Information about financial planning, investments, and retirement plans
You are here: Home / Archives for Fidelity

Target Date Funds Don’t Guarantee Retirement Success

January 23, 2013 By 7 Comments
Share

English: Target

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal professional edition was entitled “Target” Funds Still Missing the Mark. The premise of the article was that Target Date Funds were falling short in their investment returns and were doing nothing to help 401(k) participants regain some of the ground they had lost during the 2008-09 stock market decline.  Another Wall Street Journal Article in early 2011 cited an Alliance Bernstein survey of 1,000 workers which over half “mistakenly believed that using target-date funds would guarantee that their retirement income needs will be met.”

As both a financial planner working with individual investors and as an advisor to several 401(k) plan sponsors I find this survey result appalling and disturbing.  Moreover, it reinforces my concerns that 401(k) participants as well as some plan sponsors really don’t understand the pros and cons of Target Date Funds.

The fund companies offering them would be the first to tell you that there is nothing guaranteed about TDFs. There is a growing movement within the retirement plan space to add guaranteed-income products to Target Date Funds, but this won’t guarantee retirement success either.

Is a Target Date Fund the right choice for you?

The key to determining if a Target Date Fund is the right choice for your retirement savings is to understand them.  If you are considering a TDF for all or part of your 401(k) account or as an investment in general, here are two things to consider:

  • Target Date Funds from various providers with the same target date may vary widely as to their asset allocation and investment approach. There is no requirement that a TDF with a given target date have any particular allocation to equities, fixed income, etc.  The fund with the target date closest to your intended retirement might not be the best fund for your needs. As with any investment, you need to look at the fund’s investment allocation in light of your financial goals, risk tolerance, etc. You should also look at the fund as a part of your overall portfolio if you have investments outside of your retirement plan, such as IRAs, taxable accounts, a spouse’s retirement plan, and the like.
  • Many Target Date Funds are funds of the mutual fund company’s funds. This is the case for Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price, which collectively have about 80 percent of the TDF assets. This is not good or bad, but you should take a look at the funds that make up the TDF that you are considering. In some cases, I’ve seen fund companies use funds other than what I consider to be their top funds; perhaps they are looking to add assets to these funds.

Target Date Funds gather a huge amount of assets for the fund companies offering them, both as a component in many 401(k) plans and as a rollover vehicle when participants leave their employer.  Remember your investment choices should be all about you and what’s right for your situation.

Most of all, remember that the biggest single determinant in retirement success is the amount saved. If you start early, save as much as you can, have a financial plan in place, and make good investment choices, you will give yourself a good shot at accumulating enough to fund your retirement.  There are no guarantees of course.

Please feel free to contact me with questions about 401(k) plan and about your retirement planning needs.

Check out our Resources page for links to a variety of tools and services that might be beneficial to you.

Photo credit:  Wikipedia

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Target Date Funds Tagged With: , , , ,

3 Financial Products to Consider Avoiding

January 14, 2013 By 26 Comments
Share

Red and white sign to avoid construction zone

It’s a New Year and many of us are looking to start the New Year out on the right foot financially.  Couple this with the upcoming tax season and this is prime time for the financial product sales types.   Before buying ANY financial product make sure that this product is right for you in terms of your overall financial situation.  Financial products are tools and just like your projects around the house you should use the right tool for the job and not the tool that the financial rep wants to sell to you.

Here are three products that you should consider avoiding:

Equity-Indexed Annuities 

Equity-Indexed Annuities are an insurance-based product where the returns are tied to some portion of the performance of an underlying market index such as the S&P 500.  Your gains are limited to a portion of what the index gains and there is generally some sort of minimum return to limit (or eliminate) your risk of loss.  As you can imagine these were pitched heavily to Baby Boomers and retirees after the last market downturn and are still being sold based upon fear today.  Two problems here are generally high expenses and surrender charges that keep you locked in the product for years.  The reality based upon my experience is that while most investors suffered major losses during 2008-09, my clients (and the clients of other financial advisors with whom I network) had generally made up those losses in a relatively short period of time and now find themselves decently ahead of where they were.  I’m not sure that an expense laden Equity-Index Annuity would have made them any better off.  If you decide to go ahead with the purchase of an Equity-Indexed Annuity be sure that you understand all of the details including index participation, expenses, surrender charges, and the health of the underlying insurance company.

Proprietary Mutual Funds

 It is not uncommon for registered reps and brokers, who are compensated all or in part by commissions or trailing fees from the mutual funds they sell, to suggest mutual funds from the family run by their employer.  While some of these funds are perfectly fine, all too often in my experience they are not.  Whether from high fees and/or low performance these are often investments to be avoided.  A lawsuit against Ameriprise Financial brought by a group of participants in the company’s retirement plan alleges the company breached its Fiduciary duty by offering a number of the firm’s own funds in the plan and these funds then paid fees back to Ameriprise and some of its subsidiaries.  JP Morgan settled a suit by some retail investors over the bank steering clients into their more expensive proprietary funds over those of other families.

While this is most common in the world of fee-based and commissioned reps, if you are working with the advisory units of a fund company such as Fidelity or Vanguard you should also question recommendations that are exclusively or mainly into their own proprietary funds.  Though I like and use funds from both families you should still question these types of recommendations.  Moreover anyone who pushes you to invest mainly with mutual funds offered by their employer should be questioned vigorously.

Load Mutual Funds

It is important that you understand the ABCs of mutual fund share classes.  In the commissioned/fee-based world reps often sell mutual funds that offer compensation to them and to their broker-dealers.  A shares charge an up-front commission plus a trailing fee (often a 12b-1) of somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.25% or more.  B shares charge no up-front commissions, but carry an additional back-end load as part of the ongoing expense ratio.  This can amount to an addition 0.75% or more added to the fund’s annual expenses.  In addition these shares also contain a surrender charge that typically starts at 5% if your sell the fund before the end of the surrender period.  B shares have been largely phased out by many of the major fund providers.  C shares typically have a permanent 1% level load added to the fund’s expense ratio and carry a one year surrender period.

Look I certainly don’t provide financial advice for free and wouldn’t expect any other professional to do so either.  Unless the person to whom you are paying these pricey loads is providing extraordinary advice, this is a very expensive way to go.  My very biased opinion is that you should look for a fee-only advisor who isn’t compensated based upon the products they sell to you.  Rather fee-only advisors generally act as fiduciaries and are paid for their professional advice and expertise without the conflicts of interest inherent in selling financial products.

The above comments are general and reflect my opinions.  However no financial product is right or wrong in every case.  Before making any financial or investment decision it is best to review your specific situation.  Consult your financial advisor if you work with one.

Please feel free to contact me with questions about any financial products you may be considering or to address your investment and financial planning advice needs. 

Do-it-yourselfers check out morningstar.com to analyze your investments and to get a free trial for their premium services. Check out Personal Capital for a variety of online services including expense tracking, financial planning capabilities, and investment monitoring.

Photo credit:  Flickr

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Investing Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Vanguard Target Date Funds – A Look Under The Hood

October 17, 2012 By Leave a Comment
Share

I’ve written several posts on Target Date Funds for this blog.  I have mixed feelings about them.  On the one hand TDFs do

Vanguard

provide investors with a professionally managed all-in-one investment solution.  Ideally you invest in the fund with a target date closest to your anticipated retirement date and the fund does the rest.  The manager typically lightens up on equities over time until the fund reaches its Glide Path into retirement, which is a point where the equity allocation levels off and you “glide” into retirement.

This is great in theory, but the reality is that across various fund families TDFs with the same target date can vary widely in their allocations and as to when the Glide Path starts.  Personally I like TDFs more for younger investors versus those who are within say 15 years or so of retirement.  Target Date Funds have become a staple in 401(k) plans due to the safe harbor given to plan sponsors who use them as the default investment choice for those plan participants who do not make an election of their own.

Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, and Vanguard control about 80% of the TDFs assets.  Let’s take a look under the hood at the Vanguard Target Retirement funds.

Vanguard offers funds with target dates beginning in 2010 and going out to 2060 in five year increments.  Additionally they offer an Income version of the fund for those already in retirement.

Low Cost and Simple

Vanguard’s approach is both simple and low cost.  The underlying funds consist mostly of Vanguard’s low cost index funds.  The overall expense ratio of the funds is a weighted rollup of the underlying funds and currently ranges from 0.17% to 0.19%.  This is far less expensive than either Fidelity or T. Rowe Price and each of the Vanguard funds ranks in the top (lowest expense) percentile of their respective peer categories.

Solid Performance

  • Each of the funds from the 2010 through the 2050 fund received a top ranking from Fi 360 a mutual fund and ETF ranking service that I utilize in their most recent rankings through the quarter ended September 30, 2012.
  • The Retirement Income fund received a score of 6 from Fi 360 meaning that it ranked in the top 6% of the 211 funds in its category based upon the 11 ranking criteria used by the service.
  • The 2055 and 2060 funds do not have enough history to receive a ranking.

Glide Path and Asset Classes

Vanguard uses 7 asset classes in its TDFs; Fidelity uses 11; T. Rowe Price uses 12.  This is not good or bad, but does reflect Vanguard’s more basic approach.

Vanguard’s Glide Path levels off at age 72; Fidelity’s at age 80; T. Rowe Price’s at age 95.  The Glide Path assumes that the investor will hold the fund until death; this may or may not be the case in reality.

Are Target Date Funds the Right Answer? 

As mentioned above, I have mixed feelings.  On the one hand TDFs are often a better solution than simply letting one’s retirement plan assets languish in a money market account.  On the other hand I am convinced that investors who are either comfortable doing their own allocation or who utilize an advisor are generally better served by tailoring an allocation from among the menu of investment choices offered in their 401(k) plan.

As far as Target Date Funds go, I generally like the Vanguard version for their basic, easy to understand approach and their low cost.

Check out Morningstar to look under the hood of Vanguard’s Target Date Funds and to compare them against other alternatives that you might be considering.  Get a  free trial for their premium services.

Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding your investments and your retirement planning issue.

Photo credit:  Flickr

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Target Date Funds Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Target Date Funds – A Look under the Hood

August 6, 2012 By 11 Comments
Share
Asset Allocation on Wikibook

The Pension Protection Act of 2006 made Target Date Funds the default investment option of choice in many 401(k)

plans.  As of March, nearly 25% of all 401(k) participants invest solely in TDFs representing a 6 fold increase in six years according to Vanguard via research for plans they manage.  Vanguard goes on to say that 64% of new plan participants entering a plan for the first time contributed 100% to a single TDF.

When you invest in a Target Date Fund, where is your money going?  Here is a comparison of the TDF series offered by the “Big 3” Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price who control about 80% of the Target Date Fund assets.

Fund Basics

Fidelity

T. Rowe Price

Vanguard
Number of underlying mutual funds

23

19

5
Glide Path end age

80

95

72
Active/passive focus

Active (89%)

Active (85%)

Passive (97%)
Expense ratio-avg.

0.64%

0.70%

0.18%

Information via Lipper and Morningstar

Looking at some of the basics from the chart above:

  • All three families are funds of funds comprised exclusively of their own mutual funds.
    • Fidelity and T. Rowe Price both use a higher number of undying funds as compared to Vanguard.
    • Vanguard’s funds are lower cost due to their focus on passively managed index funds.
  • Vanguard and T. Rowe Price use the same underlying funds that are generally available to investors.  Fidelity has moved in large part to the use of their Series funds, a group of institutionally managed funds designed for use only in their Target Date Funds.
  • Glide path refers to the leveling out of the allocation to equities in the funds as shareholders move into retirement.  All three funds are “through” retirement rather than ‘to” retirement.  In the latter case the glide path would level off around age 65.
  • T. Rowe Price has among the longest glide paths of all TDF families.  As you can see above, Fidelity and Vanguard level off a bit earlier.  A point about the glide path.  The fund companies assume that you will hold the TDFs through retirement and perhaps until death.  You might or might not do this, if you don’t the glide path does not make as much difference.

A look at the asset classes used by each TDF family shows some additional differences

Asset Class Summary

Fidelity

T. Rowe Price

Vanguard
U.S. Large Cap

X

X

X
U. S. Mid Cap

X

X

X
U.S. Small Cap

X

X

X
International Equity

X

X

X
Emerging Markets Equity

X

X

X
U.S. Fixed Income

X

X

X
U.S. TIPs

X

X

X
High Yield Fixed Inc.

X

X
International Fixed Income

X
Emerging Mkts Debt

X

X
REITs

X

X
Commodities

X

X

Source:  Lipper 

As you can see from the chart above, Fidelity and T. Rowe Price have ventured into a number of non-core asset classes.  The allocations to any of these asset classes of course vary based on the allocation of the particular TDF.

Vanguard has chosen to take the approach of building their asset allocation models across the various target dates using a simpler approach with just five funds across seven asset classes.

According to Morningstar both T. Rowe Price and Vanguard are ranked “Top.”  Morningstar uses a five rank system.  Fidelity’s Freedom Funds are ranked as “Average” the middle ranking.  This is as of June 30, 2012.

Target Date Funds are a staple in 401(k) and similar retirement plans.  As mentioned above they are frequently used as the default option for participants who don’t specify an investment choice.

As far as choosing which family of TDFs to use, you generally won’t have a choice in your 401(k).  Understand, however, that TDFs can generally be used outside of retirement plans.  For example all of the “Big 3” actively court rollovers from the retirement plans they manage for participants who are leaving the plan for whatever reason.

Besides the fund of proprietary funds approach used by these three families, there are Target Date Funds out there using ETFs and other vehicles as the underlying investments.

Should you go the Target Date route?  Here are a few factors to consider:

  • Are you comfortable allocating your retirement account from among the other options available in the plan?
  • Are there advice options available to you via your retirement plan?  These might include online options; in-person individualized sessions; or managed account options.
  • Do you work with a financial advisor on your accounts outside of the plan?  If so the advisor might be in a position to provide advice on your 401(k) account.  In any event these assets should be considered by your advisor in the course of the advice they provide to you.

If you decide that the Target Date Fund route is the best route for your situation, here are a few things to consider:

  • Pick the fund that best fits your unique situation; this may or may not be the fund with the target date closest to your anticipated retirement date.
  • Target Date Funds are not a “set it and forget it” option.  There, in my opinion, is no such investing option for your 401(k) or any other account.  You need to monitor your TDF choice and understand how your money is being invested.  Fund companies can change managers, investment philosophies, etc.  You are responsible for your retirement and need to stay on top of it.
  • The use of a TDF does not guarantee retirement savings success.  The biggest determinant here is the amount saved during your working life.  Make sure that you are maximizing the amount you are able to contribute to your plan.
  • TDFs do not lower investment risk; this is a function of how the fund is allocated and the skill of the investment manager.  Just ask holders of many 2010 dated funds back in 2008.
  • You need to understand how the allocation of the TDF you choose will fit with your other investments, whether other funds in the 401(k) or your outside accounts such as IRAs and taxable brokerage accounts.

While I’m not a huge fan of Target Date Funds, they can be a sound alternative for many 401(k) investors.  Make sure you have researched this and all options available via your 401(k) plan to determine if this is truly the best option for you.  Check out morningstar.com to analyze your Target Date Fund choices and all of your 401(k) options, and to get a free trial for their premium services.

If you have a choice of Target Date Fund families remember to look “under the hood” of each because there are differences in approach, the types of underlying investments, and costs.  There are also differences in the allocation and risk of funds from difference families with the same target date.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have about your 401(k) plan or with regard to your overall financial planning needs.

 

Photo credit:  Wikipedia

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Target Date Funds Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Evaluating Mutual Funds, Numbers Can Be Deceiving

March 14, 2010 By 3 Comments
Share

When evaluating a mutual fund looking only at the trailing numbers may not tell you the whole story. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Fidelity Balanced Fund (FBALX) has a solid trailing track record. The fund ranked in the top 7% of all funds in its category for the 10 years ended 12/31/09 and in the top 14% for the trailing 15 years. The fund ranked in the top half of its category in 9 of the 10 years of the decade 2000-2009.

However, the fund laid a real “egg” in 2008 losing 31.33% and ranking in the bottom 24% of the funds in its category. This is a balanced fund (its Morningstar category is Moderate Target Risk). This type of fund is balanced between stocks and bonds and should be a somewhat stable component of one’s portfolio.

In November of 2008, Fidelity revamped the fund, placing it in the hands of multiple managers for different parts of the fund’s portfolio. The new lead manager is Robert Stansky, a former manager of giant Fidelity Magellan. Essentially, the group that compiled the fund’s mostly solid track record has been replaced.

The new group did a credible job in 2009 earning a return of 28.05% for 2009, the fund ranked in the top 24% of its category.

Should you buy this fund? Difficult to say. The fund’s trailing track record is pretty meaningless with the new fund management team in place. The “new guys” did well in ’09 an outstanding year for both the equity and fixed income markets. The question investors should ask themselves is whether or not they feel that this new management team and their philosophy fits with their objectives for a balanced portfolio.

Dodge and Cox Stock (DODGX) ranks in the bottom 20% of the Large Value category for the three years ended 12/31/09 and in the bottom 34% for the trailing five years. However, the fund ranked in the top 4% for the trailing 10 years and the top 2% for the trailing 15 years.

Much of the fund’s management team has been in place for the entire 15 year period. The fund’s nearer term track record includes 2007 when the fund ranked in the bottom 38% of its category and 2008 when the fund lost 43.31% and ranked in the bottom 9% of its category.

Dodge & Cox made the mistake of replicating what worked for the fund in 2001-2002; years when the fund placed in the top 3% and 4% of its category respectively. This period marked a major market drop starting with the dot-com bubble bursting and continuing with the post-911 market decline. This was a period, however where certain parts of the market proved to be relatively safe havens. This included many traditional value stocks such as financials.

The 2008-2009 market decline saw virtually no safe havens. Financial and other traditional value type stocks were hit hard. Many of the financial holdings of this fund took a real beating. Did the managers of the fund suddenly lose their touch? Or was their investing style simply out of style?

The fund rebounded nicely in 2009 earning 31.27% for the year and ranking in the top 14% of the Large Value category.

Should you buy or own either fund? Should you sell either or both if you already own them? In both cases the numbers might lead you to one decision, but in both cases an investor should look beyond the numbers in reaching their decision.

Please feel free to contact me for a review of your investments.  Check out our Financial Planning and Investment Advice for Individuals page for more information about our services.  

Do it yourselfers, check out morningstar.com for tools to analyze your mutual funds and all of your investments.  Get a free trial for their premium services.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed Under: Mutual Funds Tagged With: , , , ,