• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

RobBerger.com

Digital Marketing for the Professional Blogger

  • Join the Newsletter
  • Morningstar User’s Guide
  • Personal Capital Review and User’s Guide
  • 12 Personal Finance, Investing and Retirement Tools

Investing

How to Invest $1 Million | A Step-by-Step Guide to Investing a Windfall

November 23, 2021 by Rob Berger

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links, meaning at no cost to you I earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase or open an account. I only recommend products or services that I (1) believe in and (2) would recommend to my mom. Advertisers have had no control, influence, or input on this article, and they never will.

Investing $100 a month is simple. Many use one or more low cost index funds. So why does investing $1 million or more seem to require a more complex portfolio? In short, it doesn’t.

In this article I talk about how to invest large sums of money. I’ll share my own personal experience of investing a windfall. And I give you some specific portfolio ideas that I believe are ideal for invest even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Finally, I’ll share some books and other resources you may find helpful.

Who Has $1 Million to Invest?

At first it may seem like this article is for just a select few. There are several ways to find yourself with a lot of money at one time. These include inheritance, life insurance, the sale of a business or from an IPO or other liquidity even. But let’s face it, those who receive a windfall like this are few in number.

There is, however, a more common way many find themselves investing a large amount of money at one time–retirement. After a lifetime of work, workplace retirement accounts can exceed $1 million. Rolling a weighty 401k over into an IRA can be nerve-wracking. That’s why so many retirees hire expensive investment advisors to manage what they had managed on their own in a 401k for decades.

And that raises an important question–why is investing a large amount of money so psychological challenging?

FACTOID: Ryan Cohen, of Chewy and GameStop fame, chose to stay the course with his fortune. He experienced a massive liquidity event to the tune of $3.4 billion when he sold his stake in Chewy. How did he invest his windfall? He put it all in just two stocks–Apple and Wells Fargo. Cohen accepted a lot of volatility by choosing to park his funds in only two stocks. I don’t recommend this approach, although with billions of dollars one can afford to take some risk.

How to invest a windfall

Investing a Windfall is Psychology Difficult–Here’s Why

There are three main reasons why investing a windfall presents unique challenges.

Small-Big Dichotomy

The first reason is what I call the Small-Big Dichotomy. “Small” refers to the idea that most people reach a $1 million net worth after years of monthly investing. Small, steady contributions to a 401k don’t feel daunting. You invest the best way you know how and watch your net worth grow.

Reaching $1 million gradually over time may be cause for celebration. When the second comma pops up in the account, you might celebrate or tell your significant other. But you don’t have to ask yourself “how am I gonna invest $1 million?” You just keep doing what you’ve been doing.

The flip side of the dilemma is a “big” event–$1 million materializing overnight. Those who receive a windfall from a business sale or inheritance naturally fear making an investment mistake. Even moving money saved over a lifetime from a 401k to an IRA can feel overwhelming and fraught with danger. That worry is perfectly reasonable. Bad portfolio management has consequences. But the dilemma is more the same than different. Taking the same approach in both “big” and “small” situations makes more sense than it seems.

The Road Less Travelled Dilemma

The second challenge is the Road Less Travelled Dilemma. Windfalls often occur in tandem with big life changes. That might mean no longer owning a business, a loved one passing away, or retirement. There’s often a lot of essential change swirling. “What am I going to do with this money?” often runs parallel to “what am I gonna do with my life?” The anxiety behind both decisions can compound.

Living Off Your Nestegg

The last dilemma is the fear of living off a portfolio. You can read all the retirement books out there and understand the 4% rule. It’s going to still feel strange. I can tell you from personal experience that living off a nest egg is a new experience. As with the other two dilemmas, working away the emotional weight of the change is the best approach, but it takes time.

The starting point is to ask three questions.

3 Questions to Ask Before Investing a Windfall

  1. How much cash do I need over the next 5 years?

First, think about how much cash you’ll need over the next five years. Factor in both month-to-month expenses and large one-time purchases like home renovations, traveling, or paying for a child’s wedding. As a general rule, one should not invest money needed over the next five years in the stock market (although one can argue in favor of investing for short-term goals).

Setting aside five years of expenses serves another purpose, too. It helps create mental preparation for the market potentially going sideways or down for that period of time. Historically, there have been a number of periods where returns stayed flat or gone down over a five year period. For that reason, cash is king over short time periods. 

  1. Do you invest in one lump sum or dollar cost averaging

My approach has always been to invest a windfall in a lump sum rather than dollar cost averaging over an extended period. It’s the approach I followed when I received bonuses at work. It’s also the approach I took when I sold my business a few years ago. Further, studies show that lump sum investing beats dollar cost averaging most of the time.

Notice I said most of the time. There will be periods of time when it would have been better to dollar cost average into the market. The key here is to accept that we cannot know the future, and therefore, we cannot know which approach would be the best at any given point in time.

If it makes you feel more comfortable to dollar cost average of say a 12 month period, that’s perfectly reasonable. Just put your plan in writing and follow it.

  1. What are your specific investing goals?

The last thing to consider is how hands-on you want to be with your portfolio. Many investors prefer to be hands-off and automate the management of their investments. Others enjoy investing and what to handle everything from fund selection to rebalancing on their own.

There is no right or wrong choice here. What you chose to do, however, may affect how you invest and where you keep your money. A DIY investor may open a standard brokerage account. Someone who wants an automated service, by contrast, might select a robo-advisor such as Betterment.

How to Invest $1 Million

Now let’s turn to the actual investing of a large sum of money. What follows are three simple, easy to manage portfolios that I believe are reasonable choices whether you want to invest $500 or $500 million.

Warren Buffett Portfolio

A few years ago Warren Buffett described how he thinks most people should invest their money. It’s become known as the Warren Buffett Portfolio. He advocates a portfolio that consists of 90% in an S&P 500 index fund and 10% in short-term U.S. treasuries. Buffett even instructed that his wife’s trust be allocated as such when he passes away.

The portfolio is attractive given its low-cost, broad market diversification, and mix of stocks and bonds. Here’s a snapshot of the portfolio implemented at M1 Finance.

Factoid: The Warren Buffett Portfolio is very similar to the 2-fund portfolio William Bengen followed in his landmark study that brought us the 4% Rule. The two key differences are that Bengen used intermediate term Treasuries and advocated no more than 75% in stocks.

3-Fund Portfolio

Buffet and Bengen’s 2-fund portfolios are perfectly reasonable, but there are more diversified strategies. The 3-fund portfolio adds international exposure and features a total bond market fund. There’s no guarantee it will outperform the 2-fund option, but the added asset classes should smooth out volatility over the long term. 

The Total Stock Market Index ETF (ticker: VTI) adds some welcome mid and small-cap exposure compared to the S&P 500. You can see my VTI vs VOO comparison here. The Total Bond Market fund diversifies bond risk across a number of types of bonds. The portfolio’s expense ratio remains low at just 5 basis points (.05%).

6 Fund Portfolio

The 3-fund portfolio works well for $1 million, $10 million, even $400 million. It’s a solid starting point for any investor. Investors looking for more granularity should consider the 6-fund portfolio, which is what I use. The 6-fund portfolio adds exposure to REITs, small-cap value stocks, and emerging markets. 

The additional asset classes in the portfolio are historically volatile. The theory is that the excess risk brings greater returns. Adding non-correlated assets to the portfolio can help ensure that if several sectors are going down, one is at least going up. 

Avoid Expensive Investment Advisors

An itch best left unscratched is the urge to seek out a high-cost investment advisor.  Commissioned brokers sell pricey financial products disguised as unique opportunities. They’re never going to recommend keeping fund expenses low because that’s not in their best interests.

After I sold my business, I talked with some investment advisors. They were recommending exotic investments like non-traded REITs, expensive insurance products, and private equity that enriches the brokers who sell them but rarely justify their expense to the investor.   

Getting Help

There are reasonably priced methods of getting professional investment advice. As a rule of thumb, avoid advisory fees that exceed 50 basis points (.50%). For example, Vanguard offers advisory services for 30 basis points (.30%). To the best option is an advisor who charges by the hour or a flat fee. There’s simply no reason to give away part of your wealth each and every year for financial advice.

Resources

I recommend a number of books that further detail the investing strategies outlined above. A few of the books either reference or were written by Jack Bogle. Bogle founded Vanguard and gave rise to the “Boglehead” approach to investing.

The Bogleheads’ Guide to Investing by Taylor Larimore is a great resource on investing and retirement. An older title, but one that is still relevant, is The Four Pillars of Investing by William Bernstein. The book is a great learning tool when it comes to portfolio construction and investing.

Another book by Jack Bogle worth your time and money is The Little Book of Common Sense Investing. It’s worth exploring the Boglehead forum as a supplement to picking up a book. The discussion on the site is quite interesting and evidence-based.

Final Thoughts

Investing a large sum of money at one time can feel daunting. It causes many to hire expensive financial advisors who put them in complex, expensive and unnecessary investments. I firmly believe that the best approach is a simple, low-cost portfolio constructed of index funds.

Filed Under: Investing

VOO vs VTI: An Easy Way to Choose Between an S&P 500 and Total Stock Market Index Fund

November 3, 2021 by Rob Berger

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links, meaning at no cost to you I earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase or open an account. I only recommend products or services that I (1) believe in and (2) would recommend to my mom. Advertisers have had no control, influence, or input on this article, and they never will.

I’ve been investing for over 30 years. I’ve been writing about investing for the past 15 years. One of the questions I get the most is whether you should invest in an S&P 500 Index fund or a total stock market index fund–VOO vs VTI (ETFs) or VTSAX vs VFIAX (mutual funds).

Table of Contents
  • VTI vs VOO
    • Portfolios
    • Holdings
    • Cap Weighted vs Equal Weighted
    • Dividend Yield
  • VOO vs VTI Performance
  • VOO vs VTI–How to Choose
  • Final Thoughts

It’s an important question that torments a lot of investors. It shouldn’t. The answer answer is really, really simple. It doesn’t matter. But the explanation takes a little bit of explanation. We’re going to walk through that today using Vanguard ETFs (VOO and VTI), although the same rationale applies to any fund family.

First we’ll compare the portfolios of the S&P 500 index with the total stock market index. We’ll look at both the differences and the similarities. Second, we’ll look at the historical returns and volatility of both indexes. Finally, I’ll offer a simple approach to deciding whether VOO or VTI is best for you.

VTI vs VOO

Both VTI and VOO are lost cost index funds. Vanguard currently charges just 3 basis points (0.03%) in fees for both funds. As ETFs, they don’t have minimum purchase requirements (Vanguard mutual funds do, typically $1,000 or $3,000). They are also both very large funds, each with more than $250 billion in total assets.

Portfolios

The investing style of both an S&P 500 and total stock market index fund are similar. They both portfolios heavily weighted to large U.S. companies. Using Morningstar’s style box, we can see that both funds are classified as large-cap blend (i.e., core) funds.

VTI Stock Style
VTI–Total Stock Market Index
VOO Stock Style
VOO–S&P 500 Index

If you’re new to Morningstar’s tools, check out my Guide to Morningstar.

What these charts tell us is that both VOO and VTI are large cap funds (see the blue dots in the top row). They also tell us that both funds’ investment style is a blend of value and growth companies (blue dot is in the middle column).

Now they are not identical. The S&P 500’s Style Box shows that the average company’s market capitalization (market cap) is a bit larger (the blue dot is a bit higher). We can see this more clearly by looking at what Morningstar calls the “Weight” style box.

VTI weight
VTI–Total Stock Market Index
VOO weight
VOO–S&P 500 Index

The weight style box shows us the percentage in each fund invested in small, medium and large companies, organized by value, blend or growth. As you can see, the S&P 500 is predominately large companies, with 14% in medium size companies and nothing allocated to small cap. In contrast, VTI has more allocated to medium companies and 7% allocated to small cap companies.

The big question for us is whether these differences should matter. Before we answer that question, let’s take a deeper dive into the actual companies these funds hold.

Holdings

If we go to the actual holdings, this is where things get interesting. Using Morningstar, we can see the top 10 holdings in each fund.

Here are the top 10 holdings for VOO, followed by the top 10 for VTI:

VOO top 10 holdings
VOO top 10 holdings
VTI top 10 holdings
VTI top 10 holdings

As you’ll see, the top 10 holdings are identical for both funds. Apple is the current #1 holding (this may change to Microsoft soon) with Berkshire Hathaway holding the #10 spot. What is different is the percentage that each fund holds of each of these stocks.

You can see that for the total stock market index, Apple comprises about five percent of the fund, whereas for the S&P 500 index, it’s just over six percent (these percentages can change daily as the price of each stock changes).

To understand why there’s a difference, we need to understand cap weighted versus equal weighted indexes.

Cap Weighted vs Equal Weighted

Most index funds are market cap weighted. That means that the more valuable a company is the more it represents in the particular index. Since Apple is the most valuable company in the world at the moment (actually, Microsoft took the lead, but the change hasn’t been reflected yet in the Morningstar data), an index fund allocates more of each investment in Apple than it does smaller companies.

There are equal weighted index funds, too. These funds divide investors’ money equally among all of the companies in the index. This type of index fund is much less common. Both VOO and VTI are cap weighted index funds.

Thus, if we add up the top 10 companies that you see for each fund, we’ll see similar but not identical results. With VOO, the top 10 companies represent about 26% of the fund. For VTI, the top 10 comprise about 21%. Again, these percentages do change as company market caps change.

VTI’s percentage allocated to the top 10 is less than VOO because it must allocate its assets among all publicly traded companies headquartered in the U.S. (about 3,700). VOO only allocates its capital among 500 companies.

Dividend Yield

It’s worth noting that the dividend yield is different for these funds as well. VOO has a trailing twelve month (TTM) yield of about 1.25%. In contrast, VTI’s yield is 1.20%. The difference isn’t significant in my view, but for some it’s a critical factor.

VOO vs VTI Performance

Now we move to what really matters, performance. Using Portfolio Visualizer, we can see how the S&P 500 has compared to a total stock market index over several decades.

First, let’s see how a $10,000 investment in each of these asset classes beginning in 1972 (that’s as far back as Portfolio Visualizer goes) would have performed:

S&P 500 vs Total Stock Market Returns

Note that I’m comparing asset classes, not VOO and VTI. I’m doing that because we get more data. As you can tell, the performance has been almost identical. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) was just 8 basis points higher for total stock market. The S&P 500 had slightly less volatility as measured by standard deviation. For all practical purposes, the investments were identical.

If instead of investing one lump sum, we start with $100 and add $100 every month, the results continue to be nearly identical:

Total Stock Market vs S&P 500 DCA

During shorter periods of time, VOO or VTI might outperform the other by small margins. Over the long term, however, they’ve performed very similarly.

VOO vs VTI–How to Choose

Given the nearly identical performance and volatility, how do we decide between VOO and VTI? I’m going to suggest three factors to consider.

First, in a 401(k) or 403(b), you may not have a choice. The 401(k) I currently have offers an S&P 500 index fund, but doesn’t offer a total stock market index fund. In this situation, take whichever one your workplace retirement account offers. It doesn’t really matter and you shouldn’t view that as a problem or something to worry about.

Now, if you do have a choice or you’re investing in an IRA or a taxable account where you absolutely do have a choice, then I’d suggest one of two approaches.

If simplicity is your goal and you want all of your U.S. stocks in a single fund, go with VTI or another total stock market index fund. For example, if you invest in a three fund portfolio, I prefer a total stock market index fund. It’s not because I think it’ll outperform the S&P 500. We just saw that the performance numbers are pretty much identical. What VTI does give you, however, is added diversity. If the volatility or risk is effectively the same, and the performance is effectively the same, why not get greater exposure to the equities market.

On the other hand, if you want to slice and dice your portfolio into several U.S. asset classes, as I tend to do, I prefer the S&P 500. Why? It gives me more control over the specific asset allocation I’m trying to achieve.

Final Thoughts

So there you go. There are some of the key differences between an S&P 500 index fund and a total stock market index fund. We specifically looked at VOO versus VTI, but these considerations apply to similar funds from Fidelity, Schwab or other investment companies. The good news is that while there are differences between the two types of investments, both are excellent options for U.S. equity exposure.

I use Personal Capital to track all of my investments. The free tool shows me my asset allocation, total costs, and even retirement projections. Check out my Personal Capital Review and User’s Guide to learn how it can help you, too.

Filed Under: Investing

5 Best Dividend ETFs and 3 to Avoid

October 1, 2021 by Rob Berger

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links, meaning at no cost to you I earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase or open an account. I only recommend products or services that I (1) believe in and (2) would recommend to my mom. Advertisers have had no control, influence, or input on this article, and they never will.

Dividend investing has become an obsession. Books have been written about. YouTube channels have been dedicated to it. Some have an almost cult-like attachment to the Dividend Aristocrats.

Many investors flock to dividend ETFs because of their higher yields. In contrast, I like dividend ETFs for their lower valuation metrics. Given the high valuations in the S&P 500, an argument can be made to add a dividend ETF or mutual fund as a way to bring down the P/E ratio of a portfolio.

In that light, we’ll look at 5 excellent dividend ETFs to consider. We dive into each to understand how the portfolio is constructed and how each has performed over the past decade. We also look at three dividend ETFs we should avoid.

Table Of Contents
  1. What is a Dividend ETF
  2. How to Compare Dividend ETFs
  3. 5 Best Dividend ETFs
    • 1. Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD)
    • 2. Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG)
    • 3. Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM)
    • 4. iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF
    • 5. SPDR S&P Dividend ETF
  4. 3 Dividend ETFs to Avoid
    • 1. SuperDividend ETF (SDIV)
    • 2. SuperDividend U.S. ETF
    • 3. Invesco High Yield Equity Dividend Achiever ETF
  5. Final Thoughts

What is a Dividend ETF

Virtually all stock ETFs generate dividends. Even an S&P 500 index fund has a yield (about 1.2% for those keeping score at home). The payment of a dividend, by itself, does not qualify a fund as a dividend ETF. Rather, a dividend ETF is a fund that invests in companies that pay a higher than average dividend yield.

Such a broad definition leaves room for a wide variety of investment strategies. Some funds focus on companies with high yields, while others focus on companies that are growing their dividends at a high rate. Still other ETFs limit their portfolios to companies that have increased their dividends each year for a set number of years (typically 5 to 20).

While each of these funds are rightly described as dividend funds, they couldn’t be more different.

How to Compare Dividend ETFs

To compare one dividend ETF with another, here are the factors I consider:

Dividend Yield: As I’ve stated repeatedly on my YouTube channel, total return should be an investor’s north star. That said, in evaluating a dividend ETF, the yield is an important factor. Here I’m more concerned with yields that are too high than too low. I’ve yet to find a dividend fund with yields 3x or more the market’s average that have performed well over long periods of time.

Dividend Growth: Beyond yield, look at how quickly the companies in a fund grow their dividends. Such companies often offer the best combination of returns–a dividend along with excellent growth prospects.

Dividend Stability: A high yield doesn’t help an investor if the company paying it is on shaky ground. Here I want to understand what percentage of a companies profits go to paying the dividend (i.e., Payout Ratio). A red flag would be a company who is borrowing money to meet the dividend expected by investors.

Fundamental Factors: One of the benefits of a dividend ETF is that a value approach to investing. Many dividend ETFs have P/E and P/B ratios well below the market average.

Expense Ratio: As with any investment, we need to understand the costs. An expense ratio above about 15 basis points requires scrutiny.

5 Best Dividend ETFs

1. Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD)

The Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD) easily takes the #1 spot on my list. It has a yield about 2x the market’s average. It requires companies to have 10 consecutive years of dividend payments to make the cut. And most importantly, it has relatively low valuations. It’s P/E ratio is about 19. While that’s still high based on historical standards, it’s well below the valuations of the S&P 500 (currently more than 30).

The fund tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 index. The index screens companies based on the following criteria:

  • Minimum 10 consecutive years of dividend payments
  • Minimum float-adjusted market capitalization of US $500 million
  • Minimum three-month ADVT of US $2 million

What makes SCHD a winner, however, is the fundamental analysis used in stock selection. Factors include return on equity, free cash flow to debt and the five-year dividend growth rate. The result is a fund that has performed well over the years.

Tracking Index: Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index
TTM Yield: 2.82%
Dividend History: 10 consecutive years of dividends
Expense Ratio: 0.060%
AUM: $27.8 billion

2. Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG)

The Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG) tracks the S&P U.S. Dividend Growers Index. Unlike SCHD and the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index, this index requires companies to have increased their dividend in each of the last 10 years. It then excludes the top 25% based on yield.

The result is a fund that’s closer to a blend fund than value. It valuation metrics are higher (it’s P/E ratio is about 25) and its dividend yield is lower. In addition, it has underperformed SCHD by about 1% over the past 10 years. Of course, who will win the next 10 years is anybody’s guess.

Still, it’s a sold choice for those who want a dividend focused ETF that slightly tilts toward growth.

Tracking Index: S&P U.S. Dividend Growers Index
TTM Yield: 1.48%
Dividend History: 10 consecutive years of dividend growth
Expense Ratio: 0.060%
AUM: $61.3 billion

3. Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM)

The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) tracks the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index. Good luck finding details on this index. The best I could find comes from Morningstar:

The fund tracks the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index, which captures the highest-yielding half of the universe of dividend-paying stocks in the large- to mid-cap U.S. equity market. The index starts with the FTSE USA Index and ranks its constituents by their projected 12-month yield. It then adds stocks by descending rank until 50% market-cap coverage of the universe of dividend payers is reached. As it aims for 50% market-cap coverage of this cohort, the fund tends to sweep in 400 to 450 stocks. Companies that have not paid dividends in the past 12 months or are not expected to pay one in the next 12 months are not eligible. REITs are also left out.

It’s noteworthy that the index doesn’t apply qualitative factors to its stock selection. Companies in the top 50% based on yield make the cut.

While the fund has trailed others on this list over the past decade, its portfolio could do well as we rotate from growth to value.

Tracking Index: FTSE High Dividend Yield Index
TTM Yield: 2.72%
Dividend History: 12 months
Expense Ratio: 0.060%
AUM: $38.0 billion

4. iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF

iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO) tracks the Morningstar U.S. Dividend Growth Index. The index screens for companies that–

  • pay qualified dividends
  • have a minimum of five years of uninterrupted annual dividend growth.
  • have a significant margin to continue growing dividends.

It excludes the top 10% of qualifying companies.

Tracking Index: Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index
TTM Yield: 2.00%
Dividend History: 5 years of uninterrupted dividend growth
Expense Ratio: 0.080%
AUM: $20.1 billion

5. SPDR S&P Dividend ETF

SPDR S&P Dividend ETF (SDY) tracks the S&P High Yield Dividend Aristocrats Index. While the Dividend Aristicrats include companies that have increased their dividends for the last 25 years, this index limits the screen to 20 years. With this adjustment, it adds about 50 companies to its portfolio.

SDY has been the worst performing ETF in our list over the past 10 years. Its dividend has also been inconsistent. It dropped significantly in 2016 and again in 2018. Keep in mind that companies get cut from the index if their dividend payments can’t keep up, while new companies join who meet the criteria. One does wonder, however, if the fund is poised for a turn around as interest rates rise.

Time will tell.

Tracking Index: S&P High Yield Dividend Aristocrats Index
TTM Yield: 2.60%
Dividend History: 20 consecutive year history of increasing dividends
Expense Ratio: 0.35%
AUM: $19.0 billion

3 Dividend ETFs to Avoid

Just because an ETF pays a high dividend doesn’t mean it’s a good investment. In fact, a yield significantly above the market’s average should serve as a warning to stay away. Here are three dividend ETFs I wouldn’t recommend.

1. SuperDividend ETF (SDIV)

The SuperDividend ETF (SDIV) invests in the 100 companies that pay the highest dividend yield. The result is a portfolio consisting of 30% U.S. companies and 70% international companies. While its current yield is above 7%, its annual returns over the past decade barely exceed 3%.

Beyond performance, the fund has a turnover ratio of more than 124% according to Stock Rover. This increases costs. And its standard deviation is near 30 according to Morningstar.

In short, to sacrifices total return for yield, has high turnover and is volatile, resulting in a very poor investment.

Tracking Index: Solactive Global SuperDividend Index
TTM Yield: 7.19%
Dividend History: Top 100 global dividend yield companies
Excluded: Companies excluded based on certain qualitative screens
Expense Ratio: 0.590%
AUM: $948.9 million

2. SuperDividend U.S. ETF

The SuperDividend® U.S. ETF (DIV) is the U.S. only version of the above fund. While its yield is lower, it still comes in above 5.5%. And like SDIV, its total returns were just about 3% over the past decade. Not only does the fund suffer from poor returns, its volatility is significantly higher than an S&P 500 fund.

As with SDIV, DIV has a turnover percentage of near 100% and a standard deviation of 28. In short, investors are paying 45 basis points for an underperforming fund that comes with more risk.

Tracking Index:  Indxx SuperDividend U.S. Low Volatility Index
TTM Yield: 5.61%
Dividend History: 12 month
Excluded: Dividend yields below 1% or above 20%
Expense Ratio: 0.450%
AUM: $655.8 million

3. Invesco High Yield Equity Dividend Achiever ETF

The Invesco High Yield Equity Dividend Achiever ETF (PEY) tracks the NASDAQ US Dividend Achievers 50 Index. The index in turn is comprised of the top 50 securities by dividend yield from the NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. The result is a focused fund that has significantly underperformed the S&P 500 while exposing investors to greater risk.

Tracking Index: NASDAQ US Dividend Achievers 50 Index
TTM Yield: 3.77%
Dividend History:
Expense Ratio: 0.520%
AUM: $936.7 million

Final Thoughts

Dividend investing can be a part of a reasonable investment plan. Dividend ETFs give investors exposure to value funds. Taken to extremes, however, a dividend focused investment strategy can result in lower total returns. As a result, care must be taken not to reach for yield, even in retirement.

Filed Under: Investing

Fidelity ZERO Funds–Are They Worth the Cost?

August 25, 2021 by Rob Berger

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links, meaning at no cost to you I earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase or open an account. I only recommend products or services that I (1) believe in and (2) would recommend to my mom. Advertisers have had no control, influence, or input on this article, and they never will.

Fidelity launched its ZERO index funds in 2018 to much fanfare. As their names suggest, these funds carry no expense ratios, a first in the industry.

As great as a “free” mutual fund may sound, however, many wonder whether there is a catch. Recently a subscribe to my YouTube channel asked the following questions:

Could you please share your thoughts on Fidelity ZERO funds vs their fee based funds?Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund (FZILX)Fidelity ZERO Total Market Index Fund (FZROX)Fidelity ZERO Large Cap Index Fund (FNILX)Fidelity ZERO Extended Market Index Fund (FZIPX)

Is FNILX + FZIPX = FZROX ?

ZERO funds have no fees, but other than cost, do you see any reason why one should invest in fee based instead of zero funds?

If you could please create video and share your thoughts, that would be very helpful.

Let’s dive into the details to get a better understanding of the Fidelity ZERO funds.

4 Fidelity Zero Funds

The ZERO funds consist of four index funds. These funds charge no fees in the form of an Expense Ratio, although they do pass on transaction costs to investors. There are also no minimum investment requirements.

The catch, if you want to call it that, is that the funds track proprietary indexes Fidelity created. That means, for example, that the Fidelity ZERO Large Cap index fund does NOT track the S&P 500, as one might expect.

Here are the details on each fund’s tracking index. (Note that Fidelity does not offer a ZERO fund for bonds.)

Fidelity ZERO Large Cap Index Fund (FNILX)

The Fidelity ZERO Large Cap Index Fund tracks the Fidelity U.S. Large Cap Index. The index is a float-adjusted market capitalization-weighted index. That simply means it tracks companies based on the number and value of shares outstanding in the market. Its focus is on the U.S. large capitalization equity market.

The index tracks the top 500 companies. It can, however, have fewer companies based on liquidity and investing screens that Fidelity uses. For example, the index (and the other two U.S. indexes discussed below) exclude companies with capitalizations under $75 million or with limited trading volume.

It can also have more than 500 stocks if some companies have multiple share classes. Fidelity rebalances the index annually on the third Friday in February (so mark your calendars!).

The index is similar to the S&P 500 index, but there are some differences, as we’ll see below.

Fidelity ZERO Extended Market Index Fund (FZIPX)

The Fidelity ZERO Extended Market Index Fund (FZIPX) tracks the Fidelity U.S. Extended Investable Market Index. Its designed to track U.S. mid- and small-cap stocks. It is a subset of the Fidelity U.S. Total Investable Market Index (see below), excluding the 500 largest companies.

Perhaps the closest comparison of this index is the the Dow Jones U.S. Completion Total Stock Market Index. The primary difference is that the Fidelity index is limited to 2,500 companies, whereas the Dow Jones index has just under 3,500 companies.

Fidelity ZERO Total Market Index Fund (FZROX)

The Fidelity ZERO Total Market Index Fund (FZROX) tracks the Fidelity U.S. Total Investable Market Index. This index is effectively a combination of the Large Cap and Extended Market indexes described above. As such, it is limited to 3,000 companies.

Its closest comparison is the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index. It’s not an exact match, however, as the Down Jones index tracks nearly 4,000 companies.

Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund (FZILX)

Finally, the Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund (FZILX) tracks the Fidelity Global ex. U.S. Index. Fidelity designed this index to track mid- and large-cap companies headquartered outside the U.S. The index is created by selecting the top 90% of stocks as measured by market cap in each country.

This index is similar to the MSCI ACWI Ex USA Index. This index, however, holds about 4,700 companies, while the free version holds about 2,300 companies.

How Fidelity ZERO Funds Compare

While free funds offer an initial appeal, one wonders if investors are getting what they paid for. Are the Fidelity indexes used by the ZERO funds generating the same or better returns as the more widely used indexes? This is particularly important given that other Fidelity index funds, while they charge a fee, are still very close to $0 in cost (generally 6 basis points or less).

To get a better understanding, I compared each of Fidelity’s ZERO funds with a close counterpart offered by Fidelity.

FNILX vs FXAIX

Fidelity’s Large Cap ZERO fund is arguably the closest to its most comparable index, the S&P 500. A comparison of the fund to Fidelity’s S&P 500 index fund (FXAIX) in Morningstar shows very similar style boxes and the same top 10 holdings. The notable difference is in the percentage held of each of the top 10 companies (the ZERO fund is on the left in each snapshot).

Performance data on the ZERO funds is limited as the funds were launched in 2018. Nevertheless, since then the ZERO Large Cap fund has outperformed Fidelity’s S&P 500 index fund by substantially more than its 1.5 basis point fee:

Whether the ZERO fund will continue to outperform the S&P 500 index only time can tell. As you’ll see below, however, the other ZERO funds haven’t performed as well.

https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/315911750 (FXAIX)

FZIPX vs FSMAX

Fidelity’s Extended Market Index fund (FSMAX) tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Completion Total Stock Market index. Think of it as everything except the companies in the S&P 500. As such, it covers about 1,000 more companies than Fidelity’s proprietary completion index used for the ZERO extended fund. Its cost is just 3.5 basis points.

In the short time FZIPX has been available, it has significantly underperformed FSMAX even with the same volatility. Here are the comparisons:

FZROX vs FSKAX

Fidelity’s Total Market Index fund (FSKAX) is the closest comparable to its ZERO Total Market fund. FSKAX charges just 1.5 basis points and gives investors exposure to over 3,700 stocks. The ZERO fund, in contrast, holds about 2,600 equity holdings.

While returns thus far have been nearly identical, FSKAX has managed to edge out the ZERO fund by 2 basis points. The comparable performance is likely driven by the similar returns amongst the larges U.S. companies in these cap-weighted funds.

https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/315911693 (FSKAX)

FZILX vs FTIHX

Fidelity’s Total International Index (FTIHX) charges 6 basis points and tracks the MSCI ACWI ex USA Investable Market index. The style box for this and the ZERO International Index are nearly identical. The free fund, however, holds just under 2,400 stocks while FTIHX holds over 4,700 stocks. And FTIHX has edged out the ZERO fund in performance thus far.

Final Thoughts

The cost of most index funds have fallen dramatically over the last few decades. Today one can invest in an index fund for 10 basis points or less. In many cases, a fund costs less than 5 basis points. For that reason, Fidelity ZERO funds seem more like a marketing strategy than a product that meets investors’ needs.

Certainly free beats even a very small cost. The problem is that fidelity achieves a 0% Expense Ratio by tracking its own proprietary indexes. I’m not sure that’s worth saving a few basis points each year. And thus far, with perhaps the exception of the Large Cap ZERO fund, these funds have trailed their Fidelity counterparts by more that the cost savings.

That said, I would have no reservations investing in one of these funds in a 401k if it were my best option.

I use Personal Capital to track all of my investments. The free tool shows me my asset allocation, total costs, and even retirement projections. Check out my Personal Capital Review and User’s Guide to learn how it can help you, too.

Resources

  • https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/investing-ideas/index-funds
  • https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/Fidelity_mkt_cap_weighted_methodology.pdf

Filed Under: Investing

The 60/40 Portfolio for Retirees–Good, Bad or Ugly?

July 21, 2021 by Rob Berger

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links, meaning at no cost to you I earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase or open an account. I only recommend products or services that I (1) believe in and (2) would recommend to my mom. Advertisers have had no control, influence, or input on this article, and they never will.

The 60/40 portfolio has powered retirements for decades. With 60% stocks and 40% bonds, this balanced fund offers equity-fueled growth and fixed income stability.

Today, however, many are calling into question the sustainability of the 60/40 portfolio. Some even argue that it’s dead and that retirees need take on more risk if they want to avoid outliving their retirement savings.

In this article we’ll take a deep dive into the 60/40 portfolio and whether it’s still a viable approach to investing for retirees.

Table of contents

  • A Brief History of the 60/40 Portfolio
  • Arguments that 60/40 Portfolio is Dead
    • Argument #1: Bond yields are at all-time lows
    • Argument #2: The 40-Year Bull Market in Bonds Is Over
    • Argument #3: Equity Valuations are High (and must fall significantly)
    • Argument #4: Negative Correlation May be Over
  • Arguments that 60/40 Portfolio is Still Solid
    • Argument #1: Retirees are long-term investors
    • Argument #2: The 60/40 Portfolio has Worked Since 1871
    • Argument #3: The 60/40 portfolio offers growth and stability
    • Argument #4: Retirees can stick with a 60/40 portfolio
    • Argument #5: The 60/40 portfolio survived rising rates and inflation
  • Building a 60/40 Portfolio
  • Final Thoughts

A Brief History of the 60/40 Portfolio

Dating back to 1926, the 60/40 portfolio has enjoyed an annualized return of 9.1% (Source: Vanguard). Its best year, 1993, saw returns of 36.7%, while its worst year, 1931, experienced a loss of 26.6%. Over those 95 years, 22 saw the portfolio decline in value. The returns combined with relative stability have made the balanced portfolio ideal for retirees.

More recent returns show similar results. From 1972 to 2021 a 60/40 portfolio consisting of an S&P 500 index for stocks and intermediate term Treasuries for bonds has returned 9.61% with a standard deviation of 9.51% (via Portfolio Visualizer). The combination of solid returns with less volatility has been ideal for retirees.

In his 1994 paper, certified financial planner Bill Bengen gave us what is now known as the 4% Rule. In brief, the 4% Rule states the following:

  • A retiree can spend 4% of their investments in the first year of retirement;
  • In subsequent years, the retiree can adjust the prior year’s distribution by the rate of inflation; and
  • Following this approach, the retiree should not outlive their money.

Why do we care about the 4% rule? We care because the 60/40 portfolio fits in the sweet spot of the 4% Rule. Bengen found that retirees should hold somewhere between 50% and 75% in equities. In a later book, he identified 60/40 as the ideal portfolio in retirement to avoid outliving a nest egg. Other papers evaluating safe withdrawal rates have reached similar conclusions (as we’ll see in a minute). Some have even evaluated its performance back to 1871!

Notwithstanding the 60/40 portfolio’s stellar history dating back to the post-Civil War era, many are now calling into question its future.

Arguments that 60/40 Portfolio is Dead

There have been several arguments put forth that the 60/40 portfolio is no longer ideal for retirees. All of the arguments stem from the unprecedented financial times we are currently in.

Argument #1: Bond yields are at all-time lows

The yield on the 10-year Treasury sunk to its lowest in 2020 and remains at historic lows. When viewed on a yearly basis, the yield sunk below 2% back in 1941 (1.95% to be precise). Apart from that one year, it remained above 2.00% until 2012 (Source: Shiller). It’s currently at about 1.30%.

During much of the 20th century, the yield was significantly higher. It reached over 14% in 1982. At today’s low yields, many question how a 60/40 portfolio could survive a 30-year retirement.

From Money (4/21/21):

“I think the 60/40 portfolio is antiquated,” says Keith Singer of Singer Wealth Advisors in Boca Raton, Florida. “When bonds used to pay 6-8% and interest rates were falling, the 60/40 model worked great. But as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results, and that is especially true with the 60/40 portfolio.” (Source: Money).

Argument #2: The 40-Year Bull Market in Bonds Is Over

The second argument relates to the fall of yields over the past 40 years. They hit a high in 1982, and then steadily dropped to their historic lows today. As bond yields fall, the value of existing bonds go up. As such, retirees have benefited from falling interest rates. Unless rates go negative, however, most believe the bull market in bonds is over

If the bond bull market is over, and rates begin to rise, the value of existing bonds will fall. Rising rates can also lead to lower asset values on everything from stocks to real estate, which brings us to the third argument.

Argument #3: Equity Valuations are High (and must fall significantly)

Many point to the richly valued S&P 500. The Shiller PE, which measures price-to-earnings over 10-year periods, is at one of its highest levels.

Shiller PE
Source: https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe

The argument here is simple. Lofty valuations suggest that stock returns over the next decade will be much lower than historical averages.

At the same time, many argue that the 60/40 portfolio should shift to a greater allocation in stocks. The reason is that while stocks are expensive, the additional long-term returns are needed to offset the paltry returns expected from bonds.

A recent report from Goldman Sachs framed the issue as follows:

The beneficial role of bonds in balanced portfolios has more recently been in doubt given that bond yields close to the zero lower bound offer a diminished returns buffer during “risk-off” periods. These doubts have only increased alongside concerns that an accelerating economic recovery from the pandemic-induced recession, amplified by historically large US fiscal stimulus, could lead to a strong rise in inflation and, in turn, the start of a prolonged bond bear market. During most historical bond bear markets, equities have outperformed bonds and have delivered positive real returns. This has been especially the case over the last 20 years, during which bond bear markets tended to be short and shallow.

Source: https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/gs-research/reflation-risk/report.pdf

Argument #4: Negative Correlation May be Over

Finally, many believe the negative correlation that stocks and bonds have enjoyed over the past two decades may be over. In a report entitled The End of 60/40, Bank of America analysts warn that bonds may no longer provide the diversification investors have come to expect.

60/40 portfolio diversification

The authors explain,

The core premise of every 60/40 portfolio is that bonds can hedge against risks to growth and equities can hedge against inflation; their returns are negatively correlated,” Woodard and Harris added. “But this assumption was only true over the past two decades and was mostly false over the prior 65 years. The big risk is that the correlation could flip, and now the longest period of negative correlation in history is coming to an end as policy makers jolt markets with attempts to boost growth.

In short, there’s no place to hide.

Arguments that 60/40 Portfolio is Still Solid

All of the above arguments identify real and significant challenges to the capital markets. Interest rates are at historic yields. The 40-year bull market in bonds does appear to be over. And stock valuations are extremely high.

Nevertheless, I believe the 60/40 portfolio is still ideal for retirees. It’s not the only reasonably allocation in retirement, but it will continue to support a retiree for 30 years or more who relies on the 4% Rule. Here’s why I believe this.

Argument #1: Retirees are long-term investors

Those who retire at a traditional age are long-term investors. For a 65-year-old couple, there is a 1-in-4 chance of at least one spouse living past 97 and a 1-in-10 chance of at least one spouse living to 100 (Source: BofA). Retirees could be in the market 35 years or longer. To put that number in perspective, 35 years ago Ronald Reagan was President and Boy George and Mr. T were filing an episode of The A-Team.

The point is that while both equities and bonds may underperform over the next several years, or decade, retirees must consider a much longer time horizon.

Of course, the first ten to 15 years of retirement are critical. Due to the sequence of returns and inflation risk, a devastating market in the first decade of retirement could spell disaster. And that brings us to the second point.

Argument #2: The 60/40 Portfolio has Worked Since 1871

No, that’s not a typo. Researchers have tested the 60/40 portfolio against the 4% Rule with markets dating back to just after the Civil War. It’s never failed.

Michael Kitces, CFP, published a paper showing the maximum initial withdrawal rate one could have taken in the first year of retirement without running out of money over a 30-year retirement. His research tested retirements beginning in 1871.

Initial safe withdrawal rate by year
Source: https://www.genesiswealthmanagement.com/files/documents/SafeWithdrawalRate%20%28Kitces%29.pdf

The lowest initial withdrawal rate was 4.4% in 1966. Some years could have seen an initial withdrawal rate of over 10%. The point is that a 60/40 portfolio has sustained a 30-year retirement through the aftermath of the Civil War, the Panic of 1893, WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the stagflation of the 1970s, the tech bubble, 9/11, the Great Recession, and the ongoing Covid pandemic.

Argument #3: The 60/40 portfolio offers growth and stability

When compared to a portfolio heavily weighted in stocks, the 60/40 portfolio stands out for its excellent growth and muted volatility. That’s not to say it’s not volatile, but its up and downs are significantly less than a 100% stock portfolio. And that’s precisely what many retirees need.

Since 1972, a 60/40 portfolio has returned an annual compound rate of 9.61%. These returns are lower than a 100% stock portfolio, which returned 10.75% over the same period. What’s notable, however, is the volatility. The standard deviation of a 60/40 portfolio was just 9.51%, while the stock portfolio came in at 15.25%.

To put these differences in perspective, the worst year for a 100% stock portfolio during this period was -37.45%, compared to just -16.88% of the 60/40 portfolio. At the same time, the worst maximum drawdown for the stock portfolio was nearly -51%, compared to -28% for the balanced portfolio.

The increased volatility that comes with 100% stocks brings us to the next argument.

Argument #4: Retirees can stick with a 60/40 portfolio

Studies have shown that investors are not adept at timing the market. Called the investor gap, studies have documented the gap between an investment’s return and an investor’s return. Because investors tend to buy high when stocks are rising and to sell low in a panic when investments fall, they consistently underperform the very investments where they place their money.

One Morningstar study found that investors lost on average 45 basis points due to market timing. There was, however, one bright spot. The study found that investors in less volatile investments performed better. From the study,

When we broke down funds within asset classes based on their standard deviation, we found that funds in the least-volatile quintiles consistently had higher investor returns than those in more-volatile quintiles. This suggests that “boring” funds work well because they aren’t as likely to inspire fear or greed.

A portfolio with more stocks may perform better over the long-term. Investors in retirement, however, need to ask whether they can handle the ride.

Argument #5: The 60/40 portfolio survived rising rates and inflation

No two time periods are identical. Today we face challenges the U.S. and world have never faced. We can, however, look back at similar times to gain an understanding of how the 60/40 portfolio might perform when interest rates and inflation rise. Here I’m thinking of the period from 1941 to 1982.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury stood at 1.95% at the start of 1941. In 1982 it began the year north of 14%. Over the decade leading up to 1982, the U.S. experienced double-digit inflation, with low growth, giving way to the term stagflation.

During this time how did the 60/40 portfolio perform for retirees? Just fine. To be sure, this period is why we have the 4% rule. It represents the low water mark on a safe initial withdrawal rate. But that rate still stands at 4 to 4.5%.

The 60/40 portfolio also performed well more recently when rates began to rise earlier this year. The first quarter of 2021 was the worst for U.S. investment-grade bonds in the last two decades. The 60/40 portfolio did just fine:

“The first quarter of 2021 showed that even the worst quarter for U.S. investment-grade bonds in the last 20 years wasn’t enough to derail the classic 60/40 portfolio”, says Jason Kephart.

So what’s the take for investors. As long as the correlation between traditional asset classes doesn’t shift dramatically and the portfolio continues to rise over time, then holding a 60/40 portfolio still makes sense.

That doesn’t mean investors shouldn’t consider some alternative mixes but perhaps hold those on the margins and keep your core in stocks and bonds. Although, instead of holding broad indexes, they might want to consider diversifying by adding buckets of individual stocks and bonds.

At the end of the day, the most important risk any investor should always think about is the permanent loss of capital and the loss of purchasing power. The 60/40 portfolio still offers the best defence. And even it if did seem to veer off course at one point, it could have been by design.

Source: https://www.morningstar.ca/ca/news/213154/does-the-60%2F40-portfolio-still-make-sense.aspx

Building a 60/40 Portfolio

So far we haven’t discussed the stock and bond investments that make up a 60/40 portfolio. Most of the studies on a balanced portfolio use an S&P 500 index for stocks and intermediate term U.S. bond fund for fixed income. Given current economic challenges faced by retirees, should we further diversify our asset classes?

Warren Buffett would likely say no. The Warren Buffett portfolio he recommends consists of just two asset classes: S&P 500 index and short term U.S. government bonds. He’s bullish on the future of the United States.

At the same time, the U.S. faces significant hurdles. Its population is aging, reducing the workforce while increasing the cost of social programs for senior citizens. The country’s debt to GDP ratio skyrocketed as a result of the pandemic and now stands at more than 125% (Source: The Fed). And our politicians in Washington seem willing to continue borrowing at unprecedented levels indefinitely. Eventually we’ll have to pay for all of this spending.

As a result, some financial advisors recommend moving beyond U.S. stocks and Treasuries. Bob Rice, the Chief Investment Strategist for Tangent Capital made such an argument when he spoke at the fifth annual Investment News conference for alternative investments.

“You cannot invest in one future anymore; you have to invest in multiple futures,” Rice said. “The things that drove 60/40 portfolios to work are broken. The old 60/40 portfolio did the things that clients wanted, but those two asset classes alone cannot provide that anymore. It was convenient, it was easy, and it’s over. We don’t trust stocks and bonds completely to do the job of providing income, growth, inflation protection, and downside protection anymore.”

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-advisors/011916/why-6040-portfolio-no-longer-good-enough.asp

While I don’t share his pessimistic views of the 60/40 portfolio, diversifying to international equities seems reasonable. This could include both developed countries and emerging markets. Other diversification opportunities could include real estate (REITs) and commodities. For bonds, some argue that retirees should take on more credit risk through high-yield bonds and emerging market debt.

Having said that, there’s no guarantee that diversifying the portfolio will lead to better results. A well diversified portfolio has significantly underperformed a basic 60/40 portfolio over the last 15 years (commodities data wasn’t available before 2007 in Portfolio Visualizer).

diversified 60/40 portfolio

At the same time, if we remove commodities and add the 5% allocation back into the S&P 500, we extended the data to 1999 AND see that the greater diversification paid off.

60/40 diversification

Of course, this time period saw the tech bubble burst, 9/11 and the Great Recession, all of which had significant affects on the S&P 500. And that really is the point. While diversification is generally a sound approach to investing, it’s not a guarantee of higher returns.

Final Thoughts

The 60/40 portfolio is certainly not the only reasonable approach to investing in retirement. Yet for many retirees, it has stood the test of time. It offers both growth and stability, which retirees need for their money to last 30 years or more.

Nobody knows the future. Is it possible that we could see unprecedented economic conditions that could wreck havoc on retirees? Of course we could. Although if that happens, one wonders if any asset allocation would save us.

Filed Under: Investing, Retirement

How Investment Fees Affect Wealth

June 14, 2021 by Rob Berger

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links, meaning at no cost to you I earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase or open an account. I only recommend products or services that I (1) believe in and (2) would recommend to my mom. Advertisers have had no control, influence, or input on this article, and they never will.

It costs money to invest. We pay all types of fees, some obvious, some not so obvious. In this article I’m going to walk through the most common investing fees you are likely to encounter. Then we’ll examine just how destructive a seemingly small amount of fees can be to your wealth and retirement.

Table of contents

  • Do Fees Really Matter?
  • Types of Investment Fees
    • Expense Ratio
    • Transaction Costs
    • Investment Advisor Fees
    • Load Fees
  • Where to Find the Expense Ratio of a Mutual Fund
  • How to Determine the Expense Ratio of Your Investment Portfolio
  • How Fees Affect Your Wealth
  • How to Avoid Most Investment Fees

Do Fees Really Matter?

Before looking at specific types of investment fees, let’s first ask whether fees really matter. To answer that question, the first thing we must recognize is that seemingly small fees, over time, can seriously reduce the value of an investment portfolio.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a paper on this very topic in 2014. It noted that “fees may seem small, but over time they can have a major impact on your investment portfolio.”

Invest fees affect on a portfolio over 20 years

Some have argued that fees don’t matter. Instead, what matters are returns after factoring in the fees. In other words, paying high fees is not only fine, but ideal, if the investment returns enough to justify the fees. Conceptually this makes sense. In practice, however, it falls apart.

Study after study after study shows that expensive investments underperform inexpensive investments. For example, Vanguard looked at the annualized returns for a 10 year period ending December 31, 2014 for two groups of mutual funds: 25% of the funds with the lowest expense ratio and 25% with the highest. The low-cost funds won.

Funds with lower costs outperform more expense ones

The primary way we keep fees down, as we’ll discuss more below, is to use low-cost index ETFs and mutual funds. It’s an approach Warren Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and arguable the best investor alive today, supports:

Nevertheless, both individuals and institutions will constantly be urged to be active by those who profit from giving advice or effecting transactions. The resulting frictional costs can be huge and, for investors in aggregate, devoid of benefit. So ignore the chatter, keep your costs minimal, and invest in stocks as you would in a farm.

My money, I should add, is where my mouth is: What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit. . . . My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors – whether pension funds, institutions or individuals – who employ high-fee managers.

Types of Investment Fees

There are countless fees investors may encounter. I’m going to list them in the order you are more likely to encounter them. Some fees are virtually unavoidable, but can be kept to a minimum. Other fees should be avoided at virtually all costs. Frankly, the only fee that is truly unavoidable is the first one on our list–expense ratio.

Expense Ratio

Mutual funds and ETFs charge investors a fee. The fee covers the cost of the fund, including payroll, as well as profit for the fund company. Expense ratios are expressed as a percentage. For example, a fund that charges a one percent (1%) expense ratio would cost an investor 1% of the amount invested in the fund (e.g., $100,000 investment would cost $1,000 per year with a 1% expense ratio).

The expense ratio is practically unavoidable. Fidelity does offer a few funds with no expense ratio, but that’s the exception. Even low-cost fund provider Vanguard charges expense ratios on its ETFs and mutual funds.

Transaction Costs

There can be costs to buy and sell stocks, mutual funds and ETFs. By and large these costs are easy to avoid. Most mutual fund companies and brokers have gone to $0 trades if made online. There is, however, one important exception.

Many brokers charge a commission when you purchase a mutual fund (not an ETF). For example, I have an account at Merrill Edge, and the broker charges $19.95 when I purchase certain mutual funds. They do have a list of fee-free funds, but many of the funds I use from Vanguard would require payment of the commission.

For this reason, it’s important to understand the types of investments you want to make before choosing a broker. If you know, for example, that you’ll invest entirely in Vanguard funds, it makes sense to open an account at Vanguard or a broker that offers at a minimum free Vanguard ETFs. M1 Finance is a good example and a broker I also use.

Investment Advisor Fees

Advisor fees come in two forms: (1) a percentage of assets under management (AUM), or (2) a fixed or hourly fee. The vast majority of advisors charge a percentage of AUM, with 1% the industry standard (although fees do vary based on account size and services provided).

Some lower cost AUM advisors have entered the market over the past 10 years or so. Vanguard offers advisory services for just 30 basis points. A number of so called robo-advisors offer their services for about 25 basis points (e.g., Betterment and Wealthfront).

A growing list of advisors have turned to hourly or fixed fees. These arrangements almost always favor the client, as the total cost is generally far less than the AUM model. One such advisor is Mark Zoril of PlanVision.

As you’ll see in a minute, Advisor fees based on a percentage of AUM destroy more wealth than any other fee (although high expense ratios are a close second).

Load Fees

Some mutual funds charge what are called load fees. Front-end load fees are paid when you invest in a mutual fund with this type of fee; Back-end load fees when you sell.

Front-end load fees typically cost 5.75%. For every $100 invested, fees take $5.75, leaving $94.25 in your account. There’s absolutely no reason to invest in mutual funds that charge load fees. Ever!

Where to Find the Expense Ratio of a Mutual Fund

There are several easy ways to find the expense ratio of any mutual fund or ETF. For starts, you can Google the ticker symbol of the fund. VSTAX, for example, is Vanguards total stock market fund. Searching “VSTAX” returns the following result, including the fund’s expense ratio:

How to find expense ratio using Google
(The Expense Ratio of 0.04% is in the bottom right of the image)

You can also see if a fund charges a load fee AGTHX, an American Funds growth fund:

how to find load fees
Note the “Front load” of 5.75%

Another free tool that tracks both the expense ratio as well as any load fees is Morningstar. You can also check the prospectus of the funed.

As for investment advisor fees, you should ask. It’s as simple as that. It should also be reflected on your statements. You can also find fee disclosures in the advisor’s Form ADV. But asking is much easier.

How to Determine the Expense Ratio of Your Investment Portfolio

While it’s important to know the expense ratio of each investment, what really matters is the overall expense ratio of your portfolio. You could calculate this by hand. Just take the weighted average of your expense ratios across all of your investments. If that sounds as inviting as a root canal, there is an easier way. Use Personal Capital.

Personal Capital is a free financial dashboard. Link all your financial accounts (checking, savings, credit cards, retirement accounts, HSAs, loans, taxable investments) and Personal Capital provides a wealth of tools. You can do everything from budgeting to loan payoff to retirement planning. And for our purposes, it will automatically calculate the expense ratio of your investment portfolio.

Here’s the results from a demo portfolio I entered into Personal Capital:

Note the 0.10% annual fee to the right. That’s the expense ratio of a portfolio that included dozens of investments. You can read my review of Personal Capital or go directly to its free signup page (truly free-no credit card needed–ever).

How Fees Affect Your Wealth

Let’s imagine that we make the maximum contribution to an IRA ($6,000) during our working years from age 20 to 65. If we earn an average of a 9% return on our investments, we’ll retire with about $3.1 million (gotta love compounding).

Now let’s assume we pay an investment advisor a “small” 1% fee. Our retirement fund drops to $2.3 million. Add in a 1% expense ratio on the mutual funds, and our nest egg falls further to $1.7 million. Yeah, fees matter.

How to Avoid Most Investment Fees

There are several important steps to take to keep you fees low.

Low cost index funds: First, stick to low cost index funds (ETFs or mutual funds). They outperform the vast majority of actively managed funds over time. There are plenty of sound “lazy portfolios” that make for great long-term investment strategies. Here are a few of them:

  • 3-Fund Portfolio
  • Warren Buffett Portfolio
  • Paul Merriman Portfolio
  • Ray Dalio Portfolio

Avoid Expensive Advisors: There’s simply no good reason to pay more than about 0.30% of AUM, at the most. Vanguard offers its services at this price. Why pay more? And there are plenty of advisors who charged by the hour, which is even better.

Consider Automated Investment Services: For those that want a little help, you can consider a robo advisor. They come in all shapes and sizes. I like Betterment and Wealthfront for those who want a set-it-and-forget-it arrangement. Cost is about 25 basis points. For those who want more control, M1 Finance is the way to go. It lets you create your own mutual fund (they call them Pies). It’s easy to use, easy to rebalance, and free.

Filed Under: Investing, Retirement

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Featured Bank Offers

Sallie Mae 14-Month No-Penalty CD offered by SaveBetter: 4.40% APY


Sallie Mae 27-Month CD offered by Save Better: 5.00% APY

My Book

 

 

Buy it on Amazon

Latest Articles

6 Best Tax Software Programs in 2023 (for 2022 Returns)

Personal Capital vs Mint: My Ratings After Using Both for Years

Best Round-Up Apps for Saving and Investing in 2023

13 Best Investment Broker Bonus Offers of 2023

8 Best Mint Alternatives for 2023 (Free & Paid)

© 2022 RobBerger.com. All Rights Reserved. Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use