“This isn’t liberal or conservative.” – Elizabeth Warren.

Why would six former presidents (two of whom are deceased) take the trouble to visit President Obama? And who arranged this “Presidential Reunion”? For the answer, visit Funny or Die, the popular comedy Web site.

Of course, consumer protection is really no laughing matter, especially if you or someone you know is paying 18% interest on credit cards or has seen their mortgage payments balloon to unpayable (i.e. forecloseable) amounts.

For a detailed, intelligent 20 minute discussion of the issue, click on the Charlie Rose interview with Elizabeth Warren, the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

Here is a summary of some of her points.

According to Professor Warren, of the Harvard Law School, no federal agency is looking out for the consumer when it comes to such matters as credit cards, mortgages, check overdraft fees, and car loans. She has been pushing for the formation of a new consumer agency for much of the last year, and it is currently the subject of Congressional negotiations.

Professor Warren believes that the current regulatory framework is “inefficient, and either ignored and ineffective, or captured by the large financial institutions. A fractured, bloated, overly fat — I just don’t know what else to say — regulatory system is what we’ve got now. It works very well for the large financial institutions because it means no effective regulation.”

Regarding the proposed Consumer Protection Agency, she says “You’ve got to have an agency that’s ultimately independent, whether it’s located within the Fed, within Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, or whether it sits in its own separate place. The key is whether or not it is functionally independent — does it write its own rules, does it enforce those rules, and does it have access to a budget that’s independent of the folks who want to smother it.”

“This is an agency that just makes sense. It’s about readable credit cards, it’s about readable mortgages, it’s about prices that are transparent. This isn’t liberal or conservative. The American Enterprise Institute, very well respected, very conservative, has put model two-page mortgage agreements, two page check overdraft agreements on its Web site. … A consumer agency makes sense to get the market working again. So this isn’t a division of ideology. This is about bank lobbyists. This is about people who are paid professionally to stop this agency, their words, “to kill this agency” so they can protect the revenues for the Wall Street banks.”

By the way, Professor Warren also has some very interesting observations on how the government mishandled the financial crisis and what to do about the “too big to fail” financial institutions. So do watch the entire video, if you have the time.

And for a not-so-serious article on the same subject you can learn how the Presidential Reunion video was made possible by reading the New York Times story.

While not directly involved in the making of the video, Ms. Warren did comment on the video’s premise. “Why wouldn’t our past presidents agree on shrinking government by transforming a bunch of bloated, ineffective and unaccountable consumer-protection bureaucracies into a smaller, streamlined, and effective agency? And why wouldn’t they all support two-page credit card agreements?”

Conclusion

Pardon me for getting political (an arena I try very hard to stay out of), but one indication of whether Congress can pass any meaningful reform on anything is whether it can withstand intense lobbying against consumer finance protection. Today Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut is scheduled to release his proposed legislation. We will see if his solution, which covers many more things than just consumer protection, will be acceptable to enough Senators and eventually to the American people.

If this issue is important to you, let your voice be heard. You have the ability to pass this post on to friends; simply click on the title of a post, then “Share This” to forward.

When I go to conferences held by Dimensional Fund Advisors, one of the best run and most respected mutual fund companies, the lecture known affectionately as “Investment Pornography” generally gets the most attention and the most nodding heads of recognition. The presentation consists of articles from popular finance magazines followed by a quick analysis of what actually happened. Punchline: They were spectacularly wrong, time and time again.

Future posts will cover articles that are way too optimistic and were written simply to get you riled up enough to buy a magazine, newspaper or investment newsletter. Today’s topic is of the other kind of Investment Pornography, the alarming article that promotes fear. This is the other side of the outlandish approach to getting your attention.

Sympathy and Recognition

I feel sorry for a journalist who covers the stock markets. A writer typically takes the financial news of the day (which is, more often than not, pretty muddled), and tries to make some sense of it by quoting various people who at least sound as though they know what they’re talking about.

The fact is that sometimes stock prices go up and sometimes they go down, and sometimes they don’t do anything. And no one can predict what is going to happen next. That’s why it’s best to be a buy and hold type investor. But, really, who would read that story over and over? Would you?

So although writers try to be accurate, relevant and interesting, they frequently stray into making predictions. In my opinion, trying to predict the future is futile, and can be downright dangerous. Sometimes a writer will positively mislead you and convince you to do something you will regret.

Fear Mongering

A year ago, on March 6, 2009, I took the New York Times to task for fear mongering at (possibly) just the wrong time. By coincidence the stock market hit its actual bottom a year ago on March 9th, the next business day. Read that post for an egregious article that, if followed, would have cost you dearly.

While, in general, I love the New York Times’ reporting, here is a recent example of fear mongering from the January 25th article, Volatility and Politics Spark Fears of Market Correction, by Javier C. Hernandez.

Here are some questionable quotes with my comments:

“Brace yourself for another wild ride on Wall Street.” (Sounds scary, doesn’t it?)

“Worries about the strength of the global recovery and proposals from Washington to clamp down on banks have sent fresh jitters through financial markets, prompting chatter among traders that stocks could be poised for that rare but alarming phenomenon: a correction.” (Rare and alarming? Not really; it happens more often than you’d think.)

“Over three tense days last week, stocks tumbled nearly 5 percent; the Dow posted triple-digit losses on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, ending the week at its lowest level since November.” (So? Five percent declines are quite common and mean nothing. Three days should definitely not make anyone “tense.”)

“Some analysts believe the downward momentum may continue.” (True, but other analysts don’t.)

“A confluence of all those headwinds creates a perfect storm of uncertainty on a market that had already been a bit vulnerable to a pullback,” said Quincy M. Krosby, a market strategist at Prudential Financial. (“Perfect storm”- nice phrasing; I sure hope that it didn’t convince you to abandon a well-thought out plan, though.)

“A severe decline in the market is far from assured. There are no certainties on Wall Street, and stocks have been known to bounce back after similarly turbulent periods.” (Thank you, thank you, thank you! I couldn’t have said it better myself.)

“In the near term, an unusual degree of uncertainty may bring more losses to the stock market.” (Yes, and then again it may not.)

Fast Forward Five Weeks

By contrast, after the market had gone up, the New York Times had this March 5th article: Markets Find the Upside of the Jobs Report also by Mr. Hernandez.

What a difference five weeks makes! Now, after the stock market has gone back up, we read “better-than-expected snapshot of unemployment in the United States lifted Wall Street on Friday, reinforcing hopes that the job market — and the broader economy — might be gaining strength.”

Here are more quotes with my comments.

“The fact that unemployment is not getting worse is great news for the market.” (First of all, it is possible that statistically the recession has already ended. Second, the unemployment news tells us only what has already happened, not necessarily what the stock market will do.)
…

“In light of that uncertainty, the question for Wall Street is whether the upward push can endure.” (You are free to guess what the stock market will do short-term, but no one knows.)

…

“The major indexes have recovered from their losses in January, and they are in positive territory for the year. Last week brought strong gains, with all three indexes ending the week more than 2 percent higher.” (Good thing we didn’t bail out and sell after reading that January 25th article, hmm?)

Enough

I am not picking on the New York Times. It is a must read for me every day, for its reporting and also for its opinion columnists. In truth, if I had to give up either reading the New York Times or watching TV, it would be a difficult choice.

And the New York Times is certainly not alone in its fear-mongering role; almost without trying, you can easily find dozens of predictive articles in most, if not all, national publications.   Money magazine has had many silly articles that would have cost you big bucks.  SmartMoney is frequently not-so-smart.   Business Week and Forbes should be ashamed. Time magazine is well known for its lurid front covers of Depression-like photos.

My advice is to ignore such articles, because they are in fact “Financial Pornography.” They attempt to, and often succeed in, getting people riled up, by either pandering to fear or greed. More likely than not, they are heavily influenced by what has already happened.

If they correctly predict what the markets subsequently do, it is merely a coincidence, in my opinion. Save your time and your money. Pay no attention to sensational articles with worrying predictions, or ones that identify sure-fire investments for that matter. By the time you read the story, any relevant facts are already reflected in today’s prices. It is too late to consider what you read to be useful, actionable information.

Do not be influenced by short term fluctuations or worrying articles. It is much better to have a plan and to stick with it.

My last post discussed the basic stock-bond allocation decision. This is a technique that many investment advisers use, but it is not the way most people approach investing. Most people are looking for an idea, a story or concept that they can build upon to make a winning investment, something that captures their imagination. They want to be a part of the next big thing, discovery or cure.

From time to time, a friend or acquaintance will tell me his or her investment philosophy. Years ago, one such friend offered the advice that you should “buy what you know.” That, of course, assumes that familiarity translates to good investment analysis. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is always the case.

Take, for example, people in Rochester, N.Y., who over-weighted their portfolios with Eastman Kodak and Xerox – more’s the pity for their retirement accounts. I submit that where you live (or where you grew up or where you work) should not be the guiding factor to which stocks you buy. Suppose you had lived in Houston and bought a ton of Enron stock or lived in Charlotte and invested heavily in Wachovia Bank stock?

Another past story line I’ve heard was “buy dominant technology companies with market power” as in Cisco, Microsoft, and other highflying tech stocks. That bit of advice was proffered in 2000, incidentally, just before all those “dominant technology companies” tanked.

More recently, a friend said that he liked GE, simply because Warren Buffett had invested in it. (And Buffett must know what he is doing, after all.) Fine, but Mr. Buffett’s company bought preferred shares with powerful guarantees and plenty of sweeteners; a much better deal than you or I or any “ordinary” investor will ever get buying GE common stock on the open market.

Some people follow trends, buying what “is going up” (which really means buying what has already gone up; granted, a small difference in interpretation, but a big difference in results). A good example of this is gold, which I have been asked about recently. (I’ll write more about gold in a future post.)

And, naturally, I’m also approached by the pessimists, who talk only of deficits, higher taxes in 2011 or 2012, third world debt, possible terrorism, etc., etc.

What is to be made from all these divergent concerns and predictions? In my opinion, not much. Hot tips and stocks with a good “story” or narrative are not necessarily going to reward you as an investor, because you cannot get the past performance that you have already witnessed.

Conclusion

My approach has always been and will continue to be this: If you are an investor, then you should invest. You should not allow yourself to be influenced by the news – good or bad – or by what your friends are doing or not doing. Investing is about cost control, having a globally diversified portfolio (preferably one holding thousands of securities), and taking the amount of risk that is right for you.

It is simple, but it is not easy.

To be continued…

The Stock-Bond Decision

When meeting with clients, I emphasize that choosing a basic stock-bond mix is a very important first step in effective and productive portfolio design. Unfortunately, I sometimes encounter people who have allocated their portfolio at either extreme – 100% in stocks or 100% in money market accounts/bonds.  Very few advisors would ever recommend either approach.

Although the stock-bond decision may appear simple, it can have a profound impact on your wealth.  Studies have proven that nearly 90% of a portfolio’s long-term results are directly linked to asset allocation, and the right stock-versus-bond mix should be your first deliberate and strategic decision.

The Rationale

Because neither I nor anyone I know can predict the future, I believe in having a diversified portfolio that includes both stocks and bonds.  I “dial down” total risk by adding fixed income to the stock market mix.  Quite simply, the greater the bond allocation relative to stocks, the less risky the portfolio, but the lower the total expected return.  On the other hand, the greater the stock allocation relative to bonds, the higher the portfolio’s expected return, and the higher the associated risk.

So, how do you confidently allocate between stocks and bonds?  One method is to use model portfolios to illustrate the risk-return spectrum over time. For simplicity and clarity, the highest risk portfolio holds 100% in a stock index, while the least volatile portfolio holds 100% in high quality bonds. Between these extremes lie other stock-bond allocations, such as 80/20, 60/40, 50/50, 40/60, and 20/80.  Comparing past results side by side is illuminating and quite helpful in the decision making process.

Certainly, relying on historical performance is not foolproof, because past results are not a guarantee of future performance.   But if you compare the average annualized return and volatility (standard deviation) of each model portfolio since 1970 (for example), you have an idea of what relative risk you can expect and whether or not you can accept the potential loss.

Lately, I have found that showing how portfolios did in 2008 is very helpful in illustrating the risk-reward tradeoffs.  Analyzing just that specific year shows that diversification neither assures a profit nor guarantees against loss in a declining market, at least in the short term.

For example, a portfolio with a stock allocation of 80% declined 30% in 2008, while a portfolio of 60% stocks “only” declined by 21%.  Many people can live with a 21% decline, knowing that markets do rebound and the long term outlook is positive.  On the other hand, suffering a 30% loss (or more) could have tipped some investors into panicking and getting out of the stock market entirely, much to their chagrin today.

Refining the Stock Allocation

After establishing the basic stock-bond mix, I turn my attention to refining the stock allocation.  Depending on an investor’s individual profile, I may overweight or “tilt” the allocation toward riskier asset classes that have a history of offering average returns above the market.

Research published by Eugene Fama and Kenneth French reveals that small cap stocks have had higher average returns than large cap stocks, and “value stocks” have had higher average returns than growth stocks.  By holding a larger portion of small cap and value stocks in a portfolio, an investor increases the potential to earn higher returns for the additional risk taken.

The final step in refining the stock component is to diversify globally.  By holding an array of equity asset classes across domestic and international markets, you can reduce the impact of underperformance in a single market or region of the world.  And lest you worry about the global recession, last year developed and emerging markets grew at a rate higher than domestic markets, by 27.7% and 74.1%, respectively.

Conclusion

Over short periods of time, returns on stocks are quite variable; in other words, in any year we don’t know whether stocks will produce good results or not.  But, over a longer period of time – and this has been historically proven – stocks provide higher average returns than low-yielding bonds.  That’s why I generally recommend that investors with a long investment life ahead of them focus on achieving the higher long-term returns through investment in stocks.  As your time horizon or risk tolerance changes, you can reallocate your portfolio’s risk more in favor of bonds.

Summary

The stock-bond decision drives a large part of a portfolio’s long-term performance. During discussions with clients, I have found that examining different stock-bond combinations can help them visualize the risk-return tradeoff as they consider the range of potential outcomes over time. Once a mix is determined, it can guide more detailed choices of asset classes to hold in the portfolio. And, as one’s appetite for risk shifts over time, the allocation decision can and should be revisited.

• If you don’t pass your values onto your kids, someone else will.
• You’d think we’d learn something from watching a hamster run around on its wheel.
• Practice doesn’t make perfect if you’re doing it wrong.
• Paradise is not a place; it’s a state of mind.
• Fun shouldn’t be confused with happiness.
• A homeless person wasn’t at one time.
• If work isn’t fun, you’re not playing on the right team.
• Trying to be excellent at everything leads to mediocrity.
• Some people don’t communicate. They just take turns talking.
• Everyone was put on this earth for a good reason . . . what’s yours?
• When it comes to charity, some people stop at nothing.
• Trust takes a long times to develop, but can be destroyed in seconds.
• Anger is a loaded weapon . . . be careful where you point it.
• Lessons in life will be repeated until they are learned.
• Marrying for money is a high price to pay.
• A great start doesn’t always guarantee a great finish.
• It’s better to get called out swinging than called out on strikes.
• Just because it say’s “URGENT” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s important.
• People often count their pennies yet squander their dollars.
• Half a sandwich shared with a hungry person is more nourishing than the whole.
• Helping people too much only makes them helpless.
• Those who serve arrogance as their main course will eat humble pie for dessert.
• Always give 110%. It’s the extra 10% that everyone remembers.
• We teach children to color inside the lines, and then expect adults to think outside the box.
• Live every day as if it were your last. One day it will be.

My plan for early 2010 is to begin a series of posts on lessons we all should have learned from the “Great Recession” and one of the biggest and sharpest stock market declines any of us have ever experienced. I hope to present these lessons in plain English, and with “real life” stories that you’ll be able to identify with. Ultimately, my goal is to help you to avoid the same mistakes again.

Oh, and if you’re wondering, my favorite thought on Frank Sonnenberg’s list is “Lessons in life will be repeated until they are learned.”

One very important (and highly contentious) issue in health care reform is whether the health insurance industry needs more regulation and/or more competition, i.e. “a public option.”  For a special view of an insider, I recommend the July 10th episode of Bill Moyers Journal.  This TV program had an extended interview with Wendell Potter, who is the former head of Public Relations for CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest insurance companies.

In a change of heart, Potter decided to speak out against the insurance industry. Here is a salient quote from the program’s description.

Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don’t pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year.  Under these conditions, Potter says, “You don’t think about individual people.  You think about the numbers, and whether or not you’re going to meet Wall Street’s expectations.”

Conclusion

I am all in favor of corporations making a profit.  That judgment assumes that a competitive market exists and that consumers have real choice.  In general, if companies have an incentive to provide a better product or service, shareholders can prosper and consumers will benefit.

But there is very little competition in the health insurance marketplace.  If insurance companies have perverse incentives to deny coverage and to game the system, consumers are obviously harmed.  The insurance that you thought you had may be a costly illusion.

Watch the video or read the transcript, and decide for yourself.

But there are other compelling reasons for listening to him; simply put, he speaks in a way that anyone can understand.  It’s a Midwestern common sense, seasoned with well-earned and certainly, much deserved, confidence. He’s cheerful, loves what he does, and apparently cares very little about consumption.  He is extremely grateful for the opportunity he has had in the United States and the life that he has lived.  He has already given away billions and plans to give away still more to charitable foundations.

Buffett was a guest on the November 13th episode of the Charlie Rose TV show.  Unfortunately, only excerpts of that show are available for online viewing. Go to the Charlie Rose website and search for Warren Buffett. What you’ll find are his ideas on financial regulation, his reasons why he bought the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and his assessment of the global economy. There is also a “Web Exclusive” interview.

A full written transcript is available here.

I’d like to focus on his basic optimism about the future of the United States, because in my opinion, you need three things to be a successful long-term investor.

• Faith in the future.
• Patience.
• Discipline.

Here are some relevant quotes from the November 13th program.

(Regarding consumer demand)  Well, it will come back eventually. … Our system will still work. … We talked last year about the patient, you know, being on the floor with a cardiac arrest … and we’re not out of the hospital yet.   But we will come out of the hospital.  This — the things that made America what it is have not disappeared, and they will — they will assert themselves with time.

The American economy will come back.  It won’t be tomorrow, and, you know, it won’t be exactly the same.  But in the end, we have not — we’ve not changed the American people in their capacity to innovate or their excitement about — about becoming more prosperous, and coming up with new ideas.  Businesses will be formed.  Businesses will expand.  But not much tomorrow.

If you look back a couple of hundred years, we’ve gotten where we are not because we’ve gotten smarter or not because we work harder.  We’ve got it because we found ways to unleash more of the human potential.   And what does that?  Well, a rule of law helps.  A market system helps.   Equality of opportunity helps.  All of these things that are still a fundamental part of the American system. As a matter of fact, the American system is now better than it was a couple of hundred years ago, because until the 19th Amendment, you know, we’ve had half the talent in the United States that wasn’t entitled to do much. So we’ve got a great system.  (Emphasis added.)

Well, I have everything I want in life, so there’s nothing to spend it on.  I mean, I could have 10 houses instead of one, would I be happier?  No way.  I could have 10 cars instead of, you know, two in the house.   I wouldn’t be happier.  You know, it would drive me crazy.  I could have a 400-foot boat, you know, and then I’ve got to have a crew of 50 or 60, and some of them (inaudible), sleeping together — I mean, who knows what would be going on. So I don’t — if I wanted to be a ship’s captain, you know, I’d have gone into a different profession.  I have everything in life I want.

I love working — I love working with the people I work with.   I love just viewing the human scene, but I mean, I have an ideal life.  I get to do what I want to do every day.  So, you know, and money can’t — can’t buy any more than that.

As I said earlier, you need three things to be a successful investor:

Faith in the future. Optimism is the only realistic attitude; you cannot be fearful and succeed as an investor.

Patience. Moving in and out of the market or among various investments does not accomplish anything.

Discipline. Do not be driven by headlines or events.  Ask not, “What’s working now?”  Ask, “What always works?”

I believe Warren Buffett to be instructive and inspirational on all three counts.

And, in truth, the topics that interest me most are quite contentious.  Why is the United States the only developed country that does not provide universal health care?  How can we change the incentives of citizens and medical care providers so that we reduce costs and improve outcomes?  Do we have a health care system now, or is it a “sick care” industry?  Why are we not paying more attention to prevention?

I’m sure that very smart people are thinking and writing about these issues, but I have just not taken the time to identify them and sort everything out.

However, there is one columnist who is readily available and discusses some practical issues that are worth mentioning, and that is David Leonhardt.  His weekly column, Economic Scene, appears on Wednesdays in the New York Times. He is also a contributor to the Times Magazine on Sundays.  I’ve been a fan of his for a long time, and in a previous post I discussed an article he wrote on President Obama’s Economic Agenda.

Wednesday’s column, Falling Far Short of Reform, discusses some very practical issues reflected in the two different health-care bills currently working their way through the House of Representatives and the Senate.

If you’ve been following the health care debate and are interested in a sensible discussion, I can recommend this column.  And if you’ve not been following the debate, but would like to catch up on what all the hoopla has been about, I can still recommend this column.

Request

I would love to hear from others on recommendations of articles that appeal to them.  I’m specifically not interested in articles that rail against “a government takeover of health care” or call efforts at reform “socialized medicine.”  I am interested in articles that discuss what works in improving health care and/or in reducing costs – priorities, both, for the majority of Americans, I should think.

I reached my conclusions by reading the handout material and by what he said in a seminar.  I also studied his web site, which disclosed his fees.  But I did not have direct access to a client’s portfolio, so I felt somewhat tentative in my judgments.  But today’s post by Allan Roth An Interview with Ric Edelman – Is High Cost Indexing an Oxymoron? confirmed my suspicions.

Roth analyzed an Edeleman client’s portfolio, and he also spoke to Edeleman. Roth reached the same conclusions I had about the high fees, and he also questioned Edelman’s recommendation of not paying off a mortgage.  Finally he confirmed my belief that Edelman was not paying attention to asset location, since he found the same allocations in the IRA accounts as in the client’s taxable accounts.

But enough criticism.  The rest of this post is about Edelman’s book The Lies About Money, which I can recommend.  In the first two chapters he persuasively lays out the case for diversification and for not trying to time the market.  This is a very important message which many investors still do not get.  Then he explains the advantages of mutual funds.

But it in his fourth chapter, The Demise of the Retail Mutual Fund Industry, that he shines.  He essentially demolishes (active) retail mutual funds.  For starters, he discusses the frequent manager changes, the costs of active management, and the dangers of style drift.  And this is just the beginning; he discusses 25 reasons why you should not use a typical (active) retail mutual fund.

Not satisfied with that, Edelman actually put together A Mutual Fund Scandal Timeline outlining the abuses that have been alleged or proven from 2003 to 2007.  It takes him a “mere” 40 pages to summarize the questionnable practices and allegations of abuse.  If that is not enough to make you question whether your mutual fund or stockbroker is actually your friend, then nothing will.  So buy the book or get it out of the library simply for Chapter 4.

Conclusion

The financial services business is fraught with conflicts of interest, high fees, misleading ads, and general confusion for the typical investor.  Sorting through this mess is not easy.  As William Bernstein says, “Both mutual fund companies and brokerage houses know more ways than you can count of fleecing you without your knowing it.”

To be continued.

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.