Last week, Vanguard officially announced the addition of the Admiral share class to six of their existing index funds. Admiral shares have a higher minimum investment amount ($10,000 for those listed below) than the usual Investor shares ($3,000 for those listed below), but with lower annual expenses. Every time my costs and fees go down, my future performance goes up! Below is a list of the newly-available funds, along with an expense ratio comparison.

The only one I am converting over this time is the Small Value fund. However, I did notice that this now means that for every single Vanguard stock index fund I choose to own, I can choose between both Admiral shares and ETF versions. I like mutual funds because they always trade at NAV and don’t have bid/ask spreads, as well as the ability to schedule automatic monthly investments. ETFs have the advantage of not having any purchase or redemption fees and the ability to be trade in any brokerage account. I went into more detail on the Vanguard mutual fund vs. ETF decision process here.

Vanguard even has a cost comparison tool for mutual funds vs. ETFs. But long-term expenses for me are no longer a concern because they are almost identical with all these Admiral shares. (I suspect the Small Cap Value differential is only temporary.) Here’s the list:

I wrote previously about why I invest in the Vanguard Total US and Total International market funds. Want to convert your Investor shares to Admiral shares before they are automatically converted eventually? It just takes a clicks online – here’s a quick guide [pdf]. Want to convert your mutual funds to ETFs? Check out this post on Vanguard mutual fund to ETF share conversions. It turns out you can also do so easily with minimal tax implications.

If you are constructing your own portfolio and like the idea of low-cost, passively-managed index funds, you should definitely be aware that just two ETFs that can provide you diversified exposure to stocks worldwide and all at rock-bottom fees. Given how many choices there are out there today, I can’t assume that everyone knows about these already.

The Vanguard Total US Stock index fund invests in over 3,000 stocks that represent the entire U.S. stock market, from small-cap to large-cap companies. The smallest company on their holding list is 100 shares of Qualstar Corp, worth a mere $200. The entire company is worth about $20 million. Compare that to the largest holding of Apple, worth $380 billion (that’s 19,000 times larger). The ETF and Admiral shares have a mere 0.07% expense ratio ($7 annually per $10,000 invested), which is taken out in tiny amounts daily out of the fund’s net asset value. That’s just 6% of what the average mutual fund charges. There are three versions:

• Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI)
• Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares (VTSMX)
• Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Admiral Shares (VTSAX)

The Vanguard Total International Stock index fund invests in over 6,000 stocks that covers 98% of the world’s investable markets excluding the US (“ex-US”). This includes 44 countries from the “European, Pacific, and emerging market regions, as well as Canada.” The fund also includes both small-cap and large-cap companies from these countries. The ETF and Admiral shares charge a 0.20% expense ratio. Three versions as well:

• Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS)
• Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares (VGTSX)
• Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Admiral Shares (VTIAX)

This graphic shows you how these two funds relate to other Vanguard ETFs you may already be aware of:

(Source, brighter red text is added by me)

(I should also mention that there is the Vanguard Total World Stock ETF (VT), which covers the entire world in one tidy fund. However, it only holds 2,904 stocks total, which is nearly 2/3rds less than a VTI/VXUS combo. On top of that, it charges a 0.25% expense ratio, which is nearly double how much a VTI/VXUS combo would cost when weighted appropriately. I personally think the added diversification and lower cost is worth the hassle of owning two separate funds.)

Implementation

As of August 31, 2011, the world market value breaks down to about 42% US and 58% Ex-US. For simplicity, I chose to own VTI and VXUS in a simple 50/50 ratio as part of my target asset allocation. I rebalance back to 50/50 regularly using new cashflows, and also at least once annually. Bonds are a separate discussion.

Side note: The reason I thought of writing this is that I previously held Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF (VEU) as my primary international holding, which as you can see above is a subset of VXUS, but realize that VXUS only arrived earlier this year. I’ve shifted most things over already, but I have been hesitant to sell some of my taxable holdings because I’d owe capital gains taxes. I noticed yesterday that I am actually at slight loss now (yay?), so I am able to do some tax-loss harvesting by selling my VEU and swapping it for VXUS. Since they are not “substantially identical” funds, I am not subject to wash sale rules.

There’s a ways to go, but we’re still aiming to retire within the next 10 years. As such, I’ve been thinking about what happens when we want to live off of withdrawals from our retirement portfolio. According to the passively-managed Target Date funds by Vanguard, if you reach retirement you’re directed to the Vanguard Target Retirement Income fund. Another popular option for retirees is the Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund, which has been around for over 40 years, and is actively-managed by Wellington Management Company, an advisory company that has been around since the Great Depression. Let’s take a quick look to see how these two funds compare.

Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund (VTINX)

This fund seeks to provide “current income and some capital appreciation”. The approximate asset allocation is 30% stocks, 65% bonds, and 5% cash. It is a fund of funds, holding the Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund, Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund, Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund, and Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund. Here is the current asset allocation per Vanguard as well as the equity and bond style boxes from Morningstar.

Number of stocks held: 9,958 (3,323 US + 6,635 Foreign)

Number of bonds held: 4,486 (4,450 nominal bond + 36 TIPS bonds)

Expense ratio: 0.17% ($170 a year on a $100,000 balance)

Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund Admiral Shares (VWIAX)

This is an income-oriented balanced fund, which is another way of saying the same thing as above. The approximate asset allocation is 35% stocks, 65% bonds. I am choosing the Admiral shares as opposed to the Investor shares because the great majority of people using this for their retirement will reach the $50,000 minimum balance. Here is the current asset allocation per Vanguard as well as the equity and bond style boxes from Morningstar.

Number of stocks held: 60

Number of bonds held: 559

Expense ratio: 0.21% ($210 a year on a $100,000 balance)

Commentary

The overall asset allocation of the two funds is very similar, especially since you could consider cash/short-term reserves as bonds. However, how they are constructed is very different. Target Retirement is passively indexed on a market-cap weighted distribution and holds nearly 10,000 stocks from around the world. Wellesley is actively-managed to include only 60 selected dividend stocks from primarily large, US companies.

As for bonds, Target Retirement follows another market-weighted index of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Bond Index. There is a large chunk of US Treasury, US Treasury Inflation-linked, and US Agency mortage-backed bonds. Wellesley is mostly in corporate investment-grade bonds.

Wellesley is produces more of it’s returns as income through stock dividends and the higher bond yields from corporate bonds, with a current SEC yield of 3.28%. This allows the psychological benefit of possibly spending only the dividends that the fund distributes every quarter. However, there is the concern that 60 stocks is not enough diversification, or that their bond analysts might drop the ball. Here is the growth chart of $10,000 (click to enlarge):

At least historically, the managers of Wellesley have added value. Will it continue? Unknown. The good news is that with such low costs, there’s one less reason to expect underperformance in the future. These are just an example of what is out there, although on some early retirement forums I see folks simply holding a 50/50 split of these two exact funds. Sometimes I think everyone should just start with these kind of low volatility funds in the first place, and just reinvest dividends.

Last week, I shared a chart that showed how a diversified portfolio that was rebalanced regularly still managed to nearly double in value over the last decade. Here’s another similar finding based on the David Swensen portfolio as compiled by an advisor group called ETF Portfolio Management.

Swensen manages the Yale University endowment and wrote an excellent investment book called Unconventional Success (my review) directed towards individual investors. Even though he does active management himself, he explains why low costs and low turnover are critical, how certain asset class are better than others, and why rebalancing regularly is important. He ends up providing a model portfolio made up of what he calls “Core” asset classes. Here’s the slightly updated David Swensen Portfolio with his recommended 70% stocks / 30% bonds breakdown. Actual low-cost index ETFs are included via ticker symbols.

30% Domestic US Equity (VTI)
15% Foreign Developed Equity (VEA)
10% Emerging Markets (VWO)
15% Real Estate (VNQ)
15% U.S. Treasury Bonds (IEF)
15% Inflation-Protected Securities (TIP)

Instead of the Total Bond Index from last week, which include everything from Treasuries to corporate bonds to mortgage-backed securities, the Swensen bond allocation only has nominal and inflation-linked Treasury bonds. The chart below shows the growth of $1,000 invested this way (eMAC) at the start of 2001 until the end of July 2011. (Last week’s chart included the start of 2000 to end of 2009.) The ETFs listed above were bought and rebalanced annually. eMAC stands for “efficent multi-asset class”.

Again, we see that the diversified and rebalanced portfolio has done well over the last 10 years, more than doubling in value. Check out their annual returns breakdown (summarized below), and you can see how in any single year different asset classes will have different returns. Some go up, some stay steady, some go down. This lack of strong correlation is what helps smooth out your portfolio, and makes you feel better that at least something is doing okay at any given time.

Now, this may not be the ideal portfolio going forward. Nobody knows the future, you can only do what you think gives you the best odds for success. But it does serve as another real-world example of how low-cost diversification works and that you should have good reasons for holding each of the asset classes that you buy.

(The “HF Index” indicated stands for the Dow Jones Credit Suisse Hedge Fund Index, which claims to track ~8,000 hedge funds and thus tracks overall hedge fund performance. After poking around their website, the returns seem to be net of manager fees.)

There is a lot of uncertainty in investing, and it always seems like especially now. Buy and hold has been called dead many times. However, if you look carefully, you’ll find that there are many people who have quietly grown their portfolio over the last decade using the boring principles of diversification, low-costs, and regular rebalancing. I would also add proper tax planning helps as well.

Here is some data from a WSJ article by Burton Malkiel (author of Random Walk Down Wall Street) that helps illustrates this. (Can’t view the article? Use this Google the title trick and click the first link.) The article is from several months ago, but the S&P 500 index back then was almost exactly the same as yesterday: 1,193 vs. 1,195.

The chart below shows the growth of $100,000 invested at the start of 2000 until the end of 2009. As you can see, a 100% stock investment (in green) would have ended up at $93,717. Thus the term “lost decade for stocks”.

But what happens when you mix in some other assets, and rebalanced them annually? The red line is a portfolio consisting of 67% stocks and 33% bonds, all in low-cost index funds. The stock breakdown was 27% US, 14% Developed International, 14% Emerging Markets, and 12% REITs. The result was a ending balance of $191,859, which means an investor in 2000 could have, without special psychic powers, nearly doubled their portfolio over the same “lost decade”.

The diversified portfolio above matches rather well with my own asset allocation. For one, my AA also has 50/50 US/non-US split plus a chunk in REITs. Although I started out 85% stocks/15% bonds, I am now closer to 75% stocks. I have also rebalanced annually to maintain that ratio, but I do feel that my portfolio has still grown past my contributions even though I haven’t tracked my personal returns as well as I’d like.

Regular rebalancing is key. That is, keeping your target asset allocation by buying what is going down, and selling what is going up, in order to keep your desired risk profile. Both in early 2009 and last week, I was buying stocks. While there is debate on this, I believe that there is a reversion-to-the-mean effect that boosts your returns.

This an update for my investment portfolio, including 401(k) plans, IRAs, and taxable brokerage holdings. There have been only a few small changes since my last portfolio update. As always, this is our own personal portfolio and may not necessarily be completely applicable to anyone else.

Asset Allocation – Target vs. Actual

I separate the stock and bond portions for clarity. My target asset allocation remains the same:

Here is my actual stock allocation, where it shows that I am slightly overweight US Total and will need do some light rebalancing.

My actual bonds allocation is not really worth making a chart for… the target is 50%/50% and I have 47% short-term nominal bonds and 53% inflation-protected bonds.

Stocks vs. Bonds Ratio

[Read more…]

Effective May 11st, Vanguard has lowered the minimum initial investment on their Target Retirement Funds to $1,000, down from $3,000. Thank goodness, as this avoids having everyone pointing out that the Vanguard STAR fund was the only one with a minimum of $1,000. But seriously, I think this is a smart and overdue move by Vanguard, as it allows investors with limited funds to start out investing in a low-cost, diversified investment that adjusts with age. I put my own mother’s Rollover IRA in a Target Retirement Fund a couple years ago, and I sleep well at night.

(See previous post on the Vanguard Target Date Retirement Funds Glide Path to see how the asset allocation changes over time. I kept my mom’s target date close to their default recommendation, as my dad’s retirement accounts are on the conservative side.)

What if you have less than $1,000? There are plenty of “how to invest with just $100” posts out there, and if I look back I’ve probably done one myself. However, my new advice is this: Don’t bother. Instead, focus your energy on investing in yourself, by either learning about investing in general or improving your career and business skills. Put what you have safely in the bank, now once you have $1,000, then stick it in a Target Retirement Fund via a tax-advantaged IRA.