Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived
Print Article Email Article

Has Your Portfolio Recovered Yet?

By Scott Burns Vanity Capital

Today we’re playing a meaningful game of woulda-coulda. We’re going to see how a $1 million portfolio fared over the last few miserable years. We’re going to put our money in some of the largest and most successful balanced funds. Some will be no load funds, some will be load funds, but we’re not going to count the up-front commissions.

A balanced fund, called a “moderate allocation” fund by Morningstar, typically has about 60 percent of its assets invested in equities and 40 percent invested in fixed income. Most investors and their advisors favor balanced portfolios because the combination works to smooth the ups and downs of portfolio value. Bonds tend to rise when stocks fall, and vice versa. While aggressive investors may be able to live with the charge of a double espresso, most of us feel better with a cup of Sleepytime tea. Balance helps us sleep at night.

I’ll tell you right now that the thumbnail lesson here is bittersweet: Investment success is a lot easier when you are accumulating your nest egg than when you are spending from it. This is great news for the young, if they are saving regularly.

But it’s bad news for retirees. A bear market, as you’ll soon see, does permanent damage when you are making regular distributions from your nest egg.

To measure the damage I used Morningstar Principia to compare how investors in more than a dozen of the largest moderate allocation mutual funds had done between the start of 2007 and the end of March this year. The results are telling.

If you were a do-it-yourself investor and had invested $1 million in T. Rowe Price Balanced fund (ticker: RPBAX, expense ratio 0.71 percent) at the end of 2006 and reinvested all dividends and capital gains distributions, you would have had $1,031,343 by the end of March. Your heart would have been in your throat during many of those 51 months, but your nest egg would be ever-so-slightly improved. In fact, 9 of the 15 balanced funds examined had higher values at the end of the period than at the beginning.

Only one of the remaining 6 funds lost over $100,000. It was the American Funds Income Fund of America. It ended the period with $882,272. Before you dismiss this fund as a sorry loser, consider that its performance was at the 50th percentile during the last 3 years. So it may trail this list, but about half of the moderate allocation funds out there probably did worse. When you consider that the last three years contained the worst market crash in more than half a century and one of the very worst declines since 1815, the numbers could be a lot worse.

Unfortunately, things go downhill when you start making regular withdrawals. Start with the same amount in each fund and withdraw $3,333.33 a month. This amounts to $40,000 a year or 4 percent of starting value, a commonly used benchmark for safe withdrawals from retirement savings. Only 1 of the 15 balanced funds was worth more than $1 million at the end of the period. The other 14 were all below $1 million. The hindmost was down to $699,990— a loss of 30 percent. The funds are listed below with their end value with no distributions and with distributions. (The figure in parenthesis is the percentile rank over the preceding 3 years against other moderate allocation mutual funds.)

While $170,000 was distributed from each fund over the 51 month period, every fund lost more than was distributed. This happened because shares redeemed at low prices were not there for the recovery.

As always, it could be worse. If you had invested the same million in George Putnam Balanced A shares, for instance, the million would have been reduced to $760,361 with no withdrawals and to a dismal $585,561 after distributions. This fund still has $1 billion in investor assets but has been in the bottom 10 percent for performance over the last 3 and 5 year periods.

One of the reasons the focus of this column is on index funds can be seen in this list. The two index funds are toward the top of a better-than-average list. Sticking to index funds may have foreclosed the possibility of being at the top of the list, but it also eliminated the possibility of being at the bottom.

It’s Hard To Recover from a Market Crash If You Need Income

This table shows a rank ordered list, by end value of a $1 million investment after distributions, of how 15 major balanced funds performed if returns were reinvested or after a monthly distribution of $3,333

Fund name (3 year percentile rank) With dividends and gains Accumulated With $40,000 Distributed Annually
Oakmark Equity & Income 1 (31) $1,216,573 $1,018,719
FPA Crescent (4) $1,189,495 $ 987,281
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (5) $1,101,666 $ 901,439
Vanguard Wellington Admiral shs. (27) $1,035,652 $ 846,462
Fidelity Balanced (44) $1,037,503 $ 843,926
Vanguard Balanced Index Admiral shs. (30) $1,034,644 $ 843,583
Vanguard Tax-Managed Balanced (45) $1,024,975 $ 839,572
T. Rowe Price Balanced (30) $1,031,343 $ 838,130
American Funds Am. Balanced A shs. (40) $1,010,664 $ 819,384
PIMCO All Asset A shares (6) $ 980,933 $ 802,551
JHancock2 Lifestyle Balanced A shs. (33) $ 968,310 $ 779,122
Invesco Balanced A shares (64) $ 965,525 $ 778,161
JHT Lifestyle Balanced Series 1 (62) $ 910,825 $ 727,103
Dodge & Cox Balanced (68) $ 913,085 $ 723,122
American Funds Inc. Fund of Am. A shs. (50) $ 882,271 $ 699,990
Only published comments... May 13 2011, 03:00 PM by admin


Comments

 

ndxr said:

Scott:

Very helpful info. Question: If you factored in each fund's operating expenses, would the results change significantly?

May 15, 2011 10:42 AM
 

bbains said:

Great analysis, Scott.  This is something I doubt you would see anywhere else.  One thing is confusing me.  I would have expected the table to more or less follow the percentile rank of the funds, so I'm suprised that Oakmark, Wellington, and Fidelity Balanced came out in the top group and Pimco Total Asset was in the middle of the pack.  What are you thoughts on this?

May 16, 2011 8:07 AM
 

JIM530 said:

Interesting results.  To take it one step further, what if instead of paying a fund manager to generically rebalance your assets, you simply buy an equity fund and a fixed income fund in the desired ratio, then use your withdrawals as part of a regular reblancing routine, i.e. take the withdrawals out of the income fund when equities are down and vice versa.  Then your equity shares would have been there to recover.

May 17, 2011 10:39 PM
 

wccason said:

Excellent review.  I can't help but wonder how a 100% TIPS portfolio such as VIPSX or VAIPX would have performed.  Is there a way of doing that analysis myself?

May 18, 2011 2:02 PM
 

davehu said:

Excellent and useful analysis.  We sold our home in August 2008, moving full time to our lake home near Dallas and I retired a few months later.  Although the market crash made me nervious,  I sold nothing and stuck with a Margaritiville portfolio.  And despite withdrawals to live on I am actually up from 2006.  I rebalance every 6 months, the rest of the time, I sit on the couch sipping a Margarita.   Thank you Scott for the excellent advise over the years.

May 30, 2011 12:21 PM
 

cwradio said:

Can you shares with your reader how some of the lazy-couch portfolios would have done using the same withdrawal as stated in your article.

June 5, 2011 3:38 PM

Contact Us

Open Monday-Friday
9 a.m. - 5 p.m. (CST)

ph. 972.535.4040
fx. 214.556.3848
Email Us

1255 W. 15th Street Suite 240 Plano, Texas 75075