A lot of people own Vanguard Target Retirement 20XX Funds, and I just noticed that Vanguard made an announcement that they will be making some changes:

• The international equity weighting will be increased to 30% of the overall stock portion fund, up from about 20%.
• Three of the funds (European Stock Index, Pacific Stock Index, and Emerging Markets Stock Index) will be replaced by a single fund, Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund.
• The Total International Stock Index Fund itself is making some changes. Its benchmark index will switch to the MSCI All Country World ex USA Investable Market Index, which differs from the previous index by adding exposure to Canada and Israel, as well as adding a ~13% allocation to small-cap companies.

All of these changes sound good to me, even if it is another example of Vanguard following the herd. The very first target retirement funds had no exposure to Emerging Markets. Emerging got hot, and then Vanguard added to their funds. Investors have been increasing their international exposure as well recently, and 20% was less than their competitors like Fidelity and starting to look old-fashioned. (Perhaps this is another move away from the philosophies of founder Jack Bogle.)

This also means most Target funds will consist of just three funds:

• Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund
• Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund
• Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund

The stated reasons are for increased simplification and diversification (and a little less volatility perhaps), and not for any increase in expected future returns. Here’s a Q&A from Morningstar with Vanguard CIO Gus Sauter about the topic.

I still like this series of all-in-one funds for those people who like the idea of auto-pilot and have all their retirement savings in tax-deferred accounts like 401ks and IRAs. They are simple, reduce your stock exposure gradually over time, keep costs low, and rebalance regularly for you. You can also adjust your risk level by choosing a different target year.

I held the Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 (VTIVX) for a while. After selling it, I’ve found it very easy to let my asset allocation shift.

However, if you have both taxable and tax-deferred investment accounts, splitting up your bonds and stocks for optimal tax-efficiency can help you increase your after-tax returns.

I’ve already posted my target asset allocation, now here’s my actual portfolio holdings. Again, these are my own choices, governed by the size of my tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs/403b/401ks, the brokerage firms that I use, and my preference of passive management and low fees. Even with the explosion of new blogs, I still don’t see very many people sharing their actual holdings. I hope that if I share, then others will share as well. 🙂

Tax-Efficient Placement

One big change for me over the last two years is that I now run out of room in my IRAs and 401ks each year and now have money sitting in taxable accounts. Since each asset class is taxed differently, where you put your assets can make a big difference in your net return. As a result, I’ve moved some things around. Here’s a handy graphic taken from a post about tax-efficient fund placement:

Stocks

US Total Market
I used to own Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) but recently converted that to the ETF share version Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) due to the lower 0.07% annual expense ratio. This fund tracks the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and typically holds the largest 1,200–1,300 stocks (covering nearly 95% of the index’s total market capitalization) and a representative sample of the remaining stocks. It currently holds 3,391 different companies. All for $7 a year for each $10,000 hold.

In my 401k, since I have limited options, I hold a mix of 75% Diversified Stock Index Institutional Fund (DISFX) which is basically a S&P 500 fund and 25% Fidelity Spartan Extended Market Index Fund (FSEMX) as it tracks the entire market minus the S&P 500. Together, the track the overall US market very well, at only a slightly higher cost of a weighted 0.25%.

US Small Cap Value
Here, I still hold the Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund (VISVX). I could convert to the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR) with identical holdings and a lower expense ratio of 0.14% vs. 0.28%, but since it is only 5% of my portfolio I haven’t yet. In addition, there are good arguments for alternative ETFs such as iShares Russell 2000 Value Index ETF (IWN) or iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value Index ETF (IJS). They each track slightly different indices and thus hold different stocks. Something to analyze deeper at a later time.

REIT
I still hold the Vanguard REIT Index Fund (VGSIX) as opposed to the Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ). Both track the MSCI® US REIT Index. I hold this inside my IRA, so I’d rather just have full investment rather than worry about partial shares and such.

International / Total World excluding US
I used to hold Fidelity Spartan International Index Fund (FSIIX) but now hold the Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF (VEU) which tracks the FTSE All-World ex US Index and holds 2,239 stocks from around the world. There is the equivalent Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund (VFWIX) but since this is a bigger holding for me, the cheaper expense ratio makes a difference.

Emerging Markets
I converted to the Vanguard Emerging Markets ETF (VWO) from the Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund (VEIEX). Even though my overall investment here is low, VEIEX has both a 0.25% redemption fee, and a 0.50% purchase fee, which is just too annoying to stay there. Another option would have been the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (EEM), but it is both more expensive and has had more tracking issues. Here’s a EEM vs. VWO comparison post.

Bonds

Short-Term High Quality Bonds
I used to own the Vanguard Short-Term Treasury Fund Investor Shares (VFISX) but it now only yields 0.41% with an average duration of 2.2 years. If you had an IRA at certain banks, you could buy a CD earning 2-3% over the same time horizon. It would be just as safe. There would be less liquidity, but I’m not really concerned about that. The CD would be even better because you can’t lose what you put in.

I’ve actually gone ahead an put this portion of my portfolio in a stable value fund inside my 401k. I explored the risks and rewards of stable value funds, and while they are not of the utmost safety, the worst-case scenario is on the same order of the worst-case scenario of many short-term bond funds. My stable value fund is earning 3.5% for all of 2010.

I’ve also been looking at municipal bond funds such as the Vanguard Limited-Term Tax-Exempt Fund (VMLTX) and Vanguard Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt Fund (VWITX) since they are mostly rated AA and above with interest being federally tax-exempt. If I lived in California and had a big bond allocation, I’d still consider a partial holding in the Vanguard California Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt Fund (VCAIX) since the interest is higher and is exempt from both federal and CA income tax. I wrote about VCAIX in late 2009 when the yield was 3.49%. It’s done quite well since then, although California’s still got major issues to work out. If I lived in New York, I’d consider the same for NY funds.

Inflation-Protected Bonds (TIPS)
Here, the only thing to buy is either individual TIPS bonds or a mutual fund/ETF holding TIPS bonds. Usually buying individual bonds is risky because you aren’t spreading the default risk across hundreds of issuers, but in this case every single bond is just as safe and backed by the US government.

I have my Self-Employed 401k at Fidelity, which allows me to buy individual TIPS with no commission (just bid/ask spread). I bought some longer-term TIPS with real yields of 2-3%, and they’ve been doing well since real yields have dropped since. In addition, I hold shares of the iShares Barclays TIPS Bond ETF (TIP) because I can trade iShares ETFs commission-free at Fidelity.

The Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund Investor Shares (VIPSX) was also considered, along with new TIPS ETFs that have different maturities such as the PIMCO 15+ Year U.S. TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ).

Asset allocation (AA) is an important part of portfolio design, and I like pinning down a target asset allocation for personal reference. This helps keep me focused as my portfolio shifts over time and makes it easy to re-balance back. For some educational posts on this topic, please refer to my asset allocation starter guide.

Below is my updated target asset allocation. Here is my target asset allocation from 2008. It’s not dramatically different, but I’ll try to explain the slight changes below. This is just my own AA, and I think everyone should develop their own based on their own beliefs and learning. If you just copy someone else’s without thinking, when things go awry you won’t have the foundation to stick to your guns. I have been strongly influenced by the writings of Jack Bogle, William Bernstein, David Swensen, Rick Ferri, and Larry Swedroe.

Stocks

I separate things out first into stocks and bonds, and then later it’s easy to go 60% stocks/40% bonds and so on. Here’s my stocks-only breakdown:

• I now do a 50/50 split between US and International stocks. In general, I would like to mimic the overall world investment landscape. On a market cap basis, the US stock market is now about 45% of the world, while everyone else takes up 55%. 50/50 is just simpler, with a slight tilt towards domestic stocks.
• I consider REITs a separate real estate asset class. I used to put Real Estate under US stocks since I only held US Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but in the future I would be open to investing in foreign real estate as property laws improve and investing costs drop.
• On the US side, I add some extra small-cap value companies. Historically, adding stocks of smaller companies with value characteristics (as opposed to growth) has improved the returns of portfolios while lowering volatility. There is debate amongst portfolio theories as to why this happened and if it will continue.

  If you buy a “total market” mutual fund or ETF, you’ll already own many of these types of companies (although many will not be held due to their small size relative to the big mega-corporations). I feel this adds a bit of diversification.

• On the international side, I add a little extra exposure to emerging markets. You may be surprised to know that “emerging” countries like China, Brazil, Korea, India, Russia, and Taiwan already make up 26% of the world’s markets when you remove the US. These are countries that have a greater potential for growth, but also lots of ups and downs. I add a little bit more than market weight for these as well.

Bonds

I try to keep things simple for bonds, partially due to the fact that they are currently a smaller portion of my portfolio.

• I like a 50/50 split between inflation-linked bonds and nominal bonds. Inflation-protected bonds provide a yield that is guaranteed to be a certain level above inflation. Nominal bonds pay a stated rate that is not adjusted for inflation. I like to balance the benefits of both.
• Instead of only short-term US Treasuries for nominal bonds, I added some flexibility. I used to invest only in short-term US treasuries, as they provided the best buffer in my portfolio as they were of the highest quality and had a low sensitivity to interest rate fluctuations. Both TIPS and nominal Treasuries did great during the 2009 crash and the subsequent flight-to-quality, but now the yield on Treasuries is just too low in my opinion. There are trillions of dollars from countries and huge institutions around the world that are tucking their money away under the safe Treasury mattress. By venturing into other places they won’t with my tiny portfolio, I feel I can stay relatively safe yet increase my yield significantly. Possibilities include bank CDs, stable value funds, and high-quality municipal bonds.

Want more examples? Here are 8 model portfolios from respected sources, an updated Swensen portfolio, one from PIMCO’s El-Erian, and Ferri’s personal portfolio. Have fun!

In a recent post on the NY Times Bucks blog, portfolio manager and author Richard Ferri shared his own personal portfolio. As a proponent of low-cost, passive investing, it was not surprising to see mostly index funds in his portfolio, but it was interesting to see that his overall asset allocation is 80% stocks and 20% bonds. He is quick to note that he does have a pension and defined-benefit plans which balance out his overall financial picture. Wouldn’t you like to know what all those financial advisors out there actually own?

Asset Allocation

Here is his asset allocation broken down into stocks and bonds separately using pretty pie charts:

Here’s the overall 80/20 breakdown with ticker symbols (based on this Bogleheads post):

34% Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI)
10% S&P SmallCap 600 Value Index Fund (IJS)
5% Ultra-Small Company Market (BRSIX)
8% Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ)

6.5% Vanguard Pacific ETF (VPL)
6.5% Vanguard European ETF (VGK)
5% DFA International Small Cap Value
5% DFA Emerging Markets Core
—- [alternative: Vanguard Emerging Markets ETF (VWO)]

12% Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund Investor Shares (VBMFX)
4% Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund Investor Shares (VIPSX)
4% Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Fund Investor Shares (VWEHX)

Reading his book All About Asset Allocation was very helpful in creating my own portfolio. (Also see Model Portfolio #3 taken from that book.) I haven’t been updating my own own portfolio asset allocation as diligently as I should, although I have been keeping track of it. Here’s the last snapshot I took:

I’ve had some asset allocation drift for sure, although I have been countering this by rebalancing with new funds. I really need an update…

Emergency Funds

It’s also interesting to note that he keeps an emergency fund of two years’ living expenses, and that he uses the Vanguard Short-Term Bond (BSV) with a current SEC yield of 1.08%. Very simple and almost no-maintenance.

I prefer using a mix of high interest savings accounts and longer-term CDs/rewards-type checking accounts. I figure that index fund investors get so excited by saving 10 basis points (0.10%) on mutual fund, but with a bit of work you could beat a short-term bond fund by 100 basis points (1%) with what I would call less risk.

Bond funds still have risk to principal, meaning you may have to sell for less than you bought in for, while FDIC-insured bank accounts do not. Money market funds are currently averaging less than 0.10% yield.

The last time I wrote about stable value funds was in late 2008, both before the 2009 crash and a time when most of my 401k was in stocks. This time around, as I was trying to figure out how to rebalance my larger portfolio in a tax-efficient manner, I took another look at this asset class found almost exclusively in defined-contribution plans like 401ks. According to the Stable Value Investment Association (SVIA), approximately 15 to 20 percent of 401(k) assets are in stable value funds.

What are Stable Value Funds?

Generally, stable value funds are a bunch of bonds which have a insurance “wrapper” around them which protects it from interest rate volatility. The intended result is a product that pays the higher interest rates of intermediate-term bonds, with the liquidity and stable day-to-day price of a money market fund. Think “cash but pays higher interest”. A chart from the SVIA [pdf] illustrates:

The Attraction

Here’s my current situation. The stable value fund in my 401k has a guaranteed net interest rate in 2010 of 3.50%. The low-cost Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund Investor Shares (VBIIX) currently yields 3.17%, but will have a moderate amount of price volatility, especially if interest rates rise. The Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund (VMMXX) currently yields 0.11% with its high-quality, ultra-short-term holdings and Vanguard backing.

I could get the stability of money market fund, with an interest rate more than 3% higher! (All yields are net of fees.)

The Risks

Higher interest rates with no price volatility? Free lunch? Not quite. First of all, any guarantee is only as good as the entity doing the guarantee. Check the safety ratings of the insurer of your fund. Mine is Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Co. (TFLIC):

Not the greatest, but not bad. In addition, there are actually several ways an insurer can get “out” of the contract. From the SVIA FAQ:

Are there instances when book value or contract value does not apply?
There are a few, limited instances when participants do not get book value from a stable value fund. These limited instances are typically contractually defined. One such instance typically not covered is security defaults or downgrades. In order to protect the integrity of the stable value fund, most contracts incorporate investment guidelines establishing minimum credit quality requirements for the underlying securities. These contracts have established mechanisms to address downgraded or defaulted securities that fall outside the contractual guidelines.

Corporate-initiated events, which are employer-driven events such as an early retirement program, layoff, or bankruptcy, are also typically not covered. Corporate-initiated events generally cause withdrawals in masse from a stable value fund. These withdrawals can negatively impact investors and plans that choose to remain in the fund.

First up, if the underlying securities turn out to be utter crap via a default or credit downgrade, then the insurance doesn’t apply? Wait, the insurer gets to choose the securities in the first place? Sometimes smells here. In fact, this happened in 2009 to the insurer State Street, although they decided to step in to make investors whole in order to preserve their reputation. Via this CBS Moneywatch article:

In December 2008 and January 2009, State Street elected to provide support – a total of $610 million – to the bond portfolio in stable value funds the company managed. State Street was not contractually obligated to do this. As the company’s 8-K filing (a report filed with the SEC to notify investors of any events that could be of importance to shareholders) stated, “liquidity and pricing issues in the fixed income markets” so affected the accounts that the wrappers “considered terminating their financial guarantees.” State Street’s action to bolster its portfolios kept the wrappers in place.

Finally, there is the “corporate-initiated event” of a huge layoff or bankruptcy. At the end of 2008, Lehman Brothers infamously went bankrupt, which left their stable value fund managed by Invesco with a negative return of 1.7 percent in December and an annual return for 2008 of 2 percent. In April 2009, a stable value fund for Chrysler employees only paid out 89 cents on the dollar, a drop of 11% due to the company’s troubles.

As you can see, there is a lot of things that can invalidate the guarantee. So, the next step is to understand the holdings, which in the event of a liquidation can help you imagine your worst-case scenario. You should be be able to see at least an overall breakdown of the assets, and a market-to-book-value ratio must be disclosed at least once a year. This will show any discrepancies between what the insurer says is worth $1 and what the market says. My TFLIC stable value fund’s market-to-book ratio was 101.30% as of March 31s, 2010 and here is their holdings summary:

Bottom Line

In good times, the stable value fund has a pretty easy job of maintaining an image of price stability and paying out the stated interest rate. However, when the poo hits the fan there are a lot of ways the insurance wrapper can be worth less than a bubble gum wrapper. The only real good news is that you are still left with some intermediate-term, investment-grade bonds. Even with the upheaval of 2009, the worst example I could find was a drop of 11%. Even Lehman Brothers investors ended up with a overall positive return for the year. These losses are not insignificant, but something the order of the drop in other similar bond funds during that time. The key is to understand the risks that you are taking, which oftentimes people don’t (including me).

As for my personal investments, after doing my bit of due diligence, I am going to put a small percentage (less than 5%) of my total assets in my stable value fund, given the limited alternatives in my 401k. I am willing to take the risk of a small loss in order to earn 3.50% for all of 2010 in this current interest rate environment.

Good financial advice is hard to come by. There are so many variables, such that you have to find the balance between providing enough information, and making things digestible enough that peoples’ eyes don’t glaze over.

Check out this advice column found in the newsletter that comes in my 401k statement each month. Can you spot what’s missing?

There is no mention of what investment vehicle you should be sticking your money in, or even how much they estimate your future returns to be. Is it 100% stocks? 50% stocks/50% bonds? Orange juice futures? 6% returns? 12% returns? Who knows. Is this pre-tax or post-tax? Is it all in tax-sheltered accounts? Is my annual income supposed to rise as sharply as the chart seems to imply? I selfishly hope so!

Yet, I feel like this is what a large percentage of workers want to read. One impossibly simple chart that defines your retirement needs. So someone gives it to them. Maybe it gives them a general idea of where to start. But is a vague, possibly wrong answer better than guessing? I feel another poll coming on…

Is Such "One-Size-Fits-All" Financial Advice Helpful?

• Yes, something is better than nothing.
• No, on the whole it does more harm than good.
• It doesn't matter, we're all doomed anyway.

View Results

 Loading ...