thinks his lil brother lost it a long time back, never invests in mutual funds. However thanks to this board and after I recommended RPHYX and RSIVX - the only funds he owns besides bunch of Vanguard in his 401k - he still introduces me to others as his brother. Sorry digressing...
    When we discussed conservative (ahem) ways to get some yield, he says to look at PFF and the new VRP. Then he showed me how some preferred stocks have provided him good income over the past few years and especially after the financial crisis. Anyways, just some food for thought. I am going to research some preferred stock funds after I get back. Seems like a compelling diversifying opportunity to me
    Wish my first generation IPad had a camera so I could post a picture of my first real vacation in years. I have already had enought beers in the name of each one of you.
  • How can you find out a fund's historical AUM?
    not 'quick and easy', but all annual and semiannual financial reports will have the numbers. you do need to go to the filings.
  • assume most saw this (passive vs active, yet again)
    Hi Mrdarcy,
    Thank you for your thoughtful and generous reply.
    Whenever I add to the MFO Discussion Board, I do so with some definite goal in mind. I typically do not contribute innocuous atta-boys. Since I almost always have a target purpose, I complete a little verification research and include references and a few statistics to backstop my positions. This annoys several MFO members, but I feel compelled to provide this necessary documentation to capture credibility.
    You are not alone in thinking that my current positions are those that I steadfastly recommend for all MFO participants. That thinking is wrong!
    That thinking grossly overstates my compassion and dedication on any matter. My main goal is to inform MFO members on the likely odds and expected payoffs for various investment scenarios. I truly believe that statistical inputs and probability-based interpretations of those statistics are essential to support superior financial decision making.
    I never say that my way is the only way. It is not. If you feel so then you are overreacting to my presentation. Also, since I am a true believer in an incremental approach to financial matters since it is nowhere near a well understood science, I never believe that my viewpoints are irrefutable, and they are always subject to change as the marketplace dynamics change.
    Just like placing all your eggs in one basket is a hazardous investment policy, placing total reliance on a single market wizard is also hazardous duty.
    I also truly believe that each investor is the only and singular master to his own goals and preferences. There are many diverse roads to investment success, and I respect each and everyone of them although each one has its own set of traps and potholes. Whatever his goals, I believe an investor benefits by comparing his performance against a carefully designed benchmark that reflects those goals. How else would he measure his achievements in reaching those goals?
    I surely do not possess the magic roadmap. To each his own investment pathway. That’s why I do not recommend specific investments and I resist disclosing my own portfolio holdings. These are both temporal things and could promote harm to an unseasoned, rookie investor.
    I suspect some of you guys interpret my writing style as being far too authoritative. I certainly am guilty of trying to organize my research and interpretations in an authoritative framework. In defense of that style, I doubt that many MFOers would even read my posts if they were wishy-washy.
    I spent an engineering career writing and evaluating work proposals. If those proposals were less than honest and less than positive, they would quickly be discarded as unacceptable. I still compose with that firmness of purpose.
    As a sidebar, I have a question for you. Is your Mrdarcy moniker a reference to the Mr. Darcy character in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” book? If so, do you see yourself in the dual roles that characterized Mr. Darcy’s overarching behavior, initially a charming cad and later a romantic hero, on this panel? Yours is a puzzling name choice for these MFO discussions. Please respond.
    Once again, thanks for your comments.
    Best Wishes.
  • John Waggoner: These Junk Funds Got Trashed Last Week
    FYI: When there’s a lot of fear in the financial world, the first thing investors do is ditch their risky assets like an annoyed pit viper. And one of the first risky assets to get tossed is junk bonds.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/08/04/these-junk-funds-got-trashed-last-week/
  • Checking Up On Fidelity's New ETFs
    FYI: Copy & Paste 8/2/14: Lewis Braham: Barron's
    Regards,
    Ted
    If ETFs are like the Protestant Reformation to the fund industry, Fidelity is the Catholic Church. The House that Peter Lynch built is famous for its active management. That's why to fund insiders it was as astonishing as Vatican II when the $2 trillion money manager launched 10 sector index ETFs of its own last October. Prior to that it had opened only one other ETF, Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index (ticker: ONEQ), which it let languish for more than a decade.
    No one can dispute the new ETFs have been a success. In less than a year, they've gathered $1.2 billion in assets. That's one of the most successful launches since Pimco opened an ETF version of Bill Gross's Pimco Total Return fund (BOND) in 2012, says Dave Nadig, chief investment officer of ETF.com. Yet the ETF evangelist argues that Fidelity did this out of desperation. "Fidelity is trying to stem the tide of outflows," Nadig says. "Over the last five years, there's been nearly $750 billion of inflows into ETFs and net outflows from mutual funds. To not do something like this is to cede the field to ETFs."
    The truth is more nuanced. Fidelity's foray into the ETF world wasn't capricious; its index-based sector ETFs are an outgrowth of the actively managed sector funds it's been running for more than 30 years. Moreover, despite the generally bleak outlook for mutual funds, Fidelity's 39 "Select" sector funds experienced $7.1 billion in inflows in the last five years, according to Morningstar, and the firm has seen overall inflows in that period -- there's no tide of outflows. And given the challenges of active management, it's impressive that 22 of those 39 funds have beaten more than 70% of their peers over the past decade.
    Anthony Rochte, who oversees Fidelity's sector-fund division, sees the new ETFs as more of a complement to the mutual funds, meant for a different kind of investor, rather than a substitute for the shop's existing products. "We realized that ETFs are critical to investors who might want to be more tactical," he says. "Mutual funds may not be the perfect fit for a financial advisor or individual investor who wants to trade intraday." Of the $600 billion invested in sector-based portfolios industrywide, more than 40% is invested in such aggressive ETF trading strategies, Rochte says.
    CERTAINLY, THE NEW ETFS have many features that will appeal to sector rotators -- especially those who are already Fidelity customers. If you buy shares at Fidelity, there are no transaction fees, although like other brokers who offer such free trades, Fidelity will impose a $7.95 short-term penalty if you hold your shares less than 30 days. Longer-term investors will also appreciate the ETFs' 0.12% expense ratios, the lowest for their sectors. The ETFs also represent their sectors better than competitors by holding more small companies. Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC), for instance, has 311 holdings, including many small, rapidly growing biotech companies, compared with the 55, mostly blue-chip stocks in the better-known Health Care Select Sector SPDR (XLV).
    That said, volumes in the 10 ETFs have only ranged between 36,000 and 93,000 shares a day over the past three months -- good enough for individual investors but not large institutions. "Those volumes are nowhere near enough for a hedge fund to make major allocations," says Nadig. "But that will come with time." He thinks the ETFs will be successful because Fidelity has a "captive audience" at its brokerage. The firm has more than 15 million retail brokerage accounts and 10,000 financial advisors trading on its platform.
    FOR LARGE INVESTORS there is also a workaround to buying shares in bulk. David Haviland, who runs $1.1 billion in ETF strategies at Beaumont Capital Management, bought $162 million of Fidelity ETFs in one day earlier this year when trading volumes were much lower than now. Instead of buying the ETF shares via the exchange, his traders contacted market-maker Knight Capital Group, which creates baskets of stocks underlying the ETFs. If you're willing to buy enough shares -- 40,000 in Fidelity's case -- KCG or another market-maker, like Goldman Sachs, will essentially purchase the underlying stocks and create a new batch of ETFs. Dealing directly with a market-maker like this ensures big purchases won't affect the share price on the open market.
    Because Haviland employs an aggressive, momentum-based strategy, Fidelity's actively managed mutual funds never held any interest for him. He needs to exit on a dime when an ETF loses momentum to protect clients' capital. So in his case there really is no question of Fidelity ETFs appealing to a different kind of customer, one that is cannibalizing Fidelity's core business.
    Other experts believe that whether you substitute Select funds for ETFs depends on which sector you're invested in. Jim Lowell, editor of the Fidelity Sector Investor newsletter, thinks investors might be better off in Fidelity's energy ETF than its active funds because the sector is so volatile and driven by rapidly shifting commodity prices. "You want to be nimble and quick with an energy ETF because you'll more likely be trading out of your position quickly," he says. "The benefits of an active manager aren't there in that space from my perspective."
    Still, Lowell favors Fidelity's Select funds overall. "It will be very difficult for any sector ETF that's using a passive index to outperform Fidelity's active managed sector funds over any meaningful investment timeline," he says. While the academic research suggests indexing wins in general, choosing between active funds and passive ETFs at Fidelity remains a matter of belief.
  • Can You Afford To Retire Early ? Are You Saving Enough ?
    FYI: The Five-Year Rally in Stocks Has Bolstered Workers' Nest Eggs. But Consider These Six Issues First.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://online.wsj.com/articles/can-you-afford-to-retire-early-1406912729#printMode
    Are You Saving Enough For Retirement ? Copy & Paste 7/31/14: Walter Updegrave: WSJ
    Fueled by surging stock prices, average 401(k) balances have come back from the beating they took in the financial crisis and now stand at or near record highs.
    But hold the confetti.
    The tailwind of stocks' nearly 18% of annualized gains of the past five years—almost double the stock market's long-term average—clearly isn't sustainable for the long term. Indeed, given today's low interest rates and high stock prices relative to earnings, average annual stock returns over the next decade or so could come in at well below half the pace of recent years.
    Which means if you want to accumulate enough savings during your career to sustain you in retirement, you will have to do it the old-fashioned way: by saving diligently.
    On that front, the news isn't quite so upbeat. A survey of 144 large 401(k) plans covering some 3.5 million employees released in July by benefits consulting firm Aon Hewitt found that the annual contribution for employees and employer matching funds combined averaged just under 11% of salary last year, down a tad from the year before.
    And although the survey also showed that the average employee-plus-employer contribution rises with age—starting at 7.6% of salary for participants in their 20s and climbing to 10.1%, 11%, 12.7% and 13.4% for participants in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s, respectively—not a single age group averaged the 15% a year that retirement experts generally recommend if you want to maintain your preretirement lifestyle after calling it a career.
    Fortunately, it doesn't take a heroic savings effort to appreciably boost the eventual size of your nest egg and enhance your retirement prospects.
    Let's assume you are 25 years old, earn $50,000 a year and receive 2% annual raises, and that you make an "average" effort to fund a retirement account such as your 401(k). That is, throughout your career the total of your contributions plus employer matching funds mirrors the age-group averages in the Aon Hewitt survey.
    If you invest your savings in a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds that earns a reasonable rate of return—say, 6% a year after fees—your 401(k) balance would total roughly $1.1 million at age 65.
    That is a tidy sum, to be sure. But it probably isn't enough to replace enough of your income over at least 30 years of retirement.
    Generally, advisers say personal savings should generate 50% to 60% of your preretirement income, so that withdrawals from savings plus another 20% to 25% from Social Security and other sources (part-time work, a pension) replace at least 75% to 80% your preretirement income—a level experts generally consider the benchmark for maintaining your preretirement standard of living after you retire.
    Increasing the amount you save by even a relatively small amount can significantly improve your chances of reaching that level.
    For example, if instead of saving at that average level, reported by Aon Hewitt, you set aside just an extra 1% of salary each year, your 401(k) account's value would climb to just under $1.2 million at age 65. Assuming a 4% initial withdrawal of $48,000, your savings would now be able to replace nearly 45% of pre-retirement income from savings alone. Boost your savings rate another 1% each year, and your account's projected value rises to almost $1.3 million, which allows for a withdrawal of $52,000, bringing you just within reach of replacing 50% of your preretirement income from savings.
    And if you manage to stash away the 15% a year that advisers recommend, you would have a nest egg at age 65 valued at almost $1.6 million, providing for an initial withdrawal of $64,000, or about 60% of preretirement income. Throw in an additional 20% to 25% from Social Security and other sources, and your retirement income now meets or exceeds that 75% to 80% benchmark.
    Aside from the obvious benefit of a larger nest egg generating more income in retirement, saving at a higher rate during your career also makes your retirement strategy less vulnerable to setbacks from financial shocks.
    For example, the hypothetical 25-year-old in the scenarios above saved like a machine each and every year over four decades. In the real world, job losses, health problems, unexpected expenses and all manner of other unanticipated events can prevent even the most diligent saver from sticking to a savings regimen uninterrupted over an entire career. By making the effort to save at a higher rate when things are going well, however, you effectively will build a cushion that will help you better absorb any financial setbacks and get your retirement planning back on track.
    Such a cushion can come in especially handy late in your career. For example, if you are on the verge of retiring and the stock market takes a dive, having $1.6 million in savings instead of $1.1 million could mean the difference between scaling back your lifestyle a bit but still going ahead with your retirement plans versus having to postpone your employment exit and spend extra years on the job.
    The single best way to maximize your savings effort is to sign up for your company's 401(k) or similar plan. Aside from the benefit that your contributions and investment earnings in a 401(k) account go untaxed until withdrawal, the fact that money is automatically deducted from your paycheck makes it more convenient to save, and more likely you actually will do so.
    That said, some features in 401(k) plans that were designed to spur savings can sometimes have the opposite effect. For example, the lure of "free money" in the form of company matching contributions clearly creates an incentive to save. But the Aon Hewitt survey shows that nearly a third of 401(k) participants contribute just enough to get the full company match.
    While doing that may seem smart, in that you get the largest company match while you shell out as little as possible, it also can leave you short of the savings rate required to assure a secure retirement.
    Keep in mind, though, that while 15% is generally a reasonable goal, the actual amount you should be setting aside can vary considerably depending on your salary, how much you already have stashed away and the number of years until you retire.
    There are many online retirement planning tools that can help you home in on the right annual savings target for you. Whether you use a basic calculator or a more comprehensive one that allows you to vary such assumptions as how you invest your savings and your planned retirement date, you will want to reassess every year or so to see whether your current savings rate is adequate.
    As exciting as it may be to watch the value of your nest egg swell as stock prices soar, over the long run it is how much you save that will determine how well you can live in retirement.
  • Safety in Numbers – Not Necessarily
    Hi Guys,
    A few days ago I was shocked by the number of mutual funds owned by a wise and loyal MFO member. I didn’t examine the incremental diversification benefits accrued by the overall funds or their individual investment philosophies; I simply counted.
    I’m sure the owner had excellent reasons and logic when these funds were originally added to his portfolio. I’m equally sure that the styles and the strategies deployed by such a competitive group tend to cancel each other out and neutralize a potential high excess returns.
    Diversification is a cardinal investment rule; it is the stuff of successful investing. Well maybe, but more likely it must be exercised prudently; it has its own set of limits. Safety in numbers is a residual human characteristic from our hunter-gatherer days.
    J. Paul Getty opined that “Money is like manure. You have to spread it around to make things grow”. Warren Buffett proffered the other viewpoint with “Buy two of everything in sight and you end up with a zoo instead of a portfolio”. Economist and financial advisor Mark Skousen summarized both sides with this wealth-linked compromise: “To make it concentrate, to keep it diversify”.
    Assembling a huge number of actively managed mutual funds in multiple categories is almost a 100% guarantee of underperformance relative to any reasonable benchmark. That failure guarantee is mostly tied to active fund management fees. It is true that some superior fund managers do overcome the fees hurdles, but these are few in number and even this minority subset is further eroded by persistency problems over time.
    A recent study that illuminates this issue was released by Rick Ferri a year or so ago. It is a Monte Carlo-based parametric study that has been referenced on MFO earlier. Here is a Link to it:
    http://www.rickferri.com/WhitePaper.pdf
    You can use these study results to estimate your likelihood of selecting a group of active fund managers that potentially might outdistance a passive portfolio, and importantly, by how much.
    The overarching findings from this extensive analysis is that the odds are not especially satisfying, and that the likely excess returns are negative. Notwithstanding these unhealthy findings, they do not completely close the door for active portfolio elements. However, these results do put a hard edge on the low probabilities and the negative expectations.
    To illustrate, assume that an investor has somehow increased his likelihood of choosing a positive Alpha fund manager to 70 percent by applying an undefined meaningful fund manager selection process. That’s actually quite high given the poor historical record of individual investors. Using Ferri’s numbers for a 3-component portfolio (40% US equity, 20% International equity, 40% Investment grade bonds), the likely outperformance median return is 0.52% while the underperformance median is -1.25%. That asymmetry reflects cost and fee drags.
    The prospective excess returns coupled to a 70% chance of selecting a superior active manager is (0.7 X 0.52) + (0.3 X -1.25) = -0.011. So, an investor needs to have a higher than 70% active fund manager selection probability before he can anticipate a net positive excess return for his efforts. That’s a tough task.
    The situation deteriorates rapidly as more active managers are added to the mix within each investment category. In the sample scenario, the likelihood of hiring two successful active fund managers is simply 0.7 X 0.7 = 0.49 without impacting the median expected excess return numbers.
    The probabilities of generating excess rewards from active management falls from neutral to bad to worse very rapidly. The bottom-line is that hiring a ton of active fund managers adds to investment risk without substantially enhancing the rewards side of the equation. Charles Ellis might well characterize this as a Losers game.
    Twenty years ago the investment game was a lot easier to play. Market efficiency has improved over time and has reduced the opportunities for excess profits just like improvements in baseball pitching staff depth has improved to lower overall batting averages.
    At that time, it was investor against investor on trades; today the trades are much more commonly executed on an institution against institution basis. And these institutions are populated by well educated, smart professionals who are supported by extensive research staff and super computers for numbers crunching. The chances for an individual investor to outplay these titans has dimmed over the decades.
    I don’t mean to say that it can’t happen because it does happen. But it’s not an easy chore. Institutional agencies have their own set of hobgoblins to battle. Since retirement, I have been benchmarking my private portfolio against an Index benchmark that I vary as my asset allocation changes, and against a nice pension that is tied to a portfolio maintained by a highly regarded financial service organization.
    Anecdotally, over most of my retirement, my personal portfolio was dominated by active fund holdings. I slightly underperformed the Index benchmark, but I frequently outperformed my pension portfolio. I don’t have access to the pension portfolio’s specific allocations, but I suppose they are more widely and more conservatively distributed than my personal portfolio. They have access to alternate investment products that I can not touch.
    One takeaway from all this is that some active managers can deliver the goods, but they are a rare breed. So choose carefully, monitor diligently, and very definitely limit the number of active managers that you hire for your portfolio(s). That’s just my amateurs opinion.
    Simplifying is wonderful. It will certainly add to your free time; it will likely enhance your portfolio returns, especially if you use active fund management.
    Best Regards.
  • John Waggoner: Learning From Argentina's Woes
    Sore losers, in my opinion. Those hedge funds knew exactly what they were buying: crap at pennies on the dollar. They refused the general settlement that the great majority of those bondholders accepted, and thought that they could bludgeon Argentina into paying full value. Argentina's history of financial responsibility is pathetic, but the vultures got exactly what they deserved. Bullies, who when bested at their own game, cry "they didn't play fair!". Awwww....
  • Wellington Fund And The Vanguard Family Tree
    Some excerpts from a Memo written by John Bogle July 9, 2014
    http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/category/memos-to-principals-and-veterans/
    July 9, 2014
    To: My Fellow Vanguard Veterans and Principals
    My 63rd Anniversary
    Monday, July 9, 1951, was the first day of my long career in the mutual fund industry. I vividly remember walking into the Wellington Fund offices on 1420 Walnut Street in Philadelphia
    Little could I have imagined that I would remain with Wellington/ Vanguard for 63 years
    Much of what was to follow was due to the ethical values and financial wisdom of my great mentor and friend, Walter L. Morgan, who did his best to impart them to his heir-apparent.
    Walter Morgan was the founder and chief of Wellington Fund and Wellington Management Company, and (as I once wrote to him) he gave me his confidence when I had little confidence in myself. Then, Wellington employed maybe 75 people, and supervised $150 million of assets for the shareholders of its single mutual fund. (Tiny by today’s standards, but then one of this industry’s ten largest firms.)
    You all probably know about how my career at Wellington ended (I was fired from my position as chief executive in January 1974), fortuitously opening the door to my creation of Vanguard only seven months later
    It was, as they say, the opportunity of a lifetime—a chance to build something new and better for our mutual fund shareholders. The three pillars of our fledging firm were our unique mutual structure, the world’s first index mutual fund, and the unprecedented conversion to a distribution system without a sales force
    Still strong, if perhaps diminished (your call on both!), I continue to use those powers to speak out for giving all mutual fund shareholders a better chance to accumulate wealth; for reform in an industry that has come to emphasize marketing over management; for the requirement that every firm that touches other people’s money be subject to high standards of fiduciary duty and trusteeship