Index and Sector ETFs: Mutual Funds: Speculation X3

How many of you remember the immortal words of P. T. Barnum? On Wall Street, the incubation period for new product scams may be measured in years instead of minutes, but the end result is always a greed-driven rush to financial disaster.

The dot.com meltdown spawned index mutual funds, and their dismal failure gave life to “enhanced” index funds, a wide variety of speculative hedge funds, and a rapidly growing assortment of Index ETFs. Deja Vu all over again, with the popular ishare variety of ETF leading the lemmings to the cliffs.

How far will we allow Wall Street to move us away from the basic building blocks of investing? Whatever happened to stocks and bonds? The Investment Gods are appalled.

A market or sector index is a statistical measuring device that tracks prices in securities selected to represent a portion of the overall market. ETF creators:

  • select a sampling of the market that they expect to be representative of the whole,
  • purchase the securities, and then
  • issue the ishares, SPDRS, CUBEs, etc. that speculators then trade on the exchanges just like equities.

Unlike ordinary index funds, ETF shares are not handled directly by the fund. As a result, they can move either up or down from the value of the securities in the fund, which, in turn, may or may not mirror the index they were selected to track. Confused? There’s more — these things are designed for manipulation.

Unlike managed Closed-End Funds (CEFs), ETF shares can be created or redeemed by market specialists, and Institutional Investors can redeem 50,000 share lots (in kind) if there is a gap between the net-asset-value and the market price of the fund.

These activities create artificial demand in an attempt to minimize the gap between NAV and market price. Clearly, arbitrage activities provide profit-making opportunities to the fund sponsors that are not available to the shareholders. Perhaps that is why the fund expenses are so low — and why there are now thousands of the things to choose from.

Two other ETF idiosyncrasies need to be appreciated:

a) performance return statistics for index funds may not include expenses, but it should be obvious that none will ever outperform their market, and

b) index funds may publish P/E numbers that only include the profitable companies in the portfolio.

So, in addition to the normal risks associated with investing, we add: speculating in narrowly focused sectors, guessing on the prospects of unproven small cap companies, experimenting with securities in single countries, rolling the dice on commodities, and hoping for the eventual success of new technologies.

We then call this hodge-podge of speculation a diversified, passively managed, inexpensive approach to Modern Asset Management — based solely on the mathematical hocus pocus of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).

Once upon a time, but not so long ago, there were high yield junk bond funds that the financial community insisted were appropriate investments because of their diversification. Does diversified junk become un-junk? Isn’t passive management as much of an oxymoron as variable annuity? Who are they kidding?

But let’s not dwell upon the three or more levels of speculation that are the very foundation of all index and sector funds. Let’s move on to the two basic ideas that led to the development of plain vanilla Mutual Funds in the first place: diversification and professional management.

Mutual Funds were a monumental breakthrough that changed the investment world. Hands-on investing became possible for everyone. Self-directed retirement programs and cheap to administer employee benefit programs became doable.

The investment markets, once the domain of the wealthy, became the savings accounts of choice for the employed masses — because the “separate accounts” were both trusteed and professionally managed. When security self-direction came along, professional management was gone forever. Mutual fund management was delegated to the financially uneducated masses.

ETFs are not the antidote for the mob-managed & dismal long term performance of open end Mutual Funds, where professionals are always forced to sell low and to buy high. ETFs are the vehicles of choice for Wall Street to ram MPT mumbo jumbo down the throats of busy, inexperienced investors… and the regulators who love them because they are cheap.

Mutual fund performance is bad (long term, again) because managers have to do what the mob tells them to do — so Wall Street sells “passive products” with controlled content that they can manipulate more cheaply.

Here’s a thumbnail sketch of how well passive ETFs may have performed from the turn of the century through 2013: the DJIA growth rate was about 0% per year, the S & P 500 was negative; the NASDAQ Composite has just recently regained its 2000 value.

How many positive sectors, technologies, commodities, or capitalization categories could there have been?

Now subtract the fees… hmmmm. Again, how would those ETFs have fared? Hey, when you buy cheap and easy, it’s usually worth it. Now if you want performance, I suggest you try real management, as opposed to Mutual Fund management… but you need to take the time to understand the process.

If you can’t understand or accept the strategy, don’t hire the manager. Mutual Funds and ETFs cannot “beat the market” (not a well thought out investment objective anyway) because both are effectively managed by investor/speculators… not by professionals.

Sure, you might find some temporary smiles in your ETFs, but only if you take your profits will the smiles last. There may be times when it makes sense to use these products to hedge against a specific risk. But stop kidding yourself every time Wall Street comes up with a new short cut to investment success.

There is no reason why all of you can’t either run your own investment portfolio, or instruct someone as to how you want it done. Every guess, every estimate, every hedge, every sector bet, and every shortcut increases portfolio risk.

Products and gimmicks are never the answer. ETFs, a combination of the two, don’t even address the question properly — AND their rising popularity has raised the risk level throughout the Stock Market. How’s that, you ask?

The demand for the individual stocks included in ETFs is raising their prices without having anything to do with company fundamentals.

What’s in your portfolio?

How will ETFs and Mutual Funds fare in the next correction?

Are YOU ready.

Is Your Investment Portfolio Prepared For Higher Interest Rates?

I’ve heard a lot of discussion lately pressing the idea that rising interest rates are something to be feared, and prepared for by: accepting the lower rates now, buying the shortest duration positions, or even liquidating the income portfolio entirely.

A rising interest rate environment is super good news for investors… up to a point. When we loan money to someone, is it better to get the lowest possible rate for the shortest period of time? Stop looking at income investing with a “grow the market value” perspective. That’s not what it’s all about. Lower market values or growing discounts to NAV don’t have to be problems… they can be benefits.

The purpose of income investments is the generation of income. YOU are NOT a bond trader. Control the quality selected, diversify properly, and compound that part of the income that you don’t have to spend. Price is pretty much irrelevant with income purpose securities; you don’t spend the market value.

Long, long, ago, many bonds were of the “bearer” variety; my father never owned any others. Each month, he went to the bank, clipped his coupons, cashed them in, and left the bank with a broad smile. If interest rates went up, he knew he could go out and buy new bonds to put larger coupon dollars in his pocket.

He had no reason to even consider selling the bonds he already owned — they were, after all, income purpose securities that (in his experience) never failed to do their job. Market value never fluctuates (visually) if the securities are kept in the (mental) safe deposit box.

No, that’s not at all what I’m recommending… And, even when your brokerage statement shows that your bond prices have risen to chest-pounding wealth levels, just try to convert those numbers into spending money. Despite the profit-taking-temptation your statement reports, the bid you get on your smallish positions is never even close to the “insider” market value…

The thing dear old Dad thought about least was the market value of his bonds. This was his tax free retirement plan. He bought them for income, and the coupons were always redeemed without question. The only problem (actually, no longer a problem) with the periodic decreases in market value was the inability to add to existing positions. The small position bond market has limited liquidity.

Before I move on to the simple solution to this non-problem, a word or two on the only real benefit of lower interest rates — there is no benefit at all if you don’t already own individual, income producing, securities. If you own interest rate expectation (IRE) sensitive securities in a downward interest rate cycle, you will have the opportunity for what I call “income-bucket-gravy”.

This is the opportunity to sell your income purpose securities at a profit, over and above the income you’ve already banked. Income investors rarely are advised to do this, which is why they lament the thievery occasioned by higher interest rates. They didn’t sell at a premium, so now they just sit and watch the premiums disappear.

The only thing this behavior accomplishes is bestowing on investors the lowest possible yields while pushing them into an overpriced market for short duration debt securities. A gift that keeps on stealing investor profits.

The solution is simple, and has been used successfully for decades. Closed End Funds (scoff, laugh, and say “leverage makes them volatile” all you like) solve all the liquidity and price change problems… in a low cost, much higher income, environment.

Answer me one question before you throw stones at these remarks. Is 7% or more on a diversified, transparent, income portfolio, compounded over the past ten years and still growing income, better or worse than the 3.5% or less that most investors have realized in individual securities during the same time period… and then there are the profits that non-bond traders seldom realize can be realized.

Of course CEF market values fell during the financial crisis (the 3nd greatest buying opportunity ever), but at their peak in November 2012, they had gained nearly 65% since March 9, 2009, or 17.7% per year…. nearly outperforming the S & P 500.

But speaking of  “drawdowns”, what do you think the economic activity drawdown of near zero money market rates has been, particularly for “savings account” Baby Boomers. Did the Fed’s messing around with short term interest rates help or hurt your retired relatives… really, think about it.

Rising interest rates are good for investors; so are falling rates. Fortunately, they routinely move in both directions, cyclically, and now can be traded quickly and inexpensively for exceptional results from a stodgy old income portfolio. So much for Total Return, short duration, and leverage-phobic thinking.

  • What if you could buy professionally managed income security portfolios, with 10+ years income-productive track records?
  • What if you could take profits on these portfolios, say for a year’s interest in advance, and reinvest in similar portfolios at higher yields?
  • What if you could add to your positions in all forms of debt securities when prices fall, thus increasing yield and reducing cost basis in one fell swoop?
  • What if you could enter retirement (or prepare for retirement) with such a powerful income engine?

Well, you can. but only if you are able to add both higher and lower interest rates to you list of VBFs.

The Investment Gods Are Furious

Market Cycle Investment Management (MCIM) is an historically new methodology, but with roots deeply embedded in both the building blocks of capitalism, and financial psychology— if there is such a thing.

The earliest forms of capitalism sprung from ancient mercantilism, which involved the production of goods and their distribution to people or countries mostly around the Mediterranean.

The sole purpose of the exercise was profit and the most successful traders quickly produced more profits than they needed for their own consumption. The excess cash needed a home, and a wide variety of early entrepreneurial types were quick to propose ventures for the rudimentary rich to consider.

There were no income taxes, and governments actually supported commercial activities, recognizing how good it was for “Main Street” — as if there was such a thing.

The investment gods saw this developing enterprise and thought it good. They suggested to the early merchants, and governments that they could “spread the wealth around” by: selling ownership interests in their growing enterprises, and by borrowing money to finance expansion and new ventures.

A financial industry grew up around the early entrepreneurs, providing insurances, brokerage, and other banking services. Economic growth created the need for a trained workforce, and companies competed for the most skilled. Eventually, even the employees could afford (even demand) a piece of the action.

Was this the beginning of modern liberalism? Not! The investment gods had created the building blocks of capitalism: stocks and bonds, profits and income. Stock owners participated in the success of growing enterprises; bondholders received interest for the use of their money; more and better skilled workers were needed — the K.I.S.S. principle was born.

As capitalism took hold, entrepreneurs flourished, ingenuity and creativity were rewarded, jobs were created, civilizations blossomed, and living standards improved throughout the world. Global markets evolved that allowed investors anywhere to provide capital to industrial users everywhere, and to trade their ownership interests electronically.

But on the dark side, without even knowing it, Main Street self-directors participated in a thunderous explosion of new financial products and quasi-legal derivatives that so confused the investment gods that they had to holler “’nuff”! Where are our sacred stocks and bonds? Financial chaos ensued.

The Working Capital Model was developed in the 1970s, as the guts of an investment management approach that embraced the cyclical vagaries of markets. This at a time when there were no IRA or 401(k) plans, no index or sector funds, no CDOs or credit swaps, and very few risky products for investors to untangle.

Those who invested then: obtained investment ideas from people who knew stocks and bonds, had pensions protected by risk-averse trustees, and appreciated the power of compound interest. Insurance and annuities were fixed, financial institutions were separated to avoid conflicts of interest, and there were as many economics majors as lawyers in Washington.

MCIM was revolutionary then in its break from the ancient buy-and-hold, in its staunch insistence on Quality, Diversification, and Income selection principles, and in its cost based allocation and diversification disciplines. It is revolutionary still as it butts heads with a Wall Street that has gone MPT mad with product creation, value obfuscation, and short-term performance evaluation.

Investing is a long-term process that involves goal setting and portfolio building. It demands patience, and an understanding of the cycles that create and confuse its landscape. MCIM thrives upon the nature of markets while Wall Street ignores it. Working Capital numbers are used for short-term controls and directional guidance; peak-to-peak analysis keeps performance expectations in perspective.

In the early 70s, investment professionals compared their equity performance cyclically with the S & P 500 from one significant market peak to the next — from the 1,500 achieved in November 1999 to the 1,527 of November 2007, for example. Equity portfolio managers would be expected to do at least as well over the same time period, after all expenses.

Another popular hoop for investment managers of that era to jump through was Peak to Trough performance —managers would be expected to do less poorly than the averages during corrections.

Professional income portfolio managers were expected to produce secure and increasing streams of spendable income, regardless. Compounded earnings and/or secure cash flow were all that was required. Apples were not compared with oranges.

Today’s obsession with short-term blinks of the investment eye is Wall Street’s attempt to take the market cycle out of the performance picture. Similarly, total return hocus-pocus places artificial significance on bond market values while it obscures the importance of the income produced.

MCIM users and practitioners will have none of it; the investment gods are furious.

Market Cycle Investment Management embraces the fundamental building blocks of capitalism — individual stocks and bonds and managed income CEFs in which the actual holdings are clearly visible. Profits and income rule.

Think about it, in an MCIM world, there would be no CDOs or multi-level mortgage mystery meat; no hedge funds, naked short sellers, or managed options programs; no mark-to-market lunacy, Bernie Madoffs, or taxes on investment income.

In MCIM portfolios, lower stock prices are seen as a cyclical fact of life, an opportunity to add to positions at lower prices. There is no panic selling in high quality holdings, and no flight to 1% Treasuries from 6% tax free Munis. In an MCIM portfolio, dividends and income keep rolling, providing income for retirees, college kids, and golf trips — regardless of what the security market values are doing.

Capitalism is not broken; it’s just been overly tinkered with. The financial system is in serious trouble, however, and needs to get back to its roots and to those building blocks that the Wizards have cloaked in obscurity.

Let’s stick with stocks and bonds; lets focus on income where the purpose is income; let’s analyze performance relative to cycles as opposed to phases of the moon; let’s tax consumption instead of income; and let’s not disrespect the gods, the “Bing”, or the intelligence of the average investor…

So sayeth the gods. Amen!

Wall Street’s Even Dirtier Little Secret

As of Close of Business May 8th, no less than 57 multi-year experienced, Taxable Income, Closed End Funds (CEFs) were paying 7% or more in 401k and IRA eligible income to their shareholders.

31 issues (54%) paid 8% or above, and the average for the Heinz-like group was 8.56%. All of these portfolios are professionally managed by this long list of well respected, long experienced, investment companies… their purpose is dependable income production.

Blackrock, Nuveen, Pimco, Putnam, Invesco, Alliance-Bernstein, MFS, Calamos, Eaton Vance, Deutsche, Pioneer, Western Asset Management, Wells Fargo, Flaherty & Crumrine, 1st Trust, Brookfield, John Hancock, KKR, Babson Capital, Allianz Global, Neuberger-Berman, & Cohen & Steers

The investment portfolios include all forms of Bonds, Preferred Stocks, Mortgages, Senior Loans, etc, domestic and global, high yield and normal…

How difficult could it be to put together a well diversified, retirement income portfolio? If you only knew…

Most of these funds have paid steady, dependable, income for more than fifteen years, even through the financial crisis… several have been around since the ’90s

Yet your financial advisor has probably never mentioned them to you as a viable alternative to low yielding income Mutual Funds or stock market dependant funds and ETFs… she probably isn’t familiar with them either.

The DOL (and other retirement plan “specialists”) have effectively banned these programs from 401k Plans, and it’s likely that you have never heard them advertised or even mentioned in the most popular financial newsletters…

One could conclude that Wall Street (even the CEF providers themselves) would prefer that you didn’t even know that they exist.

Now here’s “the rest of the story”: 

A May 15th data search at cefconnect.com reveals that nearly 90% of all Taxable/Tax Deferred Closed End Funds (CEFs) were selling below their net asset values (NAVs), and of those, 63% were available to all (yes, IRA and 401k investors, too) at discounts above 8%.

Income Mutual Funds (I believe) are never available at discounts from NAV, and how many discounted securities has your advisor suggested to you since 2012 or earlier? ETF prices, I understand, are manipulated by their creators to present within pennies of their NAV.

But tax-deferred/taxable CEFs historically sell at discounts as often as not, and this morning, nearly 62% of them were available to MCIM taxable, IRA, and self-directed 401k account investors at discounts of 7% and higher.

SO, WHY THE WALL STREET COVER-UP? 

And, why aren’t you asking for more information?

To Rollover 401k Plan Assets or Not To… That Is The Question

The major purveyors of 401k products, and those who benefit from using them remind me of politicians… they press the party line, and use their power to demonize the competition.

Their position and deep pockets allow them to get their message out while we who have neither can only shake our heads and whimper about the sacred purpose of retirement income programs.

But, in the simplest of terms, since when has 2% been better than 6% (both after expenses)? The DOL, fiduciaries, and plan sponsors are staring back at me, eyes wide shut.

LinkedIn discussion groups have been talking about the pros and cons of 401k rollovers to private IRA portfolios. Most of the articles, and not by a slim margin, are institutionally biased advertisements for low cost Mutual Funds and ETFs, despite the fact that have absolutely no “preparation for retirement income bones” in their mass marketed bodies.

When the market corrects, the results will be what they have always been for market-value-growth-only programs. This time though, the DOL will fine the Plan Sponsors (i.e., the corporations so bitterly hated by our government), for allowing plan participants to make investment judgment errors with their own money plus the matching contributions…. let hindsight reign in the 401k space!

The 401k “space” as they call it, has become a lucrative product shopping mall, totally out of touch with what should be the long run purpose of these “quasi” retirement programs: it’s the monthly retirement income that pays the bills, Charlie Brown, not the market value.

If a person were a conspiracy theorist, he or she could make a case for institutional/congressional manipulation of interest rates… keeping them near zero so that gurus will continue to predict that stock market “returns” will outpace those of income purpose securities. Hmmm.

None, absolutely none, of the products provided by the top institutional peddlers produce nearly as much after “expense-ratio” income as Closed End Income Funds. These outstanding (and income paying far longer than any income ETF) managed portfolios are never, ever, found in 401k Plans… except the Self Directed, “safe harbor” variety.

Interestingly, all the major 401k product providers, also manage Closed End Fund product lines that generate generous income, even after higher fees. These fees, so important to regulators and politicians, are never paid by the recipients of the much higher income.

CEFS paying 6% to 9% after expenses are commonplace, but not available in 401k plans. Similarly, there are no restrictions on speculation in the equity markets, where similar high quality managed equity portfolios have been available for decades.

The retirement plan (401k) community has gotten so paranoid over goose-stepping DOL auditors and other regulators armed with crystal clear hindsight, that they have completely lost site of “spending money” as the be all and end all purpose of retirement portfolios. They must “outperform” half their brethren, and be dirt cheap to boot.

Yeah, I know that 401k Plans are not retirement portfolios, but neither the regulators, plan sponsors, congressional leaders, POTUSs, fiduciaries, or plan participants seem able or willing to accept that reality… why should they?

Looking inside the multi-billion dollar Vanguard 2020 TDF, we find 60% invested in equities (no less than 7000 individual positions) and income of about 1.5%. Wake up regulators… the “unfairness” is in the “emperor’s new clothes” products provided to the plan sponsors for inclusion in employee product menus.

You the fiduciaries, you the regulators, you the witch hunters, and you the do-gooders need to look at the product providers instead of their victims.

If you insist upon looking at investment plans as retirement programs (ERISA = Employee Retirement Income Act), perhaps you need to mandate that an outside-the-mainstream, “Self Directed”, income program be a major part programs you supervise. Until the focus changes from market value and expense control to after expenses income, these plans cannot provide what is expected of them… retirement readiness.

So in answering the “To rollover the 401k or not to rollover the 401k” question, I would say: “Run like _ _ _ _, just as fast as you can, to get out of that 401k and never ever buy a low income or no income security in the Rollover IRA you move to.

As long as plain vanilla portfolios of high quality equity (IGVSI companies) and Income CEFs yielding an experienced average, net/net 6% or more, are banned from participating in the 401k marketplace by (possibly) illegal monopolistic practices, rollovers to IRAs should be a requirement, not an option.

See how they run: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b4i8b5nnq3hafaq/2015-02-24%2011.30%20Income%20Investing_%20The%206_%20Solution.wmv?dl=0

As long as regulators are blaming generous employers for the investment mistakes of their employees, self-directed, income purpose, 401k plans are a much less scary, “almost a retirement plan”, option.

Dodging the DOL Chainsaw: Small Business Owner Protection

The DOL is Coming!   The DOL is Coming!

As if you weren’t already up to your elbows in rules, regulations, and expenses, the Department of Labor has empowered itself to fine at least half of the Employer/Plan Sponsors it audits… for multiple investment related reasons.

These include, among other things, the cost of the products in your investment menu and the market value performance of those products. As a plan fiduciary (right, you are a plan fiduciary), it’s your job to keep costs below average and performance above average…. and, yes, you are deemed responsible for your employees private investment decisions… no matter how foolish.

Hardly seems fair, does it. You give them money to invest, and you’re too blame when they mess up.

But, true to form within the 401k “space”, no one (other than the plan participants) seems to care about the retirement income benefit that 401k plans should provide to employers and employees alike… not even the DOL, ERISA champions of the interests of employees.

Since roughly half the plans will always be below average, it’s fair to expect that large numbers of plans will be fined….

In fact, 70% of plans audited in 2013 were penalized or forced to make reimbursements. Neither ETF providers nor Mutual Fund promoters share this responsibility with you, and all of this stress is on top of the “top heavy” problems you deal with year, after year, after year…

You may be able to protect yourself from the fines and the “top heavy” audits in one fell swoop by switching your plan to a professionally-managed-by-a-fiduciary, self-directed 401k they call a “Safe Harbor” Plan. In this type of plan, there is no menu of one size fits all products, none of which focus on income purpose investments that support the ultimate benefit of the program.

You see, the goal of the providers is to keep your money in their funds forever, hoping for upward only markets and their ability to convince you that you just can’t do better than 2% income anywhere. That’s the 401k space “end game”, but you can do much better, and considerably safer in a… “Safe Harbor”, managed growth and income program…

In the self directed, private portfolio “space”, you can require the safest equity selections, and growing retirement income, in a flexible asset allocation geared to the age and risk profile of each participating employee. Employees don’t have to participate, but you have to provide an immediately vested matching contribution if they do…. BUT, the top heavy problems disappear, and your contribution levels have no backdated limitations.

Not so long ago, I brought a QDI (Quality, Diversification, and Income) portfolio series to the 401k space. None of the product pushers were even slightly interested in any facet of the program… not even the superior retirement income generation capabilities… the “good ‘ole boys club” just couldn’t be bothered.

With the stock market at the peak of a six year sustained rally, what protections do you have from a correction? In the managed programs I’m describing, equity profits have already been taken, and the income keeps growing… monthly, in most cases. The Target Date Funds 401k providers are in love with are low quality equity, seriously low income time bombs, ready to go… KABOOM!

The Vanguard 2015 Fund, for example, was 50% invested in no less than 5,000 stocks at the end of January 2015; the total portfolio income was just barely 2%. What do you think the 2020 or 2025 portfolio looks like?

Here’s a look at the workings of a professionally managed retirement income program: a high quality, individual security, 30% Equity portfolio, generating three times the Vanguard 2015 TDF income, with a whole lot less risk:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/28ty6z5dkgn5ulu/Retirement%20Income%20Webinar.wmv?dl=0

Hmmmm, Small Business Owners, seems to me that would resolve your fiduciary issues.

The “Retirement Ready” 401k… exists. Right?

Income Production = Market Value Growth + Retirement Security

Unfortunately, it just isn’t available to you in the standard 401k product menu.

Since the demise of corporate Defined Benefit Plans, most employees have been forced to rely on their own investment acumen to make sense of the product menu choices accompanying an ever growing array of private and public Defined Contribution Plans.

These are savings plans that use hundreds of pooled portfolios of securities and derivatives, many with suggestive and exotic names, to invest and reinvest participant and employer monthly contributions. It is rare that any unbiased advice is available to either Plan Sponsors or Participants, and even professional fiduciaries seem a bit brainwashed when one observes the results of their investment product choices.

Recently, it was proven to me fairly conclusively, that no product specializing in top tier  S & P dividend paying companies in combination with a diversified collection of Closed End Income Funds yielding over 6% (after expenses) will ever gain traction in the “good ‘ole big boys club” described as the 401k space.

Quality, meaningful diversification, and income production, the core curriculum of college investment majors for a century or more is now deemed to be an “Alternative Investment”. This a term once reserved for the most speculative of  speculations… futures, options, indices, shorts, commodities, junk bonds, emerging markets, etc.

The speculative essence of 401k Plan product menu choices, coupled with the utter disinterest in providing meaningful income choices (even toward the end of a TDF “glide path”), just screams for a better way for employers to get, 401k-like, tax deferral and wealth accumulation benefits.

For smaller employers, a 401k “safe harbor”, self-directed, program is an attractive alternative with none of the Wall Street program investment choice drawbacks…. AND no “top heavy” or annual recalculation aggravation. Yes, there must be a “match” for employee contributions, and immediate vesting, but a maximum contribution with total matching is a major plus.

Sure this can be done without the help of a professional manager, but that will just put  you back into the same stuff of the 401k model… no known quality, no income, and a taste of every available speculation the Wall Street imagination can devise.

An ideal self-directed program would provide for professional portfolio management with an ever increasing income “purpose” asset allocation “bucket”, based on the age of each participant. For Example:

Self Directed, individually and professionally managed, portfolios for all employees featuring:

  • flexible asset allocations (ranging from 60% Equity to 0% Equity)
  • annual income growth (in all* investment and interest rate markets)
  • annual Working Capital growth (so long as income, gains, & deposits exceed losses)
  • one-to-one convertibility to a Rollover IRA
  • “ROTH” 401k availability

*Using the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis as a worst case scenario.

Many of you have attended the current series of income investing webinars (the January program video is available through the link provided below). This is the kind of program that you could create inside your 401k Plan if it were to become the “Self Directed” variety described above… isn’t it time that you got the most out of your company’s retirement income program?

Remember, that since every investment program becomes a retirement income program eventually, you need to bring your program to a place where you can say with reasonable assurance:

“A stock market downturn will have no significant impact on my retirement income”

Only private “safe haven” type 401k plans, those that are both self directed and managed with the MCIM methodology appear capable of developing annually increasing spendable retirement income. The others just don’t seem to care.

“Retirement readiness” doesn’t just happen; there’s no button you can push. Those of you who are counting on a forever upward stock market, or the promise of a Target Date Fund need to “get real”, and quickly.

Here’s the content of the Vanguard 2015 TDF as of January 31, 2015:

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ………………..34.9% (3008 different stocks)
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ……….15.1% (5008 different stocks)
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund ……………..32.4%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund…………10.0%
Vanguard Short Term Inflation-Protected Index Fund…7.6%

Equity Total = 50% Income Total = 50% TOTAL PROGRAM YIELD = 2.01%

So, if your Million Dollar Retirement Portfolio is in this TDF, will you be able to survive on $1,675 per month?

Have a private look at the workings of a professionally managed retirement income program; a high quality, individual security, 30% Equity portfolio, generating a million dollar prorated, $5,480 per month:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/28ty6z5dkgn5ulu/Retirement%20Income%20Webinar.wmv?dl=0

 

The Microsoft Retirement Income Program

Reading Between the Lines

Once we recognize that all investment portfolios eventually become retirement income portfolios, we can begin to focus on the regular recurring income that they produce… retired or not, the market value of your private portfolio (or of your 401k plan) has no purchasing power.

Yet all 401k programs are performance evaluated on market value growth as opposed to income production.

In late 1999, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) common stock was at an all time high of $58.38 (split adjusted), and there were thousands of MSFT multi-millionaires out there confident that their retirement was secure…. with a guaranteed monthly income of ?

Please send me an email with the amount of income produced by a million dollars worth of Microsoft in 1999… or your favorite ETF or TDF today.

Several years later, one of those millionaires, and a golf buddy of mine, disclosed that he had just sold the 7 series BMW he had purchased with the proceeds of his MSFT stock… the one “asset” he still had from his dot.com fortune. Pushing 65, he just couldn’t bear the memory any longer.

If only he had sold the entire portfolio… or converted enough to tax free Closed End Funds to assure a lifetime income.

Yet no 401k programs today will hold income Closed End Funds (yielding 7% or so right now). Why? Because, according to the Department of Labor, 2% after low expenses is better than 7% after higher expenses.

By September 2000, MSFT stock had fallen by almost 50%; nearly 15 years later, with the market near its highest numberl ever, MSFT (at $47.60) remains 18% below its 1999 level… it didn’t pay a dividend until 2003, and its dividend yield today is only 2.6%, after many increases.

Back then, most Mutual Fund portfolios contained MSFT and hundreds of similar NASDAQ securities…  and this was OK with all varieties of regulators and plan fiduciaries because the markets, after all, were trending upward.

MCIM portfolios contained no NASDAQ equities, no Mutual Funds at all, and a growing income component of at least 30%… hmmm.

It took more than 15 years for NASDAQ to regain its 1999 level… how many of the heroes survived?

Today, most Mutual Fund investment portfolios and ETF gaming devices contain 1999 Microsoft look alikes, and most pay very little income…

MCIM portfolios? Well, no… no Mutual Funds, and no ETFs, just IGVSI (NYSE dividend paying) equities, and an income CEF component of at least 40%.

Can you get an MCIM Income Purpose portfolio in your IRA… absolutely;  in your 401k…  it’s a long sad story.

What’s in your wallet?

Retirement Income Webinar Sign-Up