Bond ETF Performance Update

The last update of bond funds was done on

 12/29/2014.

The purpose here is to get a sense of how various parts of the fixed income market have performed year-to-date.  We are still in a world of historically low short-term yields heavily influenced by global Central Bank policy led by the U.S. Federal Reserve.  In fact, the number 1 issue in markets today is when the Fed will raise rates (we are beyond the "if" stage) and the path rates will follow from there.

Here are the total year-to-date returns through 5/29/2015 as reported by Morningstar.

The first point to note is that performance was fairly tight.  Not much, if anything, was gained from going off index, i.e. investing in other than AGG.

No advantage was gained by exploiting the yield curve as seen by the 1.68% return on IEI versus 1.66% on IEF.

Some incremental performance was garnered for investing in riskier funds as seen by the 3.03% return on the emerging market fund EMB and the 2.36% on HYS, a short-term high yield fund.

This data is provided for educational purposes.  My clients and I own some funds listed in the table.

Cheap Trick

No, this isn't about the 70's rock band (still apparently going strong).  It is about a financial services industry cheap trick.

The lady was from Texas and called with a bit of concern in her voice.  She was selling land that had been in the family for a long time and was getting approximately $13 million.  In hand, she had a proposal to manage the $13 million and was seeking a second opinion.

The proposal wasn't from an asset manager but actually from an advisor who finds asset managers.  In other words, an asset gatherer.  He was from a large network of advisors who gather assets.  He is a middleman.  In other words, if you were selling or buying a house, you can go directly to a realtor or you can go to an advisor who would recommend a realtor.  If people fall for it, the industry would put on as many layers as they could get away with!

The cheap trick, in my opinion (you can make up your own mind), comes in the fee proposal:

As you look at this fee proposal, recall one of the well-known tricks discovered by behavioral finance researchers.  It goes like this:  if you want someone to donate $1, first ask for $2.  Then, after a pause, when you say you have a lower level of participation ($1), you are likely to get it.

Here, when the client is shown the big discount, it looks like they are getting a good deal with the much lower proposed fee.  What needs to be asked is how many clients this advisor has paying the "Standard Fee."  I would be willing to bet he has nobody paying 2.90% and 2.70%, etc.

At 0.98% of $13 million, the fee for 12 months would amount to $127,000 FOR THE FIRST YEAR!
The next question to put to the advisor would be who gets what?  My guess would be that the investment managers would get approximately 0.60% and the advisor/asset gatherer would get a cool 0.38%.

The rest of the proposal is just as laughable (or sad, depending on how you are looking at it).  The asset allocation is based on an 8-question allocation questionnaire.  The end result is 2 asset categories specified to 2 decimal places.  To the uninitiated, it looks very scientific.

But none of the questions asks about her goal for the funds.  In a short conversation with me, she indicated she intended a chunk of the funds was earmarked to go to heirs.  Did the advisor explain to her that her heirs have a considerably longer investment horizon and, therefore, assets intended for them should be invested in other than municipal bonds (especially given the 0.98% investment fee)!

Look Who's Indexing - Scott Adams

Scott Adams, the creator of "Dilbert," has made a career out of exposing incompetence.  His laugh-out-loud cartoon series makes fun of the business world in a way that is highly recognizable by anyone who has spent any time in an office environment.

Similarly he has strong words to say about active investment management and touts the passive management approach.

Here is his response (from the Wall Street Journal) to whom he would recommend active investment management:  Scott Adams:  It's a Perfect Strategy for My Enemies.

Look Who's Indexing - Greg Mankiw

Greg Mankiw teaching

I've decided to start a list of well-known people who index.  The obvious impetus is to show readers they are far from alone in choosing to index their nest egg investments.

Who is Greg Mankiw (pronounced "man q")?  He is head of the economics department at Harvard University, former head of the Council of Economic Advisors to president George W. Bush, and author of the best-selling economics text books used in introductory economics classes in the U.S.  He is also author of the popular Greg Mankiw's Blog.

Incidently, those interested in an introductory economics text would enjoy Mankiw's texts; BUT, unless you are made of money, I would recommend buying an older edition.  The latest edition which is required at many colleges is pricey and the texts typically don't change a whole lot in moving to the latest edition.  There are a number of inexpensive listings on eBay--just be sure to get a "Principles" text.  Mankiw also writes some advanced texts for use in graduate courses.

Average Joe on the Path to Retirement

According to Census Bureau data, the real median income of a household 10 years ago was $65,000.  This is where we 'll start our average Joe. Today, Joe's household income, adjusted for inflation, again from median Census Bureau data, is approximately $67,141.

The following simple exercise shows how Joe has done on the path to retirement if he followed some basic guidelines.

Tables from the book Your Money Ratios by Charles Farrell show that a 40-year-old on track to achieve an 80% income replacement at age 65 should have a nest egg of 2.4 times his income.  In average Joe's case, this amounted to 2.4 * $65,000 = $156,000.  This is what his nest egg should have been 10 years ago.

Farrell's tables also show that Joe should have been saving roughly 12% of income or $7,800/year (.12 * $65,000).  In case you're interested, Farrell also says that Joe's mortgage should have been 1.8 * $65,000  = $117,000 and his household education debt should have been zero.  Given these stipulations, at 40 years old, Joe would have been on a path for a successful retirement.

But how is Joe doing today at 50 years old given market performance over the past 10 years?  Most studies show that the average investor underperforms the market by a significant amount.  This is because the average investor jumps in aggressively when prices are high and panics when prices are low.  For our purpose, we'll assume that average Joe isn't like the average investor.  Instead we'll assume Joe invests in low-cost, well-diversified index funds.

For our performance data, we will use the chart produced by BlackRock.  The chart shows annual performance for a diversified portfolio comprised basically of 65% stocks and 35% bonds.  This is the portfolio whose performance we update each quarter.

For the purpose of the analysis, I used $7,800 as the amount Joe saved each year.  This amount would ratchet up according to plan because Joe's salary increased but also because Farrell suggests the saving rate be ramped up to 15% at age 45. I  kept it simplistic at $7,800/year.

Joe's goal, as given by Farrell's tables, is to have 5.2 * $67,141 = $349,133 to be on plan at age 50.  The following table shows the year-by-year results:

Start of Year	Amount  in Nest  Egg	Diversified Portfolio Performance	Annual Saving
1/1/2005	$156,000	+5.4%	$7,800
1/1/2006	$172,425	+13.0	$7,800
1/1/2007	$203,117	+6.0%	$7,800
1/1/2008	$223,327	-23.0% *	$7,800
1/1/2009	$177,967	+20% *	$7,800
1/1/2010	$222,087	+13.0%	$7,800
1/1/2011	$259,236	+1.8%	$7,800
1/1/2012	$271,770	+12.2%	$7,800
1/1/2013	$313,174	+20.0%	$7,800
1/1/2014	$384,335	+8.1%	$7,800
1/1/2015	$423,566

The results in the table were obtained using a bankrate calculator.  I used the calculator to calculate year-by-year returns assuming Joe contributed $300/week to a qualified, 401(k) type plan.  The calculator doesn't handle negative investment performance or returns exceeding 20%.  For those years, I used rough estimates to calculate by hand.  The performance numbers came from the aforementioned BlackRock chart obtainable from the link above.

The diversified portfolio is weighted as follows:  35% Barclay's Aggregate bond index, 10% MSCI EAFE index, 10% Russell 2000 index, 22.5% Russell 1000 growth index, 22.5% Russell 1000 value index.

The bottom line is that Joe is not doing badly, with a portfolio above target by approximately $73,000. In fact, Joe would have probably done better because most 40-year-olds would be more aggressively invested than with a 65% stocks/35% bonds portfolio.

Disclaimer:  info here is for educational purposes only.  Individuals should consult a professional and do their own research before making financial decisions.