MONEY Ask the Expert

Have Mutual Funds Lost a Key Advantage Over ETFs?

Investing illustration
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: ETFs seem to be taking the place of mutual funds, but my understanding is that mutual funds are still your best option if you want to reinvest dividends. Is that true? — Bill from Florence, S.C.

A: Once upon a time, there was some truth to this. But the popularity of dividend-focused exchange-traded funds has prompted most brokerages to tweak their policies to accommodate dividend reinvestors.

“From an investor standpoint the experience should be similar, though the process behind the scenes is different,” says Heather Pelant, a personal investor strategist with BlackRock, which manages mutual funds as well as ETFs via the firm’s iShares division.

Before ETFs became widely adopted, some brokerages charged ETF investors a transaction cost for dividend reinvestments, says Pelant. Hence the notion that mutual funds are a better vehicle for reinvesting dividends. “These platforms have since come up with procedures and features that are parallel to mutual funds,” she says.

Today, most large brokerages give investors the option of depositing dividend payouts into their cash accounts or automatically reinvesting dividends back into the security – be it an individual stock, mutual fund, or ETF. You should be able to make this choice on a fund by fund basis, change your preference at any time, and reinvest your dividends for free.

Still, it’s always a good idea to double check your broker’s own policy, lest you get dinged with additional fees.

One way ETFs are different (slightly) from mutual funds is the timing of reinvestments. Mutual fund dividend payouts are reinvested at a fund’s net asset value on the ex-dividend date, which is essentially the cutoff date for new shareholders to collect that dividend.

ETF investors, on the other hand, have to wait for all transactions to settle, typically a few days, to repurchase shares. If share prices swing widely during that short window of time, it could make a difference — for better or for worse.

For most investors, however, this nuance matters far less than all the other factors that go into deciding whether to invest via an ETF or fund.

Meanwhile, dividend reinvesting is a great tool to stay fully invested and systematically buy additional shares over time, says Pelant. Over the long term, these payouts really can add up.

Of course, because different funds will have different payouts, automatically reinvesting dividends could eventually throw off your allocations — even more reason to make sure you periodically rebalance your portfolio.

MONEY ETFs

Humdrum ETFs Are Overtaking Racy Hedge Funds

Tortoise and the hare
Milo Winter—Blue Lantern Studio/Corbis

It's part of a gradual change in culture on Wall Street that's encouraging low costs and long-term thinking.

It’s like the investment world’s version of the race between the tortoise and the hare. And the hare is losing its lead.

Hedge funds, investment pools known for their exotic investment strategies and rich fees, have long been considered one of the raciest investments Wall Street has to offer, with $2.94 trillion invested globally as of the first quarter, according to researcher Hedge Fund Research.

Despite their mystique and popularity, though, hedge funds are about to be eclipsed by a far cheaper and less exclusive investment vehicle: exchange-traded funds.

According to ETF researcher ETFGI, exchange-traded funds — index funds that have become favorites of financial planners and mom and pop investors — have climbed to more than $2.93 trillion. ETFs could eclipse hedge funds as early as this summer, according to co-founder Debbie Fuhr.

In some ways the milestone is one that few people outside the money management business might notice or care about. But even if you don’t pay much attention to the pecking order on Wall Street, there’s reason to take notice.

The fact that ETFs have caught up with hedge funds reflects broader trends toward lower costs and a focus on long-term passive investing, both of which benefit small investors.

Exchange-traded funds, which first appeared in the 1990s and hit the $1 trillion mark following the financial crisis, have gained fans in large part because their ultra-low cost and hands-off investing style.

While there are many varieties of ETFs, the basic premise is built on the notion that investors get ahead not by picking individual stocks and securities but by simply owning big parts of the market.

Index mutual funds have been around for a long time. (Mutual funds control $30 trillion in assets globally, dwarfing both ETFs and hedge funds). But ETFs allow investors to trade funds like stocks, and they can be more tax efficient than mutual funds. Both ETFs and traditional index funds are known for ultra-low fees, sometimes less than 0.1% of assets invested. That means investors keep more of what they earn, and pay less to Wall Street.

Hedge funds by contrast exist for elaborate investment strategies. They are investment pools that in some ways resemble mutual funds, but they can’t call themselves that because they aren’t willing to follow SEC rules designed to protect less sophisticated investors.

Because of their special legal status, hedge funds aren’t allowed to accept investors with less than than $1 million in net worth, hence the air of wealth and exclusivity.

But hedge fund managers also enjoy a lot more freedom in how they invest, for instance, sometimes requiring shareholders to lock up money for months at a time or taking big positions in complex derivatives.

Hedge funds aren’t necessarily designed to be risky — they get their name from a strategy designed to offset not magnify market swings. But hedge fund investors do expect managers to deliver something the market cannot. Otherwise why pay the high fees? Hedge funds typically charge “two and twenty.” That is 2% of the amount invested each year, plus 20% of any gains above some benchmark. No that is not a typo.

Of course, hedge funds’ rich fees wouldn’t be a problem if they delivered rich investment returns. The industry has long relied on some fabulously successful examples to make its case. But critics have also suspected that, like the active mutual fund industry in its 1990s’ heyday, this could be a case of survivorship bias, with a few rags-to-riches stories distracting from more common stories of mediocre performance.

Hedge funds’ performance in recent years seems to be bearing that out. (By contrast ETFs, whose returns are typically tied to the stock market, have benefited from one of the longest bull markets in history.)

Why should you care if a bunch of rich guys blow their money chasing ephemeral investment returns? One reason, is you might be among them, even if you don’t know it. Pension funds are among the biggest hedge fund investors.

The good news: They too are embracing indexing, if not specifically through ETFs. Calpers, the giant California pension fund, said last year that it was dumping hedge funds, while also indexing more of its stock holdings.

Unlike ETFs, hedge funds — because they need to justify their rich fees — often suffer from short-term focus. In recent years, one popular strategy has been so-called “activist investing,” where a hedge fund buys a big stake in an underperforming company and demands changes.

While the stock market often rewards those moves in the short-term, many investors worry moves like cutting costs and skimping on research ultimately make those businesses weaker, hurting long-term investors. It’s no surprise then that one of activist investing’s most outspoken critics is BlackRock Inc. As the largest ETF provider, BlackRock represents the interests of millions of small investors.

And finally, there are those fees. The surging popularity of low-cost investments such as ETFs will inevitably focus more attention on fees, putting pressure on active investment managers — and even hedge funds themselves — to slash prices. And in the the end, that benefits everybody.

MONEY Investing

Why Wary Investors May Keep the Bull Market Running

running bull
Ernst Haas—Getty Images

Retirement investors are optimistic but have not forgotten the meltdown. That's good news.

Six years into a bull market, individual investors around the world are feeling confident. Four in five say stocks will do even better this year than they did last year, new research shows. In the U.S., that means a 13.5% return in 2015. The bar is set at 8% in places like Spain, Japan and Singapore.

Ordinarily, such bullishness following years of heady gains might signal the kind of speculative environment that often precedes a market bust. Stocks in the U.S. have risen by double digits five of six years since the meltdown in 2008. They are up 3%, on average, this year.

But most individuals in the market seem to be on the lookout for dangerous levels of froth. The share that say they are struggling between pursuing returns and protecting capital jumped to 73% in this year’s Natixis Global Asset Management survey. That compares to 67% in 2013. Meanwhile, the share of individuals that said they would choose safety over performance also jumped, to 84% this year from 78% in 2014.

This heightened caution makes sense deep into a bull market and may help prolong the run. Other surveys have shown that many investors are hunkered down in cash. That much money on the sidelines could well fuel future gains, assuming these savers plow more of that cash into stocks.

Still, there is a seat-of-the-pants quality to investors’ behavior, rather than firm conviction. In the survey, 57% said they have no financial goals, 67% have no financial plan, and 77% rely on gut instincts to make investing decisions. This lack of direction persists even though most cite retirement as their chief financial concern. Other top worries include the cost of long-term care, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and inflation.

These are all thorny issues. But investing for retirement does not have to be a difficult chore. Saving is the hardest part. If you have no plan, getting one can be a simple as choosing a likely retirement year and dumping your savings into a target-date mutual fund with that year in the name. A professional will manage your risk and diversification, and slowly move you into safer fixed-income products as you near retirement.

If you are modestly more hands-on, you can get diversification and low costs through a single global stock index fund like iShares MSCI All Country or Vanguard Total World, both of which are exchange-traded funds (ETFs). You can also choose a handful of stock and bond index funds if you prefer a bit more involvement. (You can find good choices on our Money 50 list of recommended funds and ETFs.) Such strategies will keep you focused on the long run, which for retirement savers never goes out of fashion.

Read next: Why a Strong Dollar Hurts Investors And What They Should Do About It

MONEY index funds

The One Investment You Need Most For A Successful Retirement

two men walking toward hole on golf course
Chris Ryan—Getty Images

Market returns may be lower in future. But you can make the most of them by focusing on low-cost funds and ETFs.

Whether you’re still building your nest egg or tapping it for income, you need to re-evaluate your investing strategy in light of lower projected investment returns in the years ahead. The upshot: Unless you’re putting most of your money into low-cost index funds and ETFs, you may very well be jeopardizing your shot at a secure retirement.

As if we needed more confirmation that future investment gains will likely be anemic, investment adviser and ETF guru Rick Ferri recently unveiled his long-term forecast for stock and bond returns. It’s sobering to say the least. Assuming 2% yearly inflation, he estimates stocks and bonds will deliver annualized gains of roughly 7% and 4% respectively over the next few decades. That’s quite a comedown from the 10% for stocks and 5% or so for bonds investors had come to expect in past decades.

Given such undersized projected rates of return, you can’t afford to give up any more of your gain to fees than you absolutely have to if you want to have a reasonable shot at attaining and maintaining a secure retirement. Which means broad-based index funds or ETFs with low annual expenses should be the investment of choice for individual investors’ portfolios.

Check Out: 4 Retirement Mistakes That Can Cost You $250,000 or More

Here’s an example. Let’s say you’re 25, earn $40,000 a year, get 2% annual raises and plan to retire at 65. Back when stocks were churning out annualized gains of 10% and bonds were delivering 5% yearly, you might reasonably expect an annualized return of 8% or so from a 60% stocks-40% bonds portfolio. Assuming 1.25% in annual expenses—about average for mutual funds, according to Morningstar—that left you with an annual return of roughly 6.75%. Given that return, you would have to save about 11% of salary through0ut your career to end up with a $1 million nest egg at retirement.

But look at how much more you have to stash away each year if returns come in at current low projections. If stocks return 7% annually and bonds generate gains of 4%, a 60-40 portfolio would return roughly 6%. Deduct 1.25% in expenses, and you’re looking at an annualized return of 4.75%. With that return, the 25-year-old above would have to save 17% of salary annually to accumulate $1 million by age 65. In short, he would have to increase the percentage of salary he devotes to saving by almost 55% each year, enough to require a major lifestyle adjustment.

There’s not much you can do to boost the returns the market delivers. But you do have some control over investment expenses. Suppose that instead of shelling out 1.25% a year in expenses, our 25-year-old lowers annual costs to 0.25% by investing exclusively in low-cost index funds and ETFs. That would boost his potential return on a 60-40 portfolio by one percentage point from 4.75% to 5.75%. With that extra percentage point in return, our hypothetical 25-year-old would be able to build a $1 million nest egg at 65 by saving 13% of salary annually instead of 17% year. Granted, 13% is still more than the 11% he had to save when he was paying 1.25% annually in expenses and stocks and bonds were delivering higher historical rates of return. But investing low-fee index funds and ETFs clearly gives him a better shot at building a seven-figure nest egg than he would have with funds that charge higher expenses.

Check Out: 10 Smart Ways To Boost Your Investment Results

Holding the rein on expenses in the face of expected subpar returns is just as important when you’re tapping your nest egg. For example, if you follow a systematic withdrawal system like the 4% rule—i.e., draw 4%, or $40,000, initially from a $1 million 60% stocks-40% bonds portfolio and increase that amount each year for inflation—reducing annual expenses by a percentage point will significantly increase the probability that your nest egg will last 30 years or more.

Can I guarantee that you’ll be able to duplicate these results exactly? Of course not. Given the choices in your 401(k) or other retirement accounts, you may not be able to reduce expenses as much as in these scenarios. Even if you can, there’s no assurance that every cent you save in expenses will translate to an equivalent gain in returns (although research shows funds with lower costs do tend to outperform their high-cost counterparts).

And let’s not forget that we’re dealing with projections here. They may very well get it wrong. Even if they’re spot on, you won’t earn that annualized return year after year. Some years will be higher, others lower, which will affect both the size of the nest egg you accumulate as well as how long it will last. It’s also possible that you may be able to generate a higher return than the market ultimately delivers (although doing so typically means taking on more risk).

Check Out: The Retirement Income Mistake Most Americans Are Making

But the point is this: If returns do come in lower than in the past—which seems likely given the current low level of interest rates—the more you stick to low-cost index funds and ETFs, the better the shot that you’ll have at accumulating the savings you’ll need to maintain your standard of living in retirement, and the more likely your savings will last at least as long as you do.

Walter Updegrave is the editor of RealDealRetirement.com. If you have a question on retirement or investing that you would like Walter to answer online, send it to him at walter@realdealretirement.com.

More From Real Deal Retirement.com

3 Ways To Rescue Your Retirement If You’ve Fallen Behind

4 Retirement Mistakes That Can Cost You $250,000 or More

Your 3 Biggest Social Security Questions Answered

MONEY mutual funds

Mutual Funds: Not Dead Yet

tombstone proclaiming that Mutual Funds aren't dead yet
Zachary Zavislak

ETFs pose a real threat, but mutual funds can still play a key role in your portfolio. Here are 3 ways to put them to good use.

In many industries, new competition is disrupting the way business is conducted. Think department stores and cable television. Now the $12 trillion mutual fund industry is threatened too.

Since 2007, mutual fund assets have grown less than 50%, while the collective amount invested in exchange-traded funds—baskets of securities that can be traded like individual stocks—has more than tripled, to $2 trillion.

Traditional mutual funds are suffering from the growing popularity of low-cost passive investing. Last year investors poured nearly 10 times as much money into index portfolios, which simply buy and hold all the securities in a sliver of the market, as they put into actively managed funds. And the vast majority of ETFs are index portfolios, many charging lower expenses than mutual funds.

Meanwhile, ETF-like investments could gain traction in the realm of active management.

So far, few actively managed ETFs have been launched because the Securities and Exchange Commission requires them to divulge their holdings in real time — something stock pickers are wary of doing.

However, the SEC recently greenlighted an ETF-like vehicle that solves the disclosure problem. Exchange-traded managed funds, or ETMFs, will be required to reveal their holdings only a few times a year, like traditional mutual funds.

Eaton Vance, which won approval for its NextShares ETMF structure and is licensing it to other money managers, expects to launch its first ETMFs this year.

Because ETFs and ETMFs are traded on an exchange and don’t require back-office and marketing functions, they can charge less. Eaton Vance expects that on average a NextShares ETMF could cost about 0.63 percentage points less than a mutual fund version. So while the average actively managed mutual fund charges $133 a year for every $10,000 you invest, ETMFs may cost just $70 a year.

Still, mutual funds have been around for 91 years and aren’t going the way of the dinosaur tomorrow.

A big reason is that 401(k) plans, which control more than $4.4 trillion in assets, have yet to embrace ETFs. Until that happens—and until ETMFs arrive in full force—here are ways you can still put traditional funds to good use.

Satisfy Your Core Stocks
When it comes to the bulk of your equity portfolio, it doesn’t matter if you use index ETFs or index mutual funds as long as you pick a cheap option. “Low cost is low cost, period,” says Dave Nadig, chief investment officer of ETF.com.

Case in point: MONEY 50 pick Schwab S&P 500 Index mutual fund charges 0.09% annually, the same as SPDR S&P 500 ETF .

As you can see from the chart below, though, not all index mutual funds charge rock-bottom prices.

150306_INV_2

Fix the Bond Problem
MONEY has warned of the risks of putting all your bond money into traditional index funds and ETFs. Those portfolios are obliged to load up on what are now the most expensive parts of the fixed-income market: U.S. Treasuries and agency-backed mortgage debt that the Federal Reserve bought in droves to stimulate the economy.

Jeff Layman, chief investment officer at BKD Wealth Advisors, says his firm has switched from passive core bond funds to active managers, who have the leeway to diversify into less frothy parts of the market. With few exceptions, most actively managed high-grade bond portfolios are mutual funds. A good option is MONEY 50 pick Dodge & Cox Income DODGE & COX INCOME FUND DODIX -0.07% , which charges just 0.43% in annual fees.

Fill a Niche
For narrowly focused assets, Samuel Lee, editor of Morningstar ETFInvestor, says you can find traditional mutual funds with deft active managers who have the flexibility to “avoid horrendous transaction costs.” Surprisingly, some of these funds charge lower expenses than ETFs. For example, he prefers Vanguard High Yield Corporate VANGUARD HIGH-YIELD CORPORATE INV VWEHX -0.17% , an actively managed fund that charges 0.23% a year, over SPDR Barclays High Yield ETF, which charges 0.40%.

Commodities are another area where mutual funds may make more sense. ETFs that invest in physical commodities or futures contracts are less tax-efficient than a regular fund that owns commodity-related stocks.

Collectively these investments represent just a minority of your overall portfolio. Still, it means the death of the fund may be exaggerated—for now.

MONEY stocks

10 Smart Ways to Boost Your Investing Results

stacks of coins - each a different color
Alamy

You don't have to be an investing genius to improve your returns. Just follow a few simple steps.

Recent research shows that people who know their way around investing and finance racked up higher annual returns (9.5% vs. 8.2%) than those who don’t. Here are 10 tips that will help make you a savvier investor and better able to achieve your financial goals.

1. Slash investing fees. You can’t control the gains the financial markets deliver. But by sticking to investments like low-cost index funds and ETFs that charge as little as 0.05% a year, you can keep a bigger portion of the returns you earn. And the advantage to doing so can be substantial. Over the course of a career, reducing annual fees by just one percentage point can boost the size of your nest egg more than 25%. Another less commonly cited benefit of lowering investment costs: downsizing fees effectively allows you to save more for retirement without actually putting aside another cent.

2. Beware conflicted advice. Many investors end up in poor-performing investments not because of outright cons and scams but because they fall for a pitch from an adviser who’s really a glorified salesman. The current push by the White House, Department of Labor and Securities and Exchange Commission to hold advisers to a more rigorous standard may do away with some abuses. But the onus is still on you to gauge the competence and trustworthiness of any adviser you deal with. Asking these five questions can help you do that.

3. Gauge your risk tolerance. Before you can invest properly, you’ve got to know your true appetite for risk. Otherwise, you could end up bailing out of investments during market downturns, turning paper losses into real ones. Completing a risk tolerance questionnaire like this one from RealDealRetirement’s Retirement Toolbox can help you assess how much risk you can reasonably handle.

4. Don’t be a “bull market genius.” When the market is doing well and stock prices are surging, it’s understandable if you assume your incredible investing acumen is responsible for those outsize returns. Guess what? It’s not. You’re really just along for the ride. Unfortunately, many investors lose sight of this basic fact, become overconfident, take on too much risk—and then pay dearly when the market inevitably takes a dive. You can avoid such a come-down, and the losses that accompany it, by leavening your investing strategy with a little humility.

5. Focus on asset allocation, not fund picking. Many people think savvy investing consists of trying to identify in advance the investments that will top the performance charts in the coming year. But that’s a fool’s errand. It’s virtually impossible to predict which stocks or funds will outperform year to year, and trying to do so often means you’ll end up chasing hot investments that may be more prone to fizzle than sizzle in the year ahead. The better strategy: create a diversified mix of stock and bond funds that jibes with your risk tolerance and makes sense given the length of time you plan to keep your money invested. That will give you a better shot at getting the long-term returns you need to achieve a secure retirement and reach other goals while maintaining reasonable protection against market downturns.

6. Limit the IRS’s take. You should never let the desire to avoid taxes drive your investing strategy. That policy has led many investors to plow their savings into all sorts of dubious investments ranging from cattle-breeding operations to jojoba-bean plantations. That said, there are reasonable steps you can take to prevent Uncle Sam from claiming too big a share of your investment gains. One is doing as much of your saving as possible in tax-advantaged accounts like traditional and Roth 401(k)s and IRAs. You may also be able to lower the tab on gains from investments held in taxable accounts by investing in stock index funds and tax-managed funds that that generate much of their return in the form of unrealized long-term capital gains, which go untaxed until you sell and then are taxed at generally lower long-term capital gains rates.

7. Go broad, not narrow. In search of bigger gains, many investors tend to look for niches to exploit. Instead of investing in a broad selection of energy or technology firms, they’ll drill down into solar producers, wind power, robotics, or cloud-computing firms. That approach might work, but it can also leave you vulnerable to being in the wrong place at the wrong time—or the right place but the wrong company. Going broader is better for two reasons: it’s less of a guessing game, and the broader you go the lower your investing costs are likely to be. So if you’re buying energy, tech or whatever, buy the entire sector. Better get, go even broader still. By investing in a total U.S. stock market and total U.S. bond market index fund, you’ll own a piece of virtually all publicly traded U.S. companies and a share of the entire investment-grade bond market. Throw in a total international stock index fund and you’ll have foreign exposure as well. In short, you’ll tie your portfolio’s success to that of the broad market, not just a slice of it.

8. Consider the downside. Investors are by and large an optimistic lot, otherwise they wouldn’t put their money where their convictions are. But a little skepticism is good too. So before putting your money into an investment or embarking on a strategy, challenge yourself. Come up with reasons your view might be all wrong. Think about what might happen if you are. Crash-test your investing strategy to see how you’ll do if your investments don’t perform as well as you hope. Better to know the potential downside before it occurs than after.

9. Keep it simple. You can easily get the impression that you’re some kind of slacker if you’re not filling your portfolio with every new fund or ETF that comes out. In fact, you’re better off exercising restraint. By loading up on every Next Big Thing investment the Wall Street marketing machine churns out you run the risk of di-worse-ifying rather than diversifying. All you really need is a portfolio that mirrors the broad U.S. stock and bond markets, and maybe some international exposure. If you want to go for more investing gusto, you can consider some inflation protection, say, a real estate, natural resources, or TIPS fund. But I’d be wary about adding much more than that.

10. Tune out the noise. With so many investing pundits weighing in on virtually every aspect of the financial markets nearly 24/7, it’s easy to get overwhelmed with advice. It might make sense to sift through this cacophony if it were full of investing gems, but much of the advice, predictions, and observations are trite, if not downright harmful. If you want to watch or listen to the parade of pundits just to keep abreast of the investing scuttlebutt, fine. Just don’t let the hype, the hoopla, and the hyperbole distract you from your investing strategy.

Walter Updegrave is the editor of RealDealRetirement.com. If you have a question on retirement or investing that you would like Walter to answer online, send it to him at walter@realdealretirement.com.

More From RealDealRetirement.com:

 

MONEY portfolio

5 Ways to Invest Smarter at Any Age

dollar bill lifting barbells
Comstock Images—Getty Images

The key is settling on the right stock/bond mix and sticking to your guns. Here's how.

Welcome to Day 4 of MONEY’s 10-day Financial Fitness program. So far, you’ve seen what shape you’re in, gotten yourself motivated, and checked your credit. Today, tackle your investment mix.

The key to lifetime fitness is a powerful core—strong and flexible abdominal and back muscles that help with everything else you do and protect against aches and injuries as you age. In your financial life, your core is your long-term savings, and strengthening it is simple: Settle on the right stock/bond mix, favor index funds to keep costs low, fine-tune your approach periodically, and steer clear of gimmicks such as “nontransparent ETFs” or “hedge funds for small investors”—Wall Street’s equivalent of workout fads like muscle-toning shoes.

Here’s the simple program:

1. Know Your Target

If you don’t already have a target allocation for your age and risk tolerance, steal one from the pie charts at T. Rowe Price’s Asset Allocation Planner. Or take one minute to fill out Vanguard’s mutual fund recommendation tool. You’ll get a list of Vanguard index funds, but you can use the categories to shop anywhere.

2. Push Yourself When You’re Young

Investors 35 and under seem to be so concerned about a market meltdown that they have almost half their portfolios in cash, a 2014 UBS report found. Being too conservative early on—putting 50% in stocks vs. 80%—reduces the likely value of your portfolio at age 65 by 30%, according to Vanguard research. For starting savers, 90% is a commonly recommended stock stake.

3. Do a U-turn at Retirement

According to Wade Pfau of the American College and Michael Kitces of the Pinnacle Advisory Group, you have a better shot at a secure retirement if you hold lots of stocks when you’re young, lots of bonds at retirement, and then gradually shift back to stocks. Their studies found that starting retirement with 20% to 30% in stocks and raising that by two percentage points a year for 15 years helps your money last, especially if you run into a bear market early on.

4. Be Alert for Hidden Risks

Once you’ve been investing for several years and have multiple accounts, perfecting your investment mix gets trickier. Here’s a simple way to get the full picture of your portfolio.

Dig out statements for all your investment accounts—401(k), IRA, spouse’s 401(k), old 401(k), any brokerage accounts. At Morningstar.com, find “Instant X-Ray” under Portfolio Tools. Enter the ticker symbol of each fund you own, along with the dollar value. (Oops. Your 401(k) has separately managed funds that lack tickers? Use the index fund that’s most similar to your fund’s benchmark.)

Clicking “Show Instant X-Ray” will give you a full analysis, including a detailed stock/bond allocation, a geographic breakdown of your holdings, and your portfolio’s overall dividend yield and price/earnings ratio. Look deeper to see how concentrated you are in cyclical stocks, say, or tech companies—a sign you might not be as diversified as you think or taking risks you didn’t even know about.

5. Don’t Weigh Yourself Every Day

Closely monitoring your progress may help with an actual fitness plan. For financial fitness, it’s better to lay off looking at how you’re doing. A growing body of research finds that well-diversified investors who check their balances infrequently are more likely to end up with bigger portfolios, says Michaela Pagel, a finance professor at Columbia Business School. One reason: Pagel says savers who train themselves not to peek are more likely to invest in stocks. And research by Dalbar finds that investors’ tendency to panic sell in bear markets has cut their average annual returns to 5% over the past 20 years, while the S&P 500 earned 9.2%.

When you have the urge to sell, remind yourself that your time horizon is at least 20 years, says Eric Toya, a financial planner in Redondo Beach, Calif. “Outcome-oriented investors agonize over every up-and-down whim of the market and make poor timing decisions,” he says. “If your process is sound, you don’t need to panic.”

Previous:

Next:

MONEY retirement planning

How to Save More for Retirement Without Saving an Extra Cent

fingers holding penny
Roy Hsu—Getty Images

Think you can't set aside any more dough than you're already saving? Here's a simple way to grow your nest egg without putting a squeeze on your budget.

If I said you could significantly boost the size of your nest egg without setting aside even a single penny more than you already are and do so without taking on a scintilla of extra investing risk, you’d be skeptical, right? Well, you can. Here’s how.

It’s no secret that the best way to increase your chances of achieving a secure retirement is to boost the amount you save. Problem is, given all the other demands on your paycheck (mortgage, car payments, child expenses, the occasional night out, etc.) how do you find ways to free up more dough for saving?

Actually, there’s an easy way boost your retirement account balances without further squeezing your budget: Stash whatever money you do manage to save in the lowest-cost investments you can find. This simple tactic has the same effect as contributing more to your retirement accounts, making it the financial equivalent of upping your savings rate.

How big a jump in your effective savings rate are we talking about? That depends on how much you cut investment fees and how long you reap the benefits of those lower costs. But over time the increase in your effective savings rate can be quite meaningful, as this example shows.

Let’s say you’re 35, earn $50,000 a year, receive 2% annual raises, and contribute 10% of your salary to a 401(k) that earns a 7% a year before fees. If you shell out 1.5% annually in investment expenses, by the time you’re 65 your 401(k) balance will total just under $465,000.

Reduce your annual investment costs from 1.5% to just 1%—hardly a heroic effort—and you’re looking at a nest egg worth roughly $505,000. To end up with that amount while still paying 1.5% in annual fees, you would have to boost your annual 401(k) contribution to 10.8%. Which means that lowering expenses by a half percentage point in this case is essentially the same as saving nearly a full percentage point more each year, except you don’t have to reduce your spending to do it.

And what if you take an even sharper knife to investing costs?

Well, cutting expenses from 1.5% to 0.5% a year would give our hypothetical 35-year-old a 401(k) balance of just under $550,000 at age 65, or the equivalent of saving 11.8% a year instead of 10%. And if you’re able to really cut investment fees to the bone—say, to 0.25%—that nest egg’s value would balloon to just over $573,000. To reach that size while paying 1.5% annually in investing costs, our 35-year-old would have to contribute 12.3% of pay.

By the way, lowering investment costs can also have a big payoff after you’ve stopped saving and have begun tapping your nest egg for retirement income. For example, a 65 year-old with a $1 million nest egg split equally between stocks and bonds who wants an 80% chance that his savings will sustain him for at least 30 years would have to limit himself to an initial draw (that would subsequently rise with inflation) of just under 3.5%, or a bit less than $35,000, assuming annual expenses of 1.5%.

Cut that levy from 1.5% to 0.5%, and he would be able to boost that inflation-adjusted withdrawal to almost 4%, or $40,000, while maintaining the same 80% probability of savings lasting 30 or more years.

Of course, the results you get may vary for any number of reasons. For example, if you’re doing most of your saving through a 401(k) and your plan lacks good low-cost investment options, your ability to turn lower expenses into a higher account balance will necessarily be limited. And even if you are able to home in on investments with rock-bottom costs, there’s no guarantee that every dollar of cost savings will translate to an extra dollar in your account.

That said, unless every cent of your savings is locked into an account that offers only high-expense investments, you should be able to get some money into cost-efficient options. At the very least you can steer savings in IRAs and taxable accounts into low-fee index funds and ETFs (some of which charge as little as 0.05%). And while cutting investing costs can’t guarantee a larger nest egg, Morningstar research shows that funds with the lowest expense ratios tend to outperform their higher-fee counterparts.

One final note. While targeting low-expense investment options is certainly an effective and painless way to boost the size of your nest egg, you shouldn’t let low costs do all the work. Indeed, if you focus on low-fee investments and increase your contributions to 401(k)s, IRAs and other retirement accounts, that’s when you’ll see your savings balances really take off.

Walter Updegrave is the editor of RealDealRetirement.com. If you have a question on retirement or investing that you would like Walter to answer online, send it to him at walter@realdealretirement.com.

More From RealDealRetirement.com:

The 4 Biggest Retirement Blunders
Can You Afford To Retire Early?
Market Jitters? Do This 15-Minute Portfolio Check-up Now

Read next: If You Want to Retire in 10 Years, Do These 5 Things Now

MONEY stocks

China’s Boom Is Over — and Here’s What You Can Do About It

Illustration of Chinese dragon as snail
Edel Rodriguez

The powerhouse that seemed ready to propel the global economy for decades is now stuck in a period of slowing growth. Here’s what that means for your portfolio

Every so often an investment theme comes along that seems so big and compelling that you feel it can’t be ignored. This happened in the 1980s with Japanese stocks. It happened again with the Internet boom of the 1990s. You know how those ended.

Today history appears to be repeating itself in China.

Just a decade ago, China was hailed as the engine that would single-handedly drive the global economy for years to come. That seemed plausible, as a billion Chinese attempted something never before accomplished: tran­sitioning from an agrarian to an industrial to a consumer economy, all in a single generation.

Recently, however, this ride to prosperity has hit the skids. A real estate bubble threatens to crimp consumer wealth; over-investment in a wide range of industries is likely to dampen growth; and the transition to a developed economy is stuck in an awkward phase that has trapped other emerging markets.

No wonder Chinese equities—despite a strong rebound last year—are down around half from their 2007 peak.

iSCH1

Like the Japan and dotcom manias before it, China looks like an old story. “Do you have to be in China?” asks Henrik Strabo, head of international investments for Rainier Investment Management in Seattle. “The truth is, no.”

If you’ve bought the China story—and since 2000 hundreds of thousands of U.S. investors have plowed $176 billion into emerging-markets mutual and exchange-traded funds, which have big stakes in China—that’s a pretty bold statement.

In fact, even if you haven’t invested directly in Chinese stocks and simply hold a broad-based international equity fund, China’s Great Slowdown has an impact on how you should think about your portfolio. Here’s what you need to understand about China’s next chapter.

China Has Hit More Than a Speed Bump

After expanding at an annual clip of more than 10% a decade ago, China’s economy has slowed, growing at just over 7% in 2014. That’s expected to fall to 6.5% in the next couple of years, according to economists at UBS. And then it’s “on to 5% and below over the coming decade,” says Jeffrey Kleintop, chief global investment strategist at Charles Schwab.

Why is this worrisome when gross domestic product in the U.S. is expanding at a much slower 3%?

For starters, it represents a steep drop from prior expectations. As recently as three years ago, economists had been forecasting that China would still be growing at roughly an 8% clip by 2016.

The bigger worry is that the slowdown means that China has reached a phase that frustrates many emerging economies on the path to becoming fully “developed,” a stage some economists refer to as the middle-income trap.

On the one hand, a growing number of Chinese are approaching middle-class status, which means wages are on the rise. That sounds good, but rising labor costs chip away at China’s competitive advantage in older, industrial sectors. “You’re seeing more and more manufacturers look at other, cheaper markets like Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines,” says Eric Moffett, manager of the T. Rowe Price Asia Opportunities Fund.

At the same time, the country’s new consumer-centric economy has yet to fully form. About half of China’s urban population is thought to be middle-class by that nation’s standards, but half of Chinese still live in the countryside, and the vast majority of those households are poor. Couple this with the deteriorating housing market—which accounts for the bulk of the wealth for the middle class—and you can see why China isn’t able to buy its way to prosperity just yet.

This in-between stage is when fast-growing economies typically downshift significantly. After prolonged periods of “supercharged” expansion, these economies tend to suffer through years when they regress to a more typical rate of global growth, according to a recent paper by Harvard professors Lawrence Summers and Lant Pritchett.

In some cases, like Brazil, this slowdown prevents the economy from taking that final step to advanced status. Brazil had been expanding 5.2% a year from 1967 to 1980, but that growth slowed to less than 1% annually from 1981 to 2002.

No one is saying China will be stuck in this trap for a generation, like Brazil, but China could be looking at a long-term growth rate closer to 4% to 5% than 8% to 10%.

iSCH2

Your best strategy: Go where the growth is—at home. A few years ago the global economy was ex­pected to expand at an annual pace of 4.2% in 2015, trouncing the U.S.  Today the forecast is down to 3.1%, pretty much the same pace as the U.S. economy, which is expected to keep accelerating through 2017.

In recent years, some market strategists and financial planners have instructed investors to keep as much as 40% to 50% of their stocks in foreign funds. But ­dropping that allocation to 20% to 30% still gives you most of the diversification benefit of owning non-U.S. stocks.

The Losers Aren’t Just in Asia

China’s rise to power lifted the fortunes of its neighboring trade partners too, so it stands to reason that a broad swath of the emerging markets is now at risk. “China is still the beating heart of Asia and the emerging markets,” says Moffett. “If it slows down, all the other countries exporting to and importing from China will see their growth prospects affected.”

The country’s biggest trading partners in the region are Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and all are slowing down. Economists forecast that the growth rates in those four nations will slip below 3% next year.

Beyond Asia, “you have to be careful with the commodity exporters,” says Rainier’s Strabo. China’s slowdown over the past five years is a big reason commodity prices in general and oil specifically have sunk more than 50% since 2011.

China consumes about 40% of the world’s copper and 11% of its oil. As the country’s appetite for commodities wanes, natural resource producers such as Australia, Russia, and Latin America will feel the blow.

Your best strategy: Keep your emerging-markets stake to around 5% of your total portfolio. If your only foreign exposure is a total international equity fund, then you’re probably already there. If, however, you’ve tacked on an emerging-markets “tilt” to your portfolio to try to boost returns, unwind those positions, starting with funds focusing on Asia, Latin America, or Russia.

Here’s another bet that’s now played out: A popular strategy in the global slowdown was to take fliers on Western companies with the biggest exposure to China—companies such as the British spirits maker Diageo (think Johnnie Walker and Guinness) and Yum Brands (KFC and Pizza Hut)—solely because of their China reach. And for a while, that paid off.

Now, though, the stocks of Yum and Diageo have stalled, and major global companies such as Anheuser-Busch InBev and Unilever have reported disappointing results recently in part owing to subpar sales in China as well as in other emerging markets.

Demographic Problems Will Only Make Things Worse

For years, China’s sheer size was seen as a massive competitive advantage. Indeed, China has three times as many workers as the United States has people.

Yet as the country’s older workers have been retiring, China’s working-age population has been quietly shrinking in recent years. Economists say this will most likely lead to labor shortages over the coming years, putting even more pressure on wages to rise.

iSCH3

China’s demographic problem has been exacerbated by the country’s “one-child” policy, which has prevented an estimated 400 million births since 1979. But China isn’t the only emerging market suffering from bad demographic trends.

Birthrates are low throughout East Asia. The ratio of people 15 to 64 to those 65 and older will plummet from about 7 to 1 to 3 to 1 in the next 15 years in Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong, dragging down growth.

Your best strategy: If you’re a growth-focused investor who wants more than that 5% stake in emerging markets, concentrate on developing economies with more youthful populations and more potential to expand. One fund that gives you that—with big holdings in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Colombia—is Harding Loevner Frontier Emerging Markets HARDING LOEVNER FRONT EM MKTS INV HLMOX -0.68% . Over the past five years, the fund has gained around 7% a year, more than triple the return of the typical emerging-markets portfolio.

Another option is EGShares ­Beyond BRICs EGA EMERGING GLOBA EGSHARES BEYOND BRICS ETF BBRC 0.45% . Rather than investing in the emerging markets’ old-guard leaders—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—this ETF counts firms from more consumer-driven economies, such as Mexico and Malaysia, among its top holdings.

The Parallels Between China and 1990s Japan are Alarming

For starters, China is facing a real estate crisis similar to Japan’s, says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS. With easy access to cheap credit, developers have flooded the major cities with excess housing. Floor space per urban resident has grown to 40 square meters, compared with just 35 square meters in Japan and 33 in the U.K.

Not surprisingly, prices in 100 top Chinese cities have been sliding for seven months. Whether China’s property bubble bursts or not, falling home values chip away at household net worth; that, in turn, drags down consumer sen­timent and spending, Behravesh says.

Other unfortunate similarities between the two nations: Excess capacity plagues numerous sectors of China’s economy, ranging from steel to chemicals to an auto industry made up of 96 car­ brands.

Also, Chinese officials face political pressure to focus on short-term growth rather than long-term fixes. This type of thinking has resulted in the rise of so-called zombie companies, much like what Japan saw in the ’90s. “These are companies that aren’t really viable but are being kept alive,” Behravesh says. Yet for the economy to get back on track, inefficiently run businesses have to be allowed to fail, market strategists say.

Your best strategy: Focus on the few major differences between the two countries. Unlike Japan, for instance, China is still a young, emerging economy. Slowdown or not, “the growth of the middle class will continue in China, and that will absorb some of the overhang in the economy, which is something Japan couldn’t count on,” says Michael Kass, manager of Baron Emerging Markets Fund.

What’s more, when Japan’s bubble burst in late 1989, stocks in that country were trading at a frothy price/earnings ratio of around 50. By contrast, Chinese shares trade at a reasonable P/E of around 10.

To be sure, not all Chinese stocks enjoy such low valuations. As competition heats up to supply China’s population with basic goods, valuations on consumer staples companies have nearly doubled over the past four years to a P/E of around 27.

At the same time, the loss of faith in the Chinese story means there are decent values in industries that cater to the established middle and upper-middle class, says Nick Niziolek, co-manager of the Calamos Evolving World Growth Fund. Health care and gaming stocks in particular suffered setbacks last year. And Chinese consumer discretionary stocks are trading at a P/E of just 12, down from 20 five years ago.

You can invest in such businesses through EGShares Emerging Markets Domestic Demand ETF EGA EMERGING GLOBA EGSHARES EMERGING MKTS DOME EMDD 1.43% , which owns shares of companies that cater to local buyers within their home countries, rather than relying on exports. Chinese shares represent about 17% of the fund, led by names such as China Mobile.

That one of the world’s great growth stories is now best viewed as a place to pick up stocks on the cheap might seem a strange twist—until you remember your Japanese and Internet history.

MONEY index funds

The Smart Money is Finally Embracing the Right Way to Invest. You Should Too.

Investors turned their backs on traditional mutual funds in 2014 and began relying more heavily on indexing.

Since launching the Vanguard 500 fund in 1975, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle has been preaching the gospel of indexing — a plain-vanilla, low-cost strategy that calls for buying and holding all the stocks in a market and “settling” for average returns. He’s so fervent that his nickname in the industry is St. Jack.

Forty years laters, investors have finally found religion.

In 2014, the Vanguard Group attracted a record $216 billion of new money, largely on the strength of its index offerings and exchange-traded funds. These are funds that can be traded like individual stocks and that almost always track a market index.

Vanguard wasn’t alone. Blackrock, which runs the well-known iShares brand ETFs, attracted more than $100 billion of new money in 2014, a year in which investors both small and large embraced indexing, also known as “passive” investing.

By comparison, actively managed mutual funds — those that are run by traditional stock and bond pickers — saw net redemptions of nearly $13 billion last year, according to the fund tracker Morningstar.

There’s are several simple reasons for this:

1) Fund inflows generally follow recent performance.
And in 2014, the S&P 500 index of stocks outperformed roughly 80% of actively managed funds, noted Michael Rawson, an analyst with Morningstar.

He added: “When the market rallies strong, a lot of active managers tend to lag, maybe because they’re being more conservative, holding more quality stocks, or maybe holding a little bit of a cash — it is common for an active manager to hold some cash. So it’s difficult to keep up with the rising market.”

2) 2014 was a year when many heavy hitters espoused their preference for indexing.
In August, MONEY’s Ian Salisbury reported how the influential pension fund known as Calpers — the California Public Employees’ Retirement System — was openly considering reducing its use of actively managed strategies for its clients.

This came on the heels of a provocative column written by a Morningstar insider questioning whether actively managed strategies had a future. “To cut to the chase,” wrote Morningstar’s John Rekenthaler, “apparently not much.”

And as MONEY’s Pat Regnier pointed out in a fascinating piece on Warren Buffett’s investing approach, the Oracle of Omaha noted in his most recent shareholder letter that his will “leaves instructions for his trustees to invest in an S&P 500 index fund.”

3) Plus, new research from Standard & Poor’s shows that even if active managers can beat the indexes, they can’t do that consistently over time.

The report, which was published in December, noted that “When it comes to the active versus passive debate, the true measurement of successful active management lies in the ability of a manager or a strategy to deliver above-average returns consistently over multiple periods. Demonstrating the ability to outperform repeatedly is the only proven way to differentiate a manager’s luck from skill.”

Yet according to Aye Soe, S&P’s senior director of global research and design, “relatively few funds can consistently stay at the top.”

Indeed, only 9.84% of U.S. stock funds managed to stay in the top quartile of performance over three consecutive years, according to S&P. This is presumably because over time, the higher fees and trading costs that actively managed funds trigger become too difficult for even the most seasoned managers to overcome.

Even worse, just 1.27% of domestic equity portfolios were able to stay in the top 25% of their peers for five straight years. For those funds that specialize in blue chip stocks, the numbers were even worse. Of the 257 large-cap funds that finished in the top quartile of their peers starting in September 2010, less than half of 1% remained in the top quartile for each of the subsequent 12-month periods through September 2014.

As Soe puts it, this “paints a negative picture regarding the lack of long-term persistence in mutual fund returns.”

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com