Accountable Update

Getting What You Don’t Pay For

Please consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses carefully before investing in Mutual Funds. The prospectus, which contains this and other information about the investment company, can be obtained directly from the Fund Company or your financial professional. Be sure to read the prospectus carefully before deciding whether to invest.

Does that sound familiar? If you scroll to the bottom of this webpage, you will see this common language encouraging you to read the prospectus of any mutual fund you are considering for purchase. But even if you heed the call to read this legally required disclosure, you probably aren't seeing the whole picture.

For example, did you know that funds also produce another document that discloses how much the fund pays in trading commissions? Those expenses are not included in the fund's expense ratio and are typically expressed as a dollar amount on a financial statement that can be found in the Statement of Additional Information (SAI).

This is just one example of the type of diligence that you, or an advisor on your behalf, should be conducting when considering the inclusion of mutual funds and Exchange Traded Funds(ETFs) in your portfolio. Funds and ETFs are required to produce these disclosures in prescribed formats. Throw in holdings reports, typically produced semi-annually but sometimes more frequently, and you have the information you need to start making informed decisions.

This week I share the July 2017 Issue Brief from DFA titled Getting What You Don't Pay For. It provides a quick insight into why the information found in documents such as prospectuses and SAIs matters. Enjoy the short read and have a great weekend!


Getting What You Don’t Pay For

Costs matter. Whether you’re buying a car or selecting an investment strategy, the costs you expect to pay are likely to be an important factor in making any major financial decision.

People rely on a lot of different information about costs to help inform these decisions. When you buy a car, for example, the sticker price tells you approximately how much you can expect to pay for the car itself. But the sticker price is only one part of the overall cost of owning a car. Other things like sales tax, the cost of insurance, expected routine maintenance costs, and the potential cost of unexpected repairs are also important to understand. Some of these costs are easily observed, and others are more difficult to assess. Similarly, when investing in mutual funds, different variables need to be considered to evaluate how cost‑effective a strategy may be for a particular investor.

Expense Ratios

Many types of costs lower the net return available to investors. One important cost is the expense ratio. Similar to the sticker price of a car, the expense ratio tells you a lot about what you can expect to pay for an investment strategy. Exhibit 1 helps illustrate why expense ratios are important and shows how hefty expense ratios can impact performance.

This data shows that funds with higher average expense ratios had lower rates of outperformance. For the 15-year period through 2016, only 9% of the highest-cost equity funds outperformed their benchmarks. This data indicates that a high expense ratio is often a challenging hurdle for funds to overcome, especially over longer horizons. From the investor’s point of view, an expense ratio of 0.25% vs. 0.75% means savings of $5,000 per year on a $1 million account. As Exhibit 2 helps to illustrate, those dollars can really add up over longer periods.


Exhibit 1.       High Costs Can Reduce Performance, Equity Fund Winners and Losers Based on Expense Ratios (%)

Exhibit 2.       Hypothetical Growth of $1 Million at 6%, Less Expenses

The sample includes funds at the beginning of the 15-year period ending December 31, 2016. Funds are sorted into quartiles within their category based on average expense ratio over the sample period. The chart shows the percentage of winner and loser funds by expense ratio quartile; winners are funds that survived and outperformed their respective Morningstar category benchmark, and losers are funds that either did not survive or did not outperform their respective Morningstar category benchmark. US-domiciled open-end mutual fund data is from Morningstar and Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) from the University of Chicago. Equity fund sample includes the Morningstar historical categories: Diversified Emerging Markets, Europe Stock, Foreign Large Blend, Foreign Large Growth, Foreign Large Value, Foreign Small/Mid Blend, Foreign Small/Mid Growth, Foreign Small/Mid Value, Japan Stock, Large Blend, Large Growth, Large Value, Mid-Cap Blend, Mid-Cap Value, Miscellaneous Region, Pacific/Asia ex-Japan Stock, Small Blend, Small Growth, Small Value, and World Stock. For additional information regarding the Morningstar historical categories, please see “The Morningstar Category Classifications” at morningstardirect.morningstar.com/clientcomm/Morningstar_Categories_US_April_2016.pdf. Index funds and fund-of-funds are excluded from the sample. The return, expense ratio, and turnover for funds with multiple share classes are taken as the asset-weighted average of the individual share class observations. For additional methodology, please refer to Dimensional Fund Advisor’s brochure, The 2017 Mutual Fund Landscape. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

For illustrative purposes only and not representative of an actual investment. This hypothetical illustration is intended to show the potential impact of higher expense ratios and does not represent any investor’s actual experience. Assumes a starting account balance of $1,000,000 and a 6% compound annual growth rate less expense ratios of 0.25% and 0.75% applied over a 15-year time horizon. Taxes and other potential costs are not reflected. Actual results may vary significantly. Changing the assumptions would result in different outcomes. For example, the savings and difference between the ending account balances would be lower if the starting investment amount was lower.


While the expense ratio is an important piece of information for an investor to evaluate, what matters most when gauging the true cost‑effectiveness of an investment strategy is the “total cost of ownership.” Similar to the car example, total cost of ownership is more holistic than any one figure. It looks at things that are readily observable, like expense ratios, but also at things that are more difficult to assess, like trading costs and tax impact. It is important for investors to be aware of these and other costs and to realize that an expense ratio, while useful, is not an all‑inclusive metric for total cost of ownership.

Trading Costs

For example, while an expense ratio includes the fund’s investment management fee and expenses for fund accounting and shareholder reporting (among other items), it doesn’t include the potentially substantial cost of trading securities within the fund. Overall trading costs are a function of the amount of trading, or turnover, and the cost of each trade. If a manager trades excessively, costs like commissions and the price impact from trading can eat away at returns. Viewed through the lens of our car analogy, this impact is similar to excessively jamming your brakes or accelerating quickly. By regularly demanding immediacy like this when it may not be necessary, the more wear and tear your car is likely to experience and the more fuel you will end up using. These actions can increase your total cost of ownership. Additionally, excessive trading can also lead to negative tax consequences for the fund, which can increase the cost of ownership for investors holding funds in taxable accounts. The best way to try to decrease the impact of trading costs is for funds to avoid trading excessively and pay close attention to effectively minimizing cost per trade. Employing a flexible investment approach that reduces the need for immediacy, thereby enabling opportunistic execution, is one way to potentially help accomplish this goal. Keeping turnover low, remaining flexible, and transacting only when the potential benefits of a trade outweigh the costs can help keep overall trading costs down and help reduce the total cost of ownership.

Conclusion

The total cost of ownership of a mutual fund can be difficult to assess and requires a thorough understanding of costs beyond what an expense ratio can tell investors on its own. A good advisor can help investors look beyond any one cost metric and instead evaluate the total cost of ownership of an investment program—and ultimately help clients decide if a given strategy is right for them.


 

Source: Dimensional Fund Advisors LP.

There is no guarantee investment strategies will be successful. Diversification does not eliminate the risk of market loss. Mutual fund investment values will fluctuate and shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than original cost. The types of fees and expenses will vary based on investment vehicle. Investments are subject to risk including possible loss of principal.

All expressions of opinion are subject to change. This article is distributed for informational purposes, and it is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, recommendation, or endorsement of any particular security, products, or services.

Q2 2017 Market Review

As summer heats up, the US stock market stayed hot by posting its seventh consecutive quarter of positive returns. Much of that growth recently was led by large growth stocks, such as Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Alphabet (formerly known as Google); but small company growth stocks provided plenty of heat, too. Value stocks trailed growth stocks across all size ranges.

The Federal Reserve made no changes to monetary policy during the quarter but did start to release some of their discussions about how they may wind down the $4.5 trillion of bonds they bought with printed money following the Great Recession. While US and global bonds turned in a positive quarter, the tightrope between deflation and inflation that policy makers will be forced to traverse while unwinding the world central banks' unprecedented balance sheets would make even the Flying Wallendas nervous. All eyes are certain to be glued to Ms. Yellen and her global peers in coming months.

International markets, both developed and emerging, outperformed domestic markets, while commodities and REITs lagged. Longer maturity bonds and high yield corporates were the strongest performers in the fixed income markets, but the increasing noise about quantitative tightening has led to increased volatility.

It has been a good ride over the last couple of years. Long ago, I gave up trying to predict what the next short term moves in the market may be, but we should react to what market prices are telling us from time to time. Recently, we have rebalanced some portfolios due to drift from target allocations and aligned our models more closely to global equity weightings. While we all hope that Q3 produces a screen as green as Q2, at some point we will see red. By taking some gains off the table now, we hope to keep our clients in step with their risk tolerance and capacity while taking advantage of the benefits that diversification can provide.

If you have concerns about your portfolio or level of diversification, get in touch for a free review. In the meanwhile, stay cool and enjoy the Q2 2017 Market Review!

4 Letters Worth Repeating...Again

In early 2016, I was watching one of the cable business channels when a guest predicted that the stock market would crash on a particular day the following month. He even narrowed it down to what time of day the crash would occur.  

After discussing last week how different folks can arrive at very different conclusions when viewing the same data or charts, I was reminded of this article I wrote for the Accountable Update last year. The original, 4 Letters Worth Repeating, T-I-M-E, was good enough that I find it worth repeating, again. I did fix some questionable syntax and updated the charts with data through 2016. 

The article may be easier to read on ATXAdvisors.com than the email version due to the way some of the slides are formatted. Enjoy between the fireworks and BBQ this weekend and have a safe and Happy Independence Day! 


4 Letters Worth Repeating

This week, there was a story on a major "financial" network that predicted not only that the US stock market would peak on a particular day in March, but that it would happen after lunch. Appropriately, that network refers to itself with a 4-letter word.

But really, how considerate of them? With that level of detail, we should all be able to ride our unicorns down to Wall Street after sleeping late and enjoying a nice brunch, with time to spare to put in our sell orders before the bottom falls out.

I can think of a couple of 4-letter words for that kind of "news".

John Maynard Keynes is credited with uttering, “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” The famous (or infamous to some) economist made that observation after he had lost most of his money in ill-timed currency trades using borrowed money in early 1920. He was supposedly betting against the German Deutschmark as Deutschland struggled to recover after The Great War. Of course, in hindsight, he was right to see the black clouds building over the Weimer Republic that ultimately ended in hyperinflation and the rise of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (also known as the Nazis).

It turns out he was right about everything but, WHEN.

Decades later, investing legend Peter Lynch observed, "Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves." I suppose, though, that practical advice is much less likely to keep you glued to your TV set.

The reason it is so hard to know in the short run how any asset may perform is that the market reflects the aggregate expectations of all market participants, all the time. Folks that are willing to buy an asset are competing with folks who want to sell. When they agree on a price, they both feel that they are making the best deal. The buyer anticipating the asset will increase in price faster than other investment alternatives, the seller that the money will be more effectively invested elsewhere.

At ATX Portfolio Advisors, we believe that while the market incorporates all available information to drive stocks to fair value, we also believe that stocks may have different expected returns. In other words, there are certain characteristics that have resulted in returns that are greater than average that have persisted over time and across markets.

For stocks, there are four characteristics, or dimensions, that compelling evidence shows persistently over time. First is the market itself—stocks have higher expected returns than T-bills. Other characteristics include—company size (small vs. large), relative price (value vs. growth), and profitability (high vs. low).

The chart below documents the historical premiums that the size, relative price, and profitability dimensions have produced over time frames that reliable data is available. As you can see, the premiums have persisted over long time frames across different types of markets.

The next set of charts show the yearly relative performance of dimensions in US, Developed International, and Emerging Markets stocks. The blue bars indicate years in which the market, small cap, value, and profitability premiums were positive. The red bars indicate years in which the premiums were negative. A positive premium indicates out-performance (e.g., small cap stocks outperform large cap stocks); a negative premium indicates under-performance (e.g., small cap stocks under-perform large cap stocks).

Over these periods, positive premiums have occurred more frequently than negative premiums across all dimensions. BUT, the premiums can and do vary widely from year to year and can experience extreme and prolonged negative relative performance. In other words, there is no free brunch.

This is why we say you should take a longer-term view and stay disciplined during periods of volatility or under-performance of any premium. Over longer periods however, we have observed a higher frequency of positive premiums.

This next set documents the relative 5-year annualized performance of return dimensions in the different markets. When looking at longer time spans, observations of premiums are more consistent compared to one observation in any given year.

As you can see, there are fewer negative (red bars) 5-year periods versus positive (blue bars) periods. The difference is even more pronounced in historical observations of 10-year premiums as illustrated below.

Please remember that despite the higher frequency of positive premiums, outperformance may not be consistent, even over longer periods of time. Long-term investors should consider that premiums are never guaranteed and can undergo periods of negative returns in both relative and absolute terms.

All we have to do is look at the last 10-year period to remind ourselves of these facts, as many of the premiums have been smaller than historical averages.

10 Yr Dimension Performance.jpg

If the first several slides show why we stick to our strategy of owning the total market with weightings tilted to those dimensions that have demonstrated historical premiums, it is the last set that illustrates why our philosophy isn't likely to change when short term divergences from historical averages occur. They clearly show that the longer our investment period was, the more likely we were to see a premium in all of the dimensions. That's not nearly as exciting as screaming about market tops or bottoms, but it is pretty compelling evidence to stay the course no matter how loud the carnival barker chorus.

If nothing else, all of this reminds us of the old adage, “Time in the market is more important than timing the market.” T-I-M-E, now that's a 4-letter word worth worth repeating.

If you or someone you know lacks the time to plan and manage your portfolio, let's get acquainted.


Index descriptions available here.