ETFs: Are These Investments Needed in Your Retirement Plan?

Boomers are often faced with a decision that will be framed in such a way as to make it seem the only logical choice. As the mutual fund verses ETF debate begins to gain steam, some truths need to be considered.

Mark Twain suggested: "The reason we hold truth in such respect is because we have so little opportunity to get familiar with it." This will be the selling point for exchange traded funds: you will hear that they are less expensive, that they are better than the mutual funds - many of them indexed, and that you should own them in your 401(k).

They will suggest you overlook the cost of trading them, the fact that they tempt you to trade them more frequently than ou would a mutual fund and in doing so, allow you to follow the herd on any given day, a behavioral no-no for every investor. So what exactly is the attraction that they want us to see? Are mutual funds better or worse than ETFs?

The answer depends on who you are. If the sort of investor who believes that they can make small moves to harness big gains, then you should probably avoid the lure of ETFs. Exchange traded funds are mutual funds that can be traded just like stocks. They tend to have lower fees than their comparable cohort the mutual fund but the commissions that brokers charge for these trades tend to erase the advertised returns you might get.

If you are the sort of investor who buys to hold, then the surprising choice would be ETFs. Yet you will need to harness the inner trader in you that wants to succumb to the temptation to trade. This sounds easy. But in truth, is no easy feat.

So let's run some numbers comparing a total stock market ETF sold by Vanguard and a total stock market index sold by the same company. The ETF (trade as VTI) carries and expense of 0.07%. The mutual fund version of the same thing (bought as VTSMX) levies a 0.18% fee on investors. The former has no minimum investment,; the later wants $3,000 to begin. So we'll start there and propose a hopeful return over 10 years of 4%.

In the first calculated example, the investor made no additional contributions to the investment. Vanguard does suggest that they charge no brokerage fees but they do charge a $20 annual fee for the account. This might be much higher when accessing these funds through your 401(k) and there may be additional brokerage fees. So we'll assume a $10.00 brokerage fee - as I said, yours might be lower and in most cases, the brokerage charge is on both ends of the transaction.

Based on the above numbers, the ETF, once purchased and held begins to creep past, in terms of raw returns by the third year. By the 10th year, you will have saved about $19.41 in fees giving you a net gain for your ETF of $32.82. 

But begin adding to the security on a regular basis (say $200 a month) and the differences are much more notable. To add to the ETF in equal proportions over the same 10 year period would cost you $1021 in commission costs and with this money not working for you, the sacrifice in what each would be worth at the end of the 10-year investment period used in our example in addition to the trading cost would leave you with over $1200 less in the ETF account.

Inside a 401(k), where regular contributions rule the way you invest, ETFs can give the average investor less of an opportunity than proponents suggest they will. In a taxable account, bought without commissions such as Vanguard offers and purchased in large lump sums, ETFs slightly trump their mutual fund siblings.

Will you take the time to learn the truth about yourself before making the decision on which investment is better? You are the debate. 

Paul Petillo is the managing editor and founder of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer.

Our Instincts are Never Wrong: Until They're wrong

It has been decades since behavioral economics took hold as a science of investor actions. Designed to study the irrational decisions that we all are apparently hard-wired to make, the field grew into a respectable and well-quoted discipline. Which is fine. We know we have incredibly limited potential to redesign ourselves, despite the pushing and prodding in one direction, the look-in-the-mirror study of our own foibles and the instructions on how to improve this very human lot in life. But we muster on. And this is why, even despite the improved access to our 401(k) plans does our retirement still suffer.

Studies done quite recently suggested that most folks will simply accept the status quo if given a confusing situation. Investing is just such a case-study in chaos, less so for the experienced investor, but even for that group, a churning pool of information keeps them struggling to keep up. But the behavioralists  insisted that auto-enrollment in a retirement plan would create great strides for the plan and even greater rewards for those who may have - and still do have the option of - opting out.

Auto-enrollment we have found out is a trip through the wardrobe. We may all have taken the first step. But what awaits us on the other side, in almost every instance, is our irrational mind. And in almost every instance as well, a less-than-wonderful 401(k) plan. But more on the plan later. Let's just focus on what we have done recently as we embrace our biases, follow our illusions and believe in the fallacies.

There have been several alarms ringing on Wall Street and those who invest in mutual funds have turned a deaf ear. Herd mentality, the primitive instinct to follow the herd because doubt in the face of danger can present death was considered a valuable possession. Somewhere along the line though, things changed.

In our wonderful modern brains, this instinct has evolved into a trait, or so say the behavioralists, the makes us run towards the danger because everyone else is. What once once a survival instinct is now a suicidal tendency, at least in the world of investing. (Look at it this way: It would be similar to seeing a crash on the highway and deciding that driving your car into the pile would be in everyone's best interest, including your own.) Evidence of this is beginning to crop up and our big "modern" brains are at fault.

There are three types of mutual funds or mutual fund investment strategies that have shown a tendency to attract these kinds of investors: emerging markets, commodities and a category I'd be willing to wager you didn't realized existed, floating rate funds. (Amy Or of Marketwatch.com describes them as "Unlike fixed-rate loans, floating-rate loans can capture rising interest rates and are deemed a good inflation hedge" and with some uncertainty about when if sooner-not-later, interest rates begin to rise, these funds will be able to capture the change in market conditions.

Recent herd-like inflows of over $14B suggest that the usually high load fees and the underperformance of late matter little. It is where, these investors believe they should be. But because, as so often is the case with herds like this, so many have heard the siren's call, the opportunity to make any more moves to the upside have been hampered. That means a lot of people will eventually follow the herd off the cliff, ost of whom bought at the top.

When they aren't betting on debt, they are looking at commodities. These funds, focused on such tangibles as oil, silver and gold will to most of us, seem to be destined to go higher. And if you bought into this sector recently, you have  high hopes that it wasn't at the top. But silver suggested it was, as did oil, and the drop in prices found those same people scrambling to get out. Most bought in with expanded exposure in their supposedly well-balanced portfolios and are now paying the price for having believed that diversity was just another word for profit.

And emerging market investors are beginning to realize that perhaps they too have been failing to listen to the global heartbeat. Europe is not finished with its economic woes. Commodity prices may have fallen but they still remain uncomfortably high for countries looking to emerge and now, predictions of slowing growth at expanding powerhouses like China have begun to worry the savvy investor. You newbies are deeply embedded in the herd still.

You may have been auto-enrolled, but the walk through the wardrobe left you in the middle of the Serengeti. And you probably won't get the memo that you are in danger until it is too late. This thinking about getting you in, attempting to educate you, guide you, slip you into an ill-suited target date fund came by way of Thaler and Sunstein's book called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. In is not the same as knowing what to do or how to act when you arrive. The information tsunami hasn't lessened and may have even gained strength over the last several years and investors, particularly the neophytes, will still drown before they learn to swim.

How running with the herd once saved you only to become the complete opposite will remain a mystery. And getting people into these plans by using science to study our unpredictable-ness is still a good idea, even if it seems suspect. But once there, the status quo is good. But who says what the status quo is? You may never get a clear bead on the answer,  Until you realize the herd is leaving the room.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer

Your Retirement Investments Might Have Risk but are they a Risk?

Are mutual funds a systemically important financial risk? It seems that so far, the answer is no. To explain what this dreaded SIFI label actually means, the NYU Stern School of Business has developed a risk indicator and alist of the top banks and CEOs capable of bringing the whole system down should their activities run into problems.

Senator Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, authors of the Dodd-Frank comprehensive financial reform law began identifying which institutions could be the most troublesome for the economy as a whole should they fail. It was one thing suggesting that all banks with $50 billion plus in assets be labeled as SIFI. But other institutions could also create risk and in the time since the creation of the reform law, other large entities have scrambled to get out of the way. Ideally, the right balance, not too many and not too few, something the Brookings Institute suggests as a Goldilocks problem, is what the law is aiming to create.

At a recent conference held in February, Doug Elliot asked the question: "So, if you’re going to define systemically important financial institutions you have to have some concept of what systemic risk is.  And you have to have some way of measuring it, at least in some subjective manner.  And are then setting a threshold to say where does something go from having too little systemic risk to worry about to enough that it should be treated separately here?" Mr. Elliot is well known as a former investment banker, former head and founder of COFFI, his own think tank, and a very prolific and insightful writer on financial reform issues with a book soon to be published titled "Uncle Sam in Pinstripes".

The biggest fear is what is known as a domino effect. Essentially, if a number of SIFI act in unison or a number of institutions engage in the same financial activities with an SIFI labeled entity, failure would knock one, then the next over, creating a systematic breakdown. But identifying who is at the greatest risk is a lot tougher than it sounds. Mr. Elliot points out that both irrational panic, such as a run on a bank creates, and rational panic, such as identifying the problem but making a wrongheaded assumption that whatever the problem is, it isn't really that bad, can both add to the systematic tumbling of one institution, and then another.

The recent crisis had a component about it that it turns out isn't all that unusual. In fact, most of the problems in the recent history all possess the same problems: assets that were overvalued and folks knew it and leverage that was chasing it, even if it knew it was overvalued. This embracing of risk is what causes systems to break and in some cases, have the potential for bringing the whole of the economy down with it.

Given their size, mutual funds were considered as well in the discussion (which can be found here). They are not directly leveraged nor are they intermediaries (such as insurers and re-insurers) or affiliates of larger financial institutions. In fact, mutual funds are generally referred to as pass-through entities. But some funds have worried regulators based on their size. But that size is not threatening if it isn't used as leverage.

The one exception Mr. Elliot pointed out was the money market mutual fund, an entity that many believe is, or should I say, was, as a safe as a bank - at least in the mind of the average investor. A buck, they thought was always a buck, until one moment during the financial crisis, when a MMF declared ti wasn't. Investors were told that there was risk. But with this sort of situation having never occurred, the risk was set aside for most investors.

While mutual funds may have escaped the scrutiny of those studying these financial risks, hedge funds, institutional investors (pensions) and some investment firms have not. Just because some funds fit some of the criteria, of which six are listed, doesn't mean that the Frank-Dodd regulations would necessarily miss this group altogether. They do have size but because of the number of funds available, they provide numerous substitutes for the services and products they provide investors.

There is an adequate degree of separation from other financial firms, an borrowing that they may do (leverage) is clearly stated by most funds in their charter. While many of the largest funds do face some liquidity risk if investors lose faith in the ability of the fund to perform, it usually occurs as a dribble of discontent rather than a one day sell-off. Mutual funds tend to keep a limited amount of cash on hand so a sell-off would be something that whole of the marketplace would be experiencing rather than just a handful of large funds (which all tend to be indexed to the market and not actively managed entities. In truth, funds that become too large, tend to lumber when attempting to move in either direction.

Those large index funds are passive. But some large bond funds may not be but their size keeps any sort of maturity mismatch from occurring. And the existing level of regulatory oversight provided by the SEC is seen as adequate to protect the overall system from any imminent problems.

Although MMF aren't necessarily problematic, as the Investment Company Institute, the lobby arm of the industry points out: "a liquidity backstop could provide reassurance to investors and thereby limit the risk that liquidity concerns in a single fund might spur in-creased redemptions".  There is a possibility that hedge funds might see this as an opportunity to roll what they do into into mutual funds. But the regulations provided by the SEC make this not as attractive.

It may be too soon for the mutual fund industry to breath a sigh of relief. While one or more of the 243 rules and 59 studies commissioned by Dodd-Frank may still find mutual funds in the crosshairs of the reform law, the industry believes that this will not happen.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer

Playing Worry: Approaching Retirement with Dread

Baby Boomers and those that follow you age-wise through the workforce all seem to very concerned about a single thing. You can't escape it.  You are having your choices about retirement and your plan diced and splayed and discussed in any number of forums.  None of the outcomes from these conversations are suggesting what you want to hear. So here's a flash: you're worried.

Insured Retirement Institute President and CEO Cathy Weatherford recently wrote "Unfortunately, as the promise of Social Security continues to be on unsure footing, working Americans are coming to realize that they will need more than just that paycheck to sustain them throughout their retirement." Even when the Employee Benefits Research Institute released its most recent report, concerns about retirement were, as they could only be expected to be, were the top concern.
And with that comes the numbers.  Now I tend to agree with Steven Strogatz, professor of applied mathematics at Cornell and the author of "The Calculus of Friendship when he suggests that although we are easily duped by words, numbers "brook no argument," he writes suggesting that they "are the best kind of facts."  he describes them as cold, hard, and objective. So when the EBRI reports that 69% of those recently surveyed believed that retirement accounts were extremely important, most of us agreed. Three out five the EBRI concludes from their question don't believe in Social Security and almost two-thirds say they lack confidence in the program enough to begin saving more.

Now to Ms. Weatherford's defense, she sells annuities.  So when she adds that "Increasingly, they [the working folks] are looking for ways of securing their retirement income through annuities, retirement savings accounts and other insured retirement strategies. Employers can play an important role in helping to connect employees with available benefits that can lead to a financially sound future."  I am left to ask the question: wasn't it the employers who got us to this point?

Although as the report, which was commissioned by Project 2010 suggests that 94% of the employers offer a plan of some sort, the less than surprising number is the actual participation.  With three-quarters of the employees that have access us them, it is the fourth that don't is the more troublesome number. And tucked inside these numbers is the fiduciary fib that these employers have done everything they could do to get their employees involved.

Employers are directly responsible for encouraging their employees to invest for their own futures.  Some incentivize their plans with matching contributions. Matching contributions do not have to be high in order to get their workers to participate in the plan.  In fact, studies have shown that a more modest matching contribution might actually spur the employee to put additional funds into their accounts. In the latest economic downturn, companies dropped or greatly reduced their matching contributions and are slow in returning to them.

The matching contribution does a great deal in getting the employee to do right by their own future.  But more important is the period of time between initially beginning the job and the actual beginning of their participation in the plan.  Some employers hold their matching contributions for a longer (than is necessary or even in some cases, realistic) vesting period giving the employee less incentive to invest if they feel as though they don't expect to remain at the job that long.

Some employers do offer plans that are both robust but well-supported with information and educational materials. But no plan is the be-a;;-to-end-all offering that would create the perfect scenario for everyone: employers, employees or the plan administrators. And also included in the report was the fact that 17% of the plans now offered annuities. Is this just an attempt at getting to that perfect "everything" plan?

This lack of what the investment industry refers to as a holistic approach, or decumulation, has professionals practically drooling in anticipation of of what these products can hold for their industry.  I don't really worry that my opinion about annuities will alter simply because this product has begun to emerge as the next big element in your retirement plan.  An annuity will always be an annuity and because of that, will always have more unanswered questions that concrete evidence that it is a better product as a whole instead of its parts.

Annuities are hybrids, born in the insurance industry as part insurance and part investment.  They are costly and unwieldy, ripe with fees and special ta situations for your heirs, hard to get rid of if you change your mind and don't necessarily do for women the way they provide for men.  That last part about women versus men is an actuarial adjustment for the longer lives women have. No other "investment" makes such a distinction.

Then there are the idea of guarantees. Annuities make certain promises, the largest of which is that they will never go out of business. Never is a really long time. And depending on the potential you might have for living longer than you anticipated, it would be nice to think that a company could never falter, never be affected from some unforetold expectation and never consider closing its doors for good. But it happens. It doesn't happen with your equity mutual funds and some bonds might default in your bond funds, but insurers are not forever. This is risk that is grossly understated.

What makes people so fearful about Social Security is the very thing that makes it work.  Whenever you can pool risk, you eliminate more than you create.  The fixes to Social Security are rather simple and even if you are decades from retirement, the program has the legs to continue on even in the face of the Boome onslaught (a wave that may effectively be not much more than swell in this post-recession economy). Annuities can't do what Social Security does and for good reason: there is no money to made.

In the name of fiduciary responsibility, plan sponsors will be begin to offer this sort of product with questions on cost, viability and suitability all left unanswered.  Even a simple CD could do the same sort of thing an annuity would, come with FDIC insurance and promise to never lose a penny.  A well paid CD tucked inside a retirement portfolio but outside the tax-deferred plan would help ease those fears just as well.

But the biggest fear is that when they do become available in your 401(k), they won't be one annuity, but a succession of small, mini-products, each with differing contracts. So far, no retirement plan has been able to answer the question of liquidity and security. Until those can be answered with any certainty the annuity will languish as an option, even with government support.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer

A Look at the Middle Class Boomer - in Two Parts

According to the most recent Investment Company Institute Factbook, the fund industry, based on what they refer to as emergence of fund entrepreneurs have made the middle class the money class.  With 90 million households owning mutual funds, either in their 401(k)s or some other type of defined contribution plan available n the workplace or through their investments in various types of IRAs, a picture of a mature and developed industry has emerged.

With 90 million Americans holding $12.2 trillion in assets in these investments, the ICI study, the 50th anniversary of this industry marketing factbook, points towards the ability of these funds to achieve a wide range of investment strategies that have helped 44% of households move closer to their financial goals. Admittedly, this increase in investment activity is the direct result of the creation of defined contribution plans and IRAs as pensions became less prominent in for retirement income.

While households have found the use of mutual funds to their liking, so have institutional investors and businesses found the tool a good place to park cash and short-term assets.  This increase, while not noted in the research may be contributing to the length of the recent economic downturn as business is reluctant to invest in their own operations, preferring to keep cash (which the ICI does note as a record) in money market accounts instead. Many of these entities have employed ETFs to a greater degree to keep those assets even more liquid.

But not all is well in terms of who offers these products. More here along with part two in this series.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer.

Spring Cleaning for your 401(k)

Most of us like to be reminded of the things we often forget. For instance, changing the batteries in your smoke detectors is often prompted by the change of the clocks. And despite numerous reminders to do these sorts of regular reviews of our retirement plans, specifically those of us who have the defined contribution sort, we seldom do.

Right around the end of the year is bad and not because of Christmas; because many mutual funds make distributions. Right around the beginning of the year is bad because we tend to break resolutions before we even have a chance to do anything. But doing so around tax-time may be the best solution. Your 401(k) after all, is a taxable (or should I say, tax-deferred) event.

Read more here

Boomer Investors Know: Mutual Fund Fees are Important

Boomer investors know better than most. They understand that no one ever said it was going to be easy being an investor. Mutual Funds, the mainstay of our 401(k) retirement plans and IRAs are no different than any other investment. They offer numerous layers, a multitude of nuances and of course, risk. And despite all of the information floating out in the public domain, the ability to tell one fund from the other is still difficult.

So the question is: Can you do the mathematical calculations required to find out how much your mutual fund is going to cost you? Chances are you might say yes, if you consider yourself a very savvy investor, able to filter all of the costs in the prospectus into a final number, understand the tax implications known and as yet unknown, and then be certain that you are right – or as close to right as humanly possible.

But chances are you can’t. Instead you fall squarely into the camp of investors who either have no clue or look at one guiding number and the vast majority of you are 401(k) or IRA investors as well. That number, widely advertised by the one group that lobbies in favor of mutual funds, Investment Company Institute or ICI comes in at an average of about 1.17% for all actively managed funds.

Most financial professionals, understanding that this is the average, suggest it as the top any client or interested investor should pay for the privilege of a little more risk than a simple index provides. Some also understand that this is more a moving target and unless they raise the cap to 1.5% as the max, they may exclude some of the better performing funds in the investment world, even at a slightly higher price.

Read the full article from Target2025.com on mutual fund math.

The Argument of Active versus Index, post 2009

In 2009, actively managed funds, despite lower inflows, outperformed their respective benchmarks handily.

In any given year, a handful of active mutual funds will do better than the benchmark index fund. And investors are usually warned, and I obligated to as well, that what is hot today or last quarter, even over the past year in all likelihood will not be so after you invest. This is why it is always recommended to look much further afield, at least five years, ten is even better see how well a fund has performed.

Should you switch your investment style in your retirement portfolio as a result? Read more here.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer.

Investing is Never Simple

Mutual fund investing should be a simple process. It should be straightforward and easy to understand. Unfortunately, once we get involved, we bring our own set of behaviors to the process. And Boomers as a rule, should know better.

In our first discussion about performance comparisons for mutual funds, we looked at the downside of simply comparing side-by-side an actively managed fund with one of the indexes that are published. These indexes span a wide variety of categories in order to help investors understand how the broader market has done in relation to the fund they own.

Which leads us to a discussion about fees.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer

A Boomer Look at Similar but Conflicting Investment Tools

There is a great deal of conversation going on about whether the ETF is a better than the mutual fund. Both have advantages and one, as you will find out, has more disadvantages than the other. Because we are basically discussing the approach to retirement, the concern among investors as to which would be better is relevant.

The argument is never clear. When we compare mutual funds to ETFs, we often miss the differences between the two in large part because we are discussing two different types of investments, how they should be used and what they are. Folks on the ETF side of the disagreement point out a variety of plus while conveniently leaving the minuses out of the conversation. People who argue for mutual funds are looking for something other than a simple index fund.

The Pluses of ETFs (with the minuses)
The tax benefits that are often touted by the ETF camp rely on the buy-and-hold strategy that index funds offer. It should be noted that when comparing these two investments, one should drop the vast majority of mutual funds from the argument and concentrate only on the index mutual fund.

With any investment, capital gains are a consideration. The only way these two can be compared on a tax basis is when there is a sale. While funds held outside of a 401(k) or other retirement account distribute capital gains on a regular basis, ETFs do so only when sold. An actively managed mutual fund (which is what numerous ETF supporters believe is a fair comparison) can generate a capital gains even if the fund losses money. Actively managed mutual funds shift the holdings in the fund during the course of the year and this does present the possibility that you will need to pay taxes on those transactions. But like index funds, ETFs only shift holdings when the index fund it tracks shifts holdings.

So in this argument, ETFs and index funds are similar in tax efficiency. But when ETFs are compared to actively managed funds, ETFs seem the better choice.

Are ETFs a more simple investment?
While you buy an ETF at a set price (which can also be done with index funds, the main difference is the when the price is fixed - in mutual funds it is at the four o'clock close; ETFs reprice throughout the day depending on how well the underlying portfolio has done) that price can gyrate wildly throughout the day. In fact, much of the last minute swings in the overall market are due to ETF positioning and may offer you a false picture of the underlying worth of the ETF.

Those for ETFs suggest that this one price, one trade principle makes these investments better. But the cost of that one trade can be much higher than the purchase of a mutual fund (actively managed or indexed) and that trade, which is whatever your brokerage account charges, is also a factor in the sale. If you add those two transaction to the cost and the fact that many mutual funds do not charge for the purchase of their shares, the argument about simplicity falls flat.

So in this argument, on the surface, ETFS seem less expensive but only as long as you buy and hold which is not what professionals do with this investment.

Perhaps ETFs are more cost-effective
Once again, ETFs cost you dollars to trade. While this is a fixed cost that can be calculated, mutual funds charge expenses against portfolio balances. This makes any mutual fund purchase, even index fund investments, subject to fee considerations. The lower the fee, the greater the cost-effectiveness. With ETFs, you do pay an underlying fee which when compared to index funds is often higher and you pay commissions on the purchase and sale.

One percent is one percent no matter who charges it but if you can buy one for nothing compared to the cost of a brokerage fee both in and out, the ETF argument runs into problems.

The ETF option
While there are numerous types of ETFs available there are also numerous types of mutual funds tracking essentially the same markets. Mutual funds offer sector investments just as ETFs do. Here ETFs are probably better. The simple reason is the ability to allow you to get in and out of a hot sector without any pain other than the cost of the trade. But for the vast majority of investors, their style is passive. They really want to do the research, make the decision and then let the money and the investment ride.

ETF investors crave action even if they do it under the guise of flexibility. They are essentially chasing the next hot corner of the market while mutual fund investors leave the pursuit up to the professional manager they hired.

So in this argument, ETFs play nicely to the investor who wants to move quickly in and out of a hot sector.

Are ETFs easier to transfer
Of course they are easier to transfer. Held in your brokerage account, the shares are yours to take wherever you want. Transferring assets in a mutual fund (index or actively managed) does require a bit of work and there may be a slight charge for the effort but this argument also falls flat. When moving a fund, those shares must be sold and there is a cost in doing so. But most mutual fund investors spend a great deal of time researching their investments (manager tenure, fees, performance and underlying holdings/investment style) and if they desire to move, it is because something has gone wrong with the fund. In this instance, moving a fund is worth the cost incurred. ETF investors move based on price value alone. And they move to another ETF.

So in this argument, the better research you do the more likely you are to buy an index fund and hold it or buy an actively managed fund and monitor it. Owning an ETF is always a temporary investment and the investor is always looking for another ETF to suit their needs.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer

In Your 401(k): Looking at Worst case Scenario Instead

It is simply our nature. Even when we think we are acting in our own best interest, we often allow optimism to rule most of our investment decisions. Yet, if we look closely at the worst case scenario instead of the best possible outcome, we might uncover some interesting tidbits of information that could help us achieve better results in our 401(k)s.

By now, most of us now realize that our mutual fund investments, particularly those in our retirement accounts, can go down, often dramatically. Until recently, we paid little attention to how bad a fund can perform, focusing instead on how well it can do.

Some of us use those online retirement calculators to help. Others simply look at historic gains and predict where we will be balance-wise in the far off future. We make random estimates of how much money will be in the account when we choose to begin drawing it down. And as we now know, this can be less than we anticipated (just ask anyone who has postponed their retirement because of a lower than expected balances).

So how do you determine the performance of a fund, or better, the risk that the fund will do what you intended it to do?

The Blame Game, revisited
Some hedge fund managers think they have the answer. It is complicated? Yes. Is it impossible for the average investor to determine? Not if you consider the manager as the sole blame for the fund's performance.

Mutual fund managers are part of the equation you use to pick a fund. Tucked in amongst the performance of the fund, the underlying holdings and the fees, we look at the fund manager's tenure. The assumption being that the fund manager will do much better the longer s/he has been at the helm. Tenure also assumes that the fund will have stabilized over the period that the manager is in control.

Fund managers as we (should) know must follow the charter of the fund. This is not as easy as it sounds. Far too many fund managers fail in their attempts to avoid style drift, a notoriously common occurrence whereby the fund manager tries to imitate whatever index works, in the hope of mimicking the return of the benchmark it will compare itself to at the quarter's end. This is managing for the upside, often shifting holdings at or near the quarter's end to give the appearance of better-than-average performance.

So we look at the end result when we should be looking much more closely at what occurred during the periods between reporting.

Some fund watchers suggest that simply looking at these sorts of results is not only the wrong thing to use as a way to decide where to invest but will also cause you to assume that good times are part of the continuing experience of investing. As we know, markets go down. How the fund manager did during this peak to valley performance is, as some are beginning to realize, a better indication of how well the fund has done and the manager has performed.

Richard Gates, portfolio manager for TFS Capital thinks "the best way to estimate risk is to try to quantify a portfolio's downside volatility. In other words, how much money can I lose in a given period of time?"

Wandering in the Valley
Volatility is an excellent measure of the fund's performance during certain periods. But few of us look at the way the fund manager managed the portfolio (during her/his current tenure and better, their performance in the past) as the indication that your fund will do as expected in the future.

Fund managers are awash in information and you rely on their ability to parse this information, apply it to where you would like the fund to go in the future, and limit the downside risk. Your fund may have lost money; but did it lose as much as comparable funds (benchmarks excluded)?

Some analysts suggest that instead of looking at the best day and make withdrawal assumptions based on that point of reference, you should look at the worst day, the moment when your portfolio looks its weakest. If is better than most, you have hooked your fortune to the right manager.

But don't limit your assumptions with the current fund under management. Look at all of the performance results from every fund they have managed. Digging a fund out of a bad period is perhaps the best indication of the fund manager's expertise.

This is no easy task. Funds on the downside of expectations face some unusual pressures. Investors bail in disgust forcing redemptions to rise which force the fund manager to sell underlying winners. This creates a tax situation that all of us would have rather be avoided. There is less money to channel towards new investment opportunities and the fund struggles. How they turn this around may be the single best indicator of their skills. Past results, it seems, matter more than you might expect.

Paul Petillo
Managing Editor/BlueCollarDollar.com
Contact Paul with questions.