Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 10/1/23
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
No changes.
Restricted RC 6.75%, RA 6.50%
Flexible RCP 6.00%, SRA 5.75%, Newer IRAs 5.20%
TSP G Fund hasn't updated yet (previous monthly rate was 4.25%).
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#401k #403b #StableValue #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1197/thread

dtconroe: "Yep, I am also weighing my options of at least devoting part of my portfolio for longer CDs--maybe 2 or 3 year CDs. 2 year CDs have been the longest I have previously invested in, but with 3 year CDs over 5% now, it at least deserves some consideration. With my taxable account, I prefer limiting my CD terms to shorter options of 6 months to a yearfor liquidity purposes, but with my traditional IRA CDs, I am looking closely at longer terms. A 3 year laddering approach looks interesting to me in my IRA account.
For most of my retirement years, I had a target objective of 4 to 6% TR, using low risk bond oefs. It is a little strange to be able to get that so easily with CDs these days."
There is a line of thinking that 10-year treasuries are starting to look good at 4.5%. Unlike CDs they will have a nice CG once 4.5% become history.

Pretty weak article, and poorly written. Hard to figure out what it is saying anyone holds.
Is it counting ETFs as equities? Asked because it separates out investments in mutual funds (17.57% advised, 20.10% DIY).
Cash? 5.70% advised, 15.71% DIY after 2022Q1!. Maybe the DIY'ers had the right idea (whether by luck or not, can't tell from report).
While the article does note that the study is based on Schwab's PCRA brokerage window in employer-sponsored retirement plans (401(k)s, etc.) it does not mention that employees who use brokerage windows tend to be more aggressive investors. Did the study control for that before drawing its general conclusions about all investors?

I came across this link today & post a link, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/schwab-says-double-retirement-savings-171401493.html
Make sure to read the comments as they seem to go against the presented info.

IMO, robo-advisors are nothing more than hyped-up allocation funds that are liked by the younger generation. If one is willing to spend a little time, one can achieve a similar effect with traditional allocation funds (static-allocations; Income, conservative-allocation, moderate-allocation, aggressive-allocation) or TDFs (glide-path allocation). A lot of PR has gone into promoting robo-advisors as something novel when it is just some old wine in new bottles.

No argument here.
The key is the highlighted section. People have to be willing, and interested, in spending a little time. Many are not, though that may seem weird to MFO readers :-).
As to being able to achieve similar effect with TDFs, Vanguard says the same thing. I quoted a portion of Vanguard's disclosure above. Perhaps I should have included more of it, as it echoes what you are saying. In essence, for the extra fee, you get handholding and some advice but otherwise similar investments, especially if one sticks to index funds (a common makeup of TDFs, not just at Vanguard):

Vanguard offers a range of different solutions to help you meet your financial goals, including self- directed brokerage services, single fund investments (such as Vanguard’s Target Retirement Funds), and different investment advisory programs. If you are considering investing through a total market index investment setting, you should understand that each of the Four Totals [Total Stock, Total Bond, Total Int'l Stock, Total Int'l Bond] is a share class of the mutual funds that are used (or are substantially similar to the mutual funds used) in Vanguard’s Target Retirement Funds. In certain circumstances, your recommended standard portfolio will contain identical allocations to the four Total Funds that are available in a Vanguard Target Retirement Fund, which is generally available at a lower cost than the Services.

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/vanguard-digital-advice-brochure.pdf
OTOH, if one is willing to spend the time with the advisor, one can wind up with portfolios that are significantly more personalized.

@Sven, age-based funds within 529s operationally work like TDFs for retirement; their glide-paths are to the college age of 18 (vs retirement date of the TDFs). One can mix age-based funds with traditional allocation funds within 529s to achieve a variety of custom glide-paths. But I don't know of a 529 that formally includes a robo-advisor fund within it.
@hank, most performance comparisons of robo-advisors with other funds (TDFs, allocation/hybrid) are for moderate-allocation (around 60-40). There are also variations for MA - MA Aggressive, MA, MA Conservative.
IMO, robo-advisors are nothing more than hyped-up allocation funds that are liked by the younger generation. If one is willing to spend a little time, one can achieve a similar effect with traditional allocation funds (static-allocations; Income, conservative-allocation, moderate-allocation, aggressive-allocation) or TDFs (glide-path allocation). A lot of PR has gone into promoting robo-advisors as something novel when it is just some old wine in new bottles.

In the end, I believe the clients have the equal responsibility to work with their advisors in order to put together a solid asset allocation plan so to meet their future needs.
Wow are you on the mark. I know a few people who are using advisors at different institutions who have little interaction with their advisors - just periodic check ins or reports and conversations about cash flow needs. I was even recently asked to review an advisor's suggestions.
I try to explain: if you are paying for a service, use it. If you don't understand something talk with the advisor. If you're still not comfortable and the advisor won't accommodate you, move.
There are people who want to be completely hands off, or as close as one can get. For them, something like Vanguard Personal Advisor (hybrid robo) with index funds may be a good fit. Handholding, but without the added expense for customizations. For many people here, who take at least a somewhat more active interest, a service like Personal Advisor Select may work well.
Regarding Vanguard's index robo service (with or without human advisor):

If you are considering investing through a total market index investment setting, you should understand that each of the Four Totals [Total Stock, Total Bond, Total Int'l Stock, Total Int'l Bond] is a share class of the mutual funds that are used (or are substantially similar to the mutual funds used) in Vanguard’s Target Retirement Funds. In certain circumstances, your recommended standard portfolio will contain identical allocations to the four Total Funds that are available in a Vanguard Target Retirement Fund, which is generally available at a lower cost than the Services.
You should consider the advisory fees and Vanguard ETFs expense ratios you will incur upon enrollment as well as the personalized features and additional services that are available through each Service in comparison to the lower costs and absence of personalized services of Vanguard single fund [target date] solutions when considering the managed offer.

M* Rekenthaler mentioned exposure to international as one of the main drags on target-date retirement funds in a column this past summer.

Just thought I'd try to show what a dragging portfolio Vanguard's recommended retired fund has been the last year or so. (If readable.)

VTINX Target Income Composition 01/01/2023        Ticker   % portfolio
Vanguard Total Bond Market II                      VTBIX    37.00%
Vanguard Total Stock Market Institutional          VSMPX     18.00%
Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected            VTAPX     16.30%
Vanguard Total International Bond II Index Fund	    VTILX    16.20%
Vanguard Total International Stock Investor Shares  VGTSX    12.50%
VTINX Portfolio                                              100.00%

@msf
Have you used the Schwab WEG group for anything?
The example in the spreadsheet shows without the conversions their tax rate is 22% but in retirement with RMDS rises to 28% and eventually to 33%
With the conversion they start out at 24 to 25% but keep it around 28%
It is surprising that they only save $80,000 in lifetime taxes and it takes until 2041 for them to break even on taxes paid. They come out ahead estate wise by $500,000 and their heirs get the Roth tax free.
So you are essentially paying your heirs tax bill for them.

I always am concerned when you look at their decades long insistence that clients need significant international exposure. At some point that will be called for, but it has not worked for a long time.

M* Rekenthaler mentioned exposure to international as one of the main drags on target-date retirement funds in a column this past summer.
Traditional 60/40 funds have done better in comparison.
It's an interesting read. I won't try to summarize it here. Follow the link.

@hank, I don't know what goes into the models that set portfolio construction. And likely all firms' algorithms are slightly different. No different than a Vanguard retirement fund compared to a TR Price or a Fidelity retirement fund. Do they adjust on all the micro circumstances you mentioned? I don't believe so, and I wouldn't want them to. They would be guessing and screwing up returns just like your average investor does per most investor return reports. The stability and convenience of a robo or a retirement fund is what you are paying for.
I have the Schwab robo. I recently cut it by a third. It has not returned as much as my self-managed portfolio this year. It's biggest drawback has been it's heavy weighting in EM and foreign stocks and it's 12% cash holding that sits in a very low interest savings account, not a money market. That cash is and has always been the fee you pay for the Schwab robo. The12% cash allotment is making almost nothing for me compared to their 5%+ MM in my self-managed. It didn't matter as much in the past, but it certainly does now. I estimate this 12% cash has now become about a 0.6% fee to own the CS robo. That is a fairly large fee in my opinion.

LINK 2
FUNDS. Mid-cap growth JAENX follows the GARP strategy. Its portfolio includes 26% techs, 24% industrials (reshoring themes), healthcare, growth utilities (renewables, grid improvements). (By @lewisbraham at MFO) (Also, a strange placement near the end of the issue)
EXTRA, FUNDS. With the NAMES-RULE, the SEC has cracked down on misleading fund names. Funds must invest 80% of the assets according to what is in their names, e.g. growth, value, big-data, green, AI, etc. When terms are vague, funds must define them along with applicable criteria in their prospectuses and those will become part of funds’ official investment policy. Fund firms with $1+ billion AUM will have 12 months to comply, smaller firms 18 months. Future flexibility will only be during fund launches when it takes some time to build portfolios, but beyond that, any deviations must be fixed within 90 days.
INCOME. As bond-proxies, UTILITIES (XLU, the worst among 11 S&P sectors) have suffered as rates have risen. But rates are peaking, and utilities should have better prospects ahead, especially growth electric utilities, those involved in renewables and improving grid infrastructure. Mentioned are AEP, CNP, NI. (This previously regular column is now ON/OFF)
ECONOMY. A new plan by the LA Senator CASSIDY and the ME Senator KING to fix SOCIAL SECURITY may work. It will leave the SSA Trust Fund (really, an IOU) alone, but would BORROW $1.5 trillion over 5 years to invest in STOCK index funds. The total US stock market-cap is $43.4 trillion, so this inflow shouldn’t cause much disruption (but don’t underestimate the impact of the inflow of $300 billion/yr. That would be almost double of the US IPOs in a best/hot year like 2021) (Also not mentioned is the increase in the US debt, but what is another $1.5 trillion added to $33 trillion?). This stock investment may cover 75% of the SSA shortfall with the rest coming from COST-CUTTING via increasing the FRA (well, this is the US, not France), raising salary caps, adding means test for higher income earners (so, they pay max into the SSA but may be limited in their SSA benefits). (No mention of how/if this $1.5 trillion would be repaid, but keep in mind that Social Security is a mandatory obligation of the government) (By guest author Allan Sloan)
Dave GOODSELL, Natixis Center for Investor Insights. Most Americans aren’t prepared for RETIREMENT and may be overly optimistic. For many, 2022 was a year when reality hit (with bad stock and bond markets). Financial advisors have been suggesting that fixed-income now has generational opportunities, yet the pain isn’t over for many sectors of fixed-income. Allocation 60-40 makes good sense now. SOCIAL SECURITY may cover only 35-40% of retirement needs, and many Americans would have difficult time covering the rest from their portfolios. LONGEVITY is an underestimated risk, higher than what investors perceive in surveys (#1-volatility, #2-risk of loss).
RETIREMENT. A government SHUTDOWN (federal FY24 starts October 1) won’t disrupt the monthly SSA payments (as that is mandatory spending), but other SSA services would be affected. The announcement of COLA (est +3.2%) would be delayed (without the BLS CPI data). We went through the debt-ceiling fiasco earlier this year, and now this.

@Sven - they're "probably" designed "properly" :-)
Robo (and to a lesser extent hybrid) advisors are designed for simpler situations - asset allocation, growing (or spending down) portfolios, tax loss harvesting, maybe targeting specific goals (amounts/dates when needed). 1% is too high a fee for these "basic plus" services.
The standard assumption is that younger people or people with modest portfolios don't need more sophisticated services (extensive tax planning, estate planning, trusts, etc). It's not a bad assumption but there are many exceptions: wealthy people without heirs just spending down retirement money don't need many services; young working class families dealing with health issues may.

Schwab & Wealth Enhancement Group:
Partnering for a Superior Client Experience
https://network.wealthenhancement.com/
From there, follow the full services link to:
https://network.wealthenhancement.com/services
Then to Financial Planning:
https://network.wealthenhancement.com/financial-planning
That has the link to Dynamic Cash Flow Tax Plan- Roth IRA Conversion (the sample spreadsheet)
The key is the "network" part of the URL (working with Schwab), as opposed to using "www".
The spreadsheet illustrates a straightforward strategy. "Prepay" taxes (via conversions paid for out of taxable account) as a way of moving that tax money into sheltered accounts. If it weren't for graduated tax rates, one might want to convert all of an IRA up front. Instead, convert gradually over many years, going up to but not into the next tax bracket.
(Since some states exempt some or all of the conversion amount, the combined fed/state rate on some conversions can be less than your current bracket even if you edge into the next bracket).
A first order approximation for the ultimate target is to convert enough over many years that what one is left with in the T-IRA generates RMDs not greater than one's cash flow needs (after accounting for SS, pensions, and taxable account assets). Notice in the spreadsheet that this couple never depletes their taxable account and that their RMDs are below their cash flow needs.
(Depleting taxable assets would be a good thing, because then assets would all be in tax-advantaged accounts. This couple can't do that without the conversions moving them into a higher (32%) bracket.)
This strategy depends on the assumption that one's tax bracket in retirement will not be much less than one's tax rate for the conversions. (It can be somewhat less because of the tax-sheltering effect of prepaying taxes.) Given today's low tax rates (even the spreadsheet assumes a future increase in rates), that's an assumption I've been willing to make. In the end, what taxes will be 30 years from now is a crap shoot.

Those suggested allocations for VG PAS in 60s & 70s (60-40), early-80s (55-45), late-80s & beyond (50-50) are much higher than those for target-date funds (TDFs), including Vanguard TDFs. Of course, the questionnaire for PAS determined the specifics.
Most TDFs have 50-50 in 60s (retirement age) and then flatten out to 20-80/40-60 over several years. TDFs also have issues. But I am just noticing the huge discrepancy between the VG PAS recommendations and TDFs.

Vanguard has defined five risk levels for asset allocation schedules:
very conservative, conservative, moderate, aggressive, very aggressive.
The asset allocation schedule suggested in my plan is considered aggressive.
For some context, two 2025 target-date fund portfolios (08/31/2023) are listed below.
VTTVX
U.S. Stock: 32.60%
Intl. Stock: 22.00%
U.S. Bond: 28.30%
Intl. Bond: 12.40%
Short-Term TIPS: 4.70%
TRRHX
U.S. Stock: 38.39%
Intl. Stock: 17.58%
U.S. Bond: 26.18%
Intl. Bond: 9.75%
Cash: 4.80%
Other: 2.66%
Convertibles: 0.42%
Preferred Stock: 0.22%
The glide path in my plan differs from target-date fund glide paths.
Equity allocation is 60% until age 80, 55% from ages 80 - 85, and 50% from ages 85 - 100.
I was surprised by the relatively high equity allocation beyond age 80.
Perhaps a more conventional glide path exists for conservative or moderate asset allocation schedules?

Having a more complete portfolio picture helped in our planning. Remember, the initial plan is merely a proposal. The clients need to review it thoroughly and make adjustments (asset allocation (risk tolerance), investment vehicles, and % active vs. % passive). We have VG to manage part of several IRA accounts for us with the objective of capital appreciation (the third bucket). We manage the other half for generating income (first and second buckets).
As @lynnbolin21 said earlier there is an element of "leap of faith" when using financial advisor. This is new to us so we take it slow. Our ultimate goal is to have a human advisor to help manage our retirement funds if and when I can no longer able to manage it.
On Vanguard site, there is other links on the bottom that have many useful information on financial planning and templates for their advisors.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/advisors-home
I found particularly informative is under the "Advisor's Alpha®" tab where it goes into Advisor's Alpha® overview, Investors' view on advice, and Behavioral coaching. On the Wealth Management tab, it goes into useful tools for Health Care Cost Estimator, Intergenerational wealth, and Roth Conversion Calculator.
I believe sharing these information is helpful for everyone's planning in the future.

Those suggested allocations for VG PAS in 60s & 70s (60-40), early-80s (55-45), late-80s & beyond (50-50) are much higher than those for target-date funds (TDFs), including Vanguard TDFs. Of course, the questionnaire for PAS determined the specifics.
Most TDFs have 50-50 in 60s (retirement age) and then flatten out to 20-80/40-60 over several years. TDFs also have issues. But I am just noticing the huge discrepancy between the VG PAS recommendations and TDFs.

We are in similar situation as @Observant1 with respect to Vanguard PAS. Their proposed Plan is very detailed as described above with many recommendations . Once you import external account holdings, a comprehensive customized plan can then be made for their clients.
Still we have yet to explore other advisory service they provide besides investment and spending in retirement. That include Roth conversion and timing before RMD at 73.

@Observant1- In the many years that I've been with MFO I've never seen anyone present such complete, detailed and interesting information with respect to a retirement plan that was recommended by a financial firm. Nice job! It should be useful to other MFO members, and initiate some healthy conversations.
Regards- OJ

Thanks, OJ!

@Observant1- In the many years that I've been with MFO I've never seen anyone present such complete, detailed and interesting information with respect to a retirement plan that was recommended by a financial firm. Nice job! It should be useful to other MFO members, and initiate some healthy conversations.
Regards- OJ