We are
THE BLUE MONEY REPORT.

Providing Crisp Commentary about the World of Money and Investing.
If you are interested in providing your readers with our syndicated column, you can request it here

The Blue Money Report
"...contributors will only give money to challengers when they have a realistic chance of winning, and incumbents only spend a lot when they have a chance of losing"
~ Steven Levitt

The Blue Money Report

Welcome to the Blue Money Report

Today's Commentary: 02.18.04
Slotting Fees
Good for Groceries, Bad for Mutual Funds?

I was having lunch the other day with a gentleman who is employed with one of the largest grocery chains in the world. His job in their main office was selling space on the shelves. In case you were unaware, each item on every shelf and the space it occupies has been paid for, sometimes handsomely. Cigarettes, he told me, have little in the way of profit for a grocer as they try to keep retail prices competitive. In order to make them worth selling, tobacco companies pay hefty slotting fees.

So the question is: if it is good for grocers to charge fees for shelf space and their customers pay unwittingly in the cost of their groceries, does this make it acceptable practice for mutual funds trying to reach customers in 401(k) plans?

Since the advent of the 401(k) plan, the burden of responsibility for an employee's retirement benefits lies directly with the worker and indirectly with the employer. How much was saved and ultimately how well the employee did no longer was the responsibility of the company. This divide has created some serious issues that have been discussed at length here as companies divorce themselves from the future welfare of their employees providing them a bag of funds to choose from, often with little guidance and more commonly, not following up to see that each employee eligible understands the ramifications of under-investing. Too often, the default plan offered by companies is chosen by employees who are either under-educated about their options or just don't care.

Now the Securities and Exchange Commission is turning its attention along with the vigilant New York Attorneys Generals Office to a practice that is costing those enrolled in smaller company sponsored plans more than the average investor. Referred to in the industry as revenue sharing or bundling, smaller companies are especially susceptible to the offer of money from vendors who represent mutual fund families who want their products offered to the employees of the firm.

Administering a 401(k) plan can often be confusing and time consuming for a smaller company who wants to offer their employees some sort of plan. Fund families, brokers, consultants, insurers and banks can offer the company the service of overseeing the plan for a fee which is passed on to the employee, sometimes without the workers knowledge or consent. These outside administrators then offer higher cost funds to employees pocketing the additional money back and running the plan for the employer.

A particularly contentious fee associated with funds is the 12-1b fee. The money garnered by this fee is used to pay for the cost of marketing and distribution and is paid by the fund's shareholders. Often this bundling payment is hidden in the 12-1b of funds that are offered in the vendors plan, adding additional costs to the employee that are unnecessary.

But can these small company plans do just as well without these hidden added fees offering their employees lower cost funds, sometimes better performing ones as well? Probably but some information and cost sharing would be needed. The cost of running these plans averages about $100 to $150 a year, a record keeping cost that employees should be paying and probably would happily, if the fees of the offered funds were lower as well. Vanguard has complained that they have not made adequate inroads into smaller company 401(k) plans largely because they refuse to participate by paying vendors to hawk their wares and because it would drive the low fees offered by many of their funds upward.

While the incentives for smaller companies are almost too good to pass by, these companies should understand the fiduciary responsibility that these plans originally intended for the employer. Employers should understand that by offering low cost funds in a portfolio and explaining the costs of these plans to employees, the cost of administration would be happily borne by the employee.

Today's Commentary: 02.16.04
Too Many Eggs in One Basket:
And What to do About It.

Note from the Editor:Contributing Columnist Larry Swedroe offers this series, broken down into two parts, on the risks of investing without diversification. Part One can be found here.
Larry is the author of "What Wall Street Doesn't Want You to Know," "The Only Guide To A Winning Investment Strategy You Will Ever Need," "Rational Investing In Irrational Times, How to Avoid the Costly Mistakes Even Smart People Make Today," and " The Successful Investor Today: 14 Simple Truths You Must Know When You Invest." Larry is also the Director of Research for and a Principal of both Buckingham Asset Management, Inc. and BAM Advisor Services in St. Louis, Missouri. However, his opinions and comments expressed within this column are his own, and may not accurately reflect those of Buckingham Asset Management or BAM Advisor Services.

Part Two
How Volatility Effect the Odds of Success When Planning for Retirement
As we have discussed, the holding of a large concentration of an individual stock provides the possibility of both superior performance and disastrous results. Diversification, if done in an effective manner, results in both a reduction of the expected volatility of a portfolio without reducing its expected return, and also a reduction in the dispersion of likely outcomes-you are less likely to hit the home run with a diversified portfolio but also less likely to go broke. The reduction in the expected volatility of the portfolio provides a significant benefit-it increases the odds of a successful investment outcome (not running out of money in retirement).

In traditional retirement planning the annual investment return is assumed to be a constant number, such as 8.5 percent per annum. This number depends on the asset allocation and on assumptions about the returns of the portfolio's various holdings. The outcome of the computation is typically presented as the expected wealth value over the anticipated period of retirement.

The problem with this approach is that investment returns are not deterministic. While investing is about risk, retirement calculators that present singly scenarios treat it either as a certainty, or at best, as a 50/50 proposition (i.e., the odds are 50/50 that you will do better or worse than the expected outcome). Investing is not a science like physics. No one knows with precision, beforehand, what the return of different securities/asset classes will be over any given number of years. Investment returns are random variables, characterized by expected values (or averages), standard deviations, and, more generally, probability distributions. For this reason, projections of the possible results of an investment program should also be expressed in terms of probabilities. For example, an expected outcome should be presented in terms such as:

    1. There is a 95 percent chance that you won't run out of money in retirement.
    2. There is a 50 percent probability that you will accumulate at least $3.1 million. There is a 25 percent chance that you will have $5.2 million or more. But, there is also a 10 percent chance that you will have $400,000 or less.

To arrive at this type of conclusion it is necessary to use what is known as a Monte Carlo simulation. A Monte Carlo simulation requires a set of assumptions regarding: time horizon, initial investment, asset allocation, withdrawals, rate of inflation, and, very importantly, the distribution of annual returns for the different asset classes. In Monte Carlo simulation programs the expected final wealth distributions are determined by two numbers, the average annual return, and the standard deviation of the average annual return. The Monte Carlo simulator will randomly select a return for each year and calculate the wealth values over the expected retirement period. This process is repeated thousands of times in order to calculate the likelihood of possible outcomes.

The problem with a portfolio containing a very high allocation to one security is that its standard deviation is expected to be higher than that of a diversified portfolio. If we compare two portfolios that have the same expected return, but one has a high concentration of assets in one security, a Monte Carlo simulation of the two portfolios will produce the following results:

  • … The portfolio with the concentrated position will have fatter tails-a greater percentage of the possible outcomes will lie further away from the mean return. For risk averse investors, and most investors are risk averse, this is a negative.
  • … The portfolio with the concentrated position, while having a greater probability of producing a greater ending net worth, it will also produce a greater probability of the portfolio failing (portfolio value falls to zero while the investor is still alive). Again, for risk averse investors, this is a negative.
  • … The portfolio with the concentrated position will produce lower odds of success (not running out of money). Again, for risk averse investors, this is a negative.

    To illustrate the point we compared two portfolios that have the same expected return, but one has a high concentration of assets in one security, GE, while the other holds a more diversified S&P 500 Index fund. Let's look at the range of outcomes using the standard deviation of GE (32 percent) as compared to the standard deviation of the S&P 500 (21.5 percent). The standard deviations are for the 10-year period ending in 2003. A Monte Carlo analysis was performed using the assumptions of an initial investment of $1 million and the same annualized return of 8 percent. The table below provides the ending dollar values after thirty years:

    Probability of Achieving These Ending Values ($ millions)

      90% 75% 50% 25%
    Single Stock   $1.4   $3.8   $10.7 %  $30.0  
    Diversified   $2.6   $5.1   $10.6   $21.7  

    From the above table we can conclude that while the median (50 percent) outcomes are similar, owning a single stock results in a wider range of outcomes (what are known as fat tails). While investors in the diversified portfolio have a smaller chance of achieving an exceptionally high return, they have a higher probability of avoiding bad outcomes (failing to achieve their financial goals). For risk averse investors this is a good trade-off.

    Summarizing, individual stocks are usually more volatile than broad market indices. Investors should not expect excess return above the market return as compensation for this diversifiable risk. They should, however, expect that individual stocks will be more volatile than a diversified equity portfolio. The prudent response to this diversifiable risk is to diversify as completely as possible and only take risk for which one expects reward (a risk premium). For investors who hold large individual stock positions, excessive volatility increases the risk of spending shortfalls in retirement. As the percentage allocation to a single stock increases, the risk of shortfall increases as well.

    Despite the logic of the benefits of diversification, many individuals refuse to sell the stock in their company, or sell stock they inherited (the endowment effect). One of the reasons might be that the stock has a very low cost basis, and they don't want to pay a hefty tax bill. Given that the current long term capital gains tax is at its lowest rate ever, this does not seem to be a logical argument for holding. The maximum tax one could pay is just 15 percent at the federal level, and any stock can drop in price by 15 percent even in one day. For those that simply cannot pull the sell trigger, the following are offered as suggestions.

      1. Develop a plan to gradually sell the stock, avoiding a black or white, sell or hold, decision. For example, the plan might be to sell 10 percent of the stock each quarter, or 25 percent each year, or any similar plan. The key is to write it down and sign the plan to help increase the odds that discipline will be imposed.
      2. Create a stop loss program. Consider a stock that is selling at 50. In order to ensure that the investor doesn't ride a stock down to zero, a plan might be to place a stop loss order for say 25 percent of the stock at 45, another 25 percent at 40, another 25 percent at 35, and the final 25 percent at 30. The percentages and the amount of the stop (in this case limited to 5 dollars in each case) are not important, but the plan is important. Ask yourself how much downside risk am I willing to accept before the pain becomes too great.
      3. Another version of the stop loss plan is to make it a moving stop loss. If the stock in the above example rose by say 5 from 50 to 55, then all the stops would be raised by 5. Each time the stock rose by 5, the stops would all be raised by an additional 5. This allows the investor to minimize the risk that they don't watch a stock go up and then right back down again. At least some of the gains can be captured. Note, however, that no version of stop losses can be guaranteed to work. A company can experience a particularly negative event that can cause the stock to drop well beyond the point of the stop loss.
      4. A covered call writing program can be initiated. Calls give the buyer the right (but not obligation) to buy the stock in the future (for a limited period) at a specified price. For this a premium is paid to the seller of the call. Calls provide the seller with current income, and thus in effect some downside protection as well (while giving up some upside). Say it is January and a stock is selling at 50. A June 55 call might sell for 2. If the stock does not rise above 55 before the expiration of the call the seller simply pockets the 2 as income. If it goes above 55 the stock will be called and the seller will receive 55, plus the 2 call premium, for total of 57. The seller of course should root for the stock to go up. It will then be called and he/she can then diversify, feeling good about the incremental profits they were able to generate. On other hand if the stock falls, at least they earned the call premium, and can write another call once the original one has expired. Covered calls can also be combined with stop losses.
      5. A collar can be established (if the stock is not restricted). A collar involves the simultaneous purchase of a put and the sale of a call. The investor buys a put giving them the right, but not obligation, to sell the stock if it drops below a certain level. The put thus provides insurance against downside risk (for which a premium is paid). The call works as described above. Generally these are down on a "zero-cost basis," with the prices of the put and call set so that the premium paid for the put offsets the premium earned on the call. In order for this not to be considered a constructive sale of the stock (triggering capital gains taxes) investors are typically advised to make sure that the put is at least 5 percent below the current market price and the call 10 percent above. If the collar is for more than one year then larger percentages must be used. Collars limit the downside risk, at the expense of limiting upside potential. Note that collars can be designed with wider spreads between the put and call prices (accepting more downside risk in return for keeping more upside potential). Before entering into a collar an investor should certainly consult a tax expert. A properly constructed collar can be a very effective tool to allow for the holding of a stock (while minimizing downside risk) until long-term capital gain treatment can be achieved.
      6. For those trapped by taxes, and willing to make a major donation to charity, the stock can be put into a what is called a donor advised fund, and then sold immediately, with the proceeds used to build a diversified portfolio. The individual gets an immediate tax deduction for the full amount yet can donate the dollars over time.

    Before concluding, we need to cover one more point. Investors with large capital gains in their concentrated position might also be holding other securities in taxable accounts whose value is less than the tax basis. If this is the case the losses can be harvested by selling those securities as well. The losses can then be used to offset gains realized. However, it is important to note that losses in taxable accounts should be harvested on a regular basis, whenever the tax benefit exceeds the transactions costs, if any.

    Summary Having more than a relatively small amount (perhaps 10 percent) of your investable net worth in any one stock moves one from an investor to more of a speculator (taking substantial uncompensated risk). This is not a prudent decision when substantial dollars are involved. Thus concentrated positions should be avoided whenever possible. Portfolio risk can be substantially reduced by selling the concentrated position and using the proceeds to build a globally diversified portfolio that reflects your unique ability, willingness and need to take risk. Finally, if you are ever tempted to put lots of eggs in one basket, remember that while this is the surest way to make a quick fortune, it is also the surest way to lose one.



    COLUMN REQUEST | ARCHIVE | WHO WE ARE | CONTACT US | LEARNING CENTER

    COPYRIGHT 2002 - 2004 THE BLUE MONEY REPORT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED