Emphasis added.
Good overall post. It does seem to me that the bolded above is backwards. I know what you meant, but OP is a newbie so I think it'd be wise to correct it.
You are of course correct, I wrote that backwards.
Emphasis added.
Good overall post. It does seem to me that the bolded above is backwards. I know what you meant, but OP is a newbie so I think it'd be wise to correct it.
One more quick point. Fee compounding is very deceptive math. ...
I agree with what you have said. It is a question which I ask myself sometimes. Because we retired early, we have spent a significant amount of cash which we had set aside plus unplanned liquidation of some investments to pay for our expenses, i.e. blow our budget, while waiting for SS and annuities to kick in. Still, our investments have grown significantly from when we retired 5 years ago. That is what a bull market does. Would we have done better if we had self-managed? Possibly, but my husband is happy and I am happy hence the status quo.
But now I am genuinely confused. If, as it appears, you use a FA for emotional reasons, why did you focus initially on performance? And, in particular, why did you NOT write (with my bolding to emphasize the differences):
"For a 70-30 equities-fixed income mix portfolio, if the self-managed investments gain 10% but FA-managed funds gain 9%, then you are down 2% after the 1% AUM fees. If FA-managed funds gain 8%, then it performs 3% worse than self-managed funds after FA commission is paid."
This illustrates the math just as well, and is equally likely, IMHO.
We use FA to ensure that we are one step removed from knee jerk reactions.
I did not say that they performed worse than self-managed. In fact we believe they have performed or exceeded our expectations wrt to performance. Why do you assume that AUM always perform worse than self-managed? It is one-sided narrative to assume that AUM perform worse than self-managed portfolio.
But it's a no brainer that holding the same investments in a self managed account will outperform those investments in an AUM fee account.
Now some funds (DFA in particular) aren't usually available in a self managed account, I understand that...
31 funds is enough to make my eyes water. Or glaze over. One of the two...The issue is that as an individual, we are not going to hold the same funds as AUM. Of course if the investments are identical, then self-managed investments are going to net more, without paying for AUM fees.
Right now in one of my AUM accounts, there are 31 funds, not including the cash in money market. Individually, we don't have access to all the information that research teams have at these companies. When I peel one layer down of each holding, it makes sense as to why they buy those funds. But if I were to self-manage the funds, I would go simple with buying a couple of Vanguard ETFs.
The issue is that as an individual, we are not going to hold the same funds as AUM. Of course if the investments are identical, then self-managed investments are going to net more, without paying for AUM fees.
Right now in one of my AUM accounts, there are 31 funds, not including the cash in money market. Individually, we don't have access to all the information that research teams have at these companies. When I peel one layer down of each holding, it makes sense as to why they buy those funds. But if I were to self-manage the funds, I would go simple with buying a couple of Vanguard ETFs.
Yes, we hope OP doesn't get involved in that approach. It reminds me of dear in-laws who had complete trust in one company their entire lives. The solution from the management company was the same 12 funds in four accounts. The average expense ratio was .80. The management fee was similar (actually a good deal compared to most stories around here.) The asset allocation was 80% bonds, and so on. Not the worst solution, but not something to be cheering for.31 funds is enough to make my eyes water. Or glaze over. One of the two...
31 funds is enough to make my eyes water. Or glaze over. One of the two...
....The professional portfolios have ranged from complex to hideously complex, the result of their need to make investing look difficult and hence intimidate their customer into staying and paying the fees. ...
.... Right now in one of my AUM accounts, there are 31 funds, not including the cash in money market. ...
31 funds is enough to make my eyes water. Or glaze over. One of the two...
We use FA to ensure that we are one step removed from knee jerk reactions.
I did not say that they performed worse than self-managed. In fact we believe they have performed or exceeded our expectations wrt to performance. Why do you assume that AUM always perform worse than self-managed? It is one-sided narrative to assume that AUM perform worse than self-managed portfolio.
I also was not saying they always perform worse than self-managed. As I directly stated, I think those two possibilities are roughly equally probable (before AUM).
I felt like your examples implied that they generally outperformed (at least gross, if not net) self-managed.
We use FA to ensure that we are one step removed from knee jerk reactions.
And just to make it that much more of a PITA, delete cookies before tryingThe thought of logging into my brokerage account with two-factor authentication is my circuit breaker for knee jerk reactions.
There is no real data to support one over the other. I am just pointing out that alot of the illustrations assume same returns on investments for both self-directed and firm-managed funds before AUM fees. Returns vary amongst individuals and so do AUM investments.
This has nothing to do with self-directed or firm-managed, data only support staying in the market far out performs trying to time the market.
Good discussion and good points. I was talking to an FA once who said "If I keep my client from panicking just once or twice in down markets I will have earned all the fees that they ever paid me and all the fees that they will pay me in the future." That begs the performance question, of course, but as stated it's pretty true.
Regarding performance, I think it is accurate to characterize the vast majority of FAs as stock pickers, usually by virtue of using stock picking mutual funds. This article: https://web.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/active/active.htm explains why this approach is on average mathematically guaranteed to produce market-lagging results. Other data, most prominently the semiannual S&P Manager Persistence Report Cards, shows that managers who are consistently above average are extremely rare and that their success is probably due simply to good luck. That is how I reach the generalization that FAs are very unlikely to beat a market portfolio over the long term.
There is no real data to support one over the other. I am just pointing out that alot of the illustrations assume same returns on investments for both self-directed and firm-managed funds before AUM fees. Returns vary amongst individuals and so do AUM investments.
This has nothing to do with self-directed or firm-managed, data only support staying in the market far out performs trying to time the market.
Wha? This point has been studied to death. In time period after time period, the risk adjusted returns of something like 90% of funds end up worse than the Total Market within a decade (and of course which funds beat the market kept changing over time, so it is indistinguishable from chance). The underperformance of active funds almost exactly equals the fees. Your advisor might be generating a couple tenths of a percent of alpha but that's nearly enough to overcome the fees.
What he said.Wha? This point has been studied to death. In time period after time period, the risk adjusted returns of something like 90% of funds end up worse than the Total Market within a decade (and of course which funds beat the market kept changing over time, so it is indistinguishable from chance). The underperformance of active funds almost exactly equals the fees. Your advisor might be generating a couple tenths of a percent of alpha but that's nearly enough to overcome the fees.
I could not read all the links, as a number of them asked to accept cookies, which I refused to accept. Based on the couple which I read through about mutual funds vs. total market returns, I get it. However, our AUM is not about stock picks. Our AUM is spread out over various sectors with different weightage.What he said.
There is a half-century of consistent data that says stock picking does not work.
As a starting example, Michael Jensen's 1967 paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=244153 "The evidence on mutual fund performance (aka professional speculators) indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance."
Nobel Prize winner Dr. William Sharpe on active management, 1991: https://web.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/active/active.htm
and a recent interview here: https://www.ishares.com/us/insights/etf-trends/qa-with-nobel-laureate-william-f-sharpe-on-indexing
Twenty years of data here: S&P SPIVA gateway: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/spiva/#/
S&P Persistence gateway: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indexology/core/persistence-scorecard/
Video by Kenneth French reporting research done with his partner and Nobel winner Eugene Fama: https://famafrench.dimensional.com/videos/identifying-superior-managers.aspx
Harry Markowitz' original paper, the foundation of Modern Portfolio Theory: "Portfolio Selection" 1952 : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x Here, Markowitz bases his analysis on stock prices as a random process, the implication of which is that stock pickers' successes can be due only to luck.
A book-length explanation: "Winning the Loser's Game" by Charles Ellis https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Losers-Game-Strategies-Successful-dp-1264258461/dp/1264258461 (latest edition, May 2021)
Another book: "Unconventional Success" by David Swensen https://www.amazon.com/Unconventional-Success-Fundamental-Approach-Investment/dp/0743228383
Is that enough? I have more.