Friday, May 3, 2013

PBS: “The Retirement Gamble” Facing Us All - What to Ask About Your Retirement

The real cost of managing your money

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/

Over a 50-year investing lifetime, that little 2 percent fee will erode 63 percent of what you would have had. As Bogle puts it, “the tyranny of compounding costs” is overwhelming.

Video of how financial fees can cost you

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/retirement-gamble/how-retirement-fees-cost-you/

Story

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/retirement-gamble/the-retirement-gamble-facing-us-all/


“The Retirement Gamble” Facing Us All

 by 
Martin Smith
If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well aware that the financial services industry is very busy running expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open a new account today, they say.
They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know, are increasing.
But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the more we save into the industry’s financial products, the more money they make in fees and commissions trading our hard-earned cash. And as long as they don’t run away with our money or invest it in a Ponzi scheme, they have little in the way of accountability to us when something goes wrong. And even then it can be hard to fight back.
Big banks, brokerages, insurance companies and other financial service providers operate under something called a suitability standard — which says they don’t have to give you the best advice, just advice that isn’t too egregiously terrible.
Let’s say you sit down with an adviser at your brokerage or bank and ask for some advice on how you should allocate your retirement savings, or which funds you might want to choose for your IRA.
You’ll get lots of advice, but chances are it won’t be worth much. Eighty five percent of all financial advisers and financial planners are really just brokers or salesman. Their incentive is to sell you a product that makes them a higher commission, not necessarily a product that maximizes your chances of saving more. Only 15 percent of advisers are “fiduciaries” — advisers who by law must operate with your best interests in mind.
Last year, the Obama administration proposed a rule to mandate that all financial advisers, financial planners and other assorted financial wizards would have to adopt a fiduciary standard when it came to employee retirement accounts such as your 401(k) or IRA account. The financial services industry, which today manages something upwards of $10 trillion of our retirement nest eggs, thought this was a bad idea and pushed back hard. Scores of their protest letters poured into the U.S. Labor Department, the branch of our government responsible for regulating employee retirement accounts.
“As long as they don’t run away with our money or invest it in a Ponzi scheme, they have little in the way of accountability to us when something goes wrong. And even then it can be hard to fight back.”
Congress, too, was hit with a furious lobbying campaign. This would be way too expensive, the industry said; if we have to provide such a standard of service, we will either have to pack up and find another business line, or have to pass the increased costs on to our customers. The Obama administration pulled their proposal last fall.
How would a new fiduciary rule change things? Chances are you would be sold less expensive products, not only in your IRA accounts but inside your company 401(k) as well. It’s all about fees. While reporting on retirement plans for FRONTLINE, nothing has been more surprising to me than the corrosive effect of fees on our retirement savings.
It’s this simple: Fund fees can erode as much as half or more of your prospective gains.
For the sake of dramatizing the point, John Bogle, founder of Vanguard, the world’s largest mutual fund company and pioneer of low-cost index funds, gave me a startling example while we were filming. Assume you are invested in a mutual fund, he says, with a gross return of 7 percent, but that the mutual fund charges you an annual fee of 2 percent.
Over a 50-year investing lifetime, that little 2 percent fee will erode 63 percent of what you would have had. As Bogle puts it, “the tyranny of compounding costs” is overwhelming.
In short, fees matter. So what can you do? You aren’t going to find a fund that invests your money for free, but experts say you can come close by buying index funds. Their fees can be a tenth of what the average mutual funds charges. And over time, in bull and bear markets, on average, index funds perform better than their more expensive actively managed fund cousins. This is no secret to anyone who is paying attention.
So why aren’t our trusted financial advisers and those ads telling us to buy index funds? Why do some 401(k) plans not even offer them on their menus?
It’s because even though an index fund might be a better option for you and me, a broker operating under a suitability standard has no incentive to sell it to us. He or she will make higher commissions from options that have higher fees.
Sadly, a recent AARP study reported that 70 percent of mutual fund savers were not even aware that they were paying any fees at all.
Is there hope for change? The Labor Department says they plan to reintroduce a new fiduciary rule this summer that will force the financial services industry to think of us first when it comes to retirement. We’ll see how that goes.
In the meantime, The Retirement Gamble airs tonight (check your local listings here). What I uncovered while making this documentary made me rethink my financial future. It just might do the same for you.
***
Martin Smith, the correspondent on The Retirement Gamble is an Emmy- and Peabody-award-winning documentary filmmaker for FRONTLINE. His previous films investigating Wall Street include Money, Power & Wall StreetThe UntouchablesThe Madoff AffairCollege, Inc.; and Dot Con. Smith works with RAINmedia, an independent production company in New York City.

What to Ask About Your Retirement

 by 
So you’re concerned about your financial future and ready to do something about it. But where do you start? We asked three experts what questions they would ask their employers, financial planners, plan providers and themselves to help save the most for retirementHere’s what they had to say:
Jason Zweig is a personal finance columnist for The Wall Street Journal and the author of the book, Your Money and Your Brain.
Ron Lieber is the author of the “Your Money” column forThe New York Times.
Helaine Olen is the author of Pound Foolish: Exposing the Dark Side of the Personal Finance Industry.

General Planning

Am I saving as much as possible?
Virtually everyone should save up to the maximum available ($17,500 or, generally, 15% of eligible pay).  If you feel you can’t save the maximum right away, sign up for an “automatic escalation plan” to raise your contributions down the road.  And once you turn 50, be sure to save an additional $5,500 in “catch-up contributions” annually. -Jason Zweig
How much do I really need to save?
Studies show that most of us think the correct amount we need to save for retirement is whatever amount from our salary our employer automatically defaults into a defined contribution plan. This is highly unlikely to be true, unless you have the rare employer who has set the employee default at 10 percent or higher. Find out what the amount is, and supplement if you think you can afford to do so. -Helaine Olen
Are cheaper choices available?  
Before you invest in any retirement fund, make sure one of the other choices on the menu isn’t cheaper. When it comes to investing, you don’t get what you pay for: The higher a fund’s fees, the worse its return is likely to be over time. -Zweig
How do you know that?
Often, the people giving advice about retirement investing seem highly confident about what they’re saying even though they have no evidence that it’s true.  This simple question can help you separate the experts from the pretenders. -Zweig

On Target-Date Funds

What is in a target-date fund? 
Many 401(k) plans favor so-called “target-date funds,” which combine stock, bond and other funds into a single bucket. Some of these funds contain risky, obscure, expensive assets. If you can’t understand the fund or no one can explain it to you, put your 401(k) savings into a different fund or funds. -Zweig
Is a target-date fund for me? 
First, target date funds operate by assuming you don’t have outside investments. If you have a sizable portfolio outside your employer’s 401(k) account, a target-date fund might not be the right choice for you. Second, fees on this type of investment can be quite high, often because the companies offering them simply stuff them with their own funds. Third, a target is just a target. It’s not a guarantee. -Olen
Which target-date fund should I choose? 
The asset allocation for your age may not reflect your tolerance for risk. So just because you’re 25 years from retirement doesn’t mean you should pick the 2035 or 2040 fund. You may want the 2020 fund if you’re more conservative, or the 2050 fund if you want more stock exposure. And different fund families have different philosophies on what a 40-year-old should be invested in. So you need to check under the hood carefully if you’re going to put all of your money in one of these funds. -Ron Lieber

On 401(k)s

Is my 401(k) investment safe? 
There is a lot of conspiracy theory talk out there right now that the government plans to – at some distant point in the future – confiscate 401(k) savings to plug holes in the federal deficit. This is absolute hooey. Don’t let this stuff scare you out of placing money in your 401(k). -Olen
I’m leaving my job. What should I do with my 401(k)? 
As high as the fees can be on funds inside a 401(k), they can be worse for Individual Retirement Accounts. Don’t assume you will be getting the best advice from those offering advice via your company’s plan administrator. A recent Government Accountability Office study discovered that all-too-many advice givers for the plans pushed exiting employees into their own proprietary financial products, instead of counseling them to either leave the money in place or roll it over to their new employer’s retirement plan. -Olen

The Fine Print

How much does my plan cost? 
What kills returns the most is plans with very high fees. Unfortunately, the vast majority of participants have no idea how high their fees are in comparison to other similar plans. If you work for a relatively big organization, you can look up your plan on Brightscope.com and see how it rates on fees.
If you work for a smaller company or a non-profit, you should assume that your fees are very high, especially if an insurance company or payroll services provider (or anyone other than Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price) is administering your 401(k) or 403(b) plan. Try to figure out who at your employer controls the plan and engage them in discussion about lowering the fees. Remember, this person is not your enemy — they are saving in the plan too, and want better performance for themselves. But this person may not be an expert. In fact, this person may know less than you about how this all works. -Lieber
Am I diversified?  
Don’t invest in your own company’s stock. You’re taking enough risk on its future just by working there. Make sure you always spread your money across U.S. and international stocks, small and large, with some bonds for ballast.  Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. -Zweig
Is there a full collection of low-cost index funds? 
Many mutual funds are very expensive, often because the managers are trying to beat the market index in whatever category the investments are in. Most research suggests that people are better off in index funds, in part because the fees are always so much lower.
Your retirement plan administrator may resist the move to an all-index retirement plan because mutual fund companies often help pay for your employer’s administrative costs of running your plan by refunding some of the fees on those actively managed funds. But in the very least, you should have a full menu of index funds in every major investment category. You should also have the option of investing in target-date funds that are made upentirely of index funds. -Lieber
Will you auto-escalate me each year? 
You should have the option of opting yourself into better behavior, that is, boosting the percentage of your salary that you save in your retirement plan. Ideally, you’d increase your savings by one percentage point (not 1 percent, an important difference!) each time you get a raise. Most the 401(k) companies now offer auto-escalation to the employer, but your company needs to choose to offer it as an option to employees. -Lieber
Will you automatically rebalance me? 
You should also have the option of setting an ideal allocation of your investments (70 percent in one fund, 30 percent in the other, say) and then having the plan automatically rebalance it when it gets more than five percentage points out of whack in any one direction. That way, you don’t have to remember to do it yourself. Many plans do not yet offer this as an option. But they should. Ask for it. -Lieber
Should I attend that retirement seminar?
Whatever you do in this life, please do not say yes to offers of a free meal in return for hearing financial information. The vast majority of these seminars are designed to appeal to seniors by referencing such hot button issues as Social Security or retirement insecurity. The financial sales people hosting the event then offer as a “solution” whatever product they are pitching. The best way to not fall for it is not to show up. -Olen
Live Chat Transcript
12:00
FRONTLINE: 
Thanks for all the wonderful questions everyone. We read each one and will get to as many as we can.
12:46
FRONTLINE: 
We're taking this one early question -- since we have a link for it right now
12:46
Comment From Lori Culver  
Can I buy a copy of this show?
12:46
FRONTLINE: 
Right here: http://bit.ly/12IhlPA
12:47
FRONTLINE: 
See everyone at 2 - feel free to leave questions now.
1:45
FRONTLINE: 
Please note: We won't be offering individualized financial advice as part of this chat -- so questions requesting it will be not be addressed here.

Here's a resource that addresses the most common questions about retirement funds and planning:

http://to.pbs.org/12dH7tM
1:59
FRONTLINE: 
Good afternoon. Thanks for coming everyone and for all the great questions.

We're here today with "The Retirement Gamble" correspondent Martin Smith and producer Marcela Gaviria.

We're also joined by Demos 401(k) expert Robert Hiltonsmith.
2:00
FRONTLINE: 
We'd also like to welcome our guest questioner for today's chat, Penny Wang, an Editor-at-Large at Money Magazine who writes frequently about retirement planning and finance.
2:00
Martin Smith: 
Good Afternoon all.....
2:01
Marcela Gaviria: 
Good afternoon! Fire away, we are ready to answer your questions.
2:01
Penny Wang: 
Hi everyone, I'm Penny Wang, an editor and writer at Money. I've covered retirement and 401(k)s for lo these many years. Your documentary highlighted the huge challenges facing Americans and the problems they have managing their 401(k)s. Let me start by asking Martin, what made you finally look at your 401(k) plan?
2:01
FRONTLINE: 
And we'll be taking some questions as well from Richard Eisenberg, a senior writer at Next Avenue.

Big thanks to Money and Next Avenue for partnering with us on today's chat.
2:03
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Hey everyone, really glad to get to talk about such an important topic with you this afternoon!
2:04
Comment From Tim Hipp - Seattle  
Anticipating a discussion with our retirement advisor regarding "fiduciary responsibility" and the "suitability standard" for financial advisors; please equip us with more detail in the rules and practice of the "suitability standard". I.E. What are the actual differences required for them to "act in our best interests" versus what they must do to satisfy the requirements of the " suitability standard".
2:05
Martin Smith: 
Hi Penny - Well, I am of the age where one begins to be very concerned about retirement. I should have paid closer attention but FRONTLINE keeps me busy.... In any case, while we were producing Money, Power and Wall Street last year (a four hour FRONTLINE series on the financial crisis) we interviewed a woman who worked at a major hedge fund handling retirement accounts and she spoke quite openly about how Wall St skimmed from these funds. This got our attention. And with so many baby boomers facing retirement in coming years, it seemed the right time to investigate. Much of what we reported is known by people like yourself who have covered these issues over the years. What we hoped to do is shine more light on the subject by pulling it together in one documentary. That was our intent.
2:07
Penny Wang: 
Tim Hipp raises an important question on fiduciary responsibility. I'm wondering to what role of employers should play in making sure these plans are well-run. Much of the program focused on the Wall Street role, but the ultimate deciders are the plan sponsors. What's your take?
2:09
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Tim, in answer to your question about fiduciary responsibility, that is of course one of the challenges with the whole market: how much can advisors (or anyone) really be (in this case, legally) expected to be able to predict future returns and be held accountable to them? To me, I'd view the rule more in a negative sense, in that there are many clear cases in which advisors are not acting in investors' best interests, and a good rule to me would penalize/prosecute those clear cases.
2:10
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Anyone else want to weigh in here? Tim's question seems very difficult yet incredibly relevant.
2:11
Martin Smith: 
Penny - Indeed, employers have a fiduciary responsibility to their employees. This is fine in large companies where someone can be assigned to oversee and manage the 401(k) plan being offered. But most people work for small companies where the employer is someone like me who is not a professional financial expert and whose time is stretched. It is my duty to oversee my plan but difficult. I certainly know more now than I did, which is good. But I would appreciate it if the "financial advisor" or broker who sold me the plan had fiduciary responsibility. 
2:12
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Martin, I'd echo your point: if we can't expect financial advisors to be held accountable for their investment advice, how in the world is it fair to hold you, a small business owner, accountable for your plan's investment decisions?
2:13
Penny Wang: 
I think Martin's point is key. Small employers are at a big disadvantage when it comes to managing 401(k) plans. They also have fewer assets to attract the biggest, lowest-cost providers. But there are options even in that market, including plan providers/fiduciaries who will put the investors' interests first. They have to look around however. The quote from your program is important: ask the adviser in writing to take fiduciary responsibility, It's not perfect, but a good starting point.
2:13
Comment From Carolyn  
How can I find a fiduciary to help with investment planning? What should I look for in one to help manage my 401(k) and other investments?
2:14
Martin Smith: 
Tim - I agree with Robert that no one can be held to account for future market performance. Once you are invested in the market, you are in a very real sense gambling your money. But, there are conflicts of interest that a fiduciary standard could guard against. Such as paying an advisor on a commission basis gives the advisor an incentive to sell high fee or high commission products. You want someone who is working for a hourly fee instead.
2:14
Marcela Gaviria: 
Tim, Great question on the suitability standard. What's interesting is that anybody can hang up a shingle and say they are a financial adviser. Most advisers are not bound by law to have your best interest in mind. The suitability standard means that you can sell them an investment product-- that is merely suitable. As Ron Lieber said in the program, it doesn't have to be the best product, it just has to be suitable. Those that are fiduciaries, on the other hand, make a pledge to act in the customer's best interest at all times. 
2:15
Comment From Richard Eisenberg  
How realistic is it that many Americans will be able to work into their 60s and 70s given employers' eagerness to lop off older, costly employees and the potential for health woes preventing people from working in retirement?
2:17
FRONTLINE: 
Thanks for all the great questions everyone. We read every one and will take as many as we can.
2:17
Penny Wang: 
Carolyn, there are resources for finding fiduciary advisers. These are typically advisers who charge fees (a percentage of assets), rather than commissions; or you can hire them by the hour. Resources we frequently refer to at Money are NAPFA, the national association of fee only advisers, and the Garrett Planning Network, where you can find advisers charge fees or by the hour.
2:19
Marcela Gaviria: 
Carolyn, You want to find an an adviser that is a registered investment adviser representative. You can actually go to a website called Brightscope and look up someone in your area and see how they rank. I actually think it's very important to spend some time on the web researching if this adviser has any complaints against them. The SEC will have more information on their website about this. And of course once you have found someone you feel comfortable with, meet with them, ask them how they get paid and ask them if they operate under the fiduciary standard.
2:20
Martin Smith: 
Richard - Great point. I have spoken to a number of people who say that we should not expect to retire ..that we should just keep working. The trouble with this is that it is not always going to be up to us to decide whether we are working or not. At some point a boss is going to pull you aside and say look maybe this is not the right job for you. We need to let you go. What do you do then? Perhaps your health doesn't allow you to keep working.
2:20
Comment From AB  
What role should personal responsibilty play in crises like this? Why didn't we hear one single person say "it was my fault for not understanding what I signed up for"?
2:21
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Richard, I think that's one of the most important questions in the whole retirement debate, since working longer is one of the most oft-cited solutions from both sides of the aisle. I think it's a completely misguided and unrealistic approach to solving the retirement crisis. We can already see this in the increasing number of people receiving SSDI: many people, particularly in physically demanding jobs, simply aren't going to be able to continue working, and as you and Martin say, for others, the choice will indeed be out of your hands. We need to really decide, if we choose to raise the retirement age, for example, what to do with the large proportion of workers who fall into one of those two categories.
2:22
Comment From Lis Marshall  
I am not a risk-taker and it seems to me that investing in the stock market to fund one's retirement is risky, even in an index fund. What are some other, less risky investment that can increase one's retirement savings? And why would anyone suggest to the mass of working men and women that investing in the stock market is a safe and sane approach to securing a comfortable retirement?
2:24
Penny Wang: 
AB, a great question. It's pretty clear than most people don't take retirement planning seriously until they are close to retirement. There are behavioral reasons for this,. Research shows that the mistakes investors make on their own often far outweigh the issues of high costs or investment choices. Simply doing a retirement calculation can push you in the right direction. Saving as much as you can, as early as you can, can go a long way toward providing a cushion against market slumps or other problems.
2:24
Martin Smith: 
AB- Of course we all bear responsibility. We stressed in the first third of the program that with the demise of the old defined benefit pension plan we all now on our own. That's a given. But it shouldn't keep us from trying to improve our chances collectively through regulation and through public discussions of the problems. I think people we profiled know that they messed up. I did when I borrowed from my 401(k) to pay for my kids eductions. Student loans would have been a better choice. But while we have made mistakes, shouldn't mean that other players in the system can't do a better job as well.
2:25
Marcela Gaviria: 
Lis, You are right that even investing in index funds can be risky. If the market falls, so do your investments. Some experts I spoke to recommended investing in Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, or TIPS. It's a safe investment and it protects you against inflation. Zvi Bodie who we featured in the program is a big advocate of TIPS. Your money may not grow, but it's better than putting your money under the mattress.
2:27
Comment From MC  
Can you address the generally higher performance of managed mutual funds --which in most cases make up the difference with lower cost of the Index funds?
2:28
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Lis, I understand your concern about stocks, particularly given their poor performance over the past decade (excluding this year's rally). I'd echo Marcela: TIPS, or other inflation-protected bond funds, are much safer (though lower return) places to invest.

But it's hard for me not to recommend stocks because of 1.) The massive return that most people will need to earn to achieve any sort of retirement security and 2.) Their relatively consistent performance over long time periods (30 years+). The plunges are indeed frightening, but history does tell us that over the long run, stock investment generally works out.
2:29
Penny Wang: 
Lisa, there's no such thing as a completely free investment. Bodie's TIPs idea comes closest but requires a really steep savings rate since the returns are lower. Most people can't manage it. Fact is, stocks in the long run offer the best shot at outpacing inflation. The best protection against risk is diversification, spreading your money among different assets, stocks, bonds and the like. You can opt for a conservative mix, mostly bonds and cash, so a market loss won't deter you. If it's any comfort, over 20 year periods, stocks haven't lost money. No guarantees, of course :)
2:29
Comment From Richard Eisenberg  
The 401(k) fee disclosure employees got last year wasn't very clear for many of them. What should employers provide to help people compare fees?
2:30
Comment From Jim  
At 35, and knowing it varies by income, how much should i have saved for retirement at this point?
2:32
Martin Smith: 
MC - Are you are saying that you pay more for a managed fund but that you get better performance as a result? On average this is not what the data shows. Unlike most things, you don't get what you pay for. Index funds beat actively managed funds on average in both bull and bear markets. You get more by paying less.
2:32
Comment From Fred B  
Martin, you run your own company. Since your film showed John Bogle and the benefits of index funds, are you considering moving your company's 401(k) to Vanguard?
2:33
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Richard, I couldn't agree more about the disclosures: I've talked to many folks about theirs, and their reactions seem to vary from confused to complete bewilderment. Many, in fact, myself included, haven't even received them...

It would be great if employers who had the capacity could provide employees a simple table, containing the funds they were invested in and the fees they paid that year. I'd also love if that "statement" would then say something about how the fees really compound over a lifetime, i.e. how the, say, $1000 one paid in fees this year really means $10,000 in fees and lost returns by retirement.
2:33
Marcela Gaviria: 
Jim, The experts we spoke to say that you should be saving around 10%-15% of your salary a year. If you haven't saved anything for retirement by 35, you should probably increase the percentage you save going forward. But if you are like most people we talked to, it's very hard to save this much.
2:34
Comment From Guest  
What steps, if any, is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau going to take to make these fees more transparent.
2:35
Martin Smith: 
Fred B. - I am reviewing where best to move our 401(k) and Vanguard is one possible option. Already I moved my savings inside my 401(k) into the index choices available. One equity index and one bond index fund. They are inexpensive and historically have outperformed their actively managed cousins offered in my 401(k). No surprise.
2:35
Penny Wang: 
Jim, there are benchmarks for determining how much you need to save; Charlie Farrell's Money Ratios would suggest you need about 3-4 times your salary by your age. And you should aim to save 10% to 15% a year; even more if you earn a high salary, since Social Security will replace less. But it's important to set your own goals, based on your individual needs. Try a retirement calculator like the one at T. Rowe Price.com.
2:36
Comment From Zvi Bodie  
In answer to the question about how to find a fiduciary investment advisor, I suggest this link to a blogpost that I wrote for Paul Solman Making Sense.
2:36
Martin Smith: 
Thanks Zvi.
2:36
Comment From Susan H  
It sounded like Wall Street tries to convince people that each of us has “unique” needs that require specialized services. But I suspect that most of us would be better off with plain vanilla plans, the way defined benefit plans worked in the past. Do you think that the wide assortment of mutual fund choices actually makes it more difficult for people to make good decisions about retirement planning?
2:38
Comment From Angelo  
Someone warn Martin about the pending bond bubble based on his current allocation!
2:38
Penny Wang: 
Regarding the 401(k) fee disclosures, the Labor Department has already issued rules which have gone into effect. They aren't perfect, but they're a big start. Unfortunately, most investors have been ignoring them, surveys show. But they're getting attention of many employers, who are finally waking up to the cost of their plans. We'll see if that helps drive down costs more. Smaller plans, as we've noted, may be slow to respond.
2:40
Marcela Gaviria: 
Fee disclosure is improving thanks to the Department of Labor. Last November they passed new rules that force the industry to provide more information on fees, but it's been spotty and not everyone is getting the same level of disclosure. Another point to keep in mind, is that fee disclosure is something that people say they want but they don't use. A typical 401K investor probably won't bother looking at the fees in their statement, but as we showed in the film, fees will have a huge impact on your retirement outcome. 
2:41
Penny Wang: 
Susan H. raises a good point about too many choices in 401(k) plans. Yes, there's evidence that dozens of fund options confuses investors. And many plans have responded by trimming choices and auto-enrolling investors in target-date funds. Numbers suggest that this has helped boost participation rates and led to higher savings, especially for younger investors who are most likely to be auto-enrolled. Many are ahead of where their parents in their account balances at this stage.
2:42
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Susan, great question: this is actually one of my pet peeves. All of the commercials and advisors trying to sell us plans tailored to "our needs" are just ridiculous. We all have the same needs: the highest returns available given our appetite for risk.

I think the huge, unnecessary variety of funds out there absolutely confuses folks, and honestly, is designed to do so. Keeping investors confused allows them to keep charging excessive fees, after all...
2:43
Comment From Annie  
What should I do if I currently have an employer-matched 401K? Should I keep contributing to it or stop?
2:43
Martin Smith: 
Susan - Yes. They say that by giving us choices they are doing us a favor. But for most of us it is too much choice. It is fine for someone who wants to try their hand at investing to open a brokerage account and play with a full range of options. But retirement saving is a different proposition. I think it is important to keep things separate. Understand your limitations and don't fall prey to the idea that investing is easy. It is not. Seek good advice and be aware that once you get to retirement age and find you don't have enough money, you can't really do your life of savings over again.
I favor fewer choices in 401(k) plans. Giving people who are not experienced investors too many choices is dangerous for your financial health.
2:45
Martin Smith: 
Angelo - Good point. I do worry about rising interest rates and the consequences for bonds so therefore my allocation to my bond index fund is small.
2:45
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Annie, absolutely keep contributing! As nearly every advisor will tell you, that match is free money, and outweighs even the fees paid in high-fee plans. However, if you do have a high-fee 401(k), you might consider rolling the contributions over into an IRA as soon as they've vested.
2:45
Penny Wang: 
Annie, by all means keep saving. An employer match is free money, which you shouldn't turn down. But do take a look at how you invested—look for low-cost or index options if you have them. Most important, make sure you're saving enough to meet your goals. At some point, you can always roll that money into the IRA of your choice when you leave your employer, but take advantage of the tax break and match now.
2:46
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Jinx, Penny! :)
2:47
Marcela Gaviria: 
Don't stop contributing! The retirement system might be a mess, you might lose some of your savings because of market volatility and high fees, but there are advantages to 401ks. Apart from the tax advantages, if your employer is contributing that's a great thing. And finally, it means that you are socking money away for your retirement.
2:47
Penny Wang: 
Question for the panelists: how did you end up find the guests you featured in the film? Many of them had wrenching stories about losses. And was it difficult to figure out what to include, given the complexity of the topic? Was there anything you really wished you had kept in?
2:48
Comment From John Gluckman  
Robert Hiltonsmith: Where can we see more of your research?
2:49
Comment From Richard Eisenberg, Next Avenue  
The U.S. government has essentially made target funds the default investment for companies with auto-enrollment for 401(k)s. But target funds can have high fees. Should the govt allow index funds for stocks and for bonds as permitted default investments?
2:50
Comment From Michael  
Martin, superb job! Did you feel you where being lied to when you asked questions? They sure looked dumbfounded
2:50
Marcela Gaviria: 
Penny, We spoke to so many people! We must have interviewed over 200 individuals. Interestingly enough, the FRONTLINE Facebook page turned out to be a huge resource for us. We got scores of emails of people describing their retirement problems. Two of the cases we found came from FRONTLINE's Facebook page. The power of social media!
2:52
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
John, I'm flattered by the interest! You can find all of my commentary and major research on retirement on my Demos profile page,http://www.demos.org/robert-hiltonsmith

The major pieces I've written include one on the "Failure of the 401(k)", one on excessive fees, and two on solutions to the retirement crisis.
2:53
Penny Wang: 
One more question for panelists: what reforms would you recommend to 401(k)s. Or how do we fix the system? Should we mandate index funds, as Richard suggests? I think Rep. George Miller tried to do that a few years ago, but ran into a political wall.
2:54
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Richard, I agree: I'd much rather see bond and stock index funds as the default investment choices than target-date funds. Target date funds can have some of the highest fees, sometimes 10 times as high as index funds; I honestly rarely recommend them.

Instead, we should default into bond and stock index funds and combine that with some kind of default setting for the free rebalancing feature that most 401(k)s now have.
2:55
Martin Smith: 
Michael - I can't say I was being lied to. I think the industry reps were doing their best to defend their interests. Sometimes that was hard for them to do. The only big surprise was when one said she was unaware of research that showed that index funds beat their actively managed brethren. I really can't explain how someone in the business would not be aware of the data. Otherwise I felt the reps were trying to explain a very complex "system." Not an easy job for them. As one summarized it, "it's too complicated." I urge everyone interested to read the extended interviews with some of our subjects on the website.
2:56
Comment From Zvi Bodie  
People should be offered two simple choices-- a safe pension that is indexed for inflation and a well diversified low-cost index fund. Allow them to choose the mix based on their capacity to bear risk. This is the solution dictated by economic theory and common sense.
2:56
Comment From Richard Eisenberg, Next Avenue  
Martin: How concerned are you about retirement prospects for the self-employed and contract workers (often formerly full-time staffers) who have no 401(k) offered to them but need to take initiative to find a way to save on their own?
2:57
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Zvi, I couldn't agree more. Exactly.
2:59
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
And Martin, I have to say, that claim shocked me as well. There's just such a large body of research showing that passively-managed funds nearly always beat actively-managed ones that it's not honestly believable to me that she could have been completely unaware of it.
3:00
Comment From Adam  
QUESTION: how low do you think a fund company's expenses SHOULD be? They can't operate as non-profits...
3:01
Martin Smith: 
Richard - These contract workers are even more on their own than people with a 401(k). They can open an IRA but their are limits on what they can contribute. And they will have no company match. As more and more of us become free-lance contractors this becomes a larger problem. It is one thing to say that it's the individual's responsibility to take care of themselves. But people descending into poverty in their old age will quickly become a societal problem. We need to decide how we are going to address this collectively I would think.
3:01
Marcela Gaviria: 
Adam, I agree. It's not reasonable to expect a mutual fund company to operate as a non-profit. The industry is accountable to their shareholders after all. But as individuals, we shouldn't be concerned about their profit margins. The point of the film is that we should pay attention to fees... echoing Teresa Ghilarducci, the problem in the current system is that there isn't enough price transparency or price competition.
3:02
Comment From bob love  
It is discouraging that FRONTLINE failed to explain why retirement is a "gamble". The reason is that "buying" stocks is not the same as "saving".
3:02
Penny Wang: 
Adam, as it happens Vanguard operates in a way similar to a nonprofit, such it's mutually owned. It doesn't have to generate profits the way Fidliety or T. Rowe do. That's why its funds are so cheap. But for most active large cap funds, you should pay less than 1%. For stock index funds or ETFs, just 0.20% or less.
3:02
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Adam, I beg to differ: TIAA-CREF, one of the largest investment management companies in the world, is a non-profit. But that aside, I'd echo what Marcela and Teresa said: right now, because of lack of transparency/competition, we know fees are too high. And the active/passive debate proves that.

I'll even put a number out there: there's no reason an expense ratio should ever be over 1%, except for international funds.
3:03
Comment From Nancy  
I'm ashamed to say that my grasp of math is so bad, I cannot figure out the fees.(I'll bet I'm not alone!) Is there a simple formula to follow? What amount is the percentage based on? Can someone give an example?
3:03
Marcela Gaviria: 
Thanks for clarifying Penny. Great point.
3:04
Comment From matthew  
What fee rate is generally considered to be high?
3:05
Marcela Gaviria: 
Matthew, A really high fee is anything from 1.5%-5%. The average fee is around 1.3%.
3:05
Penny Wang: 
Nancy, yes it is complicated, sorry to say. But start with your fund's expense ratios, which should be on your statement or 401k website. they make up the bulk of the costs. then look for any administrative costs that may be listed as well. Generally, if you work for a large company and the costs are more than 1%, it's an expensive plan. I recommend you go toBrightscope.com, which tracks 401k expenses for many large companies and explains in more detail. it's a great resource.
3:06
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Matthew, see Penny and my answers above (once again, we seem to be on the same page). Above 1% for any actively managed large-cap fund, and above 0.2% for index funds are indeed too high.
3:06
Martin Smith: 
bob - I thought it was clear from the outcomes for Debbie S. and the Featherston's that they had essentially gambled on the markets and lost. You are right that saving and investing are different. But as long as interest rates on CD and other savings products are held low by the Fed then people have little choice but to consider taking some risk in the markets. Being aware of this risk though is extremely important.....

Thank you very much for you questions. I wish i was able to get out more responses. I have an interview waiting for me. All the best, Martin
3:07
Marcela Gaviria: 
Thanks all! Great questions. Robert and Penny, thanks for joining the chat.
3:08
Comment From Michael  
Thank you Martin. This show was an eye opener
3:08
Penny Wang: 
Thanks to all! Glad to be part of this.
3:09
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Marcela, Martin, and Frontline folks, thanks for having us, and thanks especially for putting together such an amazing report on this neglected issue! Penny, thanks for moderating. I hope everyone found it as stimulating and enlightening as I did.
3:13
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
And, again, if anyone's looking for more reading, one good place to go is my Demos profile page, http://www.demos.org/robert-hiltonsmith

It includes major pieces I've written include one on the "Failure of the 401(k)", one on excessive fees, and two on solutions to the retirement crisis, as well as all of the articles and blogs I've written for various media outlets. Hope it's useful!
3:13
Robert Hiltonsmith: 
Thanks again so much for having me. Look forward to keeping the discussion going.
3:14
FRONTLINE: 
We're all out of time for today. Thanks so much for all the great questions everyone. As always, we wish we could have gotten to more of them.

Special thanks to our panelists, and to guest questioner/resident expert Penny Wang, (Twitter @MoneyMag_Penny) at Money magazine, and also Richard Eisenberg at Next Avenue. (Twitter: @richeis315)

Big thanks to Money and Next Avenue for partnering with us on today's chat.
3:21
FRONTLINE: 
Full interview with John Bogle on the "train wreck" he sees awaiting American retirement:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/retirement-gamble/john-bogle-the-train-wreck-awaiting-american-retirement/
3:22
FRONTLINE: 
What should you be asking about your retirement? Our roundup of critical advice:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/retirement-gamble/what-to-ask-about-your-retirement/
3:23
Comment From Anne  
Will there be a transcript of this chat?
3:24
FRONTLINE: 
Yes, this chat will become a transcript as soon as it ends, and will be available on the FRONTLINE website right here:

http://ow.ly/kofb7 




No comments: