Acive v. Passive: The Most Appropriate Investment Vehicle for the Vast Majority of Investors

In this, the third installment of active v. passive investing we attempt to do a bit of a deeper dive and find out where Nobel Prize winning economists stand on this subject.

It was Nobel Prize winner - Professor Harry Markowitz - who first emphasized the importance of studying the risks and returns of an entire portfolio. Really the cornerstone of all of what we call Modern Portfolio Theory rests on this idea of diversification. And until Harry Markowitz gave what was essentially an engineering analysis of how stock price movements interacted with each other, nobody had ever really considered it. Even though prices don’t move in a smooth fashion, prices do go up and down over time. So a stock will go up and down, sometimes many times over the course of a day, but certainly over longer periods of time. And basically what he discovered was, that’s true and every stock does that, but they don’t do it at the same time, and it’s almost like if you think of two sine waves that are in opposite phase with each other, they ultimately cancel each other out. And even though it was not the case that these stocks were in opposite phase, as long as though they weren’t in exactly the same phase with each other, you still get some dampening effect.

Then, in the 1960s came another important breakthrough, when Professor William Sharpe (also A Nobel Winner) developed what he called the Capital Asset Pricing Model The CAPM, as it’s often referred to, is a model for determining the price of a capital asset such as a stock or a bond in an efficient market. The price, depends on two things - the risk of holding that security when markets fall and the expected return. Ideally, an investor should hold all the available securities within a particular market.

In the CAPM, Sharpe also introduced the concept of market beta - the measure of the volatility of a security, or portfolio, in comparison to the market as a whole.

Sharpe referred simply to market risk. But, in the decades that followed, fellow academics identified specific types of risk, or beta, often referred to as factors. This gave rise in the 1990s to the Fama-French Three-Factor Model.

Professor Ken French from Tuck School of Business says: “What we mean by factors are things that drive common variation across stocks. So if I’m trying to say, well, airline stocks tend to move together, you could imagine an airline stock factor because it’s going to pick up common variation. Or if you say, well, some stocks tend to move a lot when the market goes up, some stocks don't move so much when the market goes up. We can have a market factor in there that just picks up the difference in the way that stocks move relative to the market. We happen to know small stocks tend to move together and big stocks tend to move together. Put together a size factor, something the way we defined it, we had lots of small stocks and we’re short lots of big stocks that would pick up that variation between how small stocks behave and how big stocks behave. So there was the overall sensitivity to the stock market. We also knew small stocks had a higher premium than big stocks and small stocks tended to move together relative to big stocks. And then we also knew value stocks, companies whose ratio of book to market, earnings to price, or cash floated price - something where it was a fundamental of the company divided by the price. Those value stocks tend to have a higher average return than growth stocks.”

To the original three factors - market risk, size and value - French and Fama have since added two more, profitability and investment. So, companies with higher future earnings will have higher stock market returns. And, perhaps surprisingly, firms that increase capital investment tend to produce poorer subsequent performance than those that don’t.

Now some of that might sound a little complicated. But these are the basic building blocks of what is often referred to as the science of the capital markets. These are very important principles with implications for every investor. 

So, how can investors apply the academic evidence - the lessons learned from more than a hundred years of rigorous research? How can we apply that to achieving financial goals?

Most of all, the evidence should make us extremely wary of anyone who claims that they have the knowledge to beat the market. Because markets are fundamentally efficient, consistent outperformance is almost impossible. So, instead of paying large sums in fees to active fund managers to deliver average returns, we should invest instead in passive funds that simply track an index at a much lower cost.

Ultimately, though, it’s not about theories or intellectual arguments at all. It all boils down to simple mathematics.

Nobel Prize-winning economist William Sharpe says: “Think about all the securities in a marketplace and think about a strategy of investing proportionally, or broad indexing. If I have one percent of the money in that market, I’ll buy one percent of the stocks of every company in the market and I’ll buy one percent of the outstanding bonds. So I’ll have a portfolio that truly reflects the marketplace. Then think about all the people engaging in other strategies, active strategies, holding different amounts of this or that. Then you ask at the end of any period - What did the passive investors earn before costs? And let’s say that’s 10 percent, just to take a number. What did the active investors make before costs? It has to be the same number. So, before costs, the total market made 10 percent, the indexers made 10 percent and the active investors made 10 percent. After costs is a different story. A well-designed index fund should have a very low cost of management. It should also have very low turnover, very low transactions costs. Actively managed funds by their very nature have higher management fees, they employ more skilled people. They also have transaction costs because they’re active. So, after costs, the average passive investor must outperform the average active investor. That’s just arithmetic.”

The cost dispute, from an investment perspective, is counter-intuitive. If you think about your purchases in other areas of your life, if you’re out buying a car, you can buy a Porsche or a Mazda – and you’re going to feel a difference in the car. Whether it’s worth that price differential to you, only you as the buyer makes that decision. But you are definitely going to feel that there is a difference in quality in terms of power, styling, finish and so forth. In investing, that equation does not hold. When you think about yourself as a consumer (not an investor), we are used to ‘the more I pay, the higher the quality, or the better the results I get’. You come to investing and it’s just the opposite, and that is a really hard behavior for us to un-learn.

So, the fund industry won’t tell you this - it has far too much to lose by doing so - but by far the most appropriate investment vehicle for the vast majority of investors is the index fund.
Although it’s a relatively simple way to invest, requiring very little maintenance, there are still some very important decisions for index fund investors to make. Which I will elaborate on in the next post.

CBlakely CFP®, CTFA           12/2014

Source: YouTube video interviews of Professors William Sharpe, Kenneth French and Eugene Fama

Active v. Passive Investing - What the Experts Say

Continuing on the narrative of the prior post, this post adds the thoughts of John Bogle and Charles Ellis to the active versus passive debate.

Fund managers aim to maximize investment returns. Over time, markets deliver returns on their own. They’re what we call the market return. We pay managers to deliver more than the market return. In fact, after costs, they rarely do. John Bogle who is a sceptic of active fund management described it as an industry built on witchcraft.

Of course, the fund management companies could justify high fees if they added significant value. Unfortunately, the performance of actively managed funds is consistently less than those realized by the market as a whole.

Mr. Bogle says: “We have the most prevalent rule that applies to fund managers everywhere, and that is reversion to the mean. A fund that gets way ahead in the market falls way back behind it. It’s witchcraft in the sense that it’s managers hovering over a table thinking that they have the answer. The intellectual basis for indexing is (as I’ve said), is gross return minus cost equals net return. Period. What is the intellectual basis for active management? I’ve never heard one. The closest I have come is a manager saying ‘I can do better’. They all say ‘I can do better’, 100 percent of them say I can do better than the market. But 100 percent don’t. Probably about one percent of managers can beat the market over the very long term.”

In fact, in many cases active funds were trounced by passive funds. For example, over ten years ended 2012, passive North American equity funds delivered average returns of 2.6%, as opposed to 1.7% delivered by active funds. Passive Japanese equity funds recorded average returns of 2.6%, compared to 2.0% for active. What’s more, these returns do not take into account the impact of fund fees.

Currently we have exceptionally talented portfolio managers who are trying to out-compete one another in a giant negative-sum-game. Not a zero-sum-game, but a negative-sum-game, because while they’re doing this, they are extracting charges and fees on an annual basis which erode the capital of investors. In this competition of trying to out-compete one another, there are bound to be winners and losers every year, and there are some that claim that they add value, i.e. they win more often than they lose, but if we actually examine the data, it is nearly impossible to work out who is going to outperform the rest on a consistent basis. For virtually all investors, making a decision as to which active fund to invest in is like a lottery.

This underperformance is understandable. Fees are often too high and have been rising over the past half century as skillful and diligent investment managers using technology along with near immediate dissemination of new information (think Reg. FD) have made the markets increasingly efficient. Thus, most managers will be unable to absorb the costs of trading and fees and still achieve better-than-market rates of return. Underperformance after costs is not just understandable; it is to be expected as professional investors’ trading went from a small minority 50 years ago to an overwhelming majority today.

The real valued added for investors is centered on counseling—defining the appropriate long-term objectives, risk constraints, liquidity needs, and market realities.

Gradually, however, investors have been shifting from active performance managers to indexing. The pace may appear slow, but it has been accelerating.

It is ironic that the skills of active managers have made it improbable that—other than by random chance—any specific active manager will outperform the market index for clients. Indeed, the high cost of active management combined with its less than market average track record - and the near impossibility of identifying the next star performer - should make the average investor wary.

CBlakely, CFP®       10/2014

Sources: Financial Analysts Journal July/August 2014, Volume 70 Issue 4, Rise and Fall of Performance Investing, Charles D. Ellis, CFA.   AAII Journal, June 2014, Achieving Greater Long-Term Wealth through Index Funds

Active v. Passive Investing - What Works and for Whom

The next several posts will attempt to add some clarity as to which strategy may work best for different types of investors.

Its fund managers whom the vast majority of us trust with our long-term stock and bond investments. They choose which stocks and other assets to invest in on our behalf - and decide when the time is right to buy and sell. But, time and again, research has shown that we over-estimate quite how talented fund managers are and how much value they add.

For all the talk of “star” performers, the empirical evidence shows that only a tiny fraction of them outperform the market with any meaningful degree of consistency. In the UK, researchers examined 516 UK equity funds between 1998 and 2008, and found that just 1 percent of managers were able to produce sufficient returns to cover their trading and operating costs.

The remaining 99 percent of fund managers failed to deliver any outperformance - either from stock selection or from market timing (always a suckers bet).

While a tiny number of “star” managers do exist, they are incredibly hard to identify. Furthermore, the research shows it takes over 20 years of performance data to be 90 percent sure that a particular manager’s outperformance is genuinely due to skill.

According to the research, for most investors, it is simply not worth paying the vast majority of fund managers to actively manage their assets. We think we’re paying for better performance and that greater skill will produce superior results. But investing almost always works the opposite way round. The less you pay, the more you keep. Counter-intuitive, but it’s true.

.

The investment industry and the media (think CNBC) tend to focus on historical fund performance. But Morningstar research shows that the most reliable indicator of long-term investment returns is in fact cost. Nobel Prize-winning economist Eugene Fama says: "If you're paying big management fees, the cumulative effect of that, given the way compounding works, is enormous."

So what sort of impact do fees and charges have on the value of our long-term investments? Well, over 40 years, your retirement fund, worth say $500,000 with no fees, would be reduced to just $349,100 with an annual charge of 1.5 percent. If overall charges reach 2.5% - and when trading costs are included, that’s not uncommon - this reduces the value of your retirement fund to less than $280,000.





So, even at 1.5 percent, almost a third of your retirement fund is lost in fees, rising to 44 percent when charges increase to 2.5 percentage points.




The message for investors is clear: keep costs as low as possible or find the one percent of funds that truly outperform over the long-term, this is crucial to a successful investment experience. With the stakes so high it makes sense to seek out the advice of a credentialed investment advisor who will look at the big picture with you.

CBlakely CFP®, CTFA           10/2014

Sources: Transcript of interview with Nobel Prize winning Professor Eugene Fama, Pensions Institute (Cass Business School) Discussion Paper PI-1404, Morningstar

Is What Warren Buffett And Charlie Munger Thought In 1996 Relevant Today?

I was looking at some past Chairman’s Letters from Berkshire Hathaway (penned by Buffett and Munger) and thought you might enjoy some insightful excerpts from the 1996 letter. What was relevant for intelligent investors eighteen years ago remains so today.

On Investment Fees

   “Seriously, costs matter.  For example, equity mutual funds incur corporate expenses - largely payments to the funds' managers - that average about 100 basis points, a levy likely to cut the returns their investors earn by 10% or more over time.  Charlie and I make no promises about Berkshire's results.  We do promise you, however, that virtually all of the gains Berkshire makes will end up with shareholders.  We are here to make money with you, not off you.”

(They are talking about actively managed mutual funds and the current average expense ratio for actively managed funds is about 1.3 percent or 130 basis points. Also worth noting, only 39 percent of active managers beat their benchmarks in 2012. So for the majority of investors in actively managed funds you not only made less than the average index fund investor you paid more for the privilege.)

On Taxes

   “In 1961, President Kennedy said that we should ask not what our country can do for us, but rather ask what we can do for our country.  Last year we decided to give his suggestion a try - and who says it never hurts to ask?  We were told to mail $860 million in income taxes to the U.S. Treasury.”

     “Here's a little perspective on that figure:  If an equal amount had been paid by only 2,000 other taxpayers, the government would have had a balanced budget in 1996 without needing a dime of taxes - income or Social Security or what have you - from any other American.  Berkshire

Shareholders can truly say, ‘I gave at the office.’”

     “Charlie and I believe that large tax payments by Berkshire are entirely fitting.  The contribution we thus make to society's well-being is at most only proportional to its contribution to ours.  Berkshire prospers in America as it would nowhere else.”

(This is not relevant to this blog post but with more U.S. companies changing domicile to foreign countries to avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes – which are the highest – I found Berkshire’s perspective interesting.)

On Common Stock Investments

    

“Our portfolio shows little change:  We continue to make more money when snoring than when active.”

     “Inactivity strikes us as intelligent behavior.  Neither we nor most business managers would dream of feverishly trading highly-profitable subsidiaries because a small move in the Federal Reserve's discount rate was predicted or because some Wall Street pundit had reversed his views on the market.  Why, then, should we behave differently with our minority positions in wonderful businesses?  The art of investing in public companies successfully is little different from the art of successfully acquiring subsidiaries.  In each case you simply want to acquire, at a

sensible price, a business with excellent economics and able, honest management.  Thereafter, you need only monitor whether these qualities are being preserved.”

“Let me add a few thoughts about your own investments.  Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees. Those following this path are sure to beat the net results (after fees and expenses) delivered by the great majority of investment professionals.”

     “Should you choose, however, to construct your own portfolio, there are a few thoughts worth remembering.  Intelligent investing is not complex, though that is far from saying that it is easy.  What an investor needs is the ability to correctly evaluate selected businesses. Note that word "selected":  You don't have to be an expert on every company, or even many.  You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence.  The size of that circle is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.”

     “To invest successfully, you need not understand beta, efficient markets, modern portfolio theory, option pricing or emerging markets.  You may, in fact, be better off knowing nothing of these.  That, of course, is not the prevailing view at most business schools, whose finance curriculum tends to be dominated by such subjects.  In our view, though, investment students need only two well-taught courses - How to Value a Business, and How to Think About Market Prices.”

     “Your goal as an investor should simply be to purchase, at a rational price, a part interest in an easily-understandable business whose earnings are virtually certain to be materially higher five, ten and twenty years from now.  Over time, you will find only a few companies that meet these standards - so when you see one that qualifies, you should buy a meaningful amount of stock.  You must also resist the temptation to stray from your guidelines:  If you aren't willing to own a stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes.  Put together a portfolio of companies whose aggregate earnings march upward over the years, and so also will the portfolio's market value.”

(To summarize their thoughts on common stock investments: Buy and hold with a long-term time horizon and unless you really know how to value a business and understand market pricing, buy index funds. I might add that using the services of an accredited advisor to help you reach your future goals and manage expectations with regard to financial planning and portfolio construction may be the best idea of all.)

CBlakely, CFP®             06/2014

Source: BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., Chairman's Letter, 1996

Understanding the AMT

During tax time, using regular IRS rules you start with your gross income, subtract deductions and exemptions and eventually you arrive at your taxable income amount. Sounds simple unless your income is too high and you take too many deductions. Enter the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is basically a simple flat tax system, the rate is 26 percent on the first $175,000 of income and 28 percent on anything above. You add up all your income, subtract the few allowable deductions, deduct the AMT exemption - which makes up for all the other forgone deductions - and viola you arrive at your taxable income. When you think about it, it really is much simpler than the current system in place.

But the reality is if you are exposed to the AMT you need to calculate your taxes under both the regular system then back out AMT adjustments and preference items, apply the AMT exemption, careful to note phase outs, and calculate your second tax liability. You end up paying the larger of the two.

When figuring AMT, even though some deductions still stand, including those for mortgage-interest and charitable donations, some key breaks are lost. They include: state and local income taxes and property taxes, child-tax credits and home-equity loan interest.

Everyone who files taxes is obligated to figure out whether they have to pay AMT (see line 45 on the 1040). The worksheet and Form 6251 can be difficult and time consuming which is why a significant majority of AMT payers hire a CPA professional. The first time most people hear about the Alternative Minimum Tax is when they get a letter from the IRS saying that they still owe money. To avoid this, check out "AMT Assistant," an online tool offered by the IRS that helps you determine whether you need to pay the AMT – if you decide to DIY.

There are some AMT planning strategies that should be examined to minimize your tax burden. Michael Kitces a CFP® and blogger who is well respected in the industry, noted in a recent blog post:

Under the regular tax system, good tax planning is relatively straightforward – since tax brackets just rise as income increases, the goal is to defer income when income is high (and the tax brackets will be high), and accelerate income when income is low (e.g., harvest it in the form of capital gains or Roth conversions, to avoid having too much income that drives the client into higher brackets in the future).

With the AMT, though, planning is different. In the case of the AMT, the system is a (relatively) flat tax system with only two brackets of 26% and 28%. Accelerating income isn’t necessarily helpful, and deferring income isn’t necessarily harmful, as the tax rates hardly vary anyway. However, one important nuance of the AMT system is that, as income rises, the large AMT exemption that “everyone” gets is itself phased out. Once the phaseout threshold is reached (at $117,300 for individuals and $156,500 for married couples, indexed annually for inflation), every additional $1 of income also phases out $0.25 of the exemption, which at a 26% - 28% tax rate is actually the equivalent of a 6.5% - 7.0% “surtax”.

As a result, taxpayers who are phasing out their AMT exemption actually face a “bump zone” of tax rates, as their AMT marginal tax rate jumps up to 32.5% and then 35%, before ultimately falling “back” down to 28% once the AMT exemption is fully phased out!

Given this unusual “bump” in marginal tax rates in the middle, AMT tax planning takes on a rather unique approach – simply put, the goal is to “avoid the bump” to the extent possible. If income is low, this means the best approach is to spread out or defer income, stay below the bump zone. However, if income is high, the best approach may actually be to accelerate income to avoid the bump zone in the future, since the top AMT rate remains ‘capped’ at maximum rate of only 28% (and 20% + 3.8% = 23.8% for capital gains at those income levels) once the exemption is phased out.

So as you prepare your taxes (or have then prepared) be on the lookout if your deductions and exemptions under the normal code are close the AMT exemption and also if your adjusted gross income changes significantly due to itemized deductions and exemptions. And as always, when in doubt, contact a certified professional.

CBlakely, CFP®    04/2014

Sources: NY Times, IRS, NerdsEyeView blog

The Back-Door IRA Strategy

The back-door IRA is, if done properly, a “contribute and convert” strategy. There are income limits on Roth IRA contributions (currently AGI of $188,000 or greater for couples filing jointly). However, there are no adjusted gross income limits on Roth IRA conversions. So as an investor you might have income that doesn’t qualify for direct Roth contributions but since there are no income limits on a traditional IRA you can still contribute to a non-deductible traditional IRA and then convert it to a Roth IRA. With this back-door Roth feature, what investors could do is contribute toward a traditional IRA and then quickly, convert it to a Roth IRA. This two-step process allows high-income earners to participate in the benefits of a Roth IRA (assuming this is a strategy the investor is interested in pursuing).

Two important considerations:

First, do the conversion quickly after the original contribution is made so that the account doesn’t accumulate any earnings, if it does, the rollover triggers income tax only on the appreciation of the after-tax contributions, which would likely be negligible. Repeat the technique each year using the same traditional IRA and Roth IRA.

Second, if you have other traditional IRAs that will not be converted, the IRS requires you to aggregate all of those IRAs, so this could potentially be a taxable event. This is due to the "pro-rata" rule, requiring investors with pre-tax contributions in a traditional IRA as well as nondeductible IRA contributions to divide the value of their nondeductible contributions by their aggregate IRA assets to determine what percentage can be converted tax-free. Which is why this technique works best for younger professionals with high incomes that don't already have a large amount of savings in a traditional IRA’s.

One advantage of this strategy is drawing from a Roth IRA will help reduce the income taxes owed in retirement when you begin taking distributions. When the conditions are right, this is a practical solution for investors who want to maximize their retirement earnings and retirement cash-flow.

As always, remember that all investing is subject to risk so it is wise to consult an accredited professional before making investment decisions.

CBlakely  CFP®                          01/2014

10 Tips From FINRA for a Successful Rollover

FINRA, the FInancial Industry Regulatory Authority gives investors 10 tips to consider before rolling over an account. If you are considering rolling over money from an employer plan into an IRA—or if you have been in contact with a financial professional to do so—follow these tips to decide whether an IRA rollover is right for you.

1. Evaluate your transfer options. You generally have four choices. You can usually keep some or all your savings in your former employer's plan (check with your benefits office to see what the company's policy is). You can transfer assets to your new employer's plan, if allowed (again, check with the benefits or human resources office). You can roll over your plan assets into an IRA. Or you can cash out your balance. There are pros and cons to each, but cashing out your account is rarely a good idea for younger individuals. If you are under age 59½, the IRS generally will consider your payout an early distribution, meaning you could owe a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty on top of federal and applicable state and local taxes.

2. Minimize taxes by rolling Roth to Roth and traditional to traditional. If you decide to roll over your retirement plan assets to an IRA, you can choose either a traditional IRA or Roth IRA. No taxes are due if you roll over assets from a traditional plan to a traditional IRA, or if you roll over your contributions and earnings from a Roth plan to a Roth IRA. But if you decide to move from a traditional plan to a Roth IRA, you will have to pay taxes on the rollover amount you convert. It's a good idea to consult with your plan administrator, as well as financial and tax professionals about the tax implications of each option.

Tip: Special Treatment of Employer Matches in Roth Plans
The IRS requires that any employer match of contributions made to a Roth plan be placed in a pre-tax account and treated like matching assets in a traditional plan. To avoid taxes when rolling over a Roth plan that includes matching contributions from your employer, you will need to request the transfer of your contributions and earnings to a Roth IRA and your employer's matching contributions and earnings to a traditional IRA.

3. Think twice before you do an indirect rollover. With a direct rollover, you instruct your former employer to send your 401(k) assets directly to your new employer's plan or to an IRA—and you never have to handle the money yourself. With an indirect rollover, you start by requesting a lump-sum distribution from your plan administrator and then take responsibility for completing the transfer. Indirect rollovers have significant tax consequences. You will not get the full amount because the plan is required to withhold 20 percent to ensure that taxes will be paid if the rollover is not completed. You must deposit the funds in an IRA within 60 days to avoid taxes on pretax contributions and earnings—and to avoid the potential of an additional 10 percent tax penalty if you are younger than 59½. If you want to defer taxes on the full amount you cashed out, you will have to add funds from another source equal to the 20 percent withheld by the plan administrator (you get the 20 percent back if you properly complete the rollover). Learn more about direct and indirect rollovers.

4. Be wary of "Free" or "No Fee" claims. Competition among financial firms for IRA business is strong, and advertising about rollovers and IRA-related services is common. In some cases, the advertising can be misleading. FINRA has observed (PDF 47 KB) overly broad language in advertisements and other sales material that implies there are no fees charged to investors who have accounts with the firms. Even if there are no costs associated with a rollover itself, there will almost certainly be costs related to account administration, investment management or both. Don't roll over your retirement funds solely based on the word "free."

5. Realize that conflicts of interest exist. Financial professionals who recommend an IRA rollover might earn commissions or other fees as a result. In contrast, leaving assets in your old employer's plan or rolling the assets to a plan sponsored by your new employer likely results in little or no compensation for a financial professional. In short, even if the recommendation is sound, any financial professional who recommends you move money from an employer-sponsored retirement plan into an IRA could benefit financially from that move.

6. Compare investment options and other services. An IRA often enables you to select from a broader range of investment options than available in an employer plan, but might not offer the same options your employer plan does. Whether the IRA options are attractive will depend, in part, on how satisfied you are with the options offered by your current or new employer's plan. Some employer plans also provide access to investment advice, planning tools, telephone help lines, educational materials and workshops. Similarly, IRA providers offer different levels of service, which may include full brokerage service, investment advice and distribution planning. If you are considering a self-directed IRA, consider the tradeoffs.

7. Understand fees and expenses. Both employer-sponsored plans and IRAs involve investment-related expenses and plan or account fees. Investment-related expenses can include sales loads, commissions, the expenses of any mutual funds in which assets are invested and investment advisory fees. Plan fees can include administrative costs (recordkeeping and compliance fees, for instance) and fees for services, such as access to a customer service representative. In some cases, employers pay for some or all of the plan's administrative expenses. IRA account fees can include administrative, account set-up and custodial fees, among others. Before making a rollover decision, know how much you are currently paying for your plan. Compare that to the fees and expenses of a new plan or IRA. For more information about 401(k) fees, see the Department of Labor's publication, A Look at 401(k) Plan Fees. For IRA fees, ask your financial professional to provide you with information about fees and expenses, and read your account agreement and any investment prospectuses.

8. Engage in a thoughtful discussion with your financial or tax professional. Don't be shy about raising issues such as tax implications, differences in services, and fees and expenses between retirement savings alternatives. If your financial professional recommends that you sell securities in your plan or purchase securities in a newly opened IRA, ask what makes the recommendation suitable for you. As with any investment, if you don't understand it, don't buy it.

9. Age matters. If you leave your job between age 55 and 59½, you may be able to take penalty-free withdrawals from an employer-sponsored plan. In contrast, penalty-free withdrawals generally are not allowed from an IRA until age 59½. Once you reach age 70½, the rules for both traditional employer plans and traditional IRAs require the periodic withdrawal of certain minimum amounts, known as the required minimum distribution (RMD). The RMD rules also apply to Roth 401(k) accounts. However, the RMD rules do not apply to Roth IRAs while the owner is alive. If you are still working at age 70½, however, you generally are not required to make required minimum distributions from your current employer's plan. This may be advantageous for those who plan to work into their 70s.

10. Assess the tax implications of appreciated company stock. Some retirement plans feature company securities (such as stocks, bonds or debentures)—and, as with earnings on other investments, any increase in their value will typically be subject to ordinary income tax when you withdraw the securities from the plan. But if you're considering a distribution of company stock or securities when you leave the company, be aware that special IRS rules might allow you to defer paying taxes on the appreciation (which the IRS calls "net unrealized appreciation"). Consult your plan administrator and financial and tax professionals about tax scenarios related to appreciated company securities.

CBlakely, CFP®                     01/2014

Source: FINRA

Roth Conversions for High Income Earners

First the Facts

Conversions from regular IRAs to Roth retirement accounts for high income earners increased more than nine times in 2010, rising to $64.8 billion from $6.8 billion in 2009, according to recently released data by the Internal Revenue Service.

That marked the first time Roth conversions were greater than contributions. Conversions were especially common among IRA holders with annual incomes exceeding $1 million. More than 10 percent of them converted to a Roth account, the IRS said.

The increase in conversions stemmed from a 2006 law that set 2010 for ending a $100,000 income limit on Roth conversions. There’s no ceiling on conversions if an investor has multiple IRAs and no cap on the amount that can be shifted. Congress passed a similar law in 2013 allowing for easier conversions into Roth 401(k) accounts.

Taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million made up 4 percent of the 869,400 Roth conversions in 2010; they moved $14.4 billion, or 22 percent of the money.

Assets in individual retirement accounts, known as IRAs, totaled $6 trillion as of Sept. 30, 2013 according to the Investment Company Institute. Almost four out of 10 U.S. households owned IRAs in 2013, ICI data show. About 16 percent of U.S. households, or 19 million, have Roth IRAs compared with about 36 million owners of regular IRAs in 2013, according to the ICI.

Wealthy investors can better manage their tax liability in retirement and pass the Roth accounts to heirs free of income tax. If your IRA account is not necessary for you to live on during retirement, this is potentially a very powerful, low cost estate planning strategy and you’re paying the taxes for your beneficiaries.

Contrasts between Traditional and Roth

Contributions to a regular IRA are tax-deferred, with up-front deductions and taxes owed when the money is withdrawn from the account, appreciation is tax deferred. At 70 ½ you are generally required to begin taking distributions.

In contrast, Roth accounts are built with post-tax money. The appreciation within a Roth account is not subject to tax. Roth IRA’s waive the annual required minimum distribution. Roth distributions are tax-free during your lifetime and Roth accounts inherited by your beneficiaries are tax-free over their lifetimes.

If Converted

Generally, converted assets in the Roth IRA must remain there for at least five years to avoid penalties and taxes. Distributions from a Roth IRA are tax-free and penalty-free provided that the five-year aging requirement has been satisfied and at least one of the following conditions has been met:

• You reach age 59½
• You pass away
• You become disabled
• You make a qualified first-time home purchase

But if you pay taxes on a conversion at a higher rate than you would have owed on traditional IRA withdrawals, it does take time for tax-free earnings to overcome that disadvantage. Just how long depends on the difference in tax rates and the performance of your investments, so making the switch may not make sense. Or you may consider converting just part of your traditional IRA assets. Having both traditional and Roth IRAs gives you tax diversification. It may even help you avoid falling into a higher tax bracket.

As with any tax and investment strategy, consult an accredited investment advisor or a tax advisor before making any decision regarding conversion.

CBlakely, CFP®, CTFA                                      Jan 2014

Sources: Bloomberg News, Vanguard, Fidelity