The disastrous effect of a 1% management fee

We have split our investment portfolio between a no fee investment house and a percentage of portfolio FA company for approx 10 years, and so far the financial advising company has returned annual results that are between 1/4% to 1/2% better than the no fee investment house, inclusive of their management fee. Hard to argue with their success, so we've left it/them alone.

YMMV of course, but this has been our experience to date.
 
We have split our investment portfolio between a no fee investment house and a percentage of portfolio FA company for approx 10 years, and so far the financial advising company has returned annual results that are between 1/4% to 1/2% better than the no fee investment house, inclusive of their management fee. Hard to argue with their success, so we've left it/them alone.

YMMV of course, but this has been our experience to date.

The other possibility is your no fee investment house may be performing badly. So beating it doesn't mean the FA is good.

Since I'm always open to ideas, what is inside your no fee investment house ?
 
The other possibility is your no fee investment house may be performing badly. So beating it doesn't mean the FA is good.

Since I'm always open to ideas, what is inside your no fee investment house ?

I would offer instead that it's likely us that are no good, rather than the no fee house, right? I mean, we direct what funds to invest in, then their fund managers take it from there (Fidelity).

We consider ourselves reasonably savvy, but I don't think we'd hang 'expert' on our hats. So we appreciate the ongoing opportunity to compare year end results inclusive of all fees. And it is just a 1/4 to a 1/2% difference, not even 1%, so we've left both alone in that I don't think we'd want to give 100% of our portfolio to either entity at this point.
 
I'm just thinking:

If 1% makes such a difference how much a difference is made by having one's assets/profits in a 401k/IRA?

Yes, it is tax deferred rather than tax free but I'd guess the post-tax total would still be considerably greater than being in an after tax account.
 
... We consider ourselves reasonably savvy, but I don't think we'd hang 'expert' on our hats. So we appreciate the ongoing opportunity to compare year end results inclusive of all fees. And it is just a 1/4 to a 1/2% difference, not even 1%, so we've left both alone in that I don't think we'd want to give 100% of our portfolio to either entity at this point.
I would turn that on its head and observe that you should be beating the experts net of fees, so you are leaving 1% or more on the table.

The benchmark for measuring both your experts and yourselves should be the total return of appropriate broad index like the Russell 3000 or the ACWI. You know that by buying a simple index fund you can come very close to the total returns of the index, so if either you or your experts are not doing this, you need to make a change. Alternatively, and simpler, benchmark against the total return of an appropriate index fund.

Benchmarking yourself against the "experts" might only be telling you which is the tallest midget.
 
Well, I guess I’m just an idiot to pay someone managing part of my portfolio for the last 20 years. Some day I’ll be as smart as you.
While I'm one of those who currently don't believe in paying a manager, I once could have benefited from doing so. If during my early career (1990s to 2000), I had used an asset manager who managed a proper AA, I wouldn't have been invested in such conservative funds (VG Windsor II, Wellington), and would have ended up much farther ahead. Sometimes we need help to save us from ourselves.

Sometimes we need to avoid help to avoid being taken advantage of. My parents bought mutual funds through Oppenheimer, using a broker (right term?) who came to our house, and set up their investments. She sold them front-load funds, and made a lot off of their small accounts over the past 40 years. After my mom passed last year, I moved all of those accounts to VG, then this year, my dad finally moved his assets. He's saving more than 1.5% in fees!
 
In 2018, I spent 2.53% from my stash. Do I want to withdraw another 1% for someone who looks after my money for me? Lemme think.

OK, how about this deal?

If his performance trails the S&P, he has to make up for the difference.

In return, whatever amount he beats the S&P, he can have 1/2 of it.

Think any money manager will take that deal? :)


PS. Note that he does not have to make money every year to win. He only has to beat the S&P.

Suppose the S&P drops 20% one year, and he loses only 10%. By beating the S&P by 10%, he can draw 5% from my account, and I am still glad to lose only 15% instead of 20%. Good deal for him, oui?
 
Last edited:
I am a DIY investor, no paid financial advisers.

In the late 70's/early 80's when I started investing is stocks, there was no Internet, no ability to get quotes easily (even telephone services were expensive). So I and a couple others from w*rk would go to a local brokerage at lunch to use the quote machine. I had an account there, but also got to meet (over time) most of the brokers working there.

What I learned is that I, at age 20, knew more about fundamental security analysis than the vast majority of dolts (pardon me for being so harsh) working there making money off of other people's money. And at that time I didn't know much. So it was at that point I would have myself as my financial adviser, and then I would have only ONE person to blame (me).

The point to track yourself against indexes is also an important one. For many years, I tracked my individual stock & bond holdings against the Vanguard Moderate Life Index (VSMGX). Why? Because if I can't achieve better returns than it does (or one adjusted for risk), then I should simply put the $ in VSMGX and be done with it. [Over the years as I moved into retirement I've lowered the beta on my overall holdings, so I tend to under-perform on the upside and over-perform on the downside.]

Everyone is different. I like the game of stock picking (well, sometimes) and have an economics background. So, about half of my overall wealth is tax-deferred, and most (but not all) of that in passive index funds. Half is in non-tax-deferred accounts, and most (but not all) of that is in individual stocks (or cash equivalents). I only bring the mix up because contributed to a 401k since the early 80'. (I was going to say I maxed it out, but in the very very early days the limits were very high, e.g. 30K and were reduced in 1986 to $7K), so a significant portion of my savings went into tax-deferred accounts.
 
Why would you want to benchmark against a sector fund?

I know you have been pushing the total market which includes mid and small caps, which is fine.

The difference between total market and the S&P is still small, compared to what else out there, so I use the S&P just to make a point.
 
I know you have been pushing the total market which includes mid and small caps, which is fine.

The difference between total market and the S&P is still small, compared to what else out there, so I use the S&P just to make a point.
All true, assuming you are looking only at the US market. My favorite benchmark is the ACWI or Vanguard's VT/VTWSX, which is the whole world. US is only around half of the world/ 55% lately.

If I am using a 12" ruler that doesn't mean everything has to be 12". When I see a portfolio vary from a benchmark like the ACWI the next question is "Why?" If it's outperforming over the last few years, for example, it is probably overweighted in US stocks. So then the question becomes "Is that OK? Do we want to change anything?" Maybe. Maybe not. But an S&P benchmark would not show me the situation because it is also overweighted/100% US stocks.

Or maybe someone says "I don't care about the rest of the world. I am a US investor." OK, then an appropriate benchmark might be the Russell 3000, Wilshire 5000, or VTSMX. But if large caps are cold and smal caps are hot, benchmarking a portfolio only against large caps/S&P 500 could be misleading.

S&P 500 IIRC is about 80% of the US market cap, so it is admittedly a reasonable approximation to "the US market" but I simply think that there are more accurate choices. Not, however, pushing anyone to change what they like.
 
Not sure this is a true apples to apples comparison, as typical buy and hold portfolios don't contain MLP's. Additionally, typical B&H portfolios ER fees are lower now than 25 bps. My fees are 4 bps.



Wow. So your fees are .04%? That is interesting. I agree that most portfolios don’t have MLP’s but was more of a response to a statement early on that if you’re paying an advisor you need your hand held. I always like to make a distinction between an advisor and a money manager. I fired an advisor early on because it was a layer of fees that just came out of my hide.

However if a manager utilizes investment vehicles that provide more income (and I don’t feel comfortable doing my own investing in that sector) and more than pay for the fee premium then it is a sound strategy.
 
Wow. So your fees are .04%? That is interesting. I agree that most portfolios don’t have MLP’s but was more of a response to a statement early on that if you’re paying an advisor you need your hand held. I always like to make a distinction between an advisor and a money manager. I fired an advisor early on because it was a layer of fees that just came out of my hide.

However if a manager utilizes investment vehicles that provide more income (and I don’t feel comfortable doing my own investing in that sector) and more than pay for the fee premium then it is a sound strategy.

I hear you on the MLP's.
Yes truly .04% and it is only that "high" coz I pay 0.14% on a 401k Stable Value fund.
 
Three years ago, I evaluated a bunch of different plans by financial advisors. The smartest and best, from the famed Morgan Stanley, said we’d be fine, if on our $5 million stash, we could find a way to save $50,000 a year since his calculations indicated we would run out of money otherwise. Maybe I could keep working, he said. Or we could just spend less? I called him and told him I found out a way to to save that money, which was to not hire him at his 1% commission.

The main reason to have these folks is that they counsel you not to sell when the market goes real bad. If you can handle that, you don’t need them. If you can’t, they are worth their weight in gold.
 
Last edited:
Three years ago, I evaluated a bunch of different plans by financial advisors. The smartest and best, from the famed Morgan Stanley, said we’d be fine, if on our $5 million stash, we could find a way to save $50,000 a year since his calculations indicated we would run out of money otherwise. Maybe I could keep working, he said. Or we could just spend less? I called him and told him I found out a way to to save that money, which was to not hire him at his 1% commission.

The main reason to have these folks is that they counsel you not to sell when the market goes real bad. If you can handle that, you don’t need them. If you can’t, they are worth their weight in gold.

I WISH I were a fly on the wall in your advisor's office when you told him that LOL! :popcorn:
 
I'm just thinking:

If 1% makes such a difference how much a difference is made by having one's assets/profits in a 401k/IRA?

Yes, it is tax deferred rather than tax free but I'd guess the post-tax total would still be considerably greater than being in an after tax account.

All else being equal it totally depends on the tax rate avoided and tax rate paid and compounding doesn't impact it at all.

For example, if you defer $10,000 of income and avoid paying $2,000 in tax (20%) and each investment earns 7% annually for 30 years.

Taxable account value in 30 years = [$10,000 *(1-20%)] * (1+7%)^30 = $60,898
Tax-deferred account value in 30 years = $10,000 * (1+7%)^30 = $76,122

If the $76,122 tax-deferred account is withdrawn at 20% tax your net proceeds is $60,898.... at 15% is $64,704 and at 25% is $57,092
 
Why would you want to benchmark against a sector fund?

I know you have been pushing the total market which includes mid and small caps, which is fine.

The difference between total market and the S&P is still small, compared to what else out there, so I use the S&P just to make a point.

All true, assuming you are looking only at the US market. My favorite benchmark is the ACWI or Vanguard's VT/VTWSX, which is the whole world. US is only around half of the world/ 55% lately.

If I am using a 12" ruler that doesn't mean everything has to be 12". When I see a portfolio vary from a benchmark like the ACWI the next question is "Why?" If it's outperforming over the last few years, for example, it is probably overweighted in US stocks. So then the question becomes "Is that OK? Do we want to change anything?" Maybe. Maybe not. But an S&P benchmark would not show me the situation because it is also overweighted/100% US stocks.

Or maybe someone says "I don't care about the rest of the world. I am a US investor." OK, then an appropriate benchmark might be the Russell 3000, Wilshire 5000, or VTSMX. But if large caps are cold and smal caps are hot, benchmarking a portfolio only against large caps/S&P 500 could be misleading.

S&P 500 IIRC is about 80% of the US market cap, so it is admittedly a reasonable approximation to "the US market" but I simply think that there are more accurate choices. Not, however, pushing anyone to change what they like.

I agree with NWB... if your focus is US based or for at least the domestic equities portion of your portfolio that the S&P 500 and the total US stock market are so similar that referring to the S&P 500 as a proxy for the total US stock market isn't unreasonable.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com...cation1_1=100&symbol2=VTSMX&allocation2_2=100

Second, on ACWI or VTWSX, intellectually what you say makes sense, but it doesn't seem to be working out very well so far (since 2009).

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com...cation2_2=100&symbol3=VTWSX&allocation3_3=100
 
... on ACWI or VTWSX, intellectually what you say makes sense, but it doesn't seem to be working out very well so far (since 2009). ...
Au contraire, monsieur. A benchmark is not an investment, it is a measuring stick. By using the whole world as a measuring stick, I can easily see that the US market has outperformed for about the last ten years and before that it underperformed. I can also look at my standard test portfolio, created five years ago at 65% US and 35% International, and see that it is outperforming the world because it is overweighted in the US. I could also look at the S&P and at a US small cap index and see whether the US outperformance was across the board or concentrated in large caps. Etc., etc. IMO the world is a great measuring stick.

As an investment, a total world fund has underperformed the S&P -- as you point out. That is why I am happy to have held 30% international in recent years instead of 50%. But last year we did move to a total world portfolio both in anticipation of the US regressing to the mean and in anticipation of the dollar declining in value. We'll probably stick with that strategy for 5-10 years now and see how it turns out.

... Taxable account value in 30 years = [$10,000 *(1-20%)] * (1+7%)^30 = $60,898 ...
You're the finance guy, but that 7% is taxable, right?

So don't you want: [$10,000 *(1-20%)] * (1+(7%*(1-20%)))^30 = $41,021.12
 
So I'm going to give a scenario that many of you can shoot down as part of the discussion:

Investor #1 - $1mm to invest in various funds. Management costs 25 basis points or .25%.

Investor #2 - $1.0mm to invest with a money manager. Cost to manage portfolio 1%. Portfolio consists of 50% high quality individual stocks paying nice dividends and 50% in MLP (let's just say midstream and downstream only).

Assume both portfolio values rise and fall at the same rates.

Investor #1 averages 3.25% on dividends so net of fees makes $30k in income at a net 3% return.

Investor #2 averages 4% on dividends at a 1% fee so nets $15,000 on his equities. Then portfolio of MLP averages 7.5% to 8% income (this was the average this year). So let's be conservative and say 7.5%. Income net of 1% fee is $32,500. Total returns are $47,500 net of fees.

So, in this example which is real world does it make sense sometimes to have someone else manage some part of your portfolio when you've netted 1.75% return higher than a self managed portfolio?

Just curious. I could be all wrong here.

You're ignoring the difference in risk.

Investor #2 is taking on more risk, so the expected return on that portfolio should be higher.

Paul Merriman, IIRC, has a back-tested portfolio (50% each large/small cap value)...which yields much higher returns than market, but the extra risk incurred is not for the faint-hearted.

It seems you're happy with your FA based solely on returns...but do you really understand the extra risk they're taking over market risk to get you those returns?
 
Last edited:
This assumes that the investor (institutional or individual) would make the same (or better) investment decisions, and achieve the same investment returns, without professional advice as with professional advice. In other words, it assumes that the guy who takes the one percent (or whatever) fee adds no value. That seems to be a commonly held belief among people who post frequently on this board. But I am a dissenter. I believe that investment management professionals — at least good ones — and value. (I do not dispute that there are bad investment management professionals and advisors who take a fee but do not add value, just like there are bad lawyers and doctors and chefs and plumbers).

Clearly there are some managers who add significantly more value than they charge. The challenge is to find them before their portfolios get so big as to negate their talents. (It's harder to place larger amounts of money successfully.) And in aggregate, the market will return a "market return", no more no less, but all those 1% fees (from the value-add managers and the myriad who add no value at all) are a net loss of 1% on the market return. So again, if you're good enough to find the right manager, you're probably good enough to pick stocks and beat the market yourself. But in aggregate, it's mathematically impossible for everyone to beat the market and the aggregate fee becomes a huge drag on performance.
 
I know I will not convince someone who feels an advisor is a drain on the portfolio, but do realize that they add more to the equation than investment advice. A good CFP will provide other advice around taxes, insurance, estate planning, etc. So, picking a three fund portfolio and an AA may be good investment advice, there’s a lot more to manage.

My hope in choosing a CFP is that the package of advice he’s providing will do better than what I could have done on my own. Investment performance is a big piece of that, but not the only consideration.

I think the size of your portfolio makes a huge difference. Once it's $1 million, it's likely less expensive to pay hourly to smart people for good advice rather than give them 1% of the portfolio each year.
 
....The main reason to have these folks is that they counsel you not to sell when the market goes real bad. If you can handle that, you don’t need them. If you can’t, they are worth their weight in gold.

Exactly; that is the key. The average investor is NOT like most of the folks here. I worked for a couple of years in the office of a guy who was probably the top-ranked independent CFP in our locality. Semi-retired; had fired 80% of his clients (yes, you read that correctly) about a year before I joined, as being more trouble than they were worth (80% of the service time used by staff, but only 20% of the total assets under management).

Also terminated were clients who had been consistently rude and obnoxious to staff members.

He provided a really impressive amount of hand-holding to the clients who needed it....and there was a fair # who did, because they were long-term clients whose spouses had died. And it was invariably the dead spouse who had handled all the money, leaving the surviving spouse with little expertise in financial planning.

He put it very succinctly: "Half my clients, I have to tell them they have more than enough to spend on themselves now. The other half, I have to keep from spending more than they should!"

++++

Early on in this thread, someone said something about 'investors who panic, they might be helped by using an advisor'.

I happen to be good friends with someone who fits that description perfectly. We share investing and financial articles all the time. We've known him for more than 40 years.

We have also watched him make consistently wrong, emotional panic-driven decisions on finances. The only thing that has saved him is he's very successful at his career as an independent tech developer, and he manages his business extremely well.

As an investor he knows what he's doing, so long as things are going well. But when the media goes headline-hungry and "everybody" yells "the sky is falling!!"......well, he panics.

And so on the last debacle, he sold off his entire portfolio in March 2009 - almost to the day when hindsight later declared the stock market's lowest point.

Of course he did not, as Buffett did and I'm sure some folks here did, get back into the market when it was cheap. No, he waited.

And waited. And waited some more....yes, completely missing the rebound.

Later on, I met someone who did something even worse. She took her funds out at the same time, but stayed in cash until 2018!

++++

I use an adviser - an independent CFP (who in fact trained 30 yrs ago with my old boss). I handled all our investments for decades, but once we retired I didn't want to keep doing it. It's a different ballgame when you retire, and it's worth it to us to use an advisory firm.

You don't use a CFP to get the latest/greatest/hottest stock or fund. If your adviser isn't looking at your financial situation in an individualized, holistic manner, s/he is a generic hack and yes, you're better off doing it yourself. Like I said, I did that myself, and was reasonably successful at it.

We use an adviser for the same reason we use an estate attorney to draw up our legal docs instead of doing them through Nolo Press or LegalZoom. Because in our personal, individual circumstances, it is worth paying for expert advice.

It's fine if you want to DIY, whether it's investing or car repair or lawn mowing. Just remember, however, that sometimes it's critical to know the right questions to ask - because there will be times when what you don't know, and thus don't ask about, will put you and your heirs at a disadvantage.
 
What's MLP ? >Portfolio consists of 50% high quality individual stocks paying nice dividends and 50% in MLP (let's just say midstream and downstream only). >
 
Late to this thread and did not read it all...


As to FA that beat the market, well, the evidence shows that there are very few that can do it over time.. I am talking about 10 years..


And the articles that I read shows that some who do beat also took on more risk and when it is risk adjusted they did not..


Buffet is the only person that I have read about that has beaten the market over time... but I also remember a few years back reading that he had not beaten for a few years... do not know what Kraft-Heinz has done to his return for the past year or so... also IBM IIRC....
 
Back
Top Bottom