AssetBuilder Inc, - Registered Invesment Advisor - Simple Investing Smart Future
in

Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived

First, Do No Harm

061105-image.jpgWhich would you rather be: a government employee or a surgeon?

Yes, this is a trick question. It came to mind as I read a recent Investment News article announcing a new mutual fund.

Here's the story.

Given the choice, most people would choose to be surgeons because surgeons make a lot more money than government employees. Even better, few patients chide their surgeons by saying, "I'm a taxpayer… and I pay your salary."

But government employees are better off than the rest of us when it comes to retirement investing. They have the TSP, the federal employee Thrift Savings Plan. This plan now offers diversified index portfolios at a cost of about 5 basis points a year.

Yes, you read that right--- five one-hundredths of one percent.

This minuscule cost, as you will soon see, can mean a government employee may retire and have nearly $1.5 million more than a surgeon who saved the same amount over the same period of time.

That's a lot of money, even for surgeons.

Surgeons, until recently, were on their own, ready victims. Because they make more money than most people, surgeons get unrelenting attention from the investment industry sales force.

Now the American College of Surgeons is offering a possible remedy, the Surgeons Diversified Investment Fund. The new fund will be available to U.S. citizens who are members of the group, their families, and employees. It will also be available to affiliated retirement plans and physician practice plans.

According to the prospectus, the new fund will invest up to 100 percent of its assets in exchange-traded funds. The ETFs will be selected by its sub-adviser, Northern Trust Co. The fund intends to keep about 70 percent of its assets in a variety of domestic and foreign equity ETFs and 30 percent in fixed income ETFs.

Sounds pretty interesting, doesn't it?

Too bad about the expenses. The fund will pay a hefty 1 percent a year in management fees. Another 0.25 percent a year is a 12b-1 charge for distribution fees. And, finally, an estimated 0.67 percent a year goes for "other expenses."

That's a total, excluding ETF expenses, of 1.92 percent. Recognizing that this is a new fund and that the expenses are high, management has agreed to an expense waiver of 0.57 percent a year. So fund expenses will not exceed 1.35 percent a year--- plus the 0.30 percent cost of the underlying ETFs.

In a telephone interview, Savi Pai, chief operating officer of the management company, pointed out that the average managed fund costs 1.4 percent a year. She hoped rising assets would eventually reduce costs. "We hope to provide the lowest-cost trusted source vehicle that we can," she said.

That's a noble objective.

The problem is getting there. While the fund may serve the surgeons well when its costs are much lower, current costs are a problem.

We can measure the size of the problem by taking an extreme example. Suppose you are one of the few government employees who make $100,000 a year, that your income rises by 5 percent a year, and that you save 10 percent of your salary. If you invested in a similar portfolio through the Thrift Savings Plan, you could expect a gross return of about 9 percent a year before expenses, or a net return of 8.95 percent.

Starting at age 30 and retiring at age 67, your annual investment would accumulate to a whopping $5,183,000, according to my retirement plan accumulation calculator.

A struggling young surgeon who followed an identical investment plan but did it with the Surgeons Diversified Investment Fund could expect a gross return of about 9 percent a year before expenses, or a net return of 7.35 percent a year. Following the same investment path, the young surgeon would accumulate $3,715,000.

He would have $1,468,000 less than the government employee.

That's the impact of high expenses.

To be fair, the comparison is extreme--- extraordinary low costs are available only to government employees, not the general public. Were Surgeons Diversified Investment Fund to run at a cost of 80 basis points--- slightly more than the largest managed life cycle funds--- our surgeon would accumulate $4,423,073 over the same period. That's $759,000 less than the government employee but a hefty $708,000 more than the fund with 1.65 percent in annual expenses.

Expenses count. They always count.

On the web:

Prospectus for Surgeons Diversified Investment Fund

Website for the Thrift Savings Plan

Practical ETF Investing: The Online Calculator ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal finance writer Scott Burns is syndicated by Universal Press. His twice weekly column appears in newspapers from Boston to Seattle. He is the Chief Investment Strategist for AssetBuilder, Inc. Readers can register at www.scottburns.com. Questions/comments can be posted directly. They can also be sent, without registration, to scott@scottburns.com. Questions of general interest will be answered in future columns and on this blog.

Comments

 

ABModerator03 said:

Thank you for today's column comparing investment costs of government employees to those of surgeons. Very interesting. How about a follow-up explaining why government employee costs are so low and why the surgeon can't get similar low costs. I wonder if the government subsidizes its employee's costs or there are reasons for the lower costs that could be available to non-government employees if they could bargain better.

This is especially interesting to me because it relates to medical insurance costs too. I had a conversation with Senator Frist one time and I complained about the high cost of medical insurance. He asked me what plan I would like to have. I told him that I would like the same plan he has and the plan millions of government employees have - and I would be willing to pay my own way. That would give me a lower cost plan with increased benefits. Senator Frist said no way congress would pass such a plan. Maybe a Republican congress would not pass the plan but perhaps a Democratic congress would take a look at it. It's hard to know the math but, thinking about this, I wonder if everyone in the country could have at least a basic medical plan if Medicaid money was used to fund the basic government employee plan for those who could not afford a higher benefit plan. Might possibly go a step further and throw Medicare money into the pot resulting in a national plan that would cover Medicaid people free on a basic plan, cover employed people on a premium pay basis, and cover elderly on a Medicare level.

Thanks for your comments. I am a regular reader and appreciate your practical views.

Jay

  

From Scott Burns:

The government Thrift Savings Plan was put together by Barclay's Global, the same firm that has launched all the iShares Exchange Traded Funds. They also do the 401(k) options for employees of Exxon-Mobil and that plan, when I examined it 5 years ago, cost about 10 basis points.

How does Exxon get such low costs? The same way the government does--- massive economies of scale. When all the numbers you deal with are in billions, costs go down.

The Surgeons fund is a start-up. While the College of Surgeons talks about doing good for embattled surgeons, I would bet a very good dinner that their business plan includes a very nice income for the College. In short, I don't think their motivation was altogether altruistic.

Since many surgeons work in small private/group practices they have a lifetime disadvantage of being "small clients" compared to any good sized corporation putting together a qualified plan. For that reason the Surgeons fund may actually be competitively priced.
November 5, 2006 10:48 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Two weeks ago you wrote about the TSP retirement plan which federal employees have and their 5/100ths basis pts administration cost and which gets them diversified index portfolios.

My question is, is TSP's low fee because of their superior negotiating powers or because we the tax paying public are subsidizing their retirement plan (as well as paying their salaries) or something else. If either 1 or 2, then it doesn't seem realistic to think we might ever be so lucky with our plans does it?

Jeff

From Scott Burns:

It's not a matter of subsidy. It's a matter of scale. It's probably also a matter of business strategy for Barclays Global, the firm that provides the investment options in the plan. Barclays also provides the plan options for the Exxon-Mobil 401(k) plan and, as you might expect, that plan also have very low costs. Kotlikoff and I mention both plans in "The Coming Generational Storm" (MIT Press, 2004) because we think expenses are a major issue in retirement plans. While a small plan may never achieve the economies of scale that the TSP or Exxon-Mobil can achieve, the costs of many plans are almost mutually exclusive with a successful retirement. I'm thinking of the high costs of most 403(b) plans available to teachers in Texas and California, and the costs of many small group plans provided by the insurance and brokerage firms.
November 20, 2006 2:01 PM

About scottb

Scott Burns has covered the changing world of personal finance and investments for nearly 40 years. Today, he ranks as one of the five most widely read personal finance writers in the country. Scott began his career as a newspaper columnist at the Boston Herald in 1977 where he was also the financial editor. Nationally syndicated in 1981 and now distributed by Universal Press, the column appears in newspapers from Boston to Seattle. In 1985 he joined the staff of the Dallas Morning News where his column quickly became one of the most widely read features in the paper. He left the Dallas Morning News in 2006 to become one of the founders of AssetBuilder and its Chief Investment Strategist. Burns is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1962). He has written four books, including "The Coming Generational Storm" (MIT Press, 2004) coauthored with economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff. His fourth book, also coauthored with Kotlikoff, will be published this spring by Simon & Schuster. "Spend Til' the End" uses consumption smoothing to demonstrate the errors of conventional financial planning. His business experience includes working as a staffer for a major consulting company and service as a director and audit chairman of a NASDAQ listed manufacturing company. He and his wife divide their time between Dallas and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Copyright © 2007 - 2008, AssetBuilder Inc - DFA Advisor. All Rights Reserved.