Information Overload

[CuriousKate]

New here, good site.
Definately an example of "ANALYSIS PARALYSIS" but would still like your input. I'm torn between getting a new financial advisor (meeting with an Edward Jones rep next week) and going the diversify with Vanguard route. The more I read online and in books, the more stymied I am by deciding which is the right route. Here's my situation:
45yo (married, no dep)
Assets:
-Rental home, own outright, approx 7% return on approx 500k worth (2-3% cash flow after expenses and depreciation, the rest is increase in prop value)
-75k Variable annuity (unwittingly bought yrs ago)
-75k indiv stocks (up 10% since 4/00)
-22k SSBarney aggr. mut. fund
-10k Vanguard totalstk fund
-30k 403B money market (ING annuity) have maxed contribs the last 2 years
-3+k Roth IRA (Oakmark)
-4k Roth IRA (AIM)
-50k ING savings
-no debt, rely upon my own income (not spouse's)

I have 2 SSB accounts, one for 20+ years with the annuity and aggr. fund - don't want to work with this broker on a comprehensive plan because he is married to SSB - and the second who's quite experienced but, by his own clear admission, specializes in value stocks, doesn't like funds and leans towards consolidating my holdings (he did suggest I buy Oakmark on my own though). I am also considering trading (selling) the single family rental for a multi-unit with mortgage to be paid by rents. (I currently, and would continue to, use some of the rent for additional income.)
I've received good feedback from both sides, most recently the E. Jones referral, but feel I Should do it alone since that seems to be the "smart" way (E. Jones sells no no-load funds, focuses on American for its
mutual fund suggestions). On the other hand, I get pretty stymied by the choices and not being certain that I'm making the "right" ones. Has anyone here had a good experience with a broker?
I just know that I've spent way too much time in worried/indecisiveland than I care to continue to or is productive.
Any thoughts, or are they clouded by eyes rolled all the way back in your heads?

 

[Cut-Throat]

Back slowly away from brokers and financial advisors. They are interested in their Financial security not yours.

If you had the intelligence to compose your well thought out post, you have the capability to manage your own finances. Get some books - read them and stick to the basics. Keep it simple and don't do anything if you don't understand it. You have plenty of time, don't be in a hurry.

Keep your eyes on your money or someone else will.

 

[bongo2]

I don't know if this will make you feel better or worse, but there is no "right" choice. WSJ did a series where they took sample families and showed the recommendations of three financial planners for each. I, unfortunately, can't find the article, but the interesting thing was that the asset allocation recommendations were very different across the three planners. These were suggestions that the planners knew were going to be published in the largest newspaper in the US, so there wasn't even any danger of the planners trying to pull a high-fee fast-one on their clients (a real danger in the typical case). My point is that, just because you go to a planner, you're not going to get the "right answer." You're just going to get an answer recommended with conviction.

I think you can take two roads with your finances -- high maintenanceor low maintenance. Your individual stocks and rental properties suggest a high maintenance approach which is working for you quite well. I wouldn't worry about that. If you want to use a low maintenance approach for some of your portfolio, then I'd suggest something like 50/50 vanguard total stock market and vanguard total bond market. You can read about this approach extensively at www.scottburns.com (he calls it "couch potato investing"). I personally like to have some international exposure, and like stocks better than bonds these days, so I might try 33/33/33 between international / total US market / total bond market. Nobody knows what the exact right allocation is, so just pick something that feels right to you and go with it.

One thing that might be a little difficult is figuring out the best thing to do about the annuity that you already have. Depending on the exact fees involved it may be better to withdraw the money, or to leave it in. That's something you may want to get some help on if you don't feel like you can anticipate all the fees yourself.

 

[newellcr]

CuriousKate,

What is it that you want to accomplish? I agree with Cut-Throat, there is nothing that needs to be overly complicated about investing or financial planning. This forum is a great resource.

Chris

 

[ats5g]

Kate,

Anyone can call himself or herself a financial planner/advisor. There are no requirements at all. I'd look for people who have certifications, like Certified Financial Planner (CFP) and/or Certified Financial Analyst (CFA). Other titles, such as Vice President, Retirement Consultant, Investing Representative, do not mean anything. I'd also stay away from the big Wall Street Firms (Merrill, SSB, Ed Jones, etc.). They keep their jobs and get promoted by the amount of money they make for their company and bosses. And guess where that money comes from? You. They make their money from your investments, and the more money they make, the less money you make w/ your investments.

There have been numerous real life stories about these companies giving away bonuses, trips, etc, to the broker/salesman who sells the most of a product (Variable Annuity, Limited Partnership, certain stocks). Brokers are not planners or advisors. They are salesmen. Would you go to a car dealership and talk to a car salesman about what he thinks is the appropriate car for you? Of course not, since he'll try to convince you that the car that earns him and the dealership the highest profit is the right car for you. Wouldn't you rather go talk to someone who knows the ins and outs of cars (preferably a mechanic friend) and has no conflict of interest with his/her recommendations?

Yet another broker tactic is "account churning". By having their clients constantly buying and selling new funds, stocks, or bonds, commissions are racked up, and capital gains (especially short term gains) are realized and taxed. This is not investing; it is trading, which only benefits your broker.

I think a good advisor should lay out the pros and cons of any strategy in clear English. Isn't that what you're paying him/her for? If you cannot understand what he/she is saying, then you cannot possibly know if he/she is leading you astray. Hence, he/she must educate you. If there is no education going on, then there is really no advising or planning, just selling.

The "right" decisions will only be revealed in hindsight. Once you come to this epiphany, investing becomes much easier. Unlike Wall Street would have you believe, investing does not have to be that hard. I think the biggest thing to do is look out for making huge mistakes, like paying exorbitant fees, or holding tax-inefficient funds/assets in taxable accounts, etc.

If you do feel that you need someone to look over your plan, there is nothing wrong with seeking professional help, just make sure that the person from whom you're receiving advice is a professional. Here are some links that may help:

http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com - Garrett Planning Network

http://www.fpanet.org/ - Financial Planning Association

http://www.napfa.org/ - National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (fee-only)

http://www.cfp.net/learn/requestkit.asp - CFP Board of Standards

- Alec

 

[rwwoods]

Kate, consider a third possibility. I'll use Charles Schwab as an example. For a small fee, Schwab will set you up with one of their financial planners. They have nothing to sell, so you should get some good advice. Once you have a plan, you are free to invest as you see fit using no-load funds where most of the funds can be traded at Schwab with no fees. Other low-cost brokers that provide free trading in no-load funds may also provide a planning service. As others have noted, managing your money does not have to consume a lot of time. You can easily set up funds that only have to be looked after each quarter or even less. Until you find that you have enough experience, you may find it worth while to go back to the planner each year just to ensure that your plan is on track. Good luck!

 

[CuriousKate]

Thanks all. Yes, intellectually I know that there isn't a "right" answer (but that doesn't stop me from acting as if there is one!) I do think there are "smarter" choices and you all are speaking to that. I've heard feedback online from cfp's who've talked about tax consequences and cash flow and the importance of working with a trusted, experienced planner/broker who rarely trades (Edward Jones is known for it's long-term hold approach; still don't like loaded funds only option), read articles at fool.com about striving for way above average returns (by doing it alone and staying away from index funds et al) and read "Personal Finance for Dummies" (reminds me a bit of what I'm now reading from Scott Burns -great recommendation!-) I think the metaphor is, instead of asking a car salesman which car to buy, talk to a trusted mechanic!
Re: my goals: Hadn't thought about retiring early until I found this site..but I'd like to be able to retire by at least 65 with at least a million in the bank. However, the option of not having to work that long is sounding really attractive.
Thanks again. I'll probably do the combo route IF I can find a reasonable, objective planner (thanks for the Scwhab tip, I hear Fidelity does the same) to check in with periodically.

 

[CuriousKate]

Okay, wait a second. I just got off the phone with another E. Jones rep who told me that I don't save anything in fees by investing in no-load funds because of all their "middle" fees which she says I can find listed in "operating expenses" in the prospectus. She says that front-load funds are better than no-load because the companies don't have to pay for advertising with those "middle" fees. WHAT? She kept telling me that I shouldn't be focusing on the load cost because if I'd invested in one of her recommendations from last spring, I'd be up 23%. Somehow I didn't feel comforted by her saying that even if I paid a 5 and 3/4% load and the fund made 7% that I would still have made more than my checking account. Again, WHAT?
I'll look in the prospectus, do my research and ASK YOU ALL, what do you know about "middle" or hidden fees in no-load funds? Thanks.

 

[newellcr]

CuriousKate,

Cut-throat's advise is ringing in my ears... With the assets you listed (about $700k if you sold the rental but not the variable annuity), you are within close reach of hitting your $1,000,000 goal. Depending on your return, you could easily do this in 6-7 years without adding any new money to the mix. With all due respect to your decision dilemmas, if I were in your shoes, I'd put down the books and start spending more time to find that special bottle of celebratory wine. The "right" decision is the one you make to commit to investing intelligently to achieve your goals. The rest of the decisions are really just details that you can easily figure out.

With that said, one million will give you about $40-45k/ year if you don't touch the lump and want to keep pace with inflation. Consider if this is this enough for your lifestyle.

Best of luck,

Chris

 

[bongo2]

There are front-end loads, back-end loads, and annual fees. All can be high, and all can be low. I was also told once by an advisor that you didn't save with no-load because the annual fees were higher. When I looked at the annual fees of the funds that he recommended (with sales loads) they all had fees higher than the mutual funds I bought on my own! I eventually realized that what he meant was that the annual fees were higher from the no-load funds SOLD BY HIM! See if the EdwardJones fund with a sales load has a lower annual fee than a Vanguard 0.2%. If so, then they may have a point.

 

[unclemick]

The tall pole in your tent is real estate - have you consulted a real estate/tax expert in this area for your options.

As for the rest I'm a Boglehead, Vanguard Lifestragey for ER. Since 1993 when I got bored with fishing, bought individual stocks via DRIPs - dont't use brokers or financial advisors. That said, any books by Bogle, Gibson, Malkiel and Bernstein(William not Peter) are worth a read. As a stock/fund investor since 1966, my UNDERperformance against the 500 index is outstanding even throwing in my time spent for free. MY greatest sucess in balanced index funds has been to do absolutely nothing - took about 30 years to figure that out.

 

[ats5g]

Kate,

The fees associated with mutual funds are:

Management fees - go to paying the manager of the fund

Administrative fees - go to paying the administrative tasks of the fund

12b-1 fees - go to paying for marketing and distribution of the fund. This is the "middle fee" the broker is talking about.

Loads - Front end (class A) and Back end (class B)

Pure no load funds, like from Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, and Fidelity only have management fees and administrative fees. No 12b-1 fees or loads. Any fund with 12b-1 fees is technically a no-load fund (b/c no front or back end load), but it is (in my opinion) still a loaded fund.

Also check deeper into the loaded funds. Some of them still include 12b-1 fees in the expense ratio. Some American Funds and other loaded fund families do this. A neat way for them to hide the fees, eh.

Don't be fooled. Whether you're paying a front or back end load, or a 12b-1 fee, you're still paying extra money to buy a mutual fund when you could pay no extra fees with Vanguard, Fidelity, or T. Rowe Price. How do you think the load funds (w/out 12b-1 fees) pay for advertising? Yep, the load. Actually they don't have to advertise b/c they have the brokers to do it for them. This should be re-written as "they have brokers to PUSH their funds on investors". Nice, eh?

Scott Burns' site is excellent. "Personal Finance for Dummies" is also very good. Also check out "Mutual Funds for Dummies", by Eric Tyson. A very good book for basic mutual fund education. The best things I found about the Dummies books are the little shark warnings.

Brokers love to show you "what could have been" if you'd only followed their "picks". There are a couple of problems with this. Do you actually know what she had picked last spring? (she could be telling you a fib, no?) Did all of her "picks" do well? Not likely.

How did all of her recommendations do against an appropriate benchmark? For example, how did her large cap stock fund picks do against the S&P 500? How did her small cap stock picks do against the S&P 600? How did her bond picks do against an appropriate bond benchmarks? See where I'm going. Just saying "up 23%" doesn't give you any information to compare.

Also, brokers and mutual funds love to show you/us recent past returns. Well gee, that would've been great to know a year ago! But, that doesn't really help you now going forward, does it? Recent past returns (like 1-3 years) are absolutely horrible predictors of future performance. Why do you think the SEC requires a fund to state in its prospectus "Past returns are no guarantee of future returns?" The only reason brokers and mutual funds tout past returns is because they know that investors naively believe that past returns have some predictive value of future returns. Well, all the studies I've seen don't show this.

One more. How do you/we know that this broker just didn't get lucky in her "picks"? How can we distinguish b/w if she was lucky or if she has any skill at telling what's going to go up in the future? I'm sorry to say that we can't ever now this. Well, maybe if we look at 15-30 years of her picks, but certainly not just one or two years.

This sounds like a sales pitch, not financial advice. Yes, you should be focusing on the load - AND all the other fees associated. Expense ratios, commissions, low balance fees, custodial fees. And don't forget taxes for those mutual funds held in taxable account. All those funds she's recommending will more than likely give off a lot of short term capital gains distributions which are taxed at your income tax bracket, and not the favorable lower capital gains tax rates.

My advice would be to (1) take a deep breath (2) figure out where you want to get to by retirement (3) figure out how much you have now and (4) figure out how much of a return you need to get to #2. Investing is a slow steady process. If you need to take a couple of months to learn more, do it.

- Alec

 

[RYD]

One web site you may want to check out is The Coffee House Investor. Common sense and low cost. Just to make it even better it makes money.

Features using index funds with a very straight forward allocation. Easy to do and successful.

A nice combo

Good luck

 

[CuriousKate]

. Re: Information Overload

Thanks again to ALL. I really appreciate your input.
Re: tax in/effecient investing: If I've maxed out my 403B and have a Roth, how do I invest in funds that keep my tax profile low? Don't all funds, unless bonds, have the potential for capital gains? I WILL do my reading, but I'm unclear re: the reference to taxes and funds, how one can invest in a moderately aggressive fashion outside tax deferred vehicles and also be tax saavy (I'm in the 25% tax bracket). If this is basic, "in the books" info, feel free to say so. I just haven't gotten to the library yet.
Thanks again.

 

[ats5g]

Kate,

Here's the rub. When investing outside tax-deferred (403(b)) and tax-free (Roth IRA), taxes are a major drag on returns (so are investment expenses for that matter).

Usually it is recommended to keep, as much as possible, bonds and other tax-inefficient assets (like REITs) in tax deferred accounts (like 403(b)'s). The most tax efficient investments are stocks. With individual stocks, very tax-efficient mutual funds, and Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's), capital gains are not realized every year - they are "in a sense" deferred in a taxable account.

Most mutual funds (especially those that are not tax-efficient index funds or specifically tax-managed) are not tax-efficient at all. They regularly distribute short-term capital gains every year, which are then taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Tax efficient mutual funds and ETF's, on the other hand, defer almost all of the capital gains so the capital gains can be eligible for the much lower capital gains tax rates.

The key to low capital gains distributions is fund turnover. Everytime a fund sells a stock for a gain, it must distribute that gain to shareholders (you). The lower the turnover, the better the tax-efficiency. This is why a fund like a Wilshire 5000 index fund (with turnover around 7%) is so darn tax efficient. Most actively managed funds are not appropriate for taxable accounts b/c of their turnover.

This is certainly not basic at all, as many investors continually pay short term capital gains on stocks. An excellent book on Index funds is "All About Index Funds" by Rick Ferri. His most recent book is also very good for things like asset allocation.

There are also things to consider like foreign tax credit for foreign stocks (but that is pretty advanced). For a person who is investing in a 403(b), Roth IRA, and taxable account, I'd probably keep bonds, REITs, and other tax inefficient funds in the 403(b) and Roth as much as possible, and in the taxable account I'd use mainly tax efficient index funds (like Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index), tax managed funds, and ETFs. Again, kind of advanced, and I certainly found it hard to grasp at first.

- Alec

 

[CuriousKate]

Thanks much for helping with my learning curve!
RE: "I'd probably keep bonds, REITs, and other tax inefficient funds in the 403(b) and Roth as much as possible..."
I'm assuming that "other tax inefficient funds" includes "most mutual funds" that are "not tax-efficient at all." ? I would rather not put 30k into bonds, but invest, primarily, in stock funds. I WILL ask the rep if I get breakpoint discount if they are all with the same family. (My financial vocabulary is increasing by the minute!)

 

[ats5g]

Kate,

Let's see if I can be clearer. I'm not saying to put only tax-inefficient assets and funds (like bonds, REITs, actively managed equity funds, etc.) in tax-deferred accounts, and not equity funds or stocks. You certainly can put whatever you please in tax-deferred accounts, even tax efficient stock index funds. That's the beauty of the tax-deferred accounts, you don't have to be concerned about taxes that much.

You can certainly invest in stock funds in both fully taxable and tax-deferred accounts as much as you would like. I was trying to point out that most stock funds are not tax-efficient. These tax-inefficient equity mutual funds should be kept in tax-deferred accounts. Not to slam the Wall Street brokers any more (I really can't help it), but most of the stock funds they peddle are actively managed (which make a boatload of money for them and the company they work for), have very high turnover and generate a good deal of short-term capital gains. Hence, the broker's interest to make money from you buy selling you something is in conflict with your interest to maximize your after-tax returns.

I might also add that the really tax-efficient mutual funds are available directly from the fund companies that create them, and aren't usually sold through brokers. Since the brokers can't make any money from you investing in these, they have a dis-incentive (or negative incentive) to tell you about them. As you often find with sales people, they hardly ever give you the full story.

The percentages of stocks to bonds in your portfolio should not be affected by how much taxable or tax deferred space you have. What is affected, however, are the investment vehicles/funds you choose to use for the stocks and bonds.

I apologize if I had confused you.

- Alec

 

[unclemick]

11/12/1997 under Bogle speeches on the Vanguard website- index funds, tax managed funds, and buying stocks relative to taxes.

 

[CuriousKate]

Thanks to you both. I will check out the Bogle article.

Alec, thanks for further clarification. I should clarify my use of the term "rep." I'm referring to the 403(b) rep. and the stock funds would be for the 403(b). Turns out the funds are not front-loaded, but do have high costs for m&e (plus indiv. fund costs.) I'll be biting the bullet there, as my co. won't consider offering a 2nd, better option and there's a 5% fee/back-end load for transfers, per fund.
Thanks again!

 

[ats5g]

Damn, that 403(b) is harsh!! There may be a loophole that could ease the pain. It's called a 90-24 transfer. Here's a link from http://www.403bwise.com:

http://www.403bwise.com/wisemoves/transfer403b_bm.html

Also look at this Kiplinger's article:

http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2003/10/403b.html

Are these 5% deferred charges surrender charges that eventually go away or back end loads that stay around forever. Sometimes money markets in 403(b)'s will not have these surrender charges, which enables people to only contribute to MM fund and then execute a 90-24 transfer to a custodial account with someone like Vanguard or Fidelity.

Although allowed by the IRS, not all 403(b) plans allow these types of transfers. And if your plan does, you may not be able to transfer money that your employer has contributed. But it is still worth looking into.

- Alec

 

[CuriousKate]

Thank you. I know 403bwise and it IS very informative. I will have to ask if there is a different consideration for money mkt. contributions.  I think, from my last conversation with the rep, that the provider won't let me transfer anything without paying at the door. Yes, that 5% goes away after 10 years!! I plan on being permanently out the door much sooner than that. I feel like a dope for having 30k in the money mkt, but I keep stalling on dollar cost averaging into 4-5 funds, thinking I'll find a lower cost solution. I probably just need to accept the current reality of this, limited, option. I could take all of my contributions out once a year and d.c.a. into a different account, but 1) it would have to give me a solid return to compensate for the 5% charge and 2) it would erase, I believe, the tax benefit (lower taxable income due to 403(b) contributions).
Thanks again for your interest and your help!