Investing Advice

Market Up, Fund Investors Back in

May 1, 2008

Fund investors tend to sell low and buy high. They like the thrill of the chase. When the market is falling hard, they want out. When it is rising fast, they want back in. If they sold before the market fell more, or bought before it went substantially higher, this would be a brilliant strategy. Unfortunately, as several studies of long term mutual fund investor returns show, fund investors underperform by chasing the market's tail.

As we noted in mid-March when the Dow was dipping below 12,000 (mere days before the market turned back up), fund investors piled into money market funds. Now with the Dow on the verge of 13,000, the money seems to be coming back:'

Investors to money-market funds subtracted $34.53 billion in the week ended Tuesday, bringing total net assets to $3.416 trillion, according to the Money Fund Report."

Is this a flawless contrarian timing strategy? No. However, if you are not a buy-and-holder, you'd probably do better buying when fund investors are bailing, and cutting back when they are diving in.

LINK

29% of People Trust the Fund Industry

April 28, 2008

Bill Donoghue at Marketwatch reports on a survey of high-net worth investors which reveals that the vast majority think the fund industry is less trustworthy than (gasp!) auto mechanics!

About 71% of investors don't trust the fund industry.

Meanwhile, 66% say fund firms don't take responsibility to protect investors' financial well-being.

In fact, mutual funds are at the bottom of the list of trusted service providers -- below mechanics and insurance agents.

Investors' major source of distrust is the disclosure of fees, risks and tax implications. These caveats are spelled out in excruciating detail in funds' unreadable prospectuses (which are supplied to everyone except retirement savings plan participants)"

As Donoghue points out, the survery was commissioned by Barclays whose exchange traded fund products are mutual fund competetors, so the results should be taken with a grain or salt or two - but frankly investors' distrust of the mutual fund industry is well founded. Mutual fund companies exist to make money, and most are less interested in investors' 'financial well-being' than thier own. If they weren't, all funds would be no-load and have a .5% expense ratio. The good news is that there are some fund companies that have realized that the best way for them to succeed is to provide high-quality and low-cost and no-load funds to investors. Just like there are honest mechanics and those that will tell you you need a new engine when all you need is a tune up, there are good fund companies and those that will launch internet funds at NASDAQ 5000.

LINK

The Ups And Downs Of Target Funds

April 23, 2008

Target date funds make investing easy by offering a complete portfolio of funds in a one-stop package to match your risk profile. But like how a multi-entre frozen TV dinner offers a complete meal, there are positives and negatives. In a Marketwatch.com article Jennifer Openshaw lays out the positives and negatives:

The advantages

  • Autopilot for your investments.
  • Diversification for less.
  • Safety.

The disadvantages

  • Bland investments.
  • Diversification question.
  • Potential for bad timing.

And offers some tips when investing in target date funds:

  • Study their investments.
  • Understand the mix.
  • Find out whether allocations are fixed.
  • Focus on the target fund.

LINK

Can Too Many Funds Spoil a Good Portfolio?

March 31, 2008

Chuck Jaffe at Marketwatch says that when it comes to building a mutual fund portfolio, less is usually more. Jaffe's point is that owning more than ten or so funds is at best unnecessary, and at worst can turn your holdings into an overpriced index fund.

With actively managed mutual funds, more is not necessarily better. Studies show that owning four funds in the same asset category is virtually certain to create a 'closet index fund,' which means that the combined performance of the funds winds up doing no better than the index for that asset class

Plus, that index-or-worse overall performance comes at a much higher cost than simply owning a mutual-fund or exchange-traded fund tracking the index.

...Ultimately, an investor can build a winning portfolio with no more than six funds covering domestic and foreign markets, large- and small stocks, bonds and money-markets. Sector funds and other issues can be used to flesh out the holdings and tilt the assets to areas the investor prefers, without creating massive overlap with the core holdings.

A portfolio that's a little more complicated is fine, but going much further -- with closer to 20 funds than a half-dozen, and with too many decisions to make -- is almost sure to leave you with an unmanaged mess."

While it is true that the more funds you own, the closer your portfolio becomes an overpriced index fund, it is also true that 10 cheap good funds are better than five expensive mediocre funds. There is also the risk of over-relying on an expert manager by focusing too much on a few funds - something investors in Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value (LMVTX) are finding out right now. Moreover, it can be impossible to own just a few funds when you consider many investors own funds in several accounts - 401(k)s, IRAs, etc and collectively owning 20 funds is all but unavoidable.

The article also features this dubious advice from a Morningstar exec.:

'It's a good time to check up and see if your fund is performing worse than you would have expected in a tumultuous environment,' said Christine Benz, director of personal finance at investment researcher Morningstar Inc. 'If performance is worse than you expected, then maybe the fund is a bad match for your risk tolerance.'"

But wouldn't such behavior lead to buying high and selling low? Don't most people buy funds after they perform better than expected? In fact isn't that how funds get highly rated in the first place? Weren't all the Janus funds performing better than expected in the late 1990s? By this logic you would have sold them all after they fell harder than expected in 2000-2002, missing the better than expected returns from 2003-2007.

There is nothing wrong with a focused fund portfolio. Our MAXadvisor Powerfund Portfolios newsletter publishes seven model mutual fund portfolios, none of which have held more than ten funds and ETFs. That said, there are cases for smaller allocations to certain more targeted funds that could increase the number of portfolio holdings to more than that.

Of Gold and Beanie Babies

March 21, 2008
MAXfunds.com co-founder Jonas Ferris discusses this past week's collapse in gold and other commodities. Feel free to ignore the other guests and be sure to watch the entire video for the comparison of gold to beanie babies.

Of Gold and Beanie Babies

March 21, 2008

MAXfunds.com co-founder Jonas Ferris discusses this past week's collapse in gold and other commodities. Feel free to ignore the other guests and be sure to watch the entire video for a fascinating comparison of gold to beanie babies.

Experts Chase Performance Too

March 10, 2008

Individual investors are often guilty of flocking to whatever investment has performed well, growing optimistic while markets are strong, turning pessimistic they weaken. Mutual fund inflows are almost always highest into those fund categories that have performed the best, almost always negative in ares of bad performance. Guess what? Professional money managers are no better.

As noted on Marketwatch.com, the latest Schwab survey of financial advisers reveals some startling examples of the correlation between good performance and optimism for the future:

Investment advisers are increasingly pessimistic about U.S. stocks, with many expecting further losses as higher inflation, rising unemployment and a weak housing sector take their toll, according to a survey released Wednesday.

The survey of 1,006 financial advisers by brokerage firm Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., taken in late January, showed investment professionals are much gloomier about the U.S. market's near-term prospects than they were in a similar poll in July....About 46% of respondents say the Standard & Poor's 500 Index will be higher in six months, down from 67% who felt that way in July. Forty-one percent predict the benchmark will be lower versus 18% who said so in July....

About 80% of respondents see housing prices continuing to soften and the same number forecast higher unemployment in six months, compared to just 35% who did in the survey in July....

...Accordingly, many advisers are taking a defensive stance with clients' investment portfolios...About one-third of advisers say they'll invest more in large-cap U.S. and international stocks. Raising cash is part of the strategy for 28% of respondents, up from 16% in the previous survey, and 27% will boost bond positions, up from 18% last July.

...Utilities, many of which offer a cushion in the form of quarterly cash dividends, was the fourth most-favored sector, with 30% of advisers choosing the category compared with 11% in July....

Advisers are less sanguine about technology...

... Enthusiasm for Japanese shares has deteriorated since the July survey, when 40% of advisers thought Japan would be the best-performing developed market....Among emerging markets, advisers expect the best results from China and India (tied at 36%), followed by Brazil (33%) and Russia (23%)....Meanwhile, advisers anticipate investing less in U.S. small-cap stocks and their international counterparts in both developed countries and emerging markets."

In summary, if it stunk, investment professionals now hate it. If it has been pretty hot, they want in.

LINK

The First Rule Is...There Are No Rules

March 4, 2008

Choosing winning mutual funds is tough business.The experts regularly fail because past winners often become future losers. If we had to leave our readers with one sentence of fund picking advice, it would be this: choose low-fee funds that are not perennial losers in out-of-favor fund categories, and stick with them for a few years.

An article in yesterday's Financial Times offers a humble review of fund data to consider (much of which you can find right here on MAXfunds.com) when choosing your mutual fund investment:

Although many investors are swayed by evidence of excellent recent performance, statistically, it is unlikely that fund managers will manage to do well consistently over a period of years.

'There is some evidence that last year’s winners tend to repeat next year. But it is very slight. Mostly the effect comes from the fact that really bad funds stay bad. Their expenses are high, and their choices stay haphazard,' said Paul Samuelson, an academic, in his article 'The Long-Term Case for Equities', which appeared in the Journal of Portfolio Management in 1994.

However, this does imply that it is worth considering performance, if only to avoid the poor performers.

...When choosing an investment fund, performance is important. But it is also important to bear in mind that even excellent performance can be eaten up by investment management fees. A cheap index fund might do better for the investor than a well-managed active fund, so performance should not be the only consideration."

Using statistical measures of risk-adjusted return are useful but far from an end-all-be-all. Often funds that delivered have delivered good risk-adjusted returns in the past go on to deliver poor risk-adjusted returns in the future.

LINK

Fund Bad, ETF Good?

March 3, 2008

Fund Bad, ETF Good?

While exchange traded funds, or ETFs, are a useful invention, we fear investors will get into more trouble with them than they do with ordinary mutual funds. The primarily benefit - low costs and tax efficiency - seem to be falling to the wayside as the other benefits, intraday trading, leveraging, shorting, and ultra-targeting of sub-sectors and investment strategies, take the spotlight.

We've often heard experts opine on how bad mutual funds are compared to ETFs. This is a bit silly as the same mutual fund companies running "evil" mutual funds are usually the same companies behind ETFs. Moreover, to most investors, there is little difference between a Vanguard open end fund and its ETF cousin. In fact, to those buying in relatively small allocations directly through the fund company, ordinary index funds remain the cost effective choice, especially when an investor is adding money regularly.

In response to a reader question about a book called The Lies About Money by Ric Edelman, Eric Tyson, author of Investing for Dummies notes:

"A number of financial advisers are cheerleading for ETFs. In my observation, this advocacy is self-serving, because such advisers have investment-management businesses built around using ETFs. And, in a competitive marketplace, they want to be different and appear current to appeal to novice customers.

In Edelman's case, he has written a purposely provocative and hyped book telling his readers the following:

'The retail mutual fund industry is ripping you off. ... You need to sell all your retail mutual funds. ... The fact is that the retail mutual fund industry is now flush with liars, crooks and charlatans. Daily business activities include deceit, hidden costs, undisclosed risks, deceptive trade practices, conflicts of interest, and fundamental violations of trust — all at your expense. Since September 2003, the retail mutual fund industry has paid out more than $5 billion in fines.'

That does indeed sound pretty awful, doesn't it?

...What's ironic and hypocritical of Edelman's comments is that he said in a prior book, 'I hate index funds.' Well, ETFs are index funds that you trade on a stock exchange!

ETFs are similar to mutual funds, with the most significant difference being that in order to invest, you must buy into an ETF through a stock exchange where ETFs trade, just as individual stocks do.

Thus, you need a brokerage account to be able to invest in ETFs.

ETFs are most like index mutual funds in that each ETF generally tracks a major market index. (Beware that more and more ETFs are being issued that track more narrowly focused indexes, such as an industry group and small country).

The best ETFs might also have slightly lower operating expenses than the lowest-cost index funds.

However, you must pay a brokerage fee to buy and sell an ETF, and the current market value of the ETF may deviate slightly from the underlying market value of the securities in its portfolio."

LINK

Do As Suze Says, Not As Suze Does

February 27, 2008

Personal Finance Guru Suze Orman has done a decent enough job teaching textbook personal finance tips and tricks. When she dives into investing advice though, we often find her a little lacking. Take for example her Yahoo Finance "Money Matters" column today to sooth skittish investors:

Declines of more than 10 percent in the major stock market indexes over the past few months, along with the growing expectation of a recession, have set off a massive investor call to action.

By action I mean the urge to flee stocks for the apparent safety of bonds or cash. For the vast majority of investors, that move can be a costly mistake....

...Fear is natural, but there's a right way and a wrong way to handle fear when it comes to finances. Knowing when to act and when not to act is one of the keys to financial security.

Right now, we're all being put to the test.

....For these long-term investors, the best advice is to do nothing. Yes, nothing. If you have a well-diversified portfolio that's focused on building value over the next few decades, it doesn't make sense to overreact to a few months of volatility and bail out on stocks. It's no fun watching your portfolio fall, but you need to focus on a bigger problem: If you put all your money into super-low-risk investments such as money markets or stable value funds, you increase your risk, too -- the risk that your portfolio won't grow enough over time to build a hefty retirement account...

...If your investment time horizon is 10, 20, or 30 years, stay invested in your stock funds and ETFs. Over time (meaning decades, not weeks), stocks have consistently outperformed other types of investments. That includes periods when the stock markets fall. Doing nothing is going to net you better long-term results than doing something."

Buy and hold stocks through think and thin. Don't panic sell after a drop. If you have a long time horizon, stocks are the place to be. Timeless advice that now has that Suze Orman stamp of approval. Too bad she doesn't seem to follow it with her own money.

In a New York Times interview last year, we learned this about Suze's portfolio:

How much are you worth these days? One journalist estimated my liquid net worth at $25 million. That’s pretty close. My houses are worth another $7 million...

What do you do with the rest of your money? Save it and build it in municipal bonds. I buy zero-coupon municipal bonds, and all the bonds I buy are triple-A-rated and insured so that even if the city goes under, I get my money. I take a little lower interest rate to make sure my bonds are 100 percent safe and sound.

Do you play the stock market at all? I have a million dollars in the stock market, because if I lose a million dollars, I don’t personally care."

So there you have it. Suze Orman has about 3% of her net worth in stocks, 21% in real estate, and 76% in ultra-safe muni bonds. As any professional can tell you, in the long run stocks beat bonds and real estate. Apparently Suze makes here money giving advice, not following it.

And just to poke more fun at the tanned personal finance guru, we'll leave you with this quote from last year's interview:

Do you enjoy spending money? Oh, yes. My greatest pleasure is still flying private. I spend between $300,000 to $500,000, depending on my year, on flying private."

Remember that gem next time a personal finance guru tells you to scrimp on "expensive" lattes to save for retirement.

More MAXattacks on Suze:

The Great Real Estate Bubble

Syndicate content