Why your 401(k) is probably a “clunker”

William Bernstein is one of the most respected financial minds of our time. His book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator, should be read by every investor. In an insightful commentary entitled What the Investment Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know, Bernstein observes that investors “can only positively impact one aspect of investment performance — your allocation of assets among broad asset classes.” Stock picking, mutual-fund picking and market timing are “irrelevant.”

Keep this advice in mind, since it is the primary reason why your 401(k) is probably a “clunker.” Here’s a checklist of others:

1. High costs: Low costs correlate directly to higher returns. The total cost of your plan should not exceed 1.50%. By “total cost,” I mean the expense ratio of mutual funds in the plan, record keeping, custody, administration fees and advisory fees.

2. No investment advice: Advisers to 401(k) plans are well compensated, yet most limit communications with plan participants to “education.” Your adviser should give investment advice. Most advisers won’t because of the potential liability. If the investment options in the plan were in the best interests of plan participants, they wouldn’t have this concern.

3. Revenue-sharing and hidden mark-ups: Brokers and insurance companies typically extract payments from mutual funds that want to be included as investment options. How objective can their advice be if they are receiving these payments? They also mark-up management fees charged by mutual funds. I reviewed a plan that included a Vanguard Target Retirement Fund, which Morningstar reported had an expense ratio of 0.18%. The plan was charged 0.93% for this fund. This difference comes out of your returns.

4. The plan adviser is not a “real” fiduciary: Brokers and insurance companies misuse the term “fiduciary” in describing their obligation to the plan and plan participants. The only real fiduciary is a 3(38) ERISA fiduciary. This kind of fiduciary accepts 100% of the liability for the selection and monitoring of investment options in the plan. I have never seen a 401(k) plan where a broker or insurance company agreed in writing to be a 3(38) ERISA fiduciary. Any other designation of “fiduciary” is meaningless.

5. Retail share classes are in the plan when institutional classes are available: I recently reviewed a plan that had thirteen mutual funds as investment options. All of them were retail shares. Every one of these funds had institutional shares available. What’s the difference between the two share classes? The retail shares have higher management fees. Otherwise, they are exactly the same. The only reason to include retail shares when less expensive institutional shares are available is to increase fees and lower returns. This practice is indefensible.

6. The money market fund has high fees: In many plans, the money market fund is the default where assets are placed if the plan participant does not make another choice. The management fees charged by money market funds can really impact your returns. If the money market fund in your plan has an expense ratio higher than 0.25%, it should not be in the plan.

7. The mutual funds in the plan have high fees: Brokers typically populate fund options with high-cost, actively managed funds (where the fund manager attempts to beat a given benchmark). The fees charged by these funds range from 1.5% to 2% (or more). A blend of comparable index funds has fees under 0.50%. The difference comes right out of your returns.

8. Mutual funds in the plan underperform their benchmark: Most actively managed mutual funds underperform their benchmark index. I looked at a plan where over 70% of the funds failed to equal their benchmark. Why are those funds in the plan when low-cost index funds will equal their benchmark 100% of the time (less low expenses)?

9. Funds drop in and out of the plan: A charade takes place at most companies with 401(k) plans. The investment committee meets periodically with brokers advising the plan to decide which funds will be dropped and which ones will take their place. This makes everyone feel they’re doing something useful, but it’s a useless activity. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Poor-performing funds may or may not outperform in the future. Stellar-performing funds typically underperform in the following five years. It also ignores a key issue: If the broker really had the expertise to pick superior funds, why is this exercise necessary at all?

10. Many investment options: Many fund options confuse plan participants. Few participants know how to put together a risk-adjusted portfolio in an asset allocation suitable for them. Instead of offering a boatload of funds, your plan should have a limited number of pre-allocated, globally diversified portfolios of stock and bond index funds, ranging from conservative to high risk. Plan participants should fill out a simple asset-allocation questionnaire to determine their risk level. They should then select the portfolio suitable for them. If all 401(k) plans followed this practice, returns would increase significantly.

Contact me if you have any questions or would like a review of your 401(k).
Lake Minnetonka Financial
Scott Brown
952-466-6311
scott@lakeminnetonkafinancial.com

Ask A Question

Setting the record straight.

Ok, that’s it! I just read a totally biased negative report from some website regarding annuities and I want to set the record straight.

For the record, not all annuities are a good investment. Some insurance companies out there have inferior products. The design might be bad or the fees are high. It could be any number of things but that doesn’t mean all annuities are bad. They are not!! Used in the proper way annuities can be a wonderful addition to a persons portfolio.

As an investor and as an advisor I like what Fixed Indexed Annuities accomplish. There are other types of annuities. There’s Variable annuities, fixed annuities and immediate annuities. But for this article I want to stay with the Fixed Indexed Annuities.

As an advisor/producer I always have wanted an insurance product that would be designed for all to win. The client, the insurance company and the producer. I think the FIA does that. Not all of them mind you, again, there are some insurance companies that have inferior products but then a good producer has done his/her due diligence and research to find the ones that ARE good.

So, what are some of the big knocks against FIA’s?

1. There are interest rate cap’s (limits the maximum return)
2. Some insurance companies have a participation rate. Example; Insurance company has a 90% participation rate. Ok, the market returns 10% but the insurance company pays the client 90% of that or 9%.
3. FIA’s do not pay dividends.
4. Producer’s get a big commission paid to them.

How I look at these 4 points.

1. Yes there are caps. It’s how the insurance company stays solvent while giving clients decent returns. All win, remember.
2. Get one that uses 100%. I do.
3. Big deal. FIA’s don’t pay dividends. Mutual funds allow negative returns. What’s the bottom line here? It’s that the client doesn’t want to risk losing money but still wants an opportunity for some gain.
4. 4 to 8%. That commission does NOT come out of the clients investment. It’s part of the insurance companies distribution costs.

We have to remember what we as both clients and producers are trying to accomplish using FIA’s. Remove the possibility of negative returns with possibility of upside returns.

I’ll give you the example that the website I read used. They are talking about how FIA’s don’t pay dividends. “Most will also tie equity-index returns to those deriving from market price changes only, and exclude any return due to the payment of dividends. As an example, in 1998 the total return (i.e., capital gains and dividends) for the S&P 500 Index as reported by Ibbotson Associates was 28.6%, while that for just capital gains was 26.7% return which is the return the insurance company would have used.”

Now, let’s take that scenario and add the investor. Let’s say it’s a couple in their late 50’s or maybe early 60’s. They found out that there nest egg returned 26.7% in 1998. Think they’d be happy? Ok, let’s say they also knew that there friends earned 28.6% in a market based portfolio. Not as happy now? Maybe. Now move ahead to late 1999. What did the market do? It crashed. What did our couples FIA do? It didn’t crash! It stayed even! Think that made them happy.
So, our couple gave up some market potential for security. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.

Disclosure and suitability, they are key in providing FIA’s to potential clients.

Scott A. Brown is a financial advisor in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and has been practicing for over 26 years.

My thoughts on the recent market behavior

• The worst 3 days in Market history
• Possibly the worst August
• Are we still in a Bullish market? Yes, I think so but there is weakness in the market

I am hopeful that the market will recover but this is without a doubt a significant Correction. However, it is a Correction that has been overdue!

Although I am hopeful of a recovery there is weakness in the market and that means that the market could roll from a Bull to a Bear pretty fast.

For those folks who are Day Traders this is a very scary time. But not so much for us.
We have a 401K Plan and that means our investing is over a long period of time.

For anyone with 5 or more years until retirement this correction actually presents an opportunity to buy low. With the Corrections comes a reduction in share values so therefore with your monthly contributions into the 401K Plan you are buying at a lower price.

If anyone would like to talk more about this please feel free to give me a call at 952-466-6311.