We talk to a lot of different people about investing. A common request is something along the lines of: “I don’t want to lose anything, and I want my money to grow.” This is a challenging, if not impossible mission. The investment world is full of opportunities to grow your money. However, there is an inherent risk when you put your money in any investment.

Finance has a lot of ways of measuring risk. Standard deviation is used to try to show a range of the possible returns. Max drawdown displays your worst-case scenario. Sharpe ratio provides a risk-adjusted measure of performance. However, very few investors ask about standard deviation, max drawdown, and Sharpe ratios. The people we talk to are most likely to ask “What are the odds of losing money” because they don’t want to see their current savings drop in value.

How strong is your purchasing power?

An important consideration when talking about losing money is purchasing power: the ability to buy goods with your money. Inflation has consistently pushed prices up over time, reducing the purchasing power of a single dollar. Wanting to avoid losing money is completely understandable. The danger of keeping your money under your mattress or sitting in cash is that inflation is constantly reducing your purchasing power.

When concerned with losing money, many investors are focused on nominal returns. Nominal returns are the raw return values, unadjusted for inflation, and are simple to calculate and digest. I would argue that most investors should be focused on real returns: returns adjusted for inflation. Real returns are a more accurate measure of your change in purchasing power. Ultimately, very few outside of Scrooge McDuck want a giant pile of money. Most people want to spend that money on goods, like food, travel, or a home, therefore purchasing power is likely what investors really care about.

Real return = (1+Nominal Return) ÷ (1+inflation rate)

Historically, stocks deliver positive returns, and those returns are in your favor. However, stocks are down (i.e. lose money) more frequently than bonds. The safety bonds offer also means they provide lower returns. What blend of stocks and bonds is most likely to protect your purchasing power (i.e. produce a positive real return)?

inflation is dwindling BOND power

To try and answer this question, I looked at the Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation (SBBI) data from the CFA Institute from 1926-2020. This data included monthly and annual returns; the annual data is for each calendar year. For stocks, I used the Ibbotson SBBI US Large-Cap Stocks total return.

For Bonds, I used the Ibbotson US intermediate-term (5 year) Government Bonds total return. I looked at several different portfolios which include a variety of stocks and bonds. Specifically, I blended the stocks and bonds in 10% increments, from 100% stocks, to 90% stocks 10% bonds, to 80% stocks 20% bonds, and so on to 0% stocks 100% bonds. I also assumed the portfolios were rebalanced at the start of each return period (i.e. the weights were reset at the start of each month for monthly data, and the start of each calendar year for annual data).

I took these different stock/bond portfolio mixes, and I calculated the nominal and real returns from 1926-2020 for both monthly and annual (calendar year) returns. I then calculated what percentage of returns were positive to measure the chance of losing money (nominal returns) or purchasing power (real returns). I’ve graphed the nominal vs real returns for monthly and annual returns below.

You’ll notice the nominal monthly returns paint a clear picture. If you want positive nominal returns more often, you want to own more bonds, hence the steady upward trend to the graph. If you look at the annual nominal returns and want to maximize your chances of a positive nominal return, you actually want a 10/90 portfolio (10% stocks, 90% bonds). As risky as stocks seem, having at least a sliver of stocks actually increases the chances of a positive nominal return

The real returns tell a slightly different story. For the monthly real returns, the stock/bond mix is almost irrelevant for producing a positive return, and hovers right around 60%. There is a drop off after 10/90 (10% stocks, 90% bonds), indicating owning even just 10% stocks in your portfolio helps increase your chances of positive real returns better than owning 100% bonds.

For the annual real returns, you can see that your odds of a positive real return are better with at least some bonds in the portfolio. Interestingly, the 70/30 portfolio and the 20/80 portfolios produce the highest chance of a positive real return. The all bond portfolio, 0/100, has the worst chance of maintaining your purchasing power (i.e. producing a positive real return).

Stocks can seem risky, and the loss of value can make many investors shy away. Even just a small amount of stocks can protect your purchasing power better than owning only bonds. There are still many considerations for how you should invest including your risk tolerance, time horizon, and holistic financial plan. If you’re interested in talking to an advisor, please reach out to us at hi@humaninvesting.com or 503-905-3100.

---

---

Related articles

What a season it has been.  I hope and pray that each individual and family member receiving this note is healthy and safe.  My goal over the coming months is to increase the volume of written communication.  These notes will not replace our regular scheduled tax, planning, or portfolio updates.  Instead, they will supplement those conversations and provide a financial perspective that can be communicated efficiently in writing.  The purpose of this note is to discuss our position on market timing and portfolio rebalancing.

Portfolio Rebalancing

We believe that the financial plan is the seminal document for investors seeking to accomplish long term goals. Each financial plan is prescriptive in the amount of saving and portfolio return that is required to accomplish the goals outlined in the plan.  The asset allocation decision is an important one—given it considers risk tolerance, time horizon, and financial goals[1].

The goal of rebalancing is to minimize risk and recalibrate, rather than to maximize return.  The process of rebalancing takes the imbalance that is created by certain asset classes over time and recalibrates those asset classes.  It takes the asset allocation that was originally prescribed by the financial plan and reorients the portfolio to its intended mix of stocks, bonds, and cash.

For most portfolios, recalibration should occur a few times a year.  This is particularly true in retirement accounts, given there is no tax liability for creating gains.  In trust accounts as well as individual and joint accounts, there is a sensitivity to tax gains as a possible consequence of rebalancing.  Every effort is taken to minimize tax liability in those types of accounts.  However, it can be hazardous to let the concern over taxes negate the discipline of regularly rebalancing.  I can think of too many instances where a client avoided rebalancing their account out of concerns for taxes—only to have the market go down. The tax liability for rebalancing was ultimately dwarfed by the loss of principle due to the market decline.  In short, it is rarely advisable to let the tax tail wag the investment dog.

Market Timing

The most common question I receive is, “when should we sell out?”  My typical response is never.  If an investor has a financial plan, which accounts for planning-based return expectations and subsequent asset allocation, the portfolio should always be properly positioned for risk and return.  If the goal of “selling out” is to reduce risk, the action of selling implies the original allocation was incorrect. 

In the past, there have been a few occasions where dramatically reducing risk by selling equities and raising cash makes sense.  Or, to sell a portion of the stock investment and place the proceeds in bonds.  But those reasons have to do with new information about the client situation, which prompt a change in the asset allocation. As an example, years ago, we had a client let us know that their business was struggling, resulting in the potential that their retirement account would need to be tapped for an emergency.  Liquidating equities in their account was a response to a change of plans and circumstances—this is a plan modification and not market timing. 

There is ample research dating back to the 1980s which suggests timing the market[2] or being able to predict the direction of the market is challenging at best[3].  Therefore, we believe in rebalancing “to recapture the portfolio’s original risk-and-return characteristics”[4], and we rely on the financial plan as the authoritative document to prescribe the proper mix of stocks and bonds for each client we serve.

Sources

[1] Zilbering, Y., Jaconetti, C. M., & Kinniry Jr, F. M. (2015). Best practices for portfolio rebalancing. Valley Forge, Pa.: The Vanguard Group. Vanguard Research PO Box, 2600, 19482-2600.

[2] Brinson, G. P., Hood, L. R., & Beebower, G. L. (1986). Determinants of portfolio performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 42(4), 39-44.

[3] Butler, A. W., Grullon, G., & Weston, J. P. (2005). Can managers forecast aggregate market returns?. The Journal of Finance, 60(2), 963-986. 

[4] Zilbering, Y., Jaconetti, C. M., & Kinniry Jr, F. M. (2015). Best practices for portfolio rebalancing. Valley Forge, Pa.: The Vanguard Group. Vanguard Research PO Box, 2600, 19482-2600.

---

---

Related Articles

Do not let your emotions get in the way of making smart investment decisions.

It is difficult to separate emotions from reality. We often view the world through the lens of whatever emotion we are experiencing, and unchecked emotions can give rise to suboptimal financial decisions.

My role as a financial advisor allows me to have many conversations focused around money. Through these conversations over the last 12 months, I have witnessed the gambit of the emotional response to the stock market and its volatility. What I discovered is that an individual’s emotional response tends to be heightened by three things:

1. The more zeros at the end of their account balance.

2. The amount of negative news consumed.

3. The greatest of which, whether they have taken the time to build a financial plan.

In his book The Behavioral Investor, psychologist and behavioral finance expert, Dr. Daniel Crosby reminds us that our emotions can’t be trusted when it comes to making investment decisions.

“The fact that your brain becomes more risk-seeking in bull markets and more conservative in bear markets means that you are neurologically predisposed to violate the first rule of investing, “buy low and sell high.” Our flawed brain leads us to subjectively experience low levels of risk when risk is actually quite high, a concept that Howard Marks refers to as the “perversity of risk.” – Dr. Daniel Crosby

Like the stock market, our emotions are cyclical. This cycle of emotions experienced as an investor can range from pure euphoria to utter despondency (lack of hope).

Source: Russell Investments

This emotion is often not dictated by the investor, rather it is the investor’s response to the market. The wild thing is, we have seemingly experienced all of these emotions over the last 12-month period. Compare the cycle of emotion to the S&P 500 over the last year.

Is it a coincidence that these two images almost mirror each other? I don’t think so.

It is completely normal to have an emotional reaction to your finances. Your account balances are often in direct relationship to your future financial freedom and well-being. However, it is only when an investor acts on these emotions do they get themselves in trouble.

Investor’s making short term emotional changes to their investments hurt their chances at long-term returns. A study conducted by DALBAR, Inc. discovered that over the last 30 years, the average mutual fund investor underperformed the market by almost 6%! Their finding is that investor’s change investment strategies too often to realize the inherent market rates of return.

Here are some action steps for avoiding emotional investment decisions:

• Look inward — Take an introspective look to acknowledge your emotional response over the last 12-month market cycle. Will you emotionally make it through another market drop? Right now is the time to build self-awareness, because the reality of the market is not IF it will have another correction, but rather WHEN.

• Look outward — Do you have someone to help you make wise financial decisions throughout life’s many emotions and seasons? Someone, to stand between your emotions and your finances? This is one of the many ways a financial advisor can add value to your comprehensive financial well-being.

• Look forward — Does your risk profile align with your financial plan? Are you taking on too much risk (or, too little)? Take some time today to review your holistic investment strategy and consider making any changes while the market has rebounded since its market low on March 23rd.

Our team at Human Investing realizes your family’s financial well-being is just as much “human” as it is “investing”. Let us know how we can help, contact us at Human Investing or call at 503.905.3100.

---

---

Related Articles

Through the end of 2019 and dating back 20 years, the S&P 500 returned 6.1%, as described in Table 1 below. During that same time period, a balanced account consisting of 60% stocks and 40% bonds returned 5.6%, while the “average investor” returned just 2.5%.

Table 1

The “average investor”, according to JP Morgan and Dallbar, is any investor investing in mutual funds. The report shows the flow of mutual fund buying and selling. The use of mutual funds is the best way to perform a field experiment and infer approximate returns for those buying and selling mutual funds. 

It is implied that those buying mutual funds are more individuals, households, and smaller institutions. Larger institutional clients typically own the investments directly.

So, what’s the deal with the average investor returns?

Why don’t more people invest 100% of their money into the S&P 500 or something similar? The short answer is that while any investor can put their money into the S&P 500, few are able to hold through the ups and downs.

Table 2

Looking at Table 2 (using the same 20-year time period), the S&P 500 has seen intra-year drops, that were on average nearly 14%. Investors owning just the S&P 500 would have had to hold tight over those 20 years to achieve the 6.1% return, which is easier said than done. To be sure, there is so much that goes into selecting an allocation for a portfolio. But given the times we are in, I thought it would be useful to lay out a framework for successful investing.

1. Diversify — In my nearly 24 years of advising clients, I have seen just a few that have been 100% invested in equities. Since 1950, the average all-stock portfolio return was a little over 11%. Interestingly, a 50% stock and 50% bond portfolio for that same period yielded just under 9%. Although an investor may not have the temperament for an all-stock portfolio experience (because of the volatility described in Table 2), they can still save and invest. Through a balanced portfolio, investors can experience a fraction of the expected volatility while still achieving solid returns.

2. Plan — It baffles me that so many investors focus on the return of the stock market. From my point of view, the only number that should matter is the return an investor needs to achieve their stated goals. Recently, we ran planning calculations for a client that needed 5.5% returns to make all of her financial goals come to fruition. Since working with Human Investing, she has achieved a 6% net return, allowing her to achieve all of her goals. Investors are best off spending time developing a plan and then building a diversified portfolio to achieve those plans. 

3. Stay in the market — Since your financial plan serves as your road map to achieve your financial goals, it is imperative to stick to the plan. Following the plan means staying invested even when the world appears to be falling apart. But, what if you decide not to follow the plan and get out of the market? It may not be so much about the getting out of the market but about getting back in. Table three describes the negative impact of market timing. Although market timing can be costly, the greater challenge may be the decision on when to get back into the market.

4. Investing is forever — Successful investors have a forever time frame they measure in a lifetime, not a day. The accelerating adoption of day trading, market timing, and other gambling-like tendencies go against everything I have ever read and learned about successful investing. Take, for example, Warren Buffett, whom many consider the greatest investor of our generation. He has amassed 95% of his wealth after the age of 65. Although I would place Buffett near the top of the list as the greatest investor of our generation, a key contributor to his wealth accumulation has been the length of time he has spent investing. This is a crucial lesson for those who look to get rich quickly and bypass the hard work of saving and investing over a lifetime.

Table 3

---

---

Related Articles

“Stocks are too risky for me.”

“You shouldn’t invest anything in stocks unless you’re prepared to lose all of it.”

“Investing is just another form of gambling.”

I have heard these concerns and many other reasons why people are nervous about investing, particularly in stocks. The ups and downs of the stock market can be difficult to stomach. This year, we saw one of the fastest drops in history as COVID-19 hit the world. The S&P 500 was down just over 30% from the beginning of 2020. Then stocks rallied back. At the end of July, the S&P 500 was positive for the year 2020. This is a wild ride no matter how you look at it.

The fear of short-term losses in investing is referred to as “myopic loss aversion”. The idea is that the fear of short-term losses scares investors away from riskier assets like stocks. As such, investors tend to invest more conservatively than they should, resulting in lower long-term returns.

Long-term stocks are a wonderful tool to grow your assets above the rate of inflation. Growing your savings and spending power over time is attractive, and for many it is essential to achieve their financial goals. The volatility of stocks along the way? No one looks forward to that. 

How risky are stocks in any given year?

If we look at historical returns for the S&P 500, a curious picture emerges:

Since 1937, the S&P 500 has had a positive return in 63/83 years, or 76% of the time. For reference, that is a solid “C” and a passing grade in any class I have taken.

For example, pretend you put $100 in the stock market on January 1 every year. In years with a positive return (76% of the time), on average you would see that $100 grow by 19.61% to $119.61. In years with a negative return (24% of the time), you would see that $100 shrink by an average of -12.19% to $87.81. Long-term, the odds are in your favor to grow your assets.

Invest with a Stable Foundation

There are certainly risks to owning stocks. It is important to ensure you have an emergency fund  to cover unexpected job loss or life expenses. It is also important to determine how much risk you can handle, both financially & emotionally, so you are not tempted to panic and sell when you see your account balance go down. A financial plan may be helpful to illustrate the dangers of investing too conservatively or too aggressively and may help to determine the risk that makes best sense for you.

If you need help understanding the risks and benefits of investing in equities, please contact our team at Human Investing. 

---

---

Related Articles

The financial world can be a confusing place filled with jargon, technicalities, and little to no guarantees. Research suggests that those who are financially literate tend to have better financial outcomes. Financially literacy is typically measured by asking some core financial concept questions. Let’s walk through some financial literacy questions from the National Financial Capability Study, and explain the why behind the answer. Feel free to guess and score yourself at the end:

Question 1 - interest:

Suppose you had $100 in a savings account and the interest rate was 2% per year. After 5 years, how much do you think you would have in the account if you left the money to grow?

A. Less than $102
B. Exactly $102
C. More than $102

Answer: C, more than $102.

Explanation: The key part here is “After 5 years”. We are told the interest rate is 2% per year. That means every year, 2% gets added to our principal balance. To break it down year by year:

The interest earned increases each year. This is due to compound interest: the original principal ($100) grows, and the interest you earned previously (in year 2, $2) both earn interest. At the end of 5 years, we have $110.41 which is C More than $102.

Why this matters: Interest affects you when you save money to grow it, or borrow money to pay it back later. Knowing how interest can work for or against you is critical for financial success.

Question 2 - inflation:

Imagine the interest rate on your savings account was 1% per year and inflation was 2% per year. After 1 year, how much would you be able to buy with the money in this account?

A. Less than today
B. Exactly the same
C. More than today

Answer: A, Less Than today.

Explanation: They key here is the inflation rate is higher than the savings rate. Inflation is growing at 2%, meaning the price of goods (rent, utilities, food, cars, etc.) is going up by 2% each year. The cost of $100 of goods today will be $102 in 1 year. Your interest on savings is growing at 1% a year. That means in 1 year you will have $101 to spend on goods. In 1 year, you will have $101 to buy $102 worth of goods. Your ability to buy is A less than today.

Why this matters: Even if you keep your money “safe” in the bank or under the mattress, inflation is going to make that money less and less valuable. Thus why investing is so important. Investing can be scary due to downturns in the market, but ultimately the odds are in your favor to grow your money over time. Unless you can save significant portions of your income, growing your savings faster than inflation is critical for being able to retire.

Question 3 - Risk Diversification:

Buying a single company’s stock usually provides a safer return than a stock mutual fund.

A. True
B. False

Answer: B, False.

Explanation: To answer this question correctly, it is important to understand both risk and that a mutual fund owns a variety of companies. They keyword here is safer. Financial markets have two types of risk: market risk and company-specific risk (aka systematic risk and nonsystematic risk respectively).

Market risk refers to risk all companies face. Examples of market risk include a change to the US tax code, a global pandemic, or shifts in consumer tastes like a shift from fast food to organic freshly prepared food. You will always face market risk because every company is exposed to these risks. Company-specific risk refers to risks unique to one company. Examples of company-specific risk include sudden changes in management, a press release about product defects, mass recalls, or a superior/cheaper product released by a rival company. Because you own a variety of companies in a stock mutual fund, you diversify away (i.e. reduce your risk) if any single, specific company has a terrible event.

Why this matters: Don’t invest all your money in one company. Especially if you work for that company, and your compensation is based on the company doing well. By spreading out your investments, you reduce your risk of catastrophic returns, and smooth out the ride so you can sleep at night.

Question 4 - interest of the life of a loan:

A 15-year mortgage typically requires higher monthly payments than a 30-year mortgage, but the interest paid over the life of the loan will be less

A. True
B. False

Answer: A, True.

Explanation: Because of the shorter life of the mortgage loan, you pay less interest. Remember in question 1, interest compounds every year. When you borrow money, that compounding works against you. Therefore, the faster you are paying off debt, the less time for interest to compound and grow the total amount you have to payoff. The monthly payments are typically larger, but the overall interest paid is less.

To illustrate with numbers, let’s look at the difference between a 15 year & 30 year mortgage, assuming a 5% interest rate for both:

Why this matters: You can see from the example how much money is saved by opting for a 15 year mortgage. Can you afford that extra monthly payment? That’s worth investigating, but you’ll never explore your choices if you don’t know what they are. You can also usually get a lower interest rate for shorter term debts, which saves you even more money. Anytime you borrow any amount of money, the faster you can pay it off, the less you will pay total. Even if you don’t get a lower rate on the debt, if you pay off the principal sooner, that means there’s less interest compounding against you. When looking to borrow money, evaluate what term (length of time) works best for you and your budget. You want to minimize your cost of borrowing, but you also want to give yourself enough flexibility that you’re confident you will make all those payments on time, regardless of what life brings.

Question 5 - Bond prices and interest:

If interest rates rise, what will typically happen to bond prices?

A. They will fall
B. They will stay the same
C. They will rise

Answer: A, they will fall.

Explanation: This is the question most people get wrong. A bond is government or corporate debt. The government or company pays you coupons (interest payments) based on the issued interest rate. At the end of the bond’s life, it matures, and you get the principal back.

Imagine Disney issues bonds paying 5% interest, the current market rate. You purchase a bond for $1,000, and you get a $50 coupon payment from Mickey Mouse every year until the bond matures. If interest rates rise next year (say to 8%), and Disney issues new bonds, they will issue them at the new interest rate. Your neighbor Laura decides to buy $1,000, and she gets an $80 coupon from Mickey Mouse every year. Because interest rates rose, the value of your bond paying $50/month goes down in value, less than $1,000, because the $1,000 could buy Laura’s bond paying $80/month. The reverse if also true. If rates had fallen to 3%, Laura’s bond would only pay her $30, and your $50/month bond would be worth more than $1,000.

Why this matters: Interest rates change over time. This causes bond prices to change. Bonds will still be less volatile than equities, but they do also fluctuate in value. Don’t panic when you see interest rates rise, and your bond prices going down in value. This is both normal and expected. Rising interest rates are also usually a healthy sign for the economy, and so your equities will generally be rising in value to help offset the loss in value of your bonds. The reverse is also true here. Falling interest rates tend to indicate a less healthy economy (think about when rates have dropped significantly & quickly; the 07-08 financial crisis and COVID-19) which means falling stock prices. Because they don’t tend to move together (uncorrelated), bonds and stocks are an excellent pair for smoothing out your investment returns.

How did you do?

If you got some questions wrong, I hope you understand the why behind the answers and how to utilize this knowledge to better your financial life. If you have questions about financial vocabulary or systems you’d like me to blog about, please email me at andrewg@humaninvesting.com. If want to talk to an advisor, please email us at hi@humaninvesting.com.

---

---

Related Articles

@chuttersnap

Do trade wars have an impact on the economy and market? The simple answer is…

It depends (Freeman, 2004).  Krishna, Mukhopadyay, and Yavas (2002) determined that free-trade can hurt the economy when capital markets are distorted.  While at the same time, trade can positively impact the economy when labor markets are in equilibrium.  Whether you are a free market zealot or, believe globalization was an experiment gone wrong, this trade war is not just about trade and tariffs.  It is a part of a much larger conflict between the U.S. and China, which in addition to trade/tariffs, encompasses politics, ideology, and even the current global geopolitical order.

In our view, regardless of the outcome of the current trade negotiations, this is just one chapter in a book that will continue to be written over the decades to come. Anyone looking for a neat and clean expeditious resolution will likely be disappointed. The uncertainty surrounding this conflict will continue for a long time and is out of our control. 

So, what can be agreed upon and has strong academic roots?

What appears to be universally accepted is policy to eliminate deficits, maintaining market-oriented exchange rates, improving the education system, strengthening the legal system, and increasing competition amongst domestic firms (Baldwin, 2003).  These are essential economic considerations both now and into the future—and what will move the needle long term for our economy, our markets, and our country.

How can you prepare for what happens? Having a Financial Plan.

At Human Investing, we emphasize comprehensive financial planning (we call this hiPlan™), which is very different from traditional planning, which tends to focus on a single area such as investing or insurance. By taking a comprehensive approach, we can create stress-tested, long -term, adaptive plans for our clients and gaze beyond the short-term implications of news headlines.

Further, we work as a team to serve our clients.  Much like a peloton where each team member jumps out front to take the lead when appropriate, we've assembled a team of financial planning experts—each with specific knowledge that our clients can leverage for their benefit.  So why are we so focused on financial planning?  For us, the answer is simple, empirical evidence points to its advantage, and we have personally seen it work for the clients we serve.   

Several studies have shown that individuals and families who employed the financial planning process enjoy greater wealth during retirement versus those who fail to plan (Hanna & Lindamood, 2010) (Van Rooij, Lusardi, & Alessie, 2012). As a non-commissioned, fee-only firm, we can provide the most objective and independent advice, making it more feasible to optimize the financial well-being of our clients. We believe that by working with our expert team and taking a long-term and comprehensive approach to financial planning, our clients can have peace of mind regardless of the headline of the day.

Have you started your plan today?

If not, or, if you are interested in learning more about our people and process, please call us at (503) 905-3100 or let us know about your needs.

References

Baldwin, R. E. (2004). Openness and growth: what's the empirical relationship?. In Challenges to globalization: Analyzing the economics (pp. 499-526). University of Chicago Press.

Freeman, R. B. (2004). Trade wars: The exaggerated impact of trade in economic debate. World Economy, 27(1), 1-23.

Hanna, S. D., & Lindamood, S. (2010). Quantifying the economic benefits of personal financial planning.

Krishna, K., Mukhopadhyay, A., & Yavas, C. (2005). Trade with labor market distortions and heterogeneous labor: Why trade can hurt. In WTO and World Trade (pp. 65-83). Physica-Verlag HD.

Van Rooij, M. C., Lusardi, A., & Alessie, R. J. (2012). Financial literacy, retirement planning and household wealth. The Economic Journal, 122(560), 449-478.

---

Despite the recent awareness around fees in today's environment, it can still be challenging for investors to know what and whom they are paying.

I was reminded of this recently when we had the pleasure of welcoming a family in as new clients to our firm. When they first reached out to us, they knew something was not right with their investment situation. After reviewing their statements and a discovery call, we quickly found out why. They were being overcharged and underserved. It turns out their fees were roughly 2.12% per year. At the same time, the level of service they were receiving included one phone call per year, online access and statements.

In this article, my goal is to unwrap the fee structure that this family experienced, highlight the long-term negative impact and then provide an awareness that can help you avoid this situation.

Moreover, while this article focuses on the experience of a single family, we have seen the same cost structure apply directly to institutions as well, whether an endowment, foundation, ERISA retirement plan or other types of institutional assets.

The step-by-step on how to give up 25% of your market returns to your advisor (not recommended!)

The family mentioned above did not realize they were charged fees on fees. One layer included an advisor fee of 1.40% per year with limited services. Unfortunately, industry expertise, full client engagement, risk management, along with estate and financial planning were not part of the offering. 

The second layer of fees was the underlying costs of the investments held in the portfolio—which was new information to the clients. Even though they had a diversified mix of “institutional” mutual funds in their account, the average expense ratio of these investments was 0.72%, which was added to the 1.40%.

 Without digging deeper into other potential underlying fees such as trading costs and custodial fees, the total costs were 2.12% per year. (1.4% + 0.72% = 2.12%)

Assuming a 9% long-term average return(1) in the stock market, these clients had been giving up almost 25% of return per year in fees. Unless there is some other form of benefit or return the client is receiving, this is retirement money down the drain. In Peter Fisher’s 2018 article in Forbes titled, “Why Conflicting Retirement Advice is Crushing American Households,"(2) he points out that the annual cost of conflicted investment advice in the US is $17 billion per year. The scenario outlined in this article is case in point.

The Negative Compounding Effect of Fees

The diminishing effects of the high fees & low service model outlined above are significant. To illustrate, I have provided a compare-and-contrast to what I believe is a more reasonable fee structure of 0.85% in total fees. (This includes an advisor fee of 0.75% and underlying investment fees of 0.10%.) 

After backing out the fees for both scenarios, the difference in future account value after 20 years of saving and investing is $343,000.

If you are an institution, add a zero or two to the end of each number for a better comparison on the effects to your business, organization, non-profit, endowment, foundation, or other.

Is the “advisor” adding $343k worth of value? That amount would more than cover health care costs for a married couple throughout their retirement years, according to recent studies(3).

 To be clear, advisors can add significant value to a client relationship. Vanguard produced a research piece called the Advisors Alpha®(4) that makes the case that an advisor can add significant value beyond the fee they charge. However, it comes through a combination of wise stewardship and planning, portfolio construction and tax efficiency. In short, it is much work that deserves fair compensation. The challenge with the scenario outlined above is that any advisor would have difficulty justifying their value at that fee level when their only service is setting up an allocation and checking in once a year.

How You Can Avoid This

Having open and honest communication with your advisor is essential. Here are a few questions to ask that can help you determine if your advisor is acting in your best interest and has a compelling service and fee offering:

Fees & Services: What services will I receive and how much will it cost?

• Service and fee schedules should be clearly outlined so you can determine what you are receiving and how much you are paying. You will be able to measure the potential "Advisors Alpha®." A contract should explicitly outline fees and the commitments being offered such as discretionary investment management, planning services, meetings per year, insurance reviews, risk management, estate planning, reporting and more. If you are an institution this will look slightly different, but it will still be the same idea. If your advisor cannot tell you exactly how they are going to serve you and what their charges will be, it might be best to keep looking.

Investment Fees: What is the fee for the underlying investments held in my account?

• This question will help you asses the total fee that you will be paying and not just the advisors fee. Typically these investment costs can be minimal for accounts that use individual stocks, bonds, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and index funds. However, for accounts that use actively managed mutual funds, insurance products or Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs), these fees can add up and take a toll on your long-term return.

Are you a Fiduciary: Are you a legal, written Fiduciary in all matters?

• If your advisor is not a legal, written Fiduciary in all matters, beware that they have the flexibility to not apply Fiduciary standards in serving you. If they are a Registered Representative, Investment Representative, Broker or Insurance related, there’s a good chance they do not have to act in your best interest.

Are you an Expert: Do you have credentials or an advanced degree in your field of practice?

• Your advisor should continue to learn and grow throughout their career. Legally, all advisors and brokers must have individual licenses such as the Series 6, Series 65, Series 7, etcetera. This does not make an advisor an expert. It is merely the cost of admission and is the SEC and FINRA's attempt to ensure there is some form of standard in the industry. Look for credentials such as CFA, CFP, CPA, or CIMA and for advanced degrees such as Master’s in Financial Planning or Master of Science in Finance. In short, credentials and advanced degrees help demonstrate the continued efforts of an advisor to learn and stay on top of trends in an incredibly complex and dynamic profession.

If you have questions about this article or any personal or institutional financial needs, we would love to help. Please do not hesitate to reach out to our team.

(1) According to the Chicago Booth Center for Research in Security Prices, from 1/1/1926 to 12/31/2017 the compound annual returns for US stocks were 10.0% and for international stocks, 8.0%. In this article, I have assumed an arbitrary and straightforward 9% average return solely for illustration. This does not constitute investment advice and should not be relied on as such. http://www.crsp.com/resources/investments-illustrated-charts

(2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2018/08/17/why-conflicting-retirement-advice-is-crushing-american-households/#4ddfd4f71355 

(3) https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/personal-finance/plan-for-rising-health-care-costs

(4) https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip/site/advisor/researchcommentary/article/IWE_ResVgdAdvisorsAlpha

---

Related Articles

Image credit: Amol Tyagi

Over the last nine months since my daughter was born, I have learned to hear and translate her grunts, squeals, cries, and even noises that sound very similar to what a pterodactyl probably sounded like. The other night I woke to a cry that was not familiar. In her sleep she had stuck her foot through the slats in the side of the crib, but when she turned to pull her foot out, she could not; her foot was stuck. Putting her foot in the space between slats was easy, pulling it out…well, that was a different story.

This experience can be similar to that of an investor who has saved well for retirement but may have difficulties withdrawing dollars due to Sequence Risk. Sequence Risk, also known as sequence of return risk, is the risk assumed by an investor taking withdrawals from an investment account when receiving lower or negative investment returns. Specifically, this becomes serious early on in someone’s withdrawal timeline, as the investor/retiree ends up withdrawing a larger portion of their total portfolio than planned. Knowing what Sequence Risk is and how to plan for it is instrumental to a successful long-term financial plan. To illustrate Sequence Risk and its impact, let’s first look at the 20-year experience of two investors who are not taking withdrawals (Scenario 1) compared to the experience of the same two investors who are withdrawing from their accounts during that same 20-year period (Scenario 2).

A Scenario of Two Markets

Investor A deposits a lump sum of $400,000 in the S&P 500 (500 biggest companies in the US) on January 1, 1998. Investor A does not touch her investments for 20 years and now her balance is over $1,600,000, despite both the Dotcom Crash and the 2008 Financial Crisis. A great reward for the disciplined long-term investor.

With Investor B we see a similar scenario. She deposits a lump sum of $400,000 in the S&P 500 and doesn’t touch it for 20 years. Except this time the annual returns of the S&P 500, while staying the same, are randomized in their order and weighted for an early market downturn of two consecutive years of negative returns (-37% and -22.1%). After 20 years Investor B arrives at the same balance of over $1,600,000.

Scenario 1:

For the long-term investor, the sequence of returns does not seem to influence the investor’s portfolio if he or she is not withdrawing from their investments. Both Investor A and Investor B, while having very different market experiences, arrive at the same place. A great case for the long-term investor to not balk at market volatility.

The Sequence Risk for a Retiree

Where the order of returns does impact the investor (i.e., a retiree) is when they begin withdrawing from their investments in a down market. To see the impact Sequence Risk has on an investor, we will look at the same investment returns experienced by Investor A and Investor B. In this scenario the difference is each investor will begin taking annual withdrawals of $20,000 (5% of beginning balance) at the end of each year.

With Investor A, we see after the market experience of the S&P 500 from 1998 to 2017, she would expect to have $618k after 20 years of retirement.

As for Investor B, when the market experience begins with a downturn for the investor, the retiree’s balance would be significantly less, only $193k. A difference in the order of returns can mean a difference of almost $425k, or a 1/3 of the portfolio size, after 20 years.

Scenario 2:

Why does it matter?

Two retirees with identical wealth can have entirely different financial outcomes, depending on the state of the market when they start retirement and begin taking withdrawals, even if the long-term market averages are the same.

What do you need to do?

While you cannot control what the sequence of future returns is, there are things you can do to impact the success of your financial plan. If you are a long-term investor, make sure you have a plan, revisit the plan annually, and stay disciplined. If you are already in or are entering retirement, it is important for you and your advisor to plan accordingly:

Assess your risk. Appropriately assess your risk as you are entering retirement years. Assuming more risk than necessary paired with a down market can make you greatly susceptible to Sequence Risk.

Lower retirement expenses. Pay off any debt (including mortgage payments) before entering into retirement. Having fewer expenses in retirement provides flexibility for when the markets get rocky and withdrawing less is prudent (based on what was just laid out about Sequence Risk).

Have a short-term strategy be a part of your long-term financial plan. Hold assets that allow for flexible spending without having to veer from your long-term strategy. Holding cash or fixed income investments can provide short-term income sources, helping you avoid withdrawing a large portion of your total portfolio in a down market.

Continue working. If entering into a market experiencing low or negative returns, keep your job. What no retiree wants to hear after a long career of hard work! However, continuing to save and to delay retirement withdrawals by even a few years has the potential to yield long-term exponential growth.

While my daughter had no issue putting her foot in the space between slats, the issue was pulling her foot out. Dad was able to save the day. Realizing the most efficient angle, I was able to help her pull her foot out. With investors, sometimes it takes someone to come alongside and help strategize the most efficient strategy to withdraw dollars, no matter what is going on in the market. If you are planning on retiring soon and want help building a tailored financial plan and assessing the risk on your retirement accounts, let us know. Human Investing is here to help.   

*Scenarios are used for illustration purposes only. Past performance is not an indicator of future outcomes.

---

---

Related Articles

A recent theme in our client conversations has been around the timing of investing. On a regular basis we hear the question, “when is the right time to invest?” especially when times are uncertain. It’s a great question, one that is worth considering, but before answering this question let me state: We at Human Investing are long-term investors. Don’t mistake that for “buy and hold,” but rather “buy and assess.” Additionally, we believe financial planning is the key to investment success. While planning does not guarantee success, it does improve the odds of a successful outcome. In our advisory practice, the financial plan informs the investment decision.

Once the plan is in place and we’ve made the decision to invest, the timing of investing may not always mean we push a button to invest one hundred percent of someone’s capital in that moment. What it does mean is that we have a thoughtful discussion on the different strategies we might utilize to put the money to work, choosing the right option based on the client’s plan and their input.

Let’s walk through an example. The chart below is a hypothetical client who invests $500 per month ($6k/year) over an eleven year period starting January 2007 and ending December 2017. For this exercise we simulated investing the $500/month into a simple total stock market index exchange-traded fund with the symbol ITOT. The total invested capital in 2007 was $66,000 with net proceeds of $136,809 on the last day of 2017. Pretty incredible results considering the eleven year time frame included small gain and loss years of 2007, 2011, and 2015 and a large loss of 39.42% in 2008.

This is a great example of a strategy called dollar-cost averaging. Dollar-cost averaging is an investment strategy with the goal of reducing the impact of volatility on large purchases by adding small amounts of the intended purchase into the market over a specified period of time. Technically speaking, taking a lump sum and immediately investing the funds for an extended period of time is the best option. The challenge with the lump sum method is that many investors struggle to invest 100% of their money right away due to factors like willpower and emotion. With the dollar-cost averaging approach the investor puts his money to work bit-by-bit, which for many, feels good emotionally and prevents money ear-marked for investing from staying in cash too long. For these reasons and others, the methodical dollar-cost averaging approach has become the most successful way to invest capital for the long-run.

My intent is not to vilify a cash investment as bad. For many investors cash has a place and a purpose within their overall portfolio. I’m looking to highlight an effective approach/strategy for when a client’s financial plan requires a greater return than 1%.  

If you’ve asked the question, “What is this money for?” and the timeline is long-term, consider the total sum you are looking to invest, divide that sum into a reasonable time period and make a commitment to dollar-cost average those funds into the market. In doing so you won’t find that you’ve kept the funds in cash for any longer than is necessary, and you will be well on your way to your stated long-term savings and investment goal.

---

---

Related Articles

Investor Principles for Success

Investors big and small, sophisticated and simple, struggle to get the investment returns they desire. DALBAR and Associates and others have documented the performance shortfall for years, but few tangible solutions exist to close the gap between actual returns and expected returns. From what I’ve observed, I believe the core of investors and their advisor’s failure is in not asking the question, “What is the investment for? What is the savings goal?” prior to making investment decisions.

* DALBAR; Blackrock

By consequence investors have failed to keep up with the performance of even the most passive investment. As mentioned, the success or failure of the individual investor is well documented by DALBAR and Associates. In the ten years leading up to 2016, investor returns (for asset allocation funds) were 1.89% per year. This return is far less than what a bond index (e.g. Barclays Agg.) would have yielded at 4.51%. The moral of the story? Individual investor behavior is a major contributing factor to under-performance. 

ASK THE QUESTION

Both advisors and individual investors must ask the question, “What is this investment for?” In other words, what are you trying to accomplish by foregoing spending right now and instead saving those dollars? Answering this question will create a goal/objective for the savings and will lead to investments that optimally align with the stated goal.

Consider for example Jane, a 25 year old investor with two different saving goals: 1) save for a house; and 2) save for retirement. It is fine if Jane thinks, “I’d like to be aggressive because I’m an aggressive person,” but that posture aligns much better with the retirement account that has 35-45 years before it is needed than it does for the house savings account with a 3-5 year saving and investing timeline. Because aligning investments with both the goal and the timeline is crucial when investing, ask the question, “Why am I saving. What is this for?”

BE DISCIPLINED

After you’ve answered the question for yourself and made the corresponding investments to align with your stated goal and timeline, it’s all about discipline. If like Jane you have a three to five year savings goal, then the objective would be a stable portfolio. But what if, during that time, Jane thought to herself, “The stock market is doing so well and my friend has made so much money investing in XYZ stock, maybe I’ll try and make a little more too.” While that is a fine thought, in the context of the goal and timeline, to act on it would be undisciplined. If the goal is to buy a house and it’s a short-term goal, the action for Jane is to maintain a stable job, budget her income, and stay disciplined to her investment plan since these will be key drivers in her ability to save for and purchase a house...not the stock her friend bought.

A lack of investment discipline may also impact the long-term investor. What if Jane made some aggressive choices for her VERY long-term retirement account? One day, the same friend who bought XYZ stock tells Jane, “I sold my stock. It was getting crushed. The market is crashing.” Jane may very easily feel that she made the wrong decision by investing “aggressively” in her retirement account and in reaction, sell. Being disciplined is about sticking to a prudent investment strategy based on your needs and timeline. For Jane, discipline may look like HOLDING these more volatile higher-earning investments not based on the short-term return but rather her long-term goals.

If the stated saving goals were aligned with the right investments, then there would be minimal volatility in the short-term house savings account. Similarly, with a longer-term goal (retirement) in place, Jane would expect to see more volatility with higher long-term returns than with the more stable investments she made for the house.

BE PATIENT

Whether you are an advisor or an individual investor, if you’ve asked the right questions and you have an investment plan to accomplish your goals, then be patient and wait for that plan to play itself out. If you’ve done the work upfront, then your probability for success will be much higher than if you failed to ask the question and go through the process.

Looking at the poor performance of the individual investor leads me to conclude two things: 1) too many investors have not asked the right question upfront to make an investment plan to meet their specific goals; and 2) those who may have started out by asking the right question have failed to stay disciplined to their objectives.

In summary,

1.       Ask the questions: “What is the purpose of these funds? What is the point of saving instead of spending?”

2.       Be disciplined

3.       Be patient

Sources: *BlackRock; Bloomberg; Informa Investment Solutions; Dalbar. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. It is not possible to directly invest in an index. Oil is represented by the change in price of the NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Future contract. Contract size is 1,000 barrels with a contract price quoted in U.S. Dollars and Cents per barrel. Delivery dates take place every month of the year. Gold is represented by the change in the spot price of gold in USD per ounce. Homes are represented by the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Existing One Family Home Sales Median Price Index. Stocks are represented by the S&P 500 Index, an unmanaged index that consists of the common stocks of 500 large- capitalization companies, within various industrial sectors, most of which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Bonds are represented by the BBG Barclay U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, an unmanaged market-weighted index that consists of investment-grade corporate bonds (rated BBB or better), mortgages and U.S. Treasury and government agency issues with at least 1 year to maturity. International Stocks are represented by the MSCI EAFE Index, a broad-based measure of international stock performance. Inflation is represented by the Consumer Price Index. Average Investor is represented by Dalbar’s average asset allocation investor return, which utilizes the net of aggregate mutual fund sales, redemptions and exchanges each month as a measure of investor behavior. Returns are annualized (and total return where applicable) and represent the 20-year period ending 12/31/16 to match Dalbar’s most recent analysis.

---

---

Related Articles

Do you participate in an employer’s retirement plan in which you own your employer’s stock? Before selling shares or rolling your account over to an IRA, you should consider a special election that could save you significant tax dollars. For taxpayers with employer stock held inside a qualified employer plan, the IRS allows a special election to distribute those shares at their cost basis and recognize the appreciated gain at preferential capital gain tax rates (avoiding “ordinary” income tax rates). This strategy is known as “Net Unrealized Appreciation” and is outlined in IRS code section 402(e)(4). The net unrealized appreciation is referring to the excess fair market value (FMV) of your employer shares over their cost basis. The election creates an immediate income tax liability on the cost basis of the distributed shares, but allows for continued deferral and favorable tax rates on the embedded and future gain.

There are three requirements to qualifying for and executing an “NUA” election strategy. First, the stock must be distributed out of your employer plan “in kind.” Transferring stock “in kind” means you take distribution of the stock itself, not its liquidated cash value. Second, the NUA election must be made as part of a lump sum distribution in a single tax year. You can make the NUA election on all or a portion of your employer stock and make a tax-free rollover with the rest of your account. The rules only stipulate that the entire account must be distributed/rolled over in a single tax year. Lastly, the lump sum distribution must transpire from one of four situations: death, attaining age 59 ½, leaving the company, or disability.

Below is a chart that outlines the tax treatment of employer stock distributed in an NUA election (www.kitces.com)

For example, let’s say you were a Nike employee and inside your 401(k) you hold 150k of Nike stock. Those shares have been purchased inside your 401(k) over a 20-year career and have an average cost basis of 50k. You retired last month and are looking to roll over your 401(k) assets into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Before making the rollover, you decide to make the NUA election on all your Nike stock. The distribution of those shares at their cost basis is immediately taxable at your ordinary income tax rates (i.e. 33% * 50k = $16,500). Those assets are now outside a qualified plan and all embedded and future appreciation can be realized at capital gain rates. Let’s say you then held those Nike shares until they were worth 200k. That 150k gain (200k FMV – 50k basis) would be taxable at 15%, or $22,500. So, in total with an NUA election, you paid $39,000 in Federal income tax. In contrast, by not making the NUA election, and rolling the entire 401(k) into your IRA there is no immediate income tax bill on the rollover, but all embedded and future gains are taxed at ordinary income tax rates. So, using the $200,000 fair market value assumption, and a lower 25% Fed tax rate, your tax bill would be $50,000 when drawn out of the rollover IRA account. The NUA election would have saved $11,000 in Federal income taxes.

Because there is a tradeoff between recognizing income immediately on an “in kind” stock distribution (NUA election) and a full retirement plan rollover, the cost basis in those employer shares is a significant consideration. The lower the cost basis in the shares, the better. Studies have shown unless your cost basis is 50% or less of the stock’s FMV at the date of distribution it is hard to make a case for the NUA election, and a full rollover to an IRA likely makes the most sense (www. kitces.com).

That said, everyone’s situation is different and there are varying factors that may lead to one recommendation over another. Even your desire for charitable giving may weigh in on the decision. For example, let’s say you were to make the NUA election and receive 100 shares with a cost basis of $40 and a FMV of $100; this would create 40k of gross income in the year of distribution. But, if you were to donate 40 of those 100 shares to a charitable organization or donor advised fund, you could create an offsetting 40k charitable contribution deduction. This offsetting deduction could mute the immediate income tax impact and leave you with 60 shares (60k value) that can appreciate at preferential tax rates outside of a retirement account.

There are a multitude of taxpayer specific situations and profiles that may or may not support making the NUA election. So, if you hold employer stock in a qualifying retirement plan and are getting close to retirement, looking to rebalance the account, or sell out of any of those employer shares, please reach out to us and see if an NUA election strategy makes sense for you.

If you would like to talk with one of our advisors please call Jill Novak at 503-905-3100.

---

Related Articles