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

Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived

The Many Levels of Investment Expense

Q. I am almost 70, and expect to retire the middle of this year with savings (IRA, 401k and company retirement lump-sum) that total about $1.5 million. I plan to roll everything to an IRA but will keep about $100,000 in liquid assets in the IRA for house renovations. The rest ($1.4 million) would be invested with the idea of paying us about about $30,000 a year.

I have been approached by several financial planning institutions. They are offering to manage my investments for an annual management fee of 1.25 percent to 1.5 percent. I agree with you that such expenses could represent a large amount of my investment earnings.

My social security income is about $24,000; my wife is 52 and I expect her to live to about 95. I expect to live to 90. She earns $30,000 and expects to retire at 65. She will then get paid about half of my social security.

We would like an annual income of $76,000 to $84,000 after taxes, but we don't know if that is reasonable. Can you suggest a fund mixture with low management fees we can invest in (such as the couch potato)? Also, how do we go about arranging for monthly or quarterly payments? ---J. P., by email from Los Angeles

A. You've got two issues here. The first is setting reasonable expectations for your retirement spending. The second is sorting out what is acceptable for investment management fees. The good news is that your expectations are reasonable. There is no reason a couple with good Social Security benefits and $1.4 million in investment assets can't enjoy after-tax income approaching the high point of your range, $84,000.

You should be able to draw from your investments at a 4 percent annual rate without endangering your portfolio's long term survival. That provides you with income of $56,000 from investments, $24,000 from Social Security, and $30,000 from your wife's earnings--- a total of $110,000. The California state income tax could take your net below $84,000 but you'd easily have the minimum $76,000 you seek.

Later, when your wife retires, your total income would be $92,000--- $56,000 from investments, $36,000 (or more) from Social Security--- and your after-tax income would be still be over your $76,000 minimum. In addition, you should be able to nudge your withdrawal rate higher at that time because you'll be 83. You could, for instance, convert a portion of your investments into a joint life annuity.

The most common investment management offer today is called a mutual fund "wrap" account in which a management firm offers to manage your money for a fixed percentage of assets and the money is invested in mutual funds. (Another version of the same idea puts the money in separate accounts rather than mutual funds.) As a consequence, it is important to understand the total expenses you are facing. When the underlying management expenses of the funds are added, for instance, you could be looking at total expenses of 2 percent a year, or more. This is likely to have a major impact on your investments.

You should be targeting total expenses of 1 percent a year, or less. With your assets, you have many choices. Here are several:
  • You could be self-managed and manage a simple Couch Potato Building Block portfolio for less than 35 basis points a year.
  • Another choice would be to invest one or two low cost funds with good long term records--- such as balanced fund Vanguard Wellington (annual expense for Admiral shares, 0.18 percent) or Fidelity Puritan (expense ratio 0.62 percent).
  • You could also find a broker with a "big book" of clients in American Funds. If you did this, there would be no up-front commission cost to you because your investment would be over $1 million. (Your broker would be paid, but not from your money.) The annual expense ratios of their funds vary but a large and successful fund like American Funds Income fund A shares has expenses of only 0.54 percent a year. Of that amount, 23 basis points would be paid to the broker as a "trail" to provide continuing service.
  • There are also "boutique" firms that manage portfolios for individuals and families. Their pricing tends to be lower than the pricing of the major brokerage firms. Among these firms it is possible for the $1 million and over investor to have total management costs under 1 percent a year.
In my experience, the "you get what you pay for" claim from high cost firms is bogus. Pricing is a function of the business model of the firm and the amount of varnished wood and marble in their offices.

However you invest, it is easy to arrange for monthly or quarterly disbursements. As a practical matter, quarterly payments make more sense.

Comments

 

ABModerator03 said:

Hi Scott, I love your site. What would "assetBuilder" charge to manage his money??

From Scott Burns:

AssetBuilder fees range from a maximum of 50 basis points (0.5 percent) a year down to 25 basis points, depending on the size of the account. For an account this size---$1.4 million--- our fee would be 30 basis points a year. This is a fraction of the fees charged for typical mutual fund wrap account services.

Our portfolios, in turn, use relatively low cost Dimensional Fund Advisors funds. As a consequence, the average expense ratios of the portfolios range from a low of 28 basis points to a high of 48 basis points. The expense ratios rise as the amount of equity in the portfolio increases.

All of our portfolios would be considered "world allocation" funds if they were mutual funds. Our portfolio 12 is the closest approximation to the Morningstar category, with about the same risk as measured by standard deviation.

For this reader we might dial down the risk a bit, say to portfolio 10. This would have a total cost of 68 basis points--- 30 basis points for our portfolio management, 38 basis points for the underlying portfolio.

The table below is our cost matrix--- select a column representing the amount to be invested, and then select a portfolio, and you've got your cost of management.
















The AssetBuilder Cost Matrix



Portfolio
Number
X
Portfolio size(exp.)

$50k-$249,999

0.45 exp.



$250k-$599,999

0.43 exp.

$600k- $999,999

0.40 exp.

$1 mil- $3,999,999

0.30 exp.



Over $4 mil.

0.25 exp.

6   (0.28)

0.73%



0.71%

0.68%

0.58%

0.53%

7   (0.30)

0.75

0.73



0.70

0.60

0.55

8   (0.33)



0.78

0.76

0.73

0.63

0.58

9   (0.36)

0.81



0.79

0.76

0.66

0.61

10 (0.38)

0.83

0.81

0.78



0.68

0.63

11 (0.40)

0.85

0.83

0.80

0.70

0.65

12 (0.43)

0.88

0.86

0.83

0.73

0.68

13 (0.45)

0.90



0.88

0.85

0.75

0.70

14 (0.48)

0.93

0.91

0.88



0.78

0.73%

AssetBuilder, 04/16/2007



As a financial writer, I've wished someone would offer something like this for years. Now, with the AssetBuilder team, we're doing it.

While the Couch Potato Building Block method that I've written about for so long will provide better results than most managed accounts simply due to lower expenses and indexing, using mean variance optimization to create risk measured portfolios allows us to (1) grade portfolios by risk and (2) improve portfolio returns.

You'll see how much when we launch our full version of the website and post portfolio results.

I'm answering this wearing my AssetBuilder hat.
April 19, 2007 7:44 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Hi:

I'm in the about the same situation as the man in the article. I have most of my investments in IRA's. Did the your assumptions in the article consider "Required Minimum Distribution" (RMD). I'll be required to pay taxes upon withdrawal.

Thanks,

Eugene

From Scott Burns:

I didn't consider the RMD in answering because there is an 18 year age difference between he and his wife. As a consequence, they can use table II in publication 590. They will have a lower RMD rate than a typical couple, about 3.3 percent versus 3.9 percent.

Like it or not, the RMD is something we all face and can do little about. Eventually, we have to distribute more than we need, pay taxes on the extra, and reinvest the remainder in a taxable account.
April 19, 2007 6:20 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.