Once Upon a Time, Investors Panicked

Seems so long ago.  Markets were tumbling. People who owned stocks were selling and running for bonds. People who owned actively managed mutual funds were moving everything they had left to the uncharted and unproven territories that are target date funds or balanced offerings. No one seemed to know what to do or worse, how to do it.

And now, fifteen months later, as we brace ourselves – somewhat optimistically – for 2010, some of us feel good while others still feel as though they missed something. A recovery can be a feeling of warm fuzzy consolation that that things are getting back to normal.  Money is being made and all is well.

Belief that this will continue into the New Year is somewhat naive. When an investor panics, they sell.  They believe that no price is too small to unwind a position.  That “position” be it in a fund that was aggressive or simply one that was in equities was quickly kicked to the side for something, anything that would offer a safe haven.  In 2010, this sort of thinking will bite you hard for entertaining these thoughts, even if it seems as though you may have gained some ground.

Once upon a time, investors panicked and bought bonds in funds, in target date funds and in balanced funds.  This sort of massive inflow pushed the price of bonds up, even Treasuries because, as many of these new “conservative, I-want-to-protect-whats-left” investors failed to realize how bonds work.  In short, when the price goes up, the yield goes down.  And vice versa.

The reason for this is simple for long-term bondholders to grasp.  But these newbies may have missed this nuance.

The price of a bond, even the ones tucked away inside your conservative fund react to investors in two ways.  If investors do not want to buy bonds (essentially loans issued with a yield) the price falls below par and the yield goes up.  To most who understand this relationship, when the yield goes up so does the risk that the bond issuer might not be able to pay for the “loan”.

When the price goes up, the opposite happens.  When the price goes up because a huge amount of people suddenly think that conservative is how they should have always been investing, the price goes very high and the yield goes down – a lot.

US government issued bonds experience the same sort of turmoil even if investors believe that they can never lose money in these instruments.  You can, if the maturity is long enough that investors, once they feel as though stodgy is no longer needed begin to sell.  You are left with expensive positions as the price falls.

But you will find in the coming months that not just you have made this sort of mistake.  Your fund managers of those target date funds, balanced funds or otherwise conservative bond funds will be faced with a changing interest rate landscape and a shift in investor sentiment.

The interest rates, which have been at historic lows for too long wil have to come up.  While banks are building thier asset base on the backs of this cheap money, they have failed to stimulate the economy.  The stock market, acting as a soloist in this economic symphony, has been play its heart out.  Although everyone agrees an increase in rates signals the first acknowledgment that the economy is recovering, it will not so fully embraced by businesses.

You will panic, sell your conservative positions, forcing the fund managers to unwind some of their positions to pay you as you leave, and you will flock to equity funds – when they publish their 2009 year-end results.

This is the shift in investor sentiment that will find itself slightly behind the curve.  The smuggest of investors will be the ones who didn’t panic.  The folks who allowed their portfolios to recover and their fund managers to realign themselves with the original reason you invested in the first place will find their portfolios almost fully recovered.

Those that panicked again will trigger a taxable event that will drive these supposedly guaranteed returns down even further.  The indexers will claim vindication and use the opportunity to boast about their investment style as the only way to go.

The real winners for 2010 will be in dividends and the funds that invest in them.  Often referred to as equity income investments, these funds will begin to shine as businesses begin to increase their profit sharing (which is what dividends are) even if they have not begun hiring.

These businesses will be more likely to have a broader, beyond-the-US-consumer focus and the fund managers who focus on these opportunities will move to the top of the investment heap.  If you were to to invest in these kinds of funds, next year will be too late to capitalize on the shift many investors will make as the calendar year changes.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com

Safe Harbor Investing

There is no easy answer for how much risk is too much risk or too little. In the aftermath of this past year, plan sponsors are looking for a way to insure that those close to retirement have the money they invested over their careers there when they need it. The key word is insure. And it is the industry that offers this sort of product that is being considered as a possible option. But are annuities the option worth considering?

One of the most difficult things to do is provide protection for already accumulated money in a defined contribution plan. Currently, even in what the industry refers to as megaplans, the options are limited to targeted-dated funds or some sort of option that offers fixed income protections. These types of options adjust the level of stock market exposure as the employee ages, shifting from more aggressively invested dollars to more conservative investments.

The reason for the increased popularity of these products is the result of a Congressional mandate. Target-dated funds were made the default investment for those entering the workforce replacing other less retirement oriented funds such as money market accounts. This allowed the worker to begin investing for their retirement in what the industry called the best option for those who do not know what to choose.

But now, with the focus on asset preservation rather than the typical asset accumulation, a particular concern for older workers nearing retirement, the pension industry is considering annuities. There are several problems with this, first and foremost being the involvement of the insurance industry.

Annuities are designed to be purchased as a stand alone product that provides guaranteed income. The insurance company makes certain commitments to how much you will receive in retirement from accumulated assets. The cost of this quasi-investment/insurance product is high in the first seven years of the purchase and the underlying investments made by the insurer are designed to provide the insured with a lifetime income.

The introduction of such a product in your defined contribution plan presents all sort of problems, not only for plan administrators but for the participants as well. According to Pensions and Investments Online, this would involve tweaking the already suspect target-dated funds. (I say suspect in large part because they have yet to prove they are able to do what they were designed to do.)

PIonline suggest that these target-dated funds could allow their investors to buy “slivers” of an annuity from several insurers. This would keep some of their money invested even after they retire and some of it as guaranteed income.

The second option and probably the most costly would be to offer a “guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit”. This would essentially allow the investor to roll the assets they have accumulated in the annuity where the insurer would offer income based on a high water mark withdrawal based on a certain percentage. This would, insurers suggest, provide income even when the market moves in unsavory directions during retirement.

Robert Reynolds, chief investment office at the conservative Putnam Fund has been making noise since taking over the once powerful investment house. Among his proposals:

Mr. Reynolds would like to create “a national insurance charter and an FDIC-like fund to back up lifetime income guarantees”. This will essentially force employers and employees to consider this option. The FDIC-like fund, not federally insured but instead insurance company guaranteed would offer protections for assets already accumulated.

Involving Washington is the trickiest part of his proposals. He would like Congress to add tax incentives to both employees that participate and employers who offer matching contribution “that would require “employers to offer a lifetime income option, either through annuities or other insured methods”.

Of course for such a move to pass muster, the insurers would need to have set “caps on the equity exposure in target-date funds as they become mature”. Such action would need the support of legislation that would “require employers to enroll all of their workers in 401(k) plans automatically and increase their contributions over time.” This would put pressure on the smallest of firms to comply, a costly maneuver and force the largest firms to take away what some feel is the most important aspect of the 401(k) plan: choice.

This would also jeopardize the portability aspect of the plan. Few insurers would continue to cover an employee after they leave a firm and would probably not participate in a rollover to an individual retirement account (IRA). The reason: no former employee would continue to pay the outsized costs on an individual basis which could be spread over a large group inside a 401(k) plan.

“Usually after a tough period like this you’re presented with an opportunity to make the system better,” Mr. Reynolds said in an interview. “We need to fix 401(k)s, which have become the retirement plan of this country. At Putnam, we want to get out in front of the issues.”

This is scary talk indeed.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of BlueCollarDollar.com