"The first mutual funds offering steady monthly income payments have been heralded as a watershed for investors who no longer have to cash out of funds when they retire.
But this year also has exposed some serious shortcomings in these new offerings: Large percentages of the payouts are coming from the fund's capital, and they may be eating themselves alive."
------------
"Seventy-seven percent of the payouts from [Vanguard's] Distribution Focus Fund(VPDFX) this year will actually come from the fund's capital, and it's a similar story for Vanguard's other two managed payout funds. For Growth and Distribution Fund (VPGDX) that figure is 71%, while 63% of distributions from Growth Focus Fund (VPGFX) have been taken from capital."
For now, I'm sticking with Wellesley.
(Oooops, almost forgot the psssst...)
__________________ Numbers is hard...
90% of building a retirement nest egg is just showing up. The other 10% is half the battle.
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,526
I'd like to hear vanguards side of the story before I'd rush to judgment.
The distributions have to come from somewhere. They can pay from their cash holdings, which are primarily original principal at this point because its a new fund, or they could liquidate a holding they just established a month or two ago at the fund inception.
The latter would create a short term capital event, the former unless I'm mistaken is tax free since return of capital is just giving you your money back.
I think the principal problem with peoples perception of these sorts of funds is that they're thinking of it as a traditional mutual fund where it holds stocks and bonds, throws off traditional dividends and you keep a separate cash pool account where the dividends land and where you put excess cash from selling assets. These have the cash pool built in.
In a down market, they're going to have to expend from the cash pool or sell investments to 'meet the payroll'. This is part and parcel of the traditional "4% swr" plan, where you take your distributions regardless of the market conditions.
The bad news is that such an arrangement doesnt allow you to make a decision to not take a distribution during 'bad times'. The good news is that its an arrangement that doesnt force you to make any decision!
Interesting to see that a fund is considered "full of shortcomings" during a bear market when its components are declining. By that measure, many funds are full of shortcomings lately.
Winding back around, I invested in these funds because I expected that vanguard management felt pretty good that the worst of the bear market was over. Seems they didnt quite get that right. But I dont see that the MP funds have declined any more or less than similarly stock/bond composed funds.
One other thing is that they still havent fully invested in all the asset classes they've advertised to get into. So far they dont seem to have put money into real estate, commodities, or any absolute return strategies. From what I've seen of those and my near term future expectations, thats a good thing.
__________________
Many an optimist has become rich by buying out a pessimist
The distributions have to come from somewhere. They can pay from their cash holdings, which are primarily original principal at this point because its a new fund, or they could liquidate a holding they just established a month or two ago at the fund inception.
True. Plus I thought those fund paid the percentage out because the intention is to produce cash to the owner.
If I took money from any of my mutual funds right now, I would be taking principal (if it were purchased in the last year or so).
I have confidence that those funds will be fine over a long haul. The Growth fund is obviously tilted toward a larger allocation of riskier securities... one should expect some bumps in the road during certain periods... but they should get the benefit of growth over time.
I am not ready to roll the dice on those funds in a big way yet... But I am watching them fairly closely...
__________________ Planned FIRE 2011
Disclaimer: I make no warranty or guarantee about the accuracy or completeness of this information. I am not a financial planner, my comments only represent my opinion.
I have confidence that those funds will be fine over a long haul. The Growth fund is obviously tilted toward a larger allocation of riskier securities... one should expect some bumps in the road during certain periods... but they should get the benefit of growth over time.
Since beginning to withdraw from your nest egg in a bear market increases risk of long-term survival it stands to reason the same would apply to these managed payout funds, right? As CFB pointed out, looks like Vanguard could probably have picked a better time to launch these funds. But yes, time will tell...
__________________ Numbers is hard...
90% of building a retirement nest egg is just showing up. The other 10% is half the battle.
I'm not eating any of my seed corn so far, just harvesting the dividends...
Just pointing out that the principal of all mighty "Wellesley" is not immune to market downturns. I haven't studied the payout funds but if you picked one with with a similar allocation as Wellesley, does it not have a yield to cushion market declines? Maybe there are not any that conservative.
Too soon to conclude anything about the MPF's performance, as indicated.
However, it does point out one reservation I have about them (don't own at this point): with my current plan, I can make sure that my distributions are coming from my cash or fixed income holdings while the market is down, even for more than 10 years. With the MPFs, the source of the distributions (stocks v bonds, etc.) is opaque to me. I have to assume the money is coming our pro rata from sale of shares, which I wouldn't personally choose to do in a seriously down market.
__________________
Rich
Tampa, FL 99.1% ESR'd...
As if you didn't know..If the above message contains medical content, it's NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient. Don't rely on it for any purpose. Consult your own doctor for all medical advice.
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg52
Maybe there are not any that conservative.
Nope, they arent. They're pretty equity heavy. Apparently vanguard believes that higher equity allocations are the best way to produce an inflation offset payout, and that 'set it and forget it and take your monthly check' is a good option for some folks. There'll be plenty of volatility but once the markets return to normal a bit and they finish their asset allocations so that they're a bit closer to the endowment strategies they're supposed to be, that'll be less of a problem.
Plus I dont care about volatility.
__________________
Many an optimist has become rich by buying out a pessimist
But this year also has exposed some serious shortcomings in these new offerings: Large percentages of the payouts are coming from the fund's capital, and they may be eating themselves alive."
I guess the real warning sign would be when the majority of the payouts to existing investors are coming from the funds of new investors.
I'm a little confused about these funds-- are they cheaper than an annuity, and are they somehow better than doing one's own dividend investing?
__________________ *
* For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I guess the real warning sign would be when the majority of the payouts to existing investors are coming from the funds of new investors.
Well, since so many retirees today already rely on a Ponzi scheme to keep bringing in the retirement income, why not a second one for good measure?
__________________ "Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)
I guess the real warning sign would be when the majority of the payouts to existing investors are coming from the funds of new investors.
I'm a little confused about these funds-- are they cheaper than an annuity, and are they somehow better than doing one's own dividend investing?
Here's a quote from the prospectus:
Quote:
Each Fund combines a unique managed distribution policy with an endowment-like investment strategy to generate regular monthly payments to investors while seeking to preserve their capital over the long term. The Funds’ managed distribution policies are designed to provide level monthly payments throughout each year, with payments adjusted each January based on a Fund’s performance over the previous three years. Like many university endowments, each Fund may invest across a wide spectrum of asset classes and investments—such as stocks (including stocks issued by REITs), bonds, cash, inflation-linked investments, and selected other investments—that are expected to add diversification and result in a more consistent return pattern than a traditional balanced portfolio of stocks, bonds, and cash.
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,526
The 3% "growth" fund is supposed to grow your principal in excess of inflation while paying 3%. The 5% "growth and payout" fund is supposed to maintain your principals value against inflation while paying 5%. The 7% "payout" fund is supposed to maintain your principals original value and pay 7%.
In theory, at the end of a 15-20 year period the 3% fund should pay more per month than the 7% fund, because the principal should have grown substantially while the 7% fund just held on for dear life.
In practice...?
Wellesley is a bit of a different beast. You'll get close to 5% at todays yield paid out a couple of times a year rather than monthly, and while its reasonable to expect that it'll maintain your principals buying power against inflation, I wouldnt be surprised to see it slip a percent off that mark every now and then.
Although its interesting to note that Wellesley did ridiculously well in the late 70's and early 80's during the high inflationary period.
__________________
Many an optimist has become rich by buying out a pessimist
What's the best way to get into Wellsley, lump sum or DCA?
While I am DCA'ing into the Total Stock Market Index and the FTSE All-World Ex-US Index funds, I noticed that Wellesley is much less volatile than either of these. Therefore, I have lump-summed into Wellesley.
It has gone down somewhat, but not drastically so I am fine with having lump-summed into it, personally. Like REW says, it depends on who you ask.
It pays really nice dividends quarterly, which is comforting during this market downturn.
__________________ "Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harborless immensities." - - H. Melville, 1851
Wellesley is a bit of a different beast. You'll get close to 5% at todays yield paid out a couple of times a year rather than monthly, and while its reasonable to expect that it'll maintain your principals buying power against inflation, I wouldnt be surprised to see it slip a percent off that mark every now and then.
It pays dividends every quarter and capital distributions at least once a year. Currently I have it it all re-investing but in ER I will be directing the dividends to a MM fund and letting the cap distributions re-invest.
Quote:
Linear Mode
