Tag Archives: investment advisory fees

How to Rebalance Your Investment Portfolio – Part 2 of 3

29 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in asset allocation, bond market, bonds, Consumer Finance, financial advice, financial goals, financial markets, financial planning, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investment advisory fees, personal finance, rebalancing, rebalancing investment portfolio, stock market, stocks

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the first part of the discussion on rebalancing your investment portfolio, I outlined its definition and the most common method to do so. The web link to that particular post is listed below:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2015/07/16/how-to-rebalance-your-investment-portfolio-part-1-of-3/

As a reminder, the definition of rebalancing is the periodic adjustment of one’s investment portfolio back to the original allocation percentagewise to the various asset classes. Over the course of time, the financial markets will vary up and down and one’s investment portfolio will change. However, the individual investor will normally have a plan on how to invest in order to reach his or her financial goals while being comfortable with the amount of risk taken by investing in the various asset classes (i.e. stocks, bonds, cash, etc.). Thus, rebalancing is simply ensuring that the investment portfolio is back in line with the original parameters of asset allocation.

In this second part of the discussion on rebalancing your investment portfolio, I will show you a different way to rebalance your investment portfolio. The same general concept applies, but, using this method, one can rely on actual published financial advice. The nice thing about this particular method is that the financial advice is free and from the most and trusted asset managers in the financial services industry. Does that sound too good to be true? Well, I invite your skepticism. That is always a healthy trait whenever someone discusses investing. Let’s delve into this a bit deeper and see if I can’t assuage your fears.

Many of the asset managers in the financial services industry offer something called target date mutual funds or life cycle mutual funds. The naming convention depends on the mutual fund company, but the financial product is the same. The idea behind these mutual funds is that they invest in a certain combination of stocks and bonds depending on when the money is needed. The mutual fund will invest more of the investment portfolio in stocks in the beginning and gradually shift that percentage to bonds and cash as the target date approaches. For example, someone who is forty years old now (2015) and wants to retire at age sixty-five would invest in a target date 2040 mutual fund. Some of the asset managers offering these financial products include Vanguard, Fidelity, and T Rowe Price. The web link to each of these mutual fund families’ offerings are listed below:

Vanguard – https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/target-retirement/#/

Fidelity – https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fidelity-fund-portfolios/freedom-funds

T Rowe Price – http://individual.troweprice.com/public/Retail/Mutual-Funds/Target-Date-Funds

Now I will not personally recommend any specific financial product; however, all these mutual fund families have excellent reputations and long track records. The benefit of this rebalancing method is that you can choose a particular target date or life cycle mutual fund that lines up with your financial goal and timeline. Each of these mutual fund offerings must periodically report their investment holdings to investors and are displayed on the mutual fund family’s website. As an individual investor, you need only replicate the recommended investments in that mutual fund. Adjusting your investment portfolio either semiannually or annually is normally sufficient. The added bonus is that you can alter the target date or life cycle mutual fund you select if your risk tolerance is different than what is offered in that portfolio. If you want to take on more risk for potential added rewards in performance returns, you can select a mutual fund with a target date later than your age would indicate. For instance, assume it is 2015 and you want to retire in 30 years, you might opt for the target date 2050 instead of 2045. Conversely, if you want to take on less risk because you are more sensitive to financial market volatility, you can select a target date closer than your age would indicate. In this case, assume it is 2015 and you want to retire in 30 years, you might opt for the target date 2040 instead of 2045. Let’s take a closer look at how this works in terms of the nuts and bolts.

For purposes of illustration only, I will utilize the product offerings of the Vanguard family of mutual funds. Assume that it is 2015 and you have 20 years until retirement (2035). Furthermore, assume that you have a normal risk tolerance for financial market volatility. If that is the case, you would select the Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund (Ticker Symbol: VTTHX). The asset allocation of that target date mutual fund as of June 30, 2015 is as follows:

Asset Allocation as of June 30, 2015
Mutual Fund Percentage
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund 53.9%
Vanguard Total International Stock Market Index Fund 28.1%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund 12.7%
Vanguard Total International Bond Market Index Fund 5.3%
Total 100.0%

Essentially you now have an investment portfolio that selects investments for your investment portfolio to achieve your financial goals without paying a Financial Advisor. Those investment advisory fees may be 1% to 2% (or higher) of your total investment portfolio each year. Using this rebalancing approach those fees are avoided, but you are still able to see what professional money managers are recommending for free. Now there are two courses of action at this point. First, it is possible to simply invest in this particular fund through the Vanguard mutual fund family. However, you will incur additional expenses for the fund family to manage the money and make the periodic percentage allocation adjustments. Those expenses do vary by fund family and are normally somewhat reasonable but are higher at some companies than others. Second, it is possible to invest monies into ETFs or index mutual funds that match the percentage allocations to the various asset classes. Admittedly, there are times when the commissions incurred to do so are higher than simply having the mutual fund family invest in the various funds for your investment portfolio. With that being said, there is a way to invest in ETFs for free.

One of the nicest offerings that not enough people know about is that Fidelity Investments offers the BlackRock iShares ETFs free of commission. While not all of the iShares are offered, there are currently 70 ETFs registered in the program. These ETFs have some of the lowest expense ratios (percentage fee charged on assets; normally 0.20% or less per year) in the business, and the range of ETFs should cover most any recommended target date or life cycle mutual fund investment pieces you might choose to use. The current list of the iShares ETFs from Fidelity that are free from commissions are as follows:

Commission-Free iShares ETFs at Fidelity Investments – https://www.fidelity.com/etfs/ishares-view-all

The reason one would use this method to build an investment portfolio and rebalance along the way is that expenses are minimized throughout the investing process. Many investors are not aware how much “seemingly small” expenses add up and compound over time. Decades and/or years worth of fees as small as 0.50% or 1.00% annually can erode thousands, tens of thousands, or more from your investment portfolio. Which makes it harder for you to reach your investment goals or necessitates taking on more risk in order to reach the goal than you might be comfortable within your investment portfolio. (For more information on that topic, you can view one of my earliest blog posts via this web link: https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/07/11/is-learning-about-investing-worth-it-how-about-224000-or-320000-worth/).

Here’s a summary of the usefulness of this particular rebalancing approach for your investment portfolio. You may know when your financial goal is going to come due to pay or provide for, have a general idea of the risks you are willing to take, and know a bit about the types of asset classes for investment available. However, you may lack the confidence or specific expertise to know how to create an investment portfolio and allocate percentages of money to the various asset classes. The nice thing about this method is that you can “piggyback” off of the investment ideas of some of the best money management firms in the financial services industry. You initially invest the money in your investment portfolio as is indicated on the mutual fund family’s website. Then every six or twelve months (preferably mid-year or end of the year; the most common interval is twelve months) the investment portfolio is rebalanced to exactly match the way the target date or life cycle mutual fund is currently invested in.

Book Promotion on Amazon.com – A New Paradigm for Investing: Can Your Financial Advisor Answer These Questions?

14 Thursday May 2015

Posted by in book deals, books, business books, finance, finance books, finance theory, financial advice, Financial Advisor, financial advisor fees, financial markets, financial planning, financial services industry, investing, investing advice, investment advice, investment advisory fees, investment books, investments, personal finance, reasonable fees for financial advisor, stock market, stocks

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greetings to all my loyal readers of this blog.  How would you like to learn a better way to seek investment advice?  I list and thoroughly discuss questions you can ask prospective Financial Advisors when interviewing them.  Selecting someone to assist you with the process, which is so incredibly important for you, can be a nightmare of complexity.  By reading this book, you will be in the 95th percentile of individual investors in terms of the knowledge necessary to have the tools and information to walk into those Financial Advisor meetings and understand the discussion/jargon and feel confident.  This book on Amazon.com is available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Please feel free to check out the title below.  I have provided a link to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com should you have any questions/comments/feedback.

The link to the book is as follows:

A New Paradigm for Investing:  Can Your Financial Advisor Answer These Questions?

 

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-Questions-ebook/dp/B00F3BDTHW/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388595896&sr=1-3&keywords=a+new+paradigm+for+investing+by+william+nelson

The book listed is normally $9.99 but I am offering it for a lower price over the course of the week (May 14, 2015 through May 18, 2015).  For most of the day today, the book is $1.99 which is 81% off.  The price of the book will be gradually increasing during the course of that period.

I would like to thank my international viewers of my blog as well.  The blog can be located at http://www.latticework.com.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would recommend following for the content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

  • The Wall Street Journal Wealth Report @WSJwealthreport – #wsjexperts
  • The Wall Street Journal Central Banks @WSJCentralBanks – Coverage of the Federal Reserve and other international central banks by @WSJ reporters
  • The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds – Small Cap value investing asset manager
  • Research Magazine @Research_Mag – Latest industry information for wirehouses and ETFs
  • Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline – Weekly financial news magazine of Dow Jones
  • Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch
  • Pedro da Costa @pdacosta – Central banking and economics reporter at The Wall Street Journal
  • Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo
  • Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner – Fee-only Financial Planner for individuals
  • Ed Moldaver @emoldaver – #1 ranked Financial Advisor in New Jersey by Barron’s 2012
  • Muni Credit @MuniCredit – Noted municipal credit arbiter
  • Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong – Author, writing coach, and national speaker

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

  • Tracy Alloway @tracyalloway – US Financial Correspondent at Financial Times
  • Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA – Vanguard’s ETF research and education
  • EU External Action @eu_eeas – Latest news from the European External Action Service (EEAS)
  • Charlie Wells @charliewwells – Reporter and Editor at The Wall Street Journal
  • Sri Jegarajah @CNBCSri – CNBC anchor and correspondent for CNBC World
  • Jesse Colombo @TheBubbleBubble – Columnist at Forbes
  • Alastair Winter @AlastairWinter – Chief Economist at Daniel Stewart & Company
  • Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag – Financial magazine for Financial Advisors
  • Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2 – Noted expert in creating brands for start-ups
  • MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb – Co-Founder of hustlebranding.com
  • Bob Burg @BobBurg – Bestselling author of business books
  • Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak – Expert in the use of social media for sales

Is There a Way to Discern Whether or Not a Prospective Financial Advisor Will Provide You with Top-Notch Service? Short Answer is Yes.

06 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in asset allocation, bonds, business, Consumer Finance, Education, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, Individual Investing, investing, investment advice, investment advisory fees, investments, personal finance, portfolio, reasonable fees, reasonable fees for financial advisor, reasonable fees for investment advice, statistics, Suitability

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Most individual investors rely primarily on trust and the ability to develop a long-term relationship primarily to determine whether or not a prospective financial professional is the right choice.  Turning over the management of your investments to someone else is a major decision that has many implications.  Your current lifestyle in retirement or future lifestyle in retirement and meeting your other financial goals along the way are of paramount importance.  The assessment of your personal risk tolerance and understanding of how the financial markets work is inextricably linked.  With so many choices out there in terms of whose investment advice to value, it can be extremely challenging to decide who to pick or what firm offers the best investment, financial planning, and tax/legal advice.  With that being said, there is a critical step that I wanted to share with you that can limit the possibility that you might end up with a financial professional or firm that will not work as hard as you would like to ensure that your financial future is secure.

The answer to this question lies in the compensation to the financial professional as a result of taking on your business.  Now keep in mind that not all financial professionals will fall into this generalized group.  However, financial incentives and time constraints make this a significant factor in the servicing of your account.  The single most important question you can ask a prospective financial advisor, as it relates to this topic, is how much the average value of a client account is.  Why is this so important?  The reason it is so important is that any financial professional has a number of client accounts to service, and time is limited and constrained of course.  From the financial professional’s perspective, the ideal would be to acquire new clients that offer the most potential revenue.  Let’s go over some of the specifics of the financial services industry to illustrate the importance of this average account size bogey.

Most full-service financial services firms will categorize the client accounts of a financial professional in various tiers.  There are normally tier one, tier two, tier three, and other clients.  Tier one clients are those who offer the most revenue potential.  These clients tend to have the largest amount of assets.  Tier two clients are clients that have less assets than tier one but offer the promise of moving into tier one in the near future.  Tier three clients have below average assets in comparison to the other tiers and show no immediate promise for a lucrative revenue opportunity in the coming years.  There are then all other accounts that really should be transitioned to another financial services firm.  When the firm considers all the costs associated with maintaining that client account, it does not make economic sense.  It is far better for the financial professional to recommend that the client picks another financial services firm and professional most always does so via a referral.  Note that different firms have different terms to describe these classifications.  However, the general concept holds across the entire industry.

Here is the key component as it relates to individual investors specifically.  Tier one clients tend to be the top 20% clients in terms of account size for a financial professional.  Typically a certain relationship holds in these cases.  This tier of clients usually will yield roughly 80% of the overall revenue for financial professional.  Oddly enough, it follows very closely with the famed Pareto Principle.  The tier two clients fall below that top tier, but they show promise for the future.  Many times these individuals have investment accounts at other financial firms or will be coming into a good deal of new monies in the future.  They might be converted to tier one status.  These accounts tend to fall into the 21%-50% of clients managed by the financial professional.  The tier three clients are the bottom half of the accounts managed by that financial professional.  There also are “legacy” accounts that really offer little to no revenue and sometimes are unprofitable under certain circumstances.

Now you can look at the financial incentives from the financial professional’s prospective.  Let’s say that the financial professional earns a 1% fee on all assets under management (AUM) which is very common across the industry.  Therefore, if a client has $1,000,000, the annual fee is $10,000 ($1,000,000 * 1%).  A client with $250,000 at the same AUM fee will yield an annual fee of $2,500 ($250,000 * 1%).  Thus, it would take four of the latter clients to equal the revenue from the other single client.  Given that any financial professional has limited time to meet with clients, it makes perfect sense that he/she would prefer to have only one client since the compensation is the same.  The financial professional with the $1,000,000 client can service that account and look for another three clients to increase that revenue (i.e. similar time/effort expended overall).  The general key is to garner the most assets under management with the fewest amount of clients.  That allows the financial professional time manage his/her time most effectively and efficiently.

Here is the most important question you can ask any prospective financial professional:  What is the average account size of your clients?  If the average account size is higher than your investment portfolio, the chances are quite high that your account and relationship will receive much less attention than that financial professional’s larger account.  Now there can be extreme cases where a few large client accounts distort the average account size to the upside, but you can always ask the general range of client account size overall.  Two things will be at play in a situation where your investment account value is less than the average.  First, it makes more sense for the financial professional to spend more time with the tier one clients from a compensation perspective.  Other financial firms are constantly trying to “steal” these accounts to their firms by offering more services and additional financial product offerings.  Second, depending on the amount that your account size strays from the average, you will most likely receive customer service contact from a junior member on the team and/or a “cookie-cutter” investment portfolio recommendation.

I will expand a bit more on the last comments.  Most financial services firms use what is termed a “turn-key approach” for tier three clients.  There are set asset allocation models with a limited amount of components in the recommended portfolio.  The advice can be nearly identical to what you might find by simply going onto the websites of Vanguard, T Rowe Price, Fidelity, or Morningstar for free.  Now please do not infer that I am intimating that the asset allocation models of those websites are not valuable or match your particular risk tolerance and financial plan.  The point is why should you pay a financial professional to get a recommended asset allocation that is virtually identical to these offerings.  You would be better off not paying a fee whatsoever since you can replicate those portfolios for free and follow the ongoing changes to these model portfolios over time.  Note that the underlying investments in these model portfolios are quite transparent and regularly updated on the websites and in many cases come from regulatory filings to the SEC.

While it is true that some financial professionals provide the same level of service without regard to client account size, but these financial professionals predominantly tend to charge a flat-fee or hourly fee for investment advisory and financial planning services.  Financial professionals that are compensated with AUM fees or via commissions have a very tempting incentive to not only spend more time with larger client accounts to retain the client over time but concentrate on obtaining new clients with potential to be in the aforementioned tier one category.

To summarize at this point, the primary question to weed out the vast majority of potential financial professionals to manage your money is to ask “What is your average client account balance?”  If your account would be less than that average, there is a strong probability that the future attention to your account relationship will be less than the other client accounts.  If you have questions in the future, especially during volatile times in the global financial markets or major life changes, you may not be able to get a hold of your financial professional for guidance in a timeframe acceptable to you.  The other options you have are to find a financial professional where you are above the average or find a financial professional that charges a flat-fee or on an hourly basis.  At least in the latter option, you know that the financial profession spends more of an equal amount of time with each client.  Every client account tends to get the same amount of attention, and there is very little distinction in terms of importance.  Think of it this way, it is your hard-earned money and your future is on the line, you deserve to be one of the important clients of your financial professional.  Not just a name and account number.

What is the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room for Retirees? It is 12.5.

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by in active investing, active versus passive debate, asset allocation, bonds, business, Education, Fiduciary, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, math, passive investing, personal finance, portfolio, risk, stocks, volatility

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The 12.5 I am referring to is 12.5%, and it relates to investment advisory fees.  I have discussed the effects of investment advisory fees at length in previous posts.  In general, most individual investors pay fees to financial services firms that are too high in comparison to the value provided in many cases.  For example, the vast majority of individual investors do not need complex, strategic tax planning, estate planning and legal advice, or sophistical financial planning.  However, the firms that most people invest with offer those services within the fee structure.  There is very little in the way of options to select a larger wealth management firm that will provide only asset allocation advice at a reduced fee because the individual investor does not need the other services when it comes to tax, legal, and sophisticated financial planning.  I wrote an article several months ago in regard to how you can look at the value added by your financial professional.  It is worth a review in terms of what he/she can do for you that you cannot simply do yourself using a passive investing strategy.  Here is the link:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/10/26/are-your-financial-advisors-fees-reasonable-are-you-actually-adding-more-risk-to-your-ability-to-reach-your-long-term-financial-goals-here-is-a-unique-way-to-look-at-what-clients-pay-for/

I would like to focus on a different way of looking at investment advisory fees.  My primary focus will be on retirees; however, the logic directly applies to those in the wealth accumulation phase of life trying to save for retirement.  As I have mentioned previously, the standard fee for investment advisory services is normally 1% of assets under management (AUM).  This structure simply means that an individual investor pays $1 in fees for every $100 invested.  Another way to look at it is that you will pay $10,000 annually if your account balance is $1,000,000 ($1,000,000 * 1%).  I would like to go through an illustration to show what this means in terms of your investment performance, overall risk profile, and the ability to reach your long-term financial goals.

Most individual investors do not write out a check to their financial professional.  Rather, they have the investment advisory fees paid out of the investment returns in their portfolios.  My example does not make any difference how you pay your fees, but it can be somewhat hidden if you are not writing out a check.  The fees just appear as a line item on your daily activity section of your brokerage statement; most investors skim over it.  In order to make the mathematics easier to follow, I am going to use a retiree with a $1,000,000 account balance and a 1% AUM fee annually.  My entire argument applies no matter what your account balance is or your AUM fee.  You just need to insert your personal account balance and AUM fee which may be higher or lower.  So let’s get started.

In my hypothetical scenario of a $1,000,000 portfolio subject to a 1% AUM fee, this retiree will have to pay $10,000 to his/her financial professional for investment advisory services rendered.  Well, we can look at this fee from the standpoint of the portfolio as a whole in terms of investment performance necessary to pay that fee.  The portfolio will need to increase by at least 1% to pay the fee in full.  Now most financial professionals will tell clients that they can expect to earn 8% per year by investing in stocks.  So using that figure (which is close to the historical average), we can get to the fee by allocating $125,000 of the overall portfolio to stocks in order to increase the portfolio on average by 8% to be able to pay the $10,000 fee ($125,000 * 8% = $10,000).

What does that mean in terms of your overall portfolio allocation to stocks?  You can imagine that, whatever your total allocation to stocks is, 12.5% of that amount is invested simply to pay fees.  For example, if you are just starting out in retirement at age 65 and have 60% allocated to stocks, 12.5% of the expected return (8%) from stocks in your total  portfolio will go to pay your annual investment advisory fees and 47.5% of the expected return (8%) from stocks in your total portfolio will add to your account balance. 

The math works out this way:  $1,000,000 * 60% = $600,000 // $600,000 (invested in stocks) * 8% (expected return from stocks) = $48,000 // $48,000 – $10,000 (AUM fee at 1%) = $38,000.  An alternative way to do the math is to take the total allocation to stocks and subtract the necessary allocation to stocks to pay the AUM fee, and that result is the investment return for the year that remains in your account balance which is $38,000 (So take 60.0% – 12.5% = 47.5% // $1,000,000 * 47.5% * 8% = $38,000).

The paragraph above has major impacts for your portfolio.  Firstly, it illustrates how much additional risk you are taking on in your portfolio as a whole.  In order to breakeven net of fees, you need to invest 12.5% of your portfolio into stocks.  Retirees are in the wealth distribution phase of life, and most are living off the investment account earnings (capital gains, dividends, and interest) and principal.  Since retirees have no income from working and will not be making any additional contributions, they are impacted greater than other investors in the way of volatility.  Stocks are more volatile investments than bonds but offer the promise of higher returns.  It is the simple risk/reward tradeoff.  Second, it shows that the higher the fees for retirees the more vulnerable they are to volatility as a whole.  Since retirees need to withdraw money on a consistent/systematic basis, a higher allocation of their portfolio to riskier investments are more vulnerable than other investors that have longer timeframes prior to retirement (wealth accumulation phase). If there are major downturns in the stock market, retirees still have to withdraw from their accounts in order to pay living expenses.  They do not have the luxury of not selling.  Yes, a retiree could sell bonds instead of stocks but then the allocation of stocks has to rise by definition as a percentage of the entire portfolio.

There is a way to rethink the investment strategy for a retiree.  In today’s investing environment, there are many more investment offerings that offer financial products at much lower expenses than traditional active mutual fund managers.  These include ETFs and index mutual funds.  The expenses typically are less than 0.20% (in fact, most are significantly lower than this).  Additionally, there has been the proliferation of independent Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) and Certified Financial Planners (CFPs) over the past 10-15 years who charge fee-only (hourly) or flat fee.  Most of these financial professionals charge significantly lower fees than the traditional 1% AUM fee.  In fact, it is possible to cut your fees by 50% at least.  Now the flipside may be that you might not have the ability to consult with some about certain sophisticated tax, legal/estate, and financial planning strategies.  However, most retirees do not need that advice to begin with.  The average retiree only needs a sound asset allocation of his/her investment portfolio given his/her risk tolerance and financial goals.  To learn more about independent RIAs and CFPs, I have included these links:

1)       RIA – http://www.riastandsforyou.com/benefits-of-an-ria.html

 

2)      CFP – http://www.plannersearch.org/why-cfp/Pages/Why-Hire-a-Certified-Financial-Planner.aspx

The main benefit in terms of reducing fees is not only that the retiree keeps more money, but, more importantly, he/she can reduce the overall risk of the portfolio.  Let’s go back to our hypothetical example of a retiree with a $1,000,000 who is charged a 1% AUM fee or $10,000 per year.  If the total investment advisory fees are reduced by 50%, the total annual fee is 0.5% or $5,000 per year.  What does this mean?  In our first example, the retiree had to allocate 12.5% of his/her portfolio of stocks to pay the $10,000 annual AUM fee (assuming an 8% expected return).  If the fees are 50% less, the retiree now only has to allocate 6.25% of the portfolio to stocks in order to pay the annual investment advisory fees ($1,000,000 * 6.25% = $62,500 // $62,500 * 8% = $5,000).

Now if we go back to the longer example of a simple 60% stock and 40% bond portfolio, the retiree in this case is able to invest 53.75% in stocks and 46.25% in bonds and still pay the annual investment advisory fees.  The math is as follows:  ($1,000,000 * 53.75% = $537,500 // $537,500 * 8% = $43,000 // $43,000 – $5,000 new annual fees = $38,000).  You will note that the retiree has $38,000 in his/her portfolio after the annual fees are paid out.  This dollar amount is equal to the other hypothetical retiree who had to pay a 1% AUM fee.  The example illustrates that both investors have the same expected increase to their portfolio but the retiree with the lower fees is able to get to that figure with a portfolio that is less risky because he/she is able to allocate 6.25% less to stocks.

Another way to look at this scenario is that the retiree in the second case with 50% lower fees could have alternatively chosen to reduce his/her stock allocation by 5%.  For example, the retiree could have started with a portfolio allocation of 55% instead of using the 53.75% stock allocation.  In this example, the retiree would have an expected return after fees that is $1,000 higher than the retiree from the first example and take less risk.  The math is as follows:  ($1,000,000 * 55% = $550,000 // $550,000 * 8% = $44,000 // $44,000 – $5,000 = $39,000 // $39,000 – $38,000 = $1,000).  The retiree in this example would have a higher expected return from his/her entire portfolio of 0.1%.  While this figure might not sound like much, the more important point is that this return is achieved with less risk (only 55% allocation to stocks versus a 60% allocation to stocks).

A financial professional might argue that he/she is able to create an asset allocation model for an average retiree that will end up having investment returns higher than that recommended by the independent RIA or CFP.  Of course, this might be the case.  However, in order to have the retiree be indifferent between the two scenarios, the portfolio recommended by the financial professional charging a 1% AUM fee must be able to return 0.5% more annually at an absolute minimum.  Now this does not even consider the riskiness of the retiree’s portfolio.  In order to have a portfolio earn an additional 0.5% per year, the client will have to accept investing in riskier asset classes.  Therefore, given the additional risk, the retiree should require even more than an additional 0.5% overall return to compensate him/her for the potential for higher volatility.

As you can see, the level of fees makes a big difference.  The more you are able to cut the fees on your retirement account (and any account for that matter) the less risky your portfolio can be positioned.  In the aforementioned example, the overall reduction in the exposure to stocks can be a maximum of 12.5% to stocks.  Now the average retiree will most likely not want to forgo any investment advice from a financial professional.  However, in the case of person able to lower his/her investment fees by 50%, he/she was able to reduce his/her investments in stocks by 6.25% (12.5% * 50%).  In fact, you can figure out the possible reduction in exposure to stocks by multiplying the 12.5% by the reduction in fees you are able to achieve.  For example, let’s say that you are able to reduce your investment fees by 70%.  You would be able to reduce your allocation to stocks by 8.7% (12.5% * 70%).

The entire point of this article is to show you how you can be able to reduce the volatility in your portfolio and not sacrifice overall investment returns.  If investing in stocks during your retirement years makes you nervous, this methodology can be used to help you sleep better at night because you have less total money of your entire retirement savings allocated to stocks.  However, you are not sacrificing investment returns.  Always remember that in the world of investment advisory fees, it truly is a “zero sum game”.  All this means is that the investment advisory fees are reducing your net investment portfolio gains.  The gain in the value of your portfolio either goes to you or your financial professional.  The more you learn about how investment advisory fees, the types of financial professionals available to advise you offering different fee schedules, and how the financial markets work, the more gains you will keep in your portfolio.

A New Paradigm for Investing Available on Amazon.com – FREE for Thanksgiving Holiday

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by in asset allocation, Bernanke, bonds, business, Charlie Munger, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, GIPS, GIPS2013, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, personal finance, portfolio, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, Suitability, volatility, Warren Buffett, Yellen

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greetings to all my loyal readers of this blog.  In keeping with the Thanksgiving spirit, I have decided to make my first two books absolutely FREE for the rest of the week.  These two books on Amazon.com are available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Please feel free to check out the titles below.  I have provided links to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com.

The books are as follows:

1)      A New Paradigm for Investing:  Can Your Financial Advisor Answer These Questions?:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-ebook/dp/B00F3BDTHW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381107823&sr=1-1&keywords=A+New+Paradigm+for+Investing+by+William+Nelson

2)       Spend 20 Hours Learning About Investing to Prepare for 20+ Years in Retirement

http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Investments-Prepare-Retirement-ebook/dp/B00F3KW9T2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379183661&sr=1-1&keywords=William+Nelson+Spend+20+Hours

The first book listed is normally $9.99 but available for FREE until November 30th.  The other book is normally $2.99, but it is also FREE for the same time period.

I would like to thank my international viewers as well.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would recommend following for the content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

The Wealth Report @wsjexperts – #wsjexperts

The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds

Research Magazine @Research_Mag

Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline

Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA

Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

Pedro da Costa @pdacosta

Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield

The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

Euro-banks @EuroBanks

Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

Charlie Wells @charliewwells

AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

Bob Burg @BobBurg

Melody Campbell @SmBizGuru

TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

MuniCredit @MuniCredit

D.J. Rob-Ski @DJRobSki

The Two Numbers the Financial Services Industry Does NOT Want You to Know Available on Amazon.com

11 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by in asset allocation, bonds, business, Charity, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed Taper, Federal Income Taxes, Federal Reserve, finance, financial planning, Income Taxes, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, math, personal finance, portfolio, risk, State Income Taxes, stocks

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I wanted to pass along the latest installment of my book series, A New Paradigm for Investing that I have published on Amazon.com.  The subtitle is The Two Numbers the Financial Services Industry Does NOT Want You to Know.  Have you ever struggled with trying to determine how much value you get for the investment advice you are paying for?  It can seem like everyone has the same “pitch” and the same fees.  Since you are entrusting a Financial Advisor or other financial professional with a large part of your net worth and financial future, you deserve to know exactly how fees work in general.  I am by no means advocating dumping the individual you have developed a relationship with.  Rather, I would like to provide some insight into investment fees and how much they actually are when compared to your annual income.  I assure you that, if you are utilizing a full service brokerage firm or other advisory services, these figures will astound you.

Note that this book is available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Amazon.com prime members can borrow the book for FREE. I have provided a link below to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com should you have any questions/comments/feedback.

The link to the book is:

A New Paradigm for Investing:  The Two Numbers the Financial Services Industry Does NOT Want You to Know:

 

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-Services-ebook/dp/B00GCQACF4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384183129&sr=1-1&keywords=a+new+paradigm+for+investing+by+william+nelson

I would like to thank my international viewers as well.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would recommend following for the content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

The Wall Street Journal Wealth Report @wsjexperts – #wsjexperts

The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds

Research Magazine @Research_Mag

Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline

Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA

Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

Pedro da Costa @pdacosta – Reporter for Reuters covering economics and the Federal Reserve

Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield

The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

Euro-banks @EuroBanks

Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

Charlie Wells @charliewwells – Editor of the Wall Street Journal Wealth Experts

AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

Bob Burg @BobBurg

Melody Campbell @SmBizGuru

TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

MuniCredit @MuniCredit

D.J. Rob-Ski @DJRobSki

Are Your Financial Advisor’s Fees Reasonable? Are You Actually Adding More Risk to Your Ability to Reach Your Long-Term Financial Goals? Here is a Unique Way to Look at What Clients Pay For

26 Saturday Oct 2013

Posted by in asset allocation, bonds, business, Consumer Finance, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, personal finance, portfolio, reasonable financial advisor fees, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility

≈ 22 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More and more financial professionals are charging clients based upon assets under management (AUM).  A common fee is 1%.  The fee for a $1 million portfolio would be $10,000 ($1,000,000 * 1%). Now you have heard me talk about the importance of keeping fees as low as possible.  Essentially you are trying to maximize your investment returns each year.  If you have quite a few needs, a Financial Advisor usually can provide a number of different services and advice.  For example, you also may need assistance with legal and tax advice.  Additionally, you may have more complex financial planning needs.  Financial professionals will assist you with portfolio allocation always.  Now I am going to look at AUM fees in a way that you may not be familiar with.  I can tell you already that the financial services industry will not be happy or agree with this presentation.  However, my goal is to help you and provide you with an argument that may finally give you the impetus to manage your own investments or think seriously about working with a financial planner that charges fees on an hourly basis.

I also encourage you to read the Wall Street Journal’s Weekend edition for October 26, 2013.  On the bottom of the Business & Finance section, Jason Zweig discusses the many conflicts of interest that Financial Advisors have.  FINRA (a Self-Regulatory Organization comprised of all brokerage firms) issued a 22,000-word report about fees, conflicts, and compensation of Financial Advisors.  Oddly enough, the words “advice” and “investing” showed up less than 10 times.  The financial services industry is concerned about this matter, so you should definitely take note and learn much more about what you are actually paying for.

Example for Retirees:

I will start out with an example for retirees because they tend to be working with financial professionals already.  If you are retired and not independently wealthy, you are in the wealth distribution phase of your life.  There are some retirees that are permanently in the wealth preservation phase.  Wealth preservation simply means that an investor has enough money to live comfortably, but he/she does not need to deplete his/her investment portfolio.  Furthermore, this investor does not really try to increase the value of his or her investment portfolio.  A retiree in the wealth distribution phase of life is the most common example.  This investor is gradual depleting his/her investment portfolio to pay for living expenses on an annual basis.  Due to the fact that this person is not working anymore and, thus has no income from work, and longevity keeps getting longer, he/she needs have an investment portfolio that is somewhat conservative in nature.  Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect to earn 8% per year.  A more common target return might be 5.5-6.0%.  If you are working with a financial professional who charges you 1.0%, you need to earn 6.5-7.0% on a gross basis in order to get to that target net return.  Now the long-term historical average of stocks is about 8.0%, so the higher your AUM fees are, the more weighting you will need to have in stocks and away from bonds and cash.  Well, we have already gone over that, and most individuals that present information will stop there.  I want to take this even further though.

Let’s say you are a current retiree with $1 million that you are living off of in additional to Social Security income.  You have a target return of 5.5% to fund your desired retirement lifestyle, and your Financial Advisor charges you a 1.0% AUM fee.  Thus, you will need to earn a 6.5% return gross to reach your bogey.  Now I would like to put in the twist, and I want to do a thought experiment with you.  Your Financial Advisor will sit down with you and assess your risk tolerance and ensure that the investment recommendations made are not too aggressive for you.  If you cannot take too much volatility (fluctuation in asset prices up and down over the short term), your financial professional will reduce your exposure to equities.  Well, I like to present information using economic principles as well.  If you just retired and are 65, you have one option right away.  You can simply invest all your retirement money in 10-year Treasury notes issued by the Department of the Treasury.  Treasury notes are free to buy.  All you need to do is to participate in one of the Treasury auctions and put an indirect bid in.  What is an indirect bid?  An indirect bid is simply saying that you would like to buy a set dollar amount of notes, and you are willing to accept whatever the market interest rate set by the auction is.  What is the yield on the 10-year Treasury right now?  The 10-year Treasury closed at 2.51% on October 25, 2013.  When you go to a financial professional, he/she is selecting investments in lieu of you simply purchasing the 10-year Treasury.  Keep in mind that US Treasuries are among the safest investments in the world.  They are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.  Stocks, bonds, real estate, gold, and other investment options all have an added degree of risk.  With the additional risk, there is a possibility for higher returns though.  How does this relate to your 1.0% AUM fee?

Think about it this way:  why are you paying your Financial Advisor?  You are paying him/her to select investments that can earn you more than simply buying a US Treasury bill, note, or bond.  As an investor, you do not want to just settle for that return in most cases.  With that being said though, you can just start out there and forget it.  You do not need to engage a Financial Advisor to simply buy a 10-year US Treasury note.  This means that you are paying the Financial Advisor to get you incremental returns.  In our example above for a retiree, your target investment return is 5.5%.  If you are able to earn 5.5% during the year, the incremental return is 2.99% (5.50%-2.51%).  Remember that you are paying the Financial Advisor 1.0% in an AUM fee.  Therefore, you are paying the Financial Advisor 1.0% of your assets in order to get you an extra 2.99% in investment returns.  Well, 1.0% is 33.4% of 2.99%.  Thus, you are essentially paying a fee of 33.4% in reality.  Now your financial professional would flip if the information was presented in this way.  He/she would say that it is flawed.  The mathematics cannot be argued with; however, I will admit that many folks in the financial services industry would disagree with this type of presentation.

Remember that you started out with $1 million.  You could have gone to the bank and gotten cash and hid it in a safe within your residence.  AUM fees are always presented by using your investment portfolio as the denominator.  In our example, your investment fee is 1.0% ($10,000 / $1,000,000).  I urge you to think about this though.  Does that really matter?  Of course, the fee you pay to your Financial Advisor will be calculated in this manner.  But what are you paying for in terms of incremental returns?  If you want to calculate what you are paying for (the value that your Financial Advisor provides), the reference to the starting balance in your brokerage account is really moot.  It is yours to begin with.  Therefore, it should be removed from the equation when trying to quantify the value your Financial Advisor provides in terms of investment returns on your portfolio.

Now remember that I said your target investment return was 5.5%.  The long-term historical average of stocks is approximately 8.0%.  If you choose to simply allocate only enough of your investment portfolio in stocks and the rest in cash to reach that 5.5% target, you will select an allocation of 68.8% stocks and 31.2% cash (5.5% = 68.8% * 8.0% + 31.2% * 0.0%).  Note that I am assuming that cash earns no interest at all and that you can select an ETF or index mutual fund to capture the long-term historical average for stocks.  Now your financial professional is working with you to select an investment portfolio that achieves the 5.5% target return, and their investment recommendations will be different than this hypothetical allocation.  With that being said, the hypothetical allocation achieves your target return with a simple choice of two assets (an ETF or index mutual fund and hard currency).  Keep in mind that you will normally have a portion of your portfolio allocated to fixed income.  The 10-Year US Treasury note is trading around 2.50% as of October 25, 2013.  If you allocate your portfolio to 60% stocks, 30% 10-Year, and 10% cash, your expected return would be 5.6%  (60% * 8.0% + 30% * 2.5% + 10% * 0.0%).

Whatever your Financial Advisor is charging you in terms of fees, you need to make that percentage more in your total return on a gross basis such that your net return equals your target return.  In our example above, the assumed AUM fee was 1.0%.  That investment fee means that you have to earn 6.5% on a gross basis because you need to pay your Financial Advisor 1.0% for his/her services.  After the fee is paid, the return on your portfolio would be 5.5% on a net basis.  If we keep the allocation at 30% 10-Year and 10% cash, how much weighting do stocks need to be in your portfolio to ensure that your overall returns is 5.5% after paying your AUM fee?  The answer is 72.7%.  Why?  The expected return of your portfolio is 6.5% (72.7% * 8.0% + 27.3% * 2.5% + 0.0% * 0.0%) before fees.  Given the average retiree’s risk tolerance at age 65 or older, most people do not desire to have a portfolio with 65% or larger allocated to stocks.  Plus, the historical, long-term average of stocks is just that.  It is an average and rarely is 8.0% in any given year.  For example the S&P 500 Index has not had a single down year since 2008.  The returns for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 were 26.5%, 15.1%, 2.1%, and 16.0%, respectively.  The average return over that span was 14.9%.  As of September 30, 2013, the S&P 500 Index was up 19.8%.  Now I am by no means making a prediction for the remainder of 2013 or 2014 for that matter.  However, I wanted to drive home the fact that, if your Financial Advisor sets up your financial plan with the assumption that your stock allocation will earn 8.0% on average, any actual return lower than that estimate will cause you to not reach your target return.  What is the effect?  You will not be able to maintain the lifestyle you had planned on, even more so if there are negative returns experienced in stocks over the coming years.

Essential/Important Lesson:

Let’s look at the next five years starting in 2014.  A five-year period covers 2014-2018.  If you start out with $1,000,000 invested in stocks and plan on earning 8.0% per year, you are expecting to have $1,469,328 at the end of five years.  Let’s say that the return of stocks is actually only 4.0% per year over the next five years.  You will only have $1,216,653 as of December 31, 2018.  The difference is $252,675 less than you were expecting.  The analysis gets worse at this point though.  How can it get any worse?  Well, if you were planning on 8.0% returns from stocks per year, the next five-year period 2019-2023 needs an excess return to catch up.  Thus, if your starting point on January 1, 2014 is $1,000,000, your financial plan is set up to have $2,158,925 as of December 31, 2023.  If you are starting behind your estimate in 2019, the only way you can make up the difference is to have stocks earn 12.2% over that five-year period which is 4+% higher than the historical average.  As you can see underperformance can really hurt financial planning.  The extremely important point here is that a 1% AUM fee will cause you to be even further behind your goals.  Remember that the illustration above is gross returns.  You only care about net returns and what your terminal value is.  Terminal value is simply a fancy way to say how much money is actually in your brokerage account.

Example for Those Saving for Retirement:

For those of you that are saving for retirement, you should use a different bogey than the 10-year US Treasury.  If you are 35 years old, you can simply invest in the 30-year Treasury bond (the jargon on Wall Street is “the long bond”).  The closing yield on the 30-year Treasury on October 26, 2013 was 3.60%.  Thus, I would suggest that you use this benchmark to calculate your incremental return.  If your financial professional tells you that this analysis does not apply to you because you are 45 years old and your timeframe to retirement is 20 years, I would agree.  With that being said though, you can find the current yield on a US Treasury bond with 20 years to maturity.  Most people are familiar with the Treasury yields quoted in the financial media and on financial websites.  Those yields are calculated based upon on-the-run Treasuries.  On-the-run simply refers to the most recently Treasuries sold at auction.  Once the Department of the Treasury sells new bills, notes, or bonds, those last financial instruments are referred to as off-the-run.  Keep in mind that the off-the-run Treasuries still trade on the bond market.  You always can get a current yield for them.  It is harder to find, but it is available on the Internet.  You can find out more information directly on the Department of the Treasury’s website:  http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/yieldmethod.aspx if you wanted to learn about this concept in more detail.  I would never recommend using a bogey less than the 10-year Treasury note though even if you have fewer than 10 years to retirement.  The aforementioned analysis for the calculation of incremental returns and the value-added from your financial professional will apply as in the example for retirees.

I will admit that this is a novel way to look at fees on investment portfolios.  However, there are a number of financial professionals that are using this approach now.  Keep in mind that one of the hardest questions to answer is in regard to the measurement of how much value your Financial Advisor provides.  How do you know if he/she is doing a good job for you?  The more common approach is to look solely at investment returns and compare it to a standard index return(s).  This analysis is meant to supplement the discussion.  I am hoping that this presentation will give you added incentive to seriously consider managing your own investments.  Or at the very least maybe try to find a financial planner that charges an hourly fee or flat fee.  You can pay a financial planner an hourly fee to sit with you and decide if your life situation and the current state of the financial markets warrant a change to your portfolio allocation among asset classes.  That financial planner also can work with you on your emotional intelligence and the urge to sell all your stocks and/or bonds because of current negative news and events.

Of course, I will not dissuade you from seeing a Financial Advisor.  On the other hand, I encourage you to have them walk through the value that they provide for you.  What can he/she do for you that you cannot do for yourself by buying an index mutual fund and US Treasury notes absolutely free?  You can use this analysis as a template for your discussion.  Most financial services firms essentially bundle financial advice.  Even if you do not need legal, tax, and complicated financial planning advice, you are still paying for it.  Now it is nice to have it available to you at any given time, but, if you do not use it or never use it, do you really want to pay for it?  It is very difficult to find financial services firms that can separate out those higher level services and provide advice on portfolio allocation and distribution of income to supplement retirement income only.  The vast majority of investors do not need complex advice though.  For example, the current exemption for estate taxes is $5.25 million.  Thus, if you do not have a net worth more than this, estate planning will not be a major concern.  Furthermore, if you are not planning on setting up a charitable trust for giving, legal advice is not necessary either.  In terms of tax advice, most investors simply have to record capital gains and dividends.  There are some techniques to “harvest” capital losses to reduce capital gains, but that is pretty simple to do on your own.  In terms of sophisticated financial planning, most investors do not have life situations that necessitate the advice (e.g. providing for the long-term needs of a special needs child, concentrated wealth in a family-owned business, significant stock options, etc.).  If your financial services firm offers that advice and you do not use it, you cannot just tell your financial services firm that you do not want to pay for it.  There really is not an ala carte option.  You will pay your 1.0% (or whatever it may be) AUM fee.  The ironic thing is that, if you have a large enough investment portfolio where this advice comes into play, your AUM fee will almost certainly be significantly less than 1.0%.  Doesn’t this make you want to learn more about investments and if you can take more of an active role?  I sure hope so.

I welcome comments/feedback and constructive criticism.  If there are Financial Advisors that totally disagree with my logic and presentation, I would love to hear from you.  I can be contacted at latticeworkwealth@gmail.com.  As I mentioned in a previous post, I wanted to hear from you.  I appreciate the topics selected.  In my next few posts, I will devote some time to discussing the issues that were suggested by you.  I will get back to my normal selections in a week or so.

Are Your Financial Advisor’s Fees Reasonable? Here is a Unique Way to Look at What Clients Pay For

07 Wednesday Aug 2013

Posted by in asset allocation, bonds, business, finance, financial advice, financial advisory fees, investing, investment advice, investments, reasonable fees for financial advisor, reasonable financial advisor fees, stocks

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More and more financial professionals are charging clients based upon assets under management (AUM). A common fee is 1%. The fee for a $1 million portfolio would be $10,000 ($1,000,000 * 1%). In practice though, the fee is normally charged on a quarterly basis. Thus, you will pay 0.25% in fees based upon your AUM at the end of every quarter: March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. Now you have heard me talk about the importance of keeping fees as low as possible. Essentially you are trying to maximize your investment returns each year. If you have quite a few needs, a financial advisor usually can provide a number of different services and advice. For example, you also may need assistance with legal and tax advice. Additionally, you may have more complex financial planning needs. Financial professionals will assist you with portfolio allocation always. Now I am going to look at AUM fees in a way that you may not be familiar with. I can tell you already that the financial services industry will not be happy or agree with this presentation. However, my goal is to help you and provide you with an argument that may finally give you the impetus to manage your own investments or think seriously about working with a financial planner that charges fees on an hourly basis.

I will start out with an example for retirees because they tend to be working with financial professionals already. If you are retired and not independently wealthy, you are in the wealth distribution phase of your life. There are some retirees that are permanently in the wealth preservation phase. Wealth preservation simply means that an investor has enough money to live comfortably, but he/she does not need to deplete his/her investment portfolio. Furthermore, this investor does not really try to increase his or her investment portfolio. A retiree in the wealth distribution phase of life is the most common example. This investor is gradual depleting his/her investment portfolio to pay for living expenses on an annual basis. Due to the fact that this person is not working anymore and, thus has no income from work, and longevity keeps getting longer, he/she needs to have an investment portfolio that is somewhat conservative in nature. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect to earn 8% per year. A more common target return might be 5.5-6.0%. If you are working with a financial professional who charges you 1.0%, you need to earn 6.5-7.0% on a gross basis in order to get to that target net return. Now the long-term historical average of stocks is between 7.0-8.0%, so the higher your AUM fees are, the more weighting you will need to have in stocks and away from bonds and cash. Well, we have already gone over that, and most individuals that present information will stop there. I want to take this one step further though.

Let’s say you are a current retiree with $1 million that you are living off of in additional to Social Security income. You have a target return of 5.5%, and your Financial Advisor charges you a 1.0% AUM fee. Thus, you will need to earn a 6.5% return gross to reach your bogey. Now I would like to put in the twist, and I want to do a thought experiment with you. Your Financial Advisor will sit down with you and assess your risk tolerance and ensure that the investment recommendations made are not too aggressive for you. If you cannot take too much volatility (fluctuation in asset prices up and down over the short term), your financial professional will reduce your exposure to equities. Well, I like to present information using economic principles as well. If you just retired and are 65, you have one option right away. You can simply invest all your retirement money in 10-year Treasury notes issued by the Department of the Treasury. Treasury notes are free to buy. All you need to do is to participate in one of the Treasury auctions and put an indirect bid in. What is an indirect bid? An indirect bid is simply saying that you would like to buy a set dollar amount of notes, and you are willing to accept whatever the market interest rate set by the auction is. What is the yield on the 10-year Treasury right now? The 10-year Treasury closed at 2.67% on August 6, 2013. When you go to a financial professional, he/she is selecting investments in lieu of you simply purchasing the 10-year Treasury. Keep in mind that US Treasuries are among the safest investments in the world. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Stocks, bonds, real estate, gold, and other investment options all have an added degree of risk. With the additional risk, there is a possibility for higher returns though. How does this relate to your 1.0% AUM fee?

Think about it this way: why are you paying your Financial Advisor? You are paying him/her to select investments that can earn you more than simply buying a US Treasury bill, note, or bond. As an investor, you do not want to just settle for that return in most cases. With that being said though, you can just start out there and forget it. You do not need to engage a Financial Advisor to simply buy a 10-year US Treasury note. This means that you are paying the Financial Advisor to get you incremental returns. In our example above for a retiree, your target investment return is 5.5%. If you are able to earn 5.5% during the year, the incremental return is 2.83% (5.50%-2.67%). Remember that you are paying the Financial Advisor 1.0% in an AUM fee. Therefore, you are paying the Financial Advisor 1.0% of your assets in order to get you an extra 2.83% in investment returns. Well, 1.0% is 35.3% of 2.83%. Thus, you are essentially paying a fee of 35.3% in reality. Now your financial professional would flip if the information was presented in this way. He/she would say that it is flawed. The mathematics cannot be argued with; however, I will admit that many folks in the financial services industry would disagree with this type of presentation. Remember that you started out with $1 million. You could have gone to the bank and gotten cash and hid it in a safe within your residence. AUM fees are always presented by using your investment portfolio as the denominator. In our example, your investment fee is 1.0% ($10,000 / $1,000,000). I urge you to think about this though. Does that really matter? Of course, the fee you pay to your Financial Advisor will be calculated in this manner. But what are you paying for in terms of incremental returns? If you want to calculate what you are paying for (the value that your Financial Advisor provides), the reference to the starting balance in your brokerage account is really moot. It is yours to begin with. Therefore, it should be removed from the equation when trying to quantify the value your Financial Advisor provides in terms of investment returns on your portfolio.

Remember that I said your target investment return was 5.5%. The long-term historical average of stocks is 7.0-8.0%. (I use a range for the long-term historical average because the average will change based upon the universe of stocks you include and your chosen timeframe. In other words, you will see different people tell you that the long-term historical average is various figures). Let’s pick the midpoint of 7.5%. If you choose to simply allocate only enough of your investment portfolio in stocks and the rest in cash to reach that 5.5% target, you will select an allocation of 73.3% stocks and 26.7% cash (5.5% = 73.3% * 7.5% + 26.7% * 0.0%). Note that I am assuming that cash earns no interest at all and that you can select an ETF or index mutual fund to capture the long-term historical average for stocks. Now your financial professional is working with you to select an investment portfolio that achieves the 5.5% target return, and their investment recommendations will be different than this hypothetical allocation. With that being said, the hypothetical allocation achieves your target return with a simple choice of two assets (an ETF or index mutual fund and hard currency).

For those of you that are saving for retirement, you should use a different bogey than the 10-year US Treasury. If you are 35 years old, you can simply invest in the 30-year Treasury bond (the jargon on Wall Street is “the long bond”). The closing yield on the 30-year Treasury on August 6, 2013 was 3.73%. Thus, I would suggest that you use this benchmark to calculate your incremental return. If your financial professional tells you that this analysis does not apply to you because you are 45 years old and your timeframe to retirement is 20 years, I would agree. With that being said though, you can find the current yield on a US Treasury bond with 20 years to maturity. Most people are familiar with the Treasury yields quoted in the financial media and on financial websites. Those yields are calculated based upon on-the-run Treasuries. On-the-run simply refers to the most recently Treasuries sold at auction. Once the Department of the Treasury sells new bills, notes, or bonds, those last financial instruments are referred to as off-the-run. Keep in mind that the off-the-run Treasuries still trade on the bond market. You always can get a current yield for them. It is harder to find, but it is available on the Internet. You can find out more information directly on the Department of the Treasury’s website: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/yieldmethod.aspx if you wanted to learn about this concept in more detail. I would never recommend using a bogey less than the 10-year Treasury note though even if you have fewer than 10 years to retirement. The aforementioned analysis for the calculation of incremental returns and the value-added from your financial professional will apply as in the example for retirees.

I will admit that this is a novel way to look at fees on investment portfolios. There are a number of financial professionals that are using this approach now. Keep in mind that one of the hardest questions to answer is in regard to the measurement of how much value your Financial Advisor provides. How do you know if he/she is doing a good job for you? The more common approach is to look solely at investment returns and compare it to a standard index return(s). This analysis is meant to supplement the discussion. I am hoping that this presentation will give you added incentive to seriously consider managing your own investments. Or at least maybe try to find a financial planner that charges an hourly fee. You can pay a financial planner an hourly fee to sit with you and decide if your life situation and the current state of the financial markets warrant a change to your portfolio allocation among asset classes. That financial planner also can work with you on your emotional intelligence and the urge to sell all your stocks and/or bonds because of current news and events. I will not dissuade you from seeing a Financial Advisor. On the other hand, I encourage you to have them walk through the value that they provide for you. You can use this analysis as a template for your discussion. Most financial services firms essentially bundle financial advice. Even if you do not need legal, tax, and complicated financial planning advice, you are still paying for it. Now it is nice to have it available to you at any given time, but, if you do not use it or never use it, do you really want to pay for it? It is very difficult to find financial services firms that can separate out those higher level services and provide advice on portfolio allocation and distribution of income to supplement retirement income only. The vast majority of investors do not need complex advice though. For example, the current exemption for estate taxes is $5.12 million. Thus, if you do not have a net worth more than this, estate planning will not be a major concern. Furthermore, if you are not planning on setting on a charitable trust for giving, legal advice is not necessary either. In terms of tax advice, most investors simply have to record capital gains and dividends. There are some techniques to “harvest” capital losses to reduce capital gains, but that is pretty simple to do on your own. In terms of sophisticated financial planning, most investors do not have life situations that necessitate the advice (e.g. providing for the long-term needs of a special needs child, concentrated wealth in a family-owned business, significant stock options, etc.). If your financial services firm offers that advice and you do not use it, you cannot just tell your Financial Services firm that you do not want to pay for it. There really is not an ala carte option. You will simply pay your 1.0% (or whatever it may be) AUM fee. The ironic thing is that, if you have a large enough investment portfolio where this advice comes into play, your AUM fee will usually be significantly less than 1.0%. Does this make you want to learn more about investments and if you can take more of an active role? I sure hope so.

I welcome comments/feedback and constructive criticism. If there are Financial Advisors that totally disagree with my logic and presentation, I would love to hear from you. I can be contacted at latticeworkwealth@gmail.com. As I mentioned in a previous post, I wanted to hear from you. I appreciate the topics selected. In my next few posts, I will devote some time to discussing the issues that were suggested by you. I will get back to my normal selections in a week or so.