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

Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived

Tools for Evaluating your 401(K) Plan

Q: How can I prove that my company 401(k) plan is a loser? The company I work for has our plan with Putnam. I believe there is no combination of funds in the 401(k) that has ever beaten the S&P 500 index over any period of time.

But I need to figure out how to prove this by collecting the data and displaying it in graphs or other ways to make it clear. Where do I start? Can you point me to somewhere to start on such an analysis -- a software package, a data source, Web site, whatever? -- J.M., by e-mail

A: What you know in your gut is right on. Collecting the data and putting it together is where Morningstar, the Chicago investment data firm, shines. Its fund reports present a standardized format showing trailing returns for a variety of time periods, the percentile ranking of each fund against all the other funds in the same asset class, and a variety of risk measurements. You can get this data by going to www.morningstar.com, clicking on "funds," and entering the ticker for each fund you want to examine. The data can also be obtained by using Morningstar Principia, its mutual fund data service on CD-ROM.

You'll have to do the complete analysis since I don't know which funds are offered in your plan, but here is what makes me think the management at your company may be enjoying two martinis at lunch.

Using Morningstar Principia for the period ending March 31, I found that Putnam has five funds that are categorized as "large domestic blend" funds. These are funds that are benchmarked against the S&P 500 index. According to the Hewitt 401(k) index, this category accounts for nearly 19 percent of all 401(k) plan balances.

Over time periods ranging from the first three months of this year out to 15 years, these funds have averaged returns that trail the benchmark index. They have trailed by very wide amounts (see table below). Beyond that, all but one of the individual funds have ranked miserably against competing funds.

Putnam Tax Smart Equity fund, for instance, has ranked in the 97th, 98th and 92nd percentiles over the last 12 months, three years and five years, respectively.

Putnam Research fund has been in the bottom 10 percent in all recent time periods. But if you go out 10 years, it rises to being beaten by 83 percent of its competition.

Putnam Investors has also been in the bottom 10 percent in all time periods out to 15 years except the five- and 10-year periods, where it managed to be beaten by only 87 percent and 89 percent of competing funds, respectively.

Putnam Capital Appreciation has a similar record. Its best performance was over the last five years, when 86 percent of its competitors provided higher returns.

The only hopeful sign is Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth. This fund was beaten by 71 percent of its large blend competitors in the last 12 months, but it has performed in the top 25 percent over the last five- and 10-year periods.

Putnam's two balanced or moderate allocation funds were also in the bottom half of their category. Putnam fixed-income funds and international funds were somewhat better in performance -- they weren't all bottom of the class -- but there is nothing in the basic numbers to make me think that every employee at your company wouldn't be better off in index funds.

Performance Little Family, One Funds, Five

This table compares the average performance of five Putnam large blend funds with the Standard and Poor's index over periods from three months to 15 years. All figures are in percent.
  3 mos. 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years 15 years
Five Putnam Large Blend funds (12.90) (15.21) 1.92 9.13 1.74 7.22
Relative to S&P 500 index (3.45) (10.13) (3.93) (2.19) (1.76) (2.23)

 

Bottom line: Your company management could do better. They may, however, suffer a major limitation. If the company is small and the plan involves relatively little in assets, there are plenty of vendor choices, but they are all relatively expensive. That's why I believe IRA contribution limits should be the same as 401(k) and 403(b) plan limits -- employees could easily make a choice of less expensive options for themselves.

ON THE WEB

The Morningstar funds cover page

The Hewitt 401(k) Index
Published May 21 2008, 03:00 PM by admin
Filed under: ,

Comments

 

therme said:

Good QA. My employer 401k funds at Fidelity are not Fidelity funds at all, rather they are described as "domestic equity investment option (not a mutual fund)." Because they are not transparent, meaning I can't evaluate them at Morningstar, I have chosen to contribute only the minimum (6%) in order to receive the 50 percent employer matching contribution. At least I receive an immediate 50 percent return on my money. I take additional after-tax monies, which I previously contributed to the 401k, and contribute those to my wife's Roth IRA, held in mutual funds at Vanguard, something I can evaluate via Morningstar. This may not be the best solution, but I can control and objectively evaluate the investments. Plus, we can take advantage of Roth IRA catch-up provisions for those over age 50, and we can hedge our bets (taxable 401k withdrawals, non-taxable Roth IRA withdrawals) when we actually retire.
May 22, 2008 7:08 AM
 

Abernathy in Everett said:

Scott, You've touched a nerve. For most of us, our employer's 401(k) is a black box. At least J.M. can evaluate performance (knowing the underlying funds), but another big issue is fees, which can be cryptic. A recent local news article highlighted this. It tells the sad saga of a 62-year-old engineer employed by a small firm here in the Pacific Northwet. His 401(k) plan is saddled with fees of at least 3.5%, while his employer claims that they have been reduced to a mere 0.10%. The latter figure was only the management fee. In addition, the victim also uncovered that he was paying: * 0.5% to the fund provider in the plan, and * 1.32% to John Hancock (Manulife) to administer the plan, and * 0.75% advisory fee, also to John Hancock, and * 0.76% trading commissions, and * ?? who know what else our sleuth didn't uncover. Worse, some of the trade commission may be paid back to the mutual fund in "soft-dollar transactions" (in plain English, office rent, theater tickets, trips, fancy meals, etc. for the money managers). Also, there is a gimmic known as "revenue sharing", wherein mutual funds rebate fees to the 401(k) plan administrators. Again in plain terms, the company running the retirement plan uses the employees' own money to offset costs. At this stage of the man's career, he has been stuck with a plan that chopped his expected nest egg by about two thirds. We have been following you long enough to know the consequences of such degraded performance on his retirement standard of living. I didn't include the URL for the article because I am unsure of your site's protocol, but it can be found easily by going to the Seattle P-I's site, business tab, and searching for 401(k) + hidden fees. Q.1. Have you any advice for those of us who are essentially stuck with our employer's 401(k) plan, perhaps for 30 or 40 years (job longetivity may cut both ways), to discover if we are being similarly snookered? I believe that my employer is large enough to have plenty of financially savvy people who would notice such practices, but maybe not. Q.2. It would be nice if employers were required to allow 401(k) participants to roll out their vested portion periodically, say every five years maximum, into a private IRA. Is it realistic that something like this might ever happen? Yes, some might make even worse investment choices, but at least then they have only themselves to blame. This way, the plan administrator would get a slush ride only so long, and the destructive effect from excessive expenses would be greatly diminished if we could avail ourselves periodically of something like a Couch Potato or AB portfolio. My employer allows withdrawals at age 59½ without penalty (the company match is not suspended), but that is a long time to wait, and I suspect that most people don't even have this option. Thanks again so much for all your great common-sense advice.
May 23, 2008 8:24 PM
Copyright © 2007 - 2008, AssetBuilder Inc - DFA Advisor. All Rights Reserved. View our Terms & Disclaimers.