Edelman Financial: Bigger Isn’t Necessarily Better

Because Edelman Financial Services is opening six offices in the New York/ New Jersey area, I accepted an invitation to attend a seminar by Ric Edelman, the well-known author, radio host and investment manager.  The talk was held at the luxurious Hilton Hotel in nearby Short Hills last week.

Here is my review.  As a public speaker, I gave him an A+.  He was entertaining and informative, and offered a very clear piece of advice: Buy-and-hold a diversified portfolio of low-cost institutional mutual funds. Certainly, I would recommend his firm over a broker from Ameriprise, Smith Barney, Merrill Lynch, etc.

Still, I would only give him a B to a B+ as an investment manager.  I realize that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah (nerve) for a solo practitioner like me to judge someone whose firm manages approximately $4 billion and has thousands of clients – my goodness, Barron’s rated him the No. 1 financial advisor in the whole country – but I believe it is my responsibility to give you my opinion.  Read on, and see if you agree with my assessment.

Points of Agreement

First of all, let me state the areas of agreement.  I think his basic message is absolutely correct.  Most individual investors have so many misconceptions and make so many mistakes that their results are generally terrible.  Edelman provides a useful service in summarizing the theory, evidence, and his personal experience to educate the public on what really works.  He correctly points out that investing in safe instruments such as CDs is just about guaranteed to cause penury in retirement, because the “safe” investments don’t keep up with inflation, especially after taxes are considered.

He convincingly explains in great detail the necessity for wide diversification, proper asset allocation and rebalancing.  He also shows that listening to the media is bad for your investment results.  Good for him!

Like so many good investment managers, Edelman recommends having a long-term strategy and the importance of being invested at all times.  He was quite convincing in explaining how past performance is no guarantee of future results.  His down-to-earth “toaster” comparison was so good that I plan to use it myself when the occasion arrives.

He also explained in detail why retail mutual funds are just way too expensive.  These are not just opinions, but are based on facts.

He graphically illustrated the high cost of being “out of the market” for even a short time.  According to the data, provided by Standard & Poor’s, the average yearly return of the S&P 500 from 1994 to 2008 was 6.5% per year, if you were invested all 3,827 days.  If you missed the 10 best days, that’s right only 10 days, your return was actually 0%.  What a convincing comparison for a buy-and-hold all-the-time strategy.

So in general, I applaud Ric Edelman for being on the right track.

Where we disagree

My first criticism is that, although Edelman emphasized the long term cost that inflation inflicts on client portfolios, pointing out that over the long term inflation has been 3.2%, he says that it is “too early” to be concerned about inflation. He is “monitoring the situation” and will change his strategy when he thinks it is appropriate. In my opinion, this is a very strange approach for someone who believes that you cannot forecast the future.

Since markets react very quickly to new information, I worry that Edelman will not be able to change his strategy at just the right time. Why try to “time the market” by saying that inflation is not a concern now? To paraphrase an old Wall Street saying, “No one rings a bell to let you know when you should be worried about inflation.”

The question and answer portion of the seminar revealed a position that I take exception to.  Edelman suggests that paying off a mortgage quickly is a mistake, because clients can invest the money for a higher return.  While this is a controversial area, I believe that it is comparing apples to oranges, because mortgage debt is a certain obligation, while investment gains are variable.  As with many personal financial issues, the right answer is “it depends.”  There are too many variables in one individual’s life to hand out one-size-fits-all investment advice.  For some people, paying off a mortgage is the right thing to do, depending on their tax situation and their risk tolerance.  The peace of mind a debt-free retirement provides is valuable to some people who are no longer trying to maximize returns.

And, frankly, I am concerned that he is recommending something that will give him more assets to manage and therefore increase his fees, without mentioning the conflict of interest.

When I decided to look up Ric Edelman’s previous books, including The Truth About Money and The Lies About Money, I was surprised to see reviewers on Amazon.com chastising him for his previous rejection of index funds.  While Edelman now (appropriately) denounces actively managed retail mutual funds (because they are a rip off to investors with their high fees and hidden expenses), it’s unconscionable that it took him such a long time to realize that. 

It appears that Edelman had been attacking the notion of index funds for years.  Interestingly, he now follows a correct passive approach to investing, which is very similar to index investing.  He just isn’t willing to admit his conversion (or his past mistakes, for that matter).

In addition, I have read that Edelman doesn’t require that his advisors be Certified Financial Planners.  If true, this is a very serious shortcoming. Real financial planners address more than just investments, and while the CFP certification is not a panacea, it does indicate the seriousness to master your craft. More than passing a 10-hour test, the continuing education requirements are invaluable.

Fees and Value

Edelman Financial Services uses low-cost institutional mutual funds and ETFs, as do I.  The firm charges annual management fees of 2% on the first $150,000, 1.65% on the next $250,000, 1.25% on the next $350,000, 1% on the next $250,000, etc.  There is no additional cost for buying and selling mutual funds, which is a plus.  Another good thing is that they are willing to take on clients with modest amounts to invest, as low as $50,000.

However, while all-in costs are less than you might pay a typical stockbroker, I believe that for individuals with as little as $250,000 or $300,000 to invest, his fees are higher than those of a typical independent fee-only financial planner.

An investor with $500,000 will have to pay Edelman $8,375 per year as compared to a typical $5,000 fee to a smaller financial planning firm. An investor with $1,000,000 will pay Edelman $14,000 per year as compared to $10,000 for most boutique firms.  And many of the fee-only planning firms use the same low-cost institutional mutual funds and ETFs that Edelman does.

Conclusion

I have received mixed reviews from other financial planners regarding Edelman Financial Services.  Some call his portfolios cookie-cutter, which may or may not be a fair description.  Others have pointed out that there is very little attention paid to asset location, as compared to asset allocation. One financial planner told me that there was no effort to do tax loss harvesting, but another one said “it depends” on the client.  These are issues that many investors will not even be aware of, but the answers can influence after-tax returns.

Certainly Edelman’s services are better than working with a typical stockbroker, who might put you into a bunch of expensive retail mutual funds or sell you a variable annuity.

However, investors should understand that they are paying a premium for a celebrity’s name on the door.  And something a potential client should definitely ask is how much financial planning will be done, in addition to investment management.  The answer to that may also be “it depends.”

For a second opinion, and to help do a cost comparison, use “Find an Advisor” at the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors’ (NAPFA) web site and interview other financial advisors.

Evidence-based Investing, Part Two

“When you look at the results on an after-tax, after-fee basis over reasonably long periods of time, there’s almost no chance that you end up beating an index fund. The odds…are 100 to 1.” – David Swensen.

Passive investing, sometimes called index investing, is, as the name suggests, the exact opposite of active management of a portfolio.  The latter attempts to “beat the market” by various means, including selecting securities that are (hopefully) underpriced, trading holdings, and sometimes, by getting out of (and eventually back into) the market entirely.  Passive investing, on the other hand, employs a consistent strategy of buy and hold.  The $64 billion (adjusted for inflation) question is which approach is better?

The evidence proves that active fund managers actually under-perform their relevant benchmarks.  Specifically, over a 10-year period, approximately 75% to 80% of all mutual funds fail to “beat the market.” Attempting to be one of the 20% to 25% who succeed is known as “playing the loser’s game.”

And the longer the period under consideration, the worse the odds become. A study published in 2008 found that from 1975 to 2006 only one in 166 mutual funds outperformed the stock market.  That was 0.6% of the total. 99.4% failed to outperform the market.

Keep in mind that mutual funds that use active management charge more in management fees.  First of all, they have higher operating expenses, because they spend more money on research and on active trading.  And by claiming that they can outperform their peers, they can charge more, so they do.  But as an investor, you start with a handicap if the mutual fund you are using has higher expenses.

I don’t doubt that some of the active managers sincerely believe that they can deliver on their promises.  But logically, and statistics proves this out, they can’t all be above average.  So buyer beware.

Another consideration is that active management generates short-term profits, which are more highly taxed than long-term capital gains.  So, even some investment managers who think they can add value by actively managing a portfolio decline to manage a taxable account.  They believe that, after taxes, an actively managed portfolio will always underperform a passively managed portfolio.

Given the stakes in determining whether you can ever “beat the market” it’s not surprising that so much has been written on the subject.  And since we are talking about 50 years of research, it isn’t easy to summarize the evidence.  So I’ve chosen one (somewhat facetiously titled) article, How to Beat the Market in Three Easy Steps, which I think is well-written and which will give you a flavor for the logic and practical implications of passive investing.

Here are some quotes from the article by Karl N. Huish, Esq., CFP®

To be an active investor, you must say, ‘I am right, and most of you are wrong.’

One huge challenge is separating talent from luck.  Wall Street is filled (and overflowing) with bright, capable fund managers, with gold-plated MBAs and Ph.Ds in economics, mathematics, computer science and physics.  IQ tests and education resumes will not be enough to distinguish the true geniuses from the merely intelligent.  Most of these funds are advertised by top-flight marketing companies.  How do we dis­tinguish the sheep from the goats?

Can past performance help us?  This is the miscon­ception upon which many investors stumble.  It turns out that [surprise!] past performance is not indicative of future performance. A recent large study (3,700 public and corporate plans, representing $737 bil­lion invested) found that manager hiring and firing decisions made by retirement plans, endowments and foundations was a complete waste of money and time: the fund managers performed better than the market before being hired, but underperformed the market af­ter hiring.  In other words, their market-beating per­formance was luck, not skill.

David Swensen is the manager of the Yale University Endowment, which is the highest performing endowment fund over the past 20 years.  To many he is considered the greatest current institutional investor – a modern mastermind. … He stated the fol­lowing:

‘When you look at the results on an after-tax, after-fee basis over reasonably long periods of time, there’s al­most no chance that you end up beating an index fund. The odds…are 100 to 1.’

Mr. Swensen – the best in the business – isn’t very con­fident about beating the market rate of return, as re­flected in an index fund.  How confident are you that you or your advisor can identify those active funds that will – taking all costs into consideration – outperform the passive alternatives?

What Does the Research Say?

Well, what about the data?  It turns out that David Sw­ensen is just about right.  In a 2008 published study, Professors Laurent Barras, Olivier Scaillet, and Russ Wermers used the most advanced statistical testing in science (using tests from computational biology and astronomy), to drill down into the performance of active mutual funds for a 32-year period, from 1975- 2006.  The researchers found that, on a pre-expense basis, 9.6% of mutual fund managers showed genuine market-beating ability. But after expenses were de­ducted only 0.6% of fund managers outperformed the market.”

Conclusion

My Investment Philosophy is based on the belief that a passive approach is the best way to invest my clients’ money.  I follow that same strategy for my own portfolio, as well.   I am not convinced, however, that using simple index funds is the best strategy, largely because of their trading inefficiencies.

But that’s the topic of another post.

Evidence-based Investing, Part One

Just as evidence-based medical care utilizes fact-based best practices in treating illness and disease, it is possible to use research from the academic community in making investment decisions.  Evidence-based investing is really a bridge between academic finance research and practical portfolio management. That’s a mouthful, but what it comes down to is attempting to maximize potential returns, while limiting risks and avoiding common mistakes.

It all started in 1952 when Harry Markowitz published a seminal paper called Portfolio Selection.  He wrote about risk and return and the value of diversification. It may seem commonplace now, but at the time it was groundbreaking.

Markowitz simply said that investors should be more concerned with the characteristics of their portfolio than in choosing individual investments.  He concluded that while investors cannot control the “risk” of individual stocks, they can control the variability (risk) of an entire portfolio with proper diversification.  Of course he proved his point with a lot of mathematics and statistical analysis.  But underneath it was an elegant exposition of a simple concept that your grandmother not only understood, but probably often quoted – don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Academic research has ballooned since the 1950s.  There have been thousands of studies trying to explain how investors do (and should) behave. The old rule of “publish or perish” certainly applies to professors of Economics and Finance, yet many of the papers were published in journals that very few investors even know existed, such as the Journal of Finance, The Journal of Financial Economics, and the Journal of Portfolio Management.

Harry Markowitz earned a Nobel Prize in 1990 along with Merton Miller, and William F. Sharpe for their work in “Financial Economics.”   The body of work developed by them and others has become known as Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).  This approach is not foolproof, and the advice is based on models, not truth written in stone.  And, of course, MPT can be misinterpreted and used incorrectly, sometimes (unfortunately) to sell questionable investment products.  Nevertheless, the practical implications of MPT – focusing on risk and return – are extremely valuable for investors.

You really don’t have to understand all of the details of terms such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model, Alpha, Beta, the Sharpe Ratio, and Portfolio Optimization; there’s no test, after all.  But you should be aware of the major conclusions and practical applications.

One major topic previously discussed in this blog is the difference between active and passive management of investments.  This dichotomy comes straight out of the research that academic economists have performed.

Similarly, you don’t have to read the research of Eugene Fama and Ken French, nor do you need to understand the Fama-French three-factor model, but it would certainly be helpful if your investment manager did.

Actually, Fama and French are quite accessible on their blog.  If you check out the Fama/French Forum, which I highly recommend, you will notice a logo that says “hosted by Dimensional.”

Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) is a company best known for applying academic research to portfolio management.  DFA has been referred to as “the best mutual fund company you’ve never heard of.”

To be continued.

Estate Planning for Procrastinators, Part 2

“The most common excuse parents give for putting off writing a will is trying to decide who will raise the children.” – Ric Edelman.

An earlier post discussed some of the psychological and practical reasons why people put off writing a will.  For young parents, the biggest challenge, and the main reason for procrastinating and not writing a will, may be the task of choosing a guardian or guardians for their children.

Since it is such a prevalent challenge, you can find many articles on the Internet addressing the issue of choosing a guardian.  Actually if you enter “choosing a guardian” in Google, your search will yield 4.7 million hits.  One article I found particularly useful is Why Parents Procrastinate in Writing Their Will . . . and Nine Questions to Help You Overcome It  from Ric Edelman’s newsletter Inside Personal Finance.

The bottom line is that since “deciding on a guardian and how to provide for their kids’ financial needs is difficult …a lot of parents do the worst thing of all: nothing. This means the decision, if one becomes necessary, will be made by a judge or county official.”

To avoid this outcome, that article sets out a procedure for young parents to follow.

“Sit down with pen and paper and answer the following questions, providing as much detail as possible.   If you’re deciding as a couple, answer the questions separately and then compare your answers.  Some of the questions will take some thought, so you might not be able to answer them right away.  That’s okay.  Answer what you can at the first sitting and set a deadline to finish the rest.”

There is not space to repeat the 9 questions, which are quite good, so please read the entire article.  I hope that mulling over this issue will empower you to move forward.  Consulting an experienced estate planning attorney should be high on your agenda of things to do before the end of the year, if not sooner.

Although the article is recommended as a good place to start, here are some additional thoughts from two other articles.

From Guardianship for Your Children 

If you’re having a hard time choosing someone, take some time to talk with the person you’re considering. One or more of your candidates may not be willing or able to accept the responsibility, or their feelings about acting as guardian may help you decide.

If You and the Other Parent Can’t Agree

When you and your child’s other parent make your wills, you should name the same person as personal guardian. If you don’t agree on whom to name, there could be a court fight if both of you die while the child is still a minor. Faced with conflicting wishes, a judge would have to make a choice based on the evidence of what’s in the best interests of your child.

Writing a Letter of Explanation

Leaving a written explanation may be important if you think that a judge could have reason to question your choice for personal guardian.

Judges are required to act in the child’s best interests, so in your letter explain why your choice is best for your child.

If Your Child’s Other Parent Is Your Same-Sex Partner

If you coparent your children with a same-sex partner, you will probably want to name your partner as the personal guardian of your children.  Because some courts will be unfamiliar with your family structure, consider writing a letter to fully explain to the court why it’s important for your partner to be your children’s personal guardian.

From The Importance of Writing a Will

After you’ve made the decision, choose an alternate guardian to include in your will.  He or she will take care of your child in the event that your primary choice is unable to do the job.

If you have a life insurance policy, 401k, or IRA account, be aware that … the beneficiary forms accompanying these documents overrule wills.  The funds in these accounts will be distributed to whomever you name—regardless of whom you specify in your will.  You’ll need to double check the names on these accounts and make changes to match the names with those you dictate in your will.

Conclusion

Why Parents Procrastinate in Writing Their Will . . . and Nine Questions to Help You Overcome It concludes with

“Above all, remember: If you fail to make a choice, you are leaving the decision up to the probate court, where all of the people you considered above (and possibly others) will fight over the decision, with the judge acting as referee.  It’s a difficult task for a judge, since he or she has never met you and will have no idea what you would have wanted.

If the thought of making a choice sends you into a panic, remember that you can always change your mind.  I’ve seen clients change their minds every other year, as their family circumstances change.  If your parents seem the best option today, pick them.  In a few years, when they’re older or have become ill, you can change your mind. Or maybe your choice marries someone you don’t like, or suffers a setback of some kind.  No problem.  Just base your decision on the facts as they are today, and rest assured that as times change and people change, your mind can change, as well.”