MONEY 401(k)s

Here’s a Good Reason Not to Fund Your 401(k)

Don't get too caught up in the amount of money you're saving for retirement. Focus instead on the income you'll have.

We save for retirement so we can create income for ourselves when we stop receiving a paycheck. And as a financial planner, I am supposed to determine how much money clients need to sock away in order for them to generate enough income to sustain their lifestyle in retirement.

But if the income itself is the most important thing — not the amount of money you amass to create that income — why don’t we ever focus on building lifelong income streams outside of our investment portfolios?

A recent meeting with a client — I’ll call her Mary — sparked an interesting conversation on the subject.

The subject of the meeting was goal planning. We began by outlining SMART goals for the next year, five years, and beyond. Mary had a very specific goal for the next five years: She wanted to leave her current job and become a full-time real estate investor. Although quite interesting, this wasn’t necessarily a unique goal. Many people aspire to do this, yet they get caught up in concerns about retirement — and rightly so.

In order to truly go after this goal, Mary would have to cut back on her retirement savings. “Oh no,” says society. “How can she possibly reduce her 401(k) contributions? She’s in her early 30s and does not have anywhere near enough stowed away. Saving early and often is necessary to ensure that she can retire someday. Plus, tax deferral is too good to pass up!”

I disagree in this specific scenario. Mary happens to know a good deal about real estate. She may not be an expert investor yet, but she is working on it. It’s her dream to create a lifestyle funded by real estate activities, specifically rental income. Additionally, investment real estate can provide some great tax advantages.

However, in order for her to achieve this goal, she has to save for the next down payment on a second investment property (she currently has one such property). From the outside, this goal seems to stand in the way of saving for retirement. To achieve her five-year real estate investment goal at this stage in her life, she can’t fully fund her 401(k). She has to direct most of her savings toward future property purchases.

Let’s shift our point of view for a minute and look at this situation through a different lens. By buying rental properties, she is establishing a sustainable income stream — an alternate form of cash flow from which she can benefit now and in the future. As this rental income grows, her 401(k) and IRA balances become less relevant. The rent checks she receives monthly actually alleviate the burden of amassing a large amount of money for retirement. And she avoids the stress of watching stock market investments ride the economic roller coaster.

This approach is definitely not for most people, but it does raise an interesting question. What other income streams might we be able to establish that could supplement the income from our retirement portfolios? What can we create for ourselves that could take the place of pensions, Social Security, and even our 401(k) plans?

———-

Eric Roberge, CFP, is the founder of Beyond Your Hammock, where he works virtually with professionals in their 20s and 30s, helping them use money as a tool to live a life they love. Through personalized coaching, Eric helps clients organize their finances, set goals, and invest for the future.

MONEY Estate Planning

The Perils of Leaving an IRA to Your Kid

141224_FF_INHERITIRA
Cindy Prins—Getty Images/Flickr RM

People with the best of intentions can make life difficult for their heirs.

Naming a child as the beneficiary to important assets like your IRA may seem like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, doing that can create several problems.

I once worked with a client who left his IRA to his daughter. When he put her on his beneficiary form, he was fairly young and healthy, so he had little concern about his decision.

When he passed away, however, his daughter was only five years old — a minor unable to inherit the account. The father had the intention of leaving his daughter roughly $40,000 to help fund an important expense or investment. Instead, a judge had to step in and appoint a custodian to manage the asset until the child reached legal age. Even though the child will eventually receive these funds, without any specific guidelines set, the young daughter could potentially make a poor investment decision much different from what her father had envisioned.

I see this problem often with single parents who, because they don’t have a spouse who might receive their assets, make their children their direct heirs. While these clients have the best intentions, I have come to realize that they often don’t understand the consequences of their actions: The courts may delay, interfere or misinterpret their true intentions if a beneficiary is a minor.

The first option I offer to those looking to leave assets to a minor is through a Uniform Transfers to Minors Act account. An UTMA account gives the owner — often the parent, though it could be a grandparent or someone else — control over selecting the custodian should the owner pass away before the child reaches the age of majority. Had my client done this, he could have avoided the involvement of the court-appointed custodian. This option, though, may not always be the best solution, since it fails to give the parent control of how the funds will be distributed.

The second option I offer to parents is to name a trust as a beneficiary. This option provides the most control of how the funds are managed and distributed – an option many parents find appealing because it could prevent the child from making a poor investment, incurring a major tax liability, or quickly running through the money.

A trust can also allow or even require distributions to be stretched over the beneficiary’s lifetime, maximizing the tax-deferred or tax-free growth for the greatest duration and overall lifetime payout for the heirs.

Using separate trusts for each child can allow each heir to use his or her own age for calculating required minimum distributions. That can make a significant difference if there is a large age variance between them. For example, let’s say a grandmother passes away and leaves her IRA to two children, ages 53 and 48, and two grandchildren, ages 12 and 2. If she has created a trust for each heir, then they can each use their own age from the IRS’s life expectancy table to calculate their required minimum distributions. If she has failed to do this, they will all be forced to calculate RMDs based on the oldest heir, age 53 – greatly shortening the stretch period of the tax benefits for the young children.

For parents with more than one child who do not want to incur the legal costs of setting up a trust but want to maximize the stretch benefits of their retirement accounts have another option: splitting the IRA into multiple IRA accounts, creating one to be left to each heir. This will not provide the control over the custodian or distribution, but will allow each heir to use his or her own age in calculating the RMDs of an inherited account.

As advisers, it’s our job not only to help our clients prepare for retirement, but also to make sure their money is taken care of after they die. By helping them properly plan for their beneficiaries, advisers can do just that.

———-

Herb White, CFP, is the founder and president of Life Certain Wealth Strategies, an independent financial and retirement planning firm in Greenwood Village, Colo., dedicated to helping individuals achieve their financial goals for retirement. A certified financial planner with more than 15 years of experience in the financial services industry, White is also life and health insurance licensed. He is a member of the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors.

MONEY Roth IRA

Cut Taxes and Get a Bigger IRA With This One Neat Trick

A Roth IRA is a great tool for retirement savings. Here's how to make it even better.

At the beginning of every year, we work with some of our clients to convert their IRAs to Roth IRAs, knowing, even then, that we will undo most of those conversions at the end of the year. The whole process involves a lot of paperwork and tracking of their accounts throughout the year.

So why do we go through all this trouble? It’s a great way to save on taxes.

First, let’s do a quick review. An IRA is typically funded with pre-tax dollars and grows tax-deferred. When the account holder withdraws the money from the account, those withdrawals are fully taxed as regular income. A Roth IRA, on the other hand, is funded with after-tax dollars, and withdrawals are tax-free.

When you convert an IRA to a Roth IRA, you have to pay regular income taxes on the amount you convert. By doing the conversion, thus, you’re effectively paying income taxes now so that your withdrawals later — from the new Roth IRA — will be tax-free.

There’s a twist: You’re allowed to undo the conversion in the same tax year of the conversion without incurring any taxes or penalties. It is this ability to undo the conversion which provides for a great tax planning strategy.

So when and why might you want to do a Roth IRA conversion? And why might you want to undo it?

  • Low Income Taxes: Let’s say you lost your job, and you end up having a year owing little or no income tax. You could convert some amount of your IRA to a Roth IRA without much of a tax hit. Or maybe, because you’re self-employed or work on commission, your income varies widely; in a year with very low income, you could use the conversion to move money to a Roth at very low tax rates. Whatever your situation, you can convert at the beginning of the year, then depending on your earnings over the year, you can decided to keep the conversion or undo.
  • Topping off Your Tax Bracket: Similar to the low income taxes, if you find yourself in a lower-than-expected tax bracket, you may want to keep some of the conversion to fill up that lower tax bracket.
  • Investment Performance: The more your assets increase in value after conversion, the better. Since no one can time the markets, however, the best strategy (again) is to convert at the beginning of the year. Then, as year-end approaches, you can decide if the conversion was worthwhile. Let’s say, for example, that you convert a $10,000 IRA to a Roth in January. If in December the Roth is worth $15,000, you’ll still pay taxes only on the $10,000 you converted — a pretty good deal. If, however, the account is worth only $5,000 by December, you’d still have to pay taxes on that original $10,000 you converted. So if the converted assets lose money, you can just undo the conversion and pay no taxes on it at all.

If you’re taking this wait-and-see approach, you can increase your tax advantages even further — as we do with clients — by converting IRAs into multiple Roth accounts. In this multiple-account strategy, we put different assets into each new Roth. That process lets you select the asset that had the best returns after the conversion and keep it as a Roth, while undoing the conversion of other assets with low or negative returns.

To explain this strategy, let me use the hypothetical example of Sally, a self-employed graphic designer with $40,000 in a traditional IRA. In March 2014, she converts that IRA into a Roth.

For illustrative purposes, let’s suppose that she divides up her new Roth by investing $10,000 apiece in four different index funds, each representing a different asset class:

  • US large-cap stocks
  • US small-cap value stocks
  • International large-cap stocks
  • International small-cap value

At the end of November, Sally has more business income than she expected, and she decides that she would like to convert only $10,000 to a Roth — one-quarter of the original $40,000.

Let’s take a look at where her account has ended up:

Initial Investment Total Return End Value
US Large-cap $ 10,000 12.89% $ 11,289
US small-cap value $ 10,000 0.91% $ 10,091
International large-cap $ 10,000 -2.39% $ 9,761
International small-cap value $ 10,000 -8.09% $ 9,191
TOTAL $ 40,000 0.83% $40,332

The usual approach, in this situation, would have been for Sally to convert the entire IRA into one new Roth conversion account. In such a case, since she wants to convert only one-quarter of the original amount, she will be able to keep only one-quarter of her $40,332 balance at the end of November, or $10,083.

But the strategy we use would be to open four separate Roth conversions — one for each asset class. In that case, when Sally wants to undo the conversion on three-quarters of her original $40,000, she can keep the Roth account with the best return and undo the conversion on the other three. In this particular example, she would keep the US large-cap fund in her Roth, which is now worth $11,289.

So under this four-account option, she starts out with exactly the same investments as in the original scenario, and has exactly the same tax liability on the $10,000 Roth conversion she doesn’t undo. But she also ends up with $11,289 in her Roth account, not the $10,083 she would have had by converting into a single account. That’s an extra $1,206 in the Roth, for no added tax liability.

The following year, Sally can take the $29,000 that reverted to her traditional IRA and do the conversion all over again. (IRS rules dictate that once you’ve reversed an Roth conversion, you have to wait at least 30 days, and until a new calendar year, to do another.)

Neat trick, huh?

———-

Scott Leonard, CFP, is the owner of Navigoe, a registered investment adviser with offices in Nevada and California. Author of The Liberated CEO, published by Wiley in 2014, Leonard was able to run his business, originally established in 1996, while taking his family on a two-year sailing trip from Florida to New Caledonia in the south Pacific Ocean. He is a speaker on investment and wealth management issues.

MONEY Financial Planning

The Real Purpose of Financial Planning

A chat about retirement, Italy, and The Golden Girls illustrates how financial planning can help a person uncover and achieve her deepest passions.

Our meeting started with an engaging description of her latest trip to Italy.

She had come in to see how her situation looked retiring now instead of two years from now, as we had originally planned. Approaching her late 60s, she no longer felt like dealing with her new manager, who was making work a little less tolerable than it used to be.

But in our first fifteen minutes, the focus was on the delicious food she tasted and beautiful buildings she toured while overseas with her travel partner.

By listening closely, we planners can learn a lot from the small talk at the beginning and the end of our meetings. Some of the most important parts of our job are to learn the true desires of our clients and to calculate whether their resources will be sufficient to make those dreams come true. But when asked to come up with their life’s goals, many people struggle to articulate what they are or even write down a few possibilities. This is where listening helps us; we can get insights by observing what people get most excited about.

As we began discussing the possibility of her retiring now, my client mentioned her desire to spend more in the early years while her health still allowed her to enjoy traveling. That’s a common theme among early retirees.

Analyzing that scenario, we determined she would need to lower her overall spending a bit each year or generate additional income for her plan to have the best odds of success. So we spent time brainstorming options that would prevent her standard of living from declining significantly during her retirement.

The first thought on her mind was to leverage her knowledge and experiences of Italy by starting a niche travel business that would take first-time travelers on adventures to her favorite places. She also expressed a passion for teaching English as a second language. She hadn’t had the time in the past, but felt this would be a more rewarding way to spend her time than continuing in her current job, even if her income dropped.

It became quickly apparent that this line of thinking had sparked excitement in her about the possibility of doing things she’d always wanted to try — dreams she hadn’t pursued because of her current job.

She next talked about downsizing her home as she got older. Unloading her home would allow her to join a group of girlfriends that all wanted to eventually move in to less expensive, cottage-style dwellings closer to one another. She called this plan her own version of The Golden Girls.

This story reminds us that we don’t always know what we want until we are forced to think deeper about how and why we want it. We spend so much time in our daily lives focusing on what the world measures as success that we too often overlook the things that could truly make us happy.

But when the probability of adjustment is introduced, we gain a clearer perspective of the things that really matter to us. In that mindset, we have the freedom to be creative, as we are forced to embrace the idea of being flexible in the face of potential sacrifices. We begin to prioritize with purpose.

Furthermore, realizing that our money is a tool to help us experience the things we are most passionate about can take our financial planning to a new level of fulfillment. In doing so, we are experiencing the real purpose of financial planning – answering the question, “Will I have enough to do the things I want and love to do?”

———-

Smith is a certified financial planner, partner, and adviser with Financial Symmetry, a fee-only financial planning and invesment management firm in Raleigh, N.C. He enjoys helping people do more things they enjoy. His biggest priority is that of a husband and a dad to the three lovely ladies in his life. He is an active member of NAPFA, FPA and a proud graduate of North Carolina State University.

MONEY behavioral finance

A Financial Planner’s Most Important Job Isn’t What You Think It Is

holding hnads in comfort
PeopleImages.com—Getty Images

Helping people who are panicking about money is more important than a particular plan or a piece of investing advice.

In the past few years, many of us in the financial planning profession have been coming to terms with a difficult truth: Our clients’ long-term financial success is based less on the structure of their portfolios than it is on their ability to adapt their behaviors to changing economic times.

An increasing number of financial planners are awakening to the fact that our primary business is not producing financial plans or giving investment advice, but rather caring for and transforming the financial and emotional well-being of our clients. And at the very foundation of financial and emotional well-being lies one’s behavior.

I’ve come to understand this over my own three decades as a financial planner, so I was pleased to see the topic of investor behavior featured at a national gathering of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors in Salt Lake City last May. One of the speakers was Nick Murray, a personal financial adviser, columnist, and author.

“The dominant determinants of long-term, real-life, investment returns are not market behavior, but investment behavior,” Murray told us. “Put all your charts and graphs away and come out into the real world of behavior.”

This made me recall similar advice from a 2009 Financial Planning Association retreat, when Dr. Somnath Basu said, “Start shaking the dust off your psychology books from your college days. This is where [the financial planning profession] is going next.”

Most advisers will agree that, while meticulously constructed investment portfolios have a high probability of withstanding almost any economic storm, none of them can withstand the fatal blow of an owner who panics and sells out.

This is where financial advisers’ behavioral skills can often pay for themselves. Murray, who calls financial planners “behavior modifiers,” reminded us that we are “the antidote to panic.”

Murray said most advisers will try everything they can do to keep a client from turning a temporary decline into a permanent loss of capital. He wasn’t optimistic, however, that the natural tendency of investors to sell low and buy high will stop anytime soon.

His final advice was blunt. “Think of your clients who had beautifully designed and executed investment portfolios that would have carried them through three decades of retirement, who started calling you in 2008 wanting to junk it and go to cash. How many of these people have called you since then and tried to do it again?”

I myself could think of several.

“How many times have they gone out on the ledge and tried to jump, and how many times have you pulled them back in?” Murray asked.

By now I could see heads all over the room nodding.

Then he delivered a memorable line: “I am telling you as a friend, stop wasting your time on these people.” The heads stopped nodding. “Save your goodness and your talents for those who will accept help from you.”

I have certainly learned, often the hard way, that helping people who aren’t ready to change is futile. Yet I disagree to some extent with this part of Murray’s advice. If clients have gone out on the ledge more than once, but have called me and accepted my help in pulling them back in, then together we have succeeded in modifying their behavior.

This is a far different scenario from that of a panicked client who refuses help by ignoring a planner’s advice. If planners see our role as “antidotes to panic,” we need to realize that, for some clients, the antidote may have to be administered more than once.

———-

Rick Kahler, ChFC, is president of Kahler Financial Group, a fee-only financial planning firm. His work and research regarding the integration of financial planning and psychology has been featured or cited in scores of broadcast media, periodicals and books. He is a co-author of four books on financial planning and therapy. He is a faculty member at Golden Gate University and the president of the Financial Therapy Association.

MONEY Kids and Money

Teach Your Kids Financial Values…Via Cellphone

boy on smartphone in kitchen
Catherine Ledner—Getty Images

A child's first smartphone can be a tool for teaching about budgeting, the value of work, and other important concepts.

After I have helped clients prioritize their financial goals, they commonly ask me a followup question: How do we teach these values to the next generation?

Start early, I tell them. And use a smartphone.

Let me explain. For many children nowadays, a smartphone will be their first valuable possession. They start asking begging for one when they’re around 8 or 10 years old, depending upon how many of their friends already have one.

We don’t know what impact early adoption of technology will have on our children once they become adults. As a financial coach, I see that parents are overwhelmed. New technologies are available every year, making parents feel like Maggie Smith’s Dowager Countess character on Downton Abbey: “First electricity, now telephones. Sometimes I feel as if I were living in an H.G. Wells novel.”

The purchase of a child’s first smartphone is an ideal opportunity for parents to pass on their values to children. I encourage active discussions between parents and children about the family’s intent for the phone, many of which may be reflected in the values below.

Open communication: From the beginning, outline the consequences if a child dodges her parents’ calls or ignores their texts. Talk about how this cellphone is meant to keep the family connected, not just to fuel her social life.

Hierarchy: Parents can exercise their authority through a variety of smartphone parental controls.

  • Check-in at tuck-in: Parents enforce this by keeping the charger in their room or in the kitchen. The cellphone needs to be in that spot when the child goes to bed, thereby preventing distractions from the phone and friends during sleeping hours. One client who uses this system was surprised when her daughter handed her the phone before she left for a sleepover: “I guess I need to check this in,” she said. Success!
  • Geolocation: If a parent would like the security of knowing a child arrived at a destination safely, or technological proof that a kid is being truthful, they can track the phone’s location with an app such as Life360.
  • Setting limits on texting/minutes/data: Some carriers offer this feature with unlimited family plans. Or parents can take the more rudimentary route below.

Wise resource management: What messages do we communicate when we give a kid this unlimited resource without requiring any payment from them? How do we engender a strong work ethic? One way is to subscribe to a plan that charges by the minute or unit. You won’t save money, but your child will learn to budget her resources. You can buy a TracFone, give her a monthly allotment of minutes, and explain she has to buy her own if she surpasses the allowance.

Work orientation: Taking this line of thinking a bit farther, if a child uses up her monthly allotment on a pay-as-you-go plan, she now has a choice. Either she stops talking — which could backfire if she can’t check in with parents — or she finds a way to get more minutes. TracFone minutes can be purchased anywhere at increments as small as $10, so it’s easy for a child to get more minutes if she’s willing to earn the money. Or alternatively, she can ask for minutes as gifts for holidays and birthdays. Either way, the child will need to become resourceful, and it’s never too early to exercise that muscle.

Predictability: Americans love to control our environment. In the financial realm, that often takes the form predictable expenses. In the past, roaming charges could exponentially increase your bill if you weren’t careful. These days, data usage (used for streaming video, sharing photos, or downloading apps when a phone isn’t on a wi-fi connection) is the variable that can quickly escalate the monthly total. Take these variances into account to select a plan that works best for your family, and make sure everyone understands the plan’s overage policies to avoid nasty surprises when the bill arrives.

In sum, a smartphone is an opportunity to teach a child about what really matters. Technology is just like money: It is simply a tool to make us more effective in the important stuff. But children are especially likely to subvert that understanding, mistaking technology or money as the end goal in life. So it is worth the time to guide their consumer choices, and their values, while they are still at home.

———-

Candice McGarvey, CFP, is the Chief Story Changer of Her Dollars Financial Coaching. By working with women to increase their financial wellness, she brings clients through financial transitions. Via conversations that feel more like a coffee date than a meeting, her process improves a client’s financial strength and peace.

MONEY financial advice

Advisers Are Trying to Sound Less Like Robots

Thesaurus and Dictionary in stack
RTimages—Alamy

Some impressive-sounding financial-industry buzzwords simply turn people off, according to research with high-net-worth investors.

Advisers are rethinking the words they use with clients to avoid off-putting terms that can sound a little less than human.

For example, the term “risk tolerance” is giving way to “comfort level.” “Financial freedom” is also passé, especially after the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Now, it’s better to use “financial security.”

Thank Invesco for the impetus. In 2007, the investment giant’s consulting arm hired maslansky + partners, a global marketing strategist to do for Invesco’s wholesaling business and ultimately, the financial services industry, what maslansky once did for conservative politicians. It was maslansky’s co-founder, Dr. Frank Luntz, who morphed the phrase “estate tax” into a more unappealing “death tax.”

Maslansky’s trademark: “It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear.”

The ongoing initiative by Invesco and maslansky involves recruiting mass affluent and high-net worth investors with assets of at least $250,000 to test how they perceive advisers’ messages.

Participants watch a spiel by an actor who plays an adviser and turn dials up or down according to how positively or negatively they feel about the message they hear. An audience observes the investors’ reactions real time.

“We find there are definitely words to use and words to lose,” said Scott West, who heads Invesco Consulting.

Invesco, which manages $790 billion, and maslansky are now focusing on the language of alternative investments. Preliminary findings show that advisers should describe alternatives in terms of “goals-based strategies” rather than “risk-based strategies,” said David Saylor, executive director of Invesco Consulting.

Investors who took part in the focus group were not motivated to learn about new investments so they could “lose less” money. But the dials jumped in response to presentations that led with how alternative investments could help clients’ attain their personal goals while minimizing losses, Saylor said.

Buzz about the benefits of humanizing sales pitches has drawn interest from other firms. Portfolio management firm Loring Ward first tapped maslansky’s expertise in 2012.

That is when Steve Atkinson, the firm’s head of adviser relations, first saw how negatively investors perceived advisers’ pitches. It felt like “a slap in the face,” Atkinson said. Advisers tended to use too much jargon, such as “volatility” and “small cap.” They also occasionally boasted too much about methods and past successes, including “Nobel Prize-winning research.”

Don Hershberger, president of Paramount Wealth Management in Jackson, Mich., immediately hired a consultant to redesign his firm’s website after sitting in on a focus group organized by Loring Ward and maslansky in 2012. The firm replaced offending jargon with a feel-good message to clients about family.

Client feedback showed the change resonated, Hershberger said. Now he is always careful to emphasize only clients’ needs and feelings — not the intricacies of specific investments — in conversations with clients and in the main messages on his website,

“We had to confirm that they were hearing what we wanted to say to them,” Hershberger said.

 

MONEY Financial Planning

Millennials Are Mooches…and Other Money Myths

mom taking back credit card from daughter
Kevin Dodge—Getty Images

Here are three financial stereotypes that just don't ring true to one experienced planner.

There are plenty of stereotypes about how certain people behave around money — stereotypes I’ve often seen contradicted in my experience as a financial planner. Let me debunk some of these money myths for you.

Myth One: All millennials are mooches.

The 30-year-old client came in for the first time. She asked a question that, if you were to listen to the financial media, no one has ever asks. “Can I pay off the student loans my parents took out for me without any tax consequences?”

Say what? Young people sending money to their parents?

I’ve never heard that mentioned in my almost 20 years in the industry. According to the myth, millennials are unemployed and live rent-free in the basement, while expecting their parents to pay for pricey destination weddings.

My sensitivity to what I hear in the media on this issue started when, to prepare people’s taxes, I started asking clients if they had lent anyone money who hadn’t paid them back.

That’s when I started hearing it. “Hasn’t paid me back? Will never pay me back? Yeah, that’s my Dad.” It’s not common response, but I heard it several times a year.

In fact, I’ve heard about just as many parents trying to mooch off their kids as the opposite. My conclusion: If you have more money than other people in your family, there is a small chance you’ll deal with a mooch — um, I mean, a relative with boundary or entitlement issues.

Myth Two: Women care more about spending money than investing. Men care more about investing than spending.

Perhaps this was true once upon a time. In my practice, however, I regularly see women who are more interested in money, saving, and investing than their husband. Conversely, I see men who love to spend — sometimes more than they know is wise — and enjoy the finest in life.

Recent research shows that while men might score better on a pop quiz about interest rates and bond prices, men and women show no difference in investing and spending behavior.

Myth Three: Financial advisers work only with rich patriarchs.

When I first started in financial planning, I sat next to an established planner at dinner. He described his ideal client: “Men over sixty who have made a lot of money who just want to make sure their families are taken care of.”

“Oh, “ I said, “you work with patriarchs!”

We laughed at my joke. However, in my male-dominated industry, I dare say this is the ideal client of a lot of advisers. I call the pursuit of these clients “Searching for Victor Newman,” after the ultra-rich paterfamilias who drives his family nuts on The Young and the Restless.

Working in the industry has assured me that patriarchy is on the wane. I’ve only had one client who said that “taking care of his family” was what he aspired to, and I’ve talked to hundreds of people about their goals and values.

My experience is that both men and women want to make sure that their kids and partners are taken care of both financially and emotionally. They work on the project together.

This bias gives consumers the impression that advisers only want to help Victor Newmans. Here are three organizations that help both advisers who aren’t hunting for that client and consumers who want to meet them:

And my answer to the client in the fortunate position of paying back her parents? After consulting with an attorney on her specific situation, I told her to go ahead.

———-

Bridget Sullivan Mermel helps clients throughout the country with her comprehensive fee-only financial planning firm based in Chicago. She’s the author of the upcoming book More Money, More Meaning. Both a certified public accountant and a certified financial planner, she specializes in helping clients lower their tax burden with tax-smart investing.

MONEY mutual funds

Why Mutual Fund Managers Are Having a Bad Year

140618_money_gen_9
iStock

Eighty-five percent of stock-pickers at large-cap funds are trailing their benchmark indexes — likely their worst performance in three decades.

Stock-picking fund managers are testing their investors’ patience with some of the worst investment returns in decades.

With bad bets on financial shares, missed opportunities in technology stocks and too much cash on the sidelines, roughly 85% of active large-cap stock funds have lagged their benchmark indexes through Nov. 25 this year, according to an analysis by Lipper, a Thomson Reuters research unit. It is likely their worst comparative showing in 30 years, Lipper said.

Some long-term advocates of active management may be turned off by the results, especially considering the funds’ higher fees. Through Oct. 31, index stock funds and exchange traded funds have pulled in $206.2 billion in net deposits.

Actively managed funds, a much larger universe, took in a much smaller $35.6 billion, sharply down from the $162 billion taken in during 2013, their first year of net inflows since 2007.

Jeff Tjornehoj, head of Lipper Americas Research, said investors will have to decide if they have the stomach to stick with active funds in hopes of better results in the future.

“A year like this sorts out what kind of investor you are,” he said.

Even long-time standout managers like Bill Nygren of the $17.8 billion Oakmark Fund and Jason Subotky of the $14.2 billion Yacktman Fund are lagging, at a time when advisers are growing more focused on fees.

The Oakmark fund, which is up 11.8% this year through Nov. 25, charges 0.95% of assets in annual fees, compared with 0.09% for the SPDR S&P 500 exchange traded fund, which mimics the S&P 500 and is up almost 14% this year, according to Morningstar. The Yacktman fund is up 10.2% over the same period and charges 0.74% of assets in annual fees.

The pay-for-active-performance camp argues that talented managers are worth paying for and will beat the market over investment cycles.

Rob Brown, chief investment strategist for United Capital, which has $11 billion under management and keeps about two thirds of its mutual fund holdings in active funds, estimates that good managers can add an extra 1% to returns over time compared with an index-only strategy.

Indeed, the top active managers have delivered. For example, $10,000 invested in the Yacktman Fund on Nov. 23, 2004, would have been worth $27,844 on Nov. 25 of this year; the same amount invested in the S&P 500 would be worth $21,649, according to Lipper.

Even so, active funds as a group tend to lag broad market indexes, though this year’s underperformance is extreme. In the rout of 2008, when the S&P 500 fell 38%, more than half of the active large cap stock funds had declines that were greater than those of their benchmarks, Lipper found. The last time when more than half of active large cap stock managers beat their index was 2009, when the S&P 500 was up 26%. That year, 55% of these managers beat their benchmarks.

Unusually Bad Bets

In 2014, some recurring bad market bets were made by various active managers. Holding too much cash was one.

Yacktman’s Subotky said high stock prices made him skeptical of buying new shares, leaving him with 17% of the fund’s holdings in cash while share prices have continued to rise. He cautioned investors to have patience.

“Our goal is never to capture every last drop of a roaring bull market,” Subotky said

Oakmark’s Nygren cited his light weighting of hot Apple shares and heavy holdings of underperforming financials, but said his record should be judged over time. “Very short-term performance comparisons, good or bad, may bear little resemblance to long term results,” he said.

Shares of Apple, the world’s most valuable publicly traded company, are up 48% year to date. As of Sept. 30, Apple stock made up 1.75% of Oakmark’s assets, compared with 3.69% of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF.

Investors added $3.9 billion to Nygren’s fund through Nov. 19, Lipper said.

Still, some managers risk losing their faithful.

“We have been very much believers in active management, but a number of our active managers have let us down this year, and we are rethinking our strategy,” said Martin Hopkins, president of an investment management firm in Annapolis, Md. that has $4 million in the Yacktman Fund.

Derek Holman of EP Wealth Advisors, in Torrance, Calif., which manages about $1.8 billion, said his firm recently moved $130 million from a pair of active large cap funds into ETFs, saying it would save clients about $650,000 in fees per year.

Holman said his firm still uses active funds for areas like small-cap investing, but it is getting harder for fund managers to gain special insights about large companies.

For those managers, he said, “it’s getting harder to stand out.”

MONEY Financial Planning

3 Questions That Will Put Your Finances — and Life — on the Right Track

Backpacker on mountain trail
Backpacker on mountain trail Getty Images

Financial planning guru George Kinder has a powerful tool for helping people set priorities for their money...and their lives. Here it is.

Few things seem more diametrically opposed than managing money and spiritual enlightenment. But not everyone sees it that way. Some very influential people in the financial advisory community have dedicated their lives to helping advisers assist clients deal with the more personal elements in personal finance.

Consider George Kinder, the Harvard-trained economist-turned-philosopher-turned-CPA. He managed to evolve his tax practice into a comprehensive financial advisory offering, with supporting methodology, while on the successful path to becoming a Buddhist teacher based in Cambridge, Mass. and Hana, Hawaii.

Within the advisory community, Kinder is almost universally known as the “father of life planning.” To many advisers, his work is the seminal, much-needed missing link between life and money. He originally articulated his views in his book, The Seven Stages of Money Maturity. Many more advisers, however, envision Kinder playing the ukulele on a magic carpet — just a little too “out there” for mainstream consumption and practical application. Having moved from the camp of skeptics to the camp of adherents myself, I invite you to consider what could become one of the most valued tools in a financial planning practice: George Kinder’s Three Questions.

Most advisers believe it’s vital to know a client’s answer to the following two questions: “What are your goals in life?” and “What are your values?” Unfortunately, most financial planners simply ask them verbatim. The responses they receive to those starkly boilerplate questions are largely generic. Clients answer with what they think they’re supposed to say, not with a measured evaluation of what’s actually most important to them. Kinder takes a different route, beginning with his first of three questions.

Question One: I want you to imagine that you are financially secure, that you have enough money to take care of your needs, now and in the future. The question is, how would you live your life? What would you do with the money? Would you change anything? Let yourself go. Don’t hold back your dreams. Describe a life that is complete, that is richly yours.

If Kinder lost you at “Let yourself go,” go back and refocus on the first part of the question. Better yet, simply answer the question yourself. What you’ll likely find in your answer is a more complete, genuine, and interesting response to our traditional question, “What are your goals in life?” You see — there’s a method at work here.

The second question goes deeper.

Question Two: This time, you visit your doctor who tells you that you have five to ten years left to live. The good part is that you won’t ever feel sick. The bad news is that you will have no notice of the moment of your death. What will you do in the time you have remaining to live? Will you change your life, and how will you do it?

The first time I read this question, I approached it entirely too literally. Most clients, I retorted internally, can’t just decide (or afford) to live life as though they knew they were going to die within the next 10 years! But again, the point of this query is to evoke a better answer to the question, “What are your most deeply held values?” Here you’ll receive a lot of answers about family, relationships and bucket-list items.

Another purpose of question two is to prepare you for the third question.

Question Three: This time, your doctor shocks you with the news that you have only one day left to live. Notice what feelings arise as you confront your very real mortality. Ask yourself: What dreams will be left unfulfilled? What do I wish I had finished or had been? What do I wish I had done? What did I miss?

If a client really engages with this third question, you’ll now get beyond superficial answers and start to learn about what really drives this person in front of you. You’ll discover what makes them unique, what they long for, and what should likely be reflected in your planning to avoid making more recommendations that will only fall on deaf ears.

I have seen numerous advisers employ Kinder’s Three Questions and vastly improve their insight into a client’s values and goals. For fully dedicated Kinderites, this is just the beginning. There’s an entire planning methodology found in his book on practice management and in his courses.

George Kinder has provided some much-needed yang to the financial industry’s yin. For your practice, for your clients — and even for you — his Three Questions should be informative. And who knows? They may be transformative too.

Consumers can get a free, self-guided version of Kinder’s EVOKE life planning process — including the Three Questions and other exercises — at LifePlanningForYou.com.

———-

Financial planner, speaker, and author Tim Maurer is a wealth adviser at Buckingham Asset Management and the director of personal finance for the BAM Alliance. A certified financial planner practitioner working with individuals, families and organizations, he also educates at private events and via TV, radio, print, and online media. “Personal finance is more personal than it is finance” is the central theme that drives his writing and speaking.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser