Tag Archives: income

Tax Efficiency: A Decisive Advantage For Some Index Stock Funds

Key highlights “Tax cost”-the difference between the before-tax return of a fund and its preliquidation after-tax return-is a way to gauge a fund’s tax efficiency. Vanguard analysis found that, for the 15 years ended November 30, 2015, the median tax cost of domestic actively managed stock funds was 27 basis points higher than that of domestic index stock funds. Some index stock funds can be tax-inefficient as well, especially those that seek to track more narrowly focused benchmarks, such as those in the mid- and small-capitalization markets. Broad-market index stock funds and ETFs may be more tax-efficient than actively managed stock funds and ETFs. Just as some ways of managing investments are more tax-efficient than others, certain types of investments are, by their nature, more tax-efficient as well. What makes one mutual fund more tax-efficient than another? Some relevant factors include a portfolio’s management strategy, the turnover or trading strategy, the accounting methodology used, and the activity of the fund’s investors. “One way that a fund’s tax efficiency can be measured is with its ‘tax cost,’ ” said Scott Donaldson of Vanguard Investment Strategy Group. “Tax cost refers to the before-tax return of a fund minus its preliquidation after-tax return. It represents a very high hurdle for active fund managers to overcome, in addition to their ongoing fund management expenses.” The illustration below shows a decisive tax advantage for index stock funds: The median tax cost for index stock funds (left side, green) was 71 basis points, whereas the median tax cost for actively managed stock funds (right side, green) was 98 basis points. Thus, for the funds in the data set, the median tax cost of domestic actively managed stock funds was 27 basis points higher than that of domestic index stock funds. The gap can be even larger: Note the 295 basis-point difference between the worst tax costs (shown in blue) of domestic actively managed and index stock funds. Moreover, the chart shows a much narrower range in tax cost in the index category. Why index stock funds may have the upper hand Because active managers make decisions based on a security’s potential to outperform, they can be more inclined to make specific, concentrated purchases in fewer stocks and to liquidate entire holdings more often than managers of broad-market index stock funds would. In making wholesale liquidations, active managers can be much more likely to realize capital gains, since an entire position’s gain could be realized at once. The tax efficiency of actively managed stock funds could, therefore, be much less stable, and the lack of depth and breadth of share lots in actively managed stock funds could negatively affect their future tax efficiency. Actively managed stock funds also have the potential for manager changes, resulting in new managers completely restructuring the portfolio, which could cause realization of gains from past investment success. Granted, some index stock funds can be tax-inefficient as well (see chart above). For example, stock funds that seek to track more narrowly focused benchmarks, such as those in the mid- and small-capitalization markets, fall into the bottom quartile in Vanguard’s tax-cost analysis. “Much more broadly based index stock funds will typically be more tax-efficient because they change their holdings less often,” Donaldson said. “Moreover, not all ETFs or conventional index stock funds are the same. Even stock funds that seek to track the same index can have different performance. The bottom line is, while Vanguard believes it’s much more important to manage the overall allocation of assets in your portfolio than it is to manage exclusively for taxes, your portfolio’s tax efficiency is important to take into account.” Aside from choosing stock funds that are more tax-efficient, investors can also engage in other best practices to minimize their taxes: Use tax-advantaged accounts. Maximize the use of tax-advantaged accounts, such as 401(k) plans and IRAs (both traditional and Roth) and 529 college savings plans. Be a tax-efficient investor. Use tax-advantaged accounts to rebalance an asset allocation or to sell appreciated positions that may provide better after-tax returns than completing similar transactions in a taxable account. Pay attention to asset location. Purchase tax-efficient investments in taxable accounts and tax-inefficient investments in tax-advantaged accounts, which can help you keep additional returns. Those incremental differences can have a powerful compounding effect over the long run. Notes: All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. The performance of an index is not an exact representation of any particular investment, as you cannot invest directly in an index. We recommend you consult an independent tax advisor for specific advice about your individual situation. Prices of mid- and small-cap stocks often fluctuate more than those of large-company stocks. There is no guarantee that any particular asset allocation or mix of funds will meet your investment objectives or provide you with a given level of income. Vanguard ETF Shares are not redeemable with the issuing Fund other than in very large aggregations worth millions of dollars. Instead, investors must buy and sell Vanguard ETF Shares in the secondary market and hold those shares in a brokerage account. In doing so, the investor may incur brokerage commissions and may pay more than net asset value when buying and receive less than net asset value when selling.

My ‘Wisdom’ On Robo Advisors

Tadas Viskanta has put together a nice collection of opinions regarding the new “Robo Advisor” trend. Here’s my general view: “Robo “advisors” aren’t really advisors. They’re robo asset allocators. The robotic allocations are susceptible to flawed risk profiling and inefficient portfolio management for most people with a sophisticated financial plan. The business of asset allocation is too personal and customized to ever become fully automated so the best solution is some integration between the human and robot sides.” These are great new services, but you have to be careful with them. When there’s no advisor involved, you’re highly susceptible to poor risk profiling and behavioral problems along the way. After all, a robo advisor doesn’t help you stick to an asset allocation or help you manage it along the way. And I’ll be blunt about the risk profiling process for many of these services – it’s dangerously insufficient. While these are fantastic low-cost options for many investors, I do think they carry their own unique risks if they’re not utilized appropriately. In summary, I’d argue: If you have trouble with your own behavioral biases and maintaining an appropriate asset allocation, then you might consider a low-cost advisor to help you implement the appropriate plan and maintain it. Additionally, if you’re in need of more planning services, then it’s worth bundling a low-cost advisor with your portfolio management services. What’s “low-cost” in today’s world? I’d argue it’s anything less than 0.5% per year. If you don’t have trouble with your own behavioral biases and maintaining an appropriate asset allocation through market gyrations, then you should just buy a simple Vanguard or Schwab ETF allocation and perform annual maintenance, thereby cutting out the extra fees the robos or advisors charge for rebalancing and harvesting tax losses. If you don’t have trouble with your own behavioral biases and maintaining an appropriate asset allocation through market gyrations, but you’re too disorganized or busy to rebalance and harvest losses , then you should consider one of the human PLUS robo options, such as the Vanguard or Schwab offering. I wrote much more about this topic a few years back.

Closed-End Fund Craziness

By Alan Gula, CFA Last week, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to visit Cuba in nearly nine decades. As you may recall, President Obama announced that the United States would re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba in December of 2014. Of course, investors immediately began searching for ways to profit from the re-opening of trade and travel with Cuba. Some investors thought they had uncovered a gem called The Herzfeld Caribbean Basin Fund (NASDAQ: CUBA ), a closed-end fund (CEF). After all, the ticker seemingly told you all you had to know. From December 16, 2014 to December 23, 2014, CUBA rose 107%. The fund went from a discount of over 10% of its underlying net asset value (NAV) to a massive 70% premium . Except there was one big problem: CUBA had little direct exposure to Cuba. Close, but no cigar. By mid-January 2016, the fund had lost over 60% of its value and was once again trading at a discount to its NAV. CEFs, like CUBA, have a set number of shares outstanding. Therefore, supply and demand forces determine whether the shares trade at a premium or discount to NAV. CEFs tend to be relatively small and illiquid, so their holders are predominantly individual investors. As a result, CEF share prices are heavily influenced by the herding of retail investors – perfectly illustrated by the CUBA episode. However, CUBA is an especially small CEF. Such pricing anomalies would never occur with the larger funds run by prominent financial institutions, right? High-Yield CEFs In June of 2014, near the height of the “reach for yield” mania, I recommended selling two high-yielding PIMCO closed-end funds . At the time, the PIMCO High Income Fund (NYSE: PHK ) and the PIMCO Global StocksPLUS & Income Fund (NYSE: PGP ) were trading at absurd 57% and 66% premiums to their NAVs, respectively. Over the next 15 months, PHK and PGP both lost roughly 40% of their values (distributions included but not reinvested). The premium for PHK evaporated and the premium for PGP hit a more reasonable but still elevated 18%. But wait… The herd is back for more! The premiums have since re-inflated for both funds. In fact, the premium on PGP recently reached an unprecedented 103%. It seems as though many folks are using the snapback rally in the credit market as an excuse to bid up several closed-end funds with impunity. The following table is a list of several CEFs trading at high premiums: The premiums on Eagle Point Credit Company Inc. (NYSE: ECC ) and the DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund (NYSE: DBL ) have recently surged to their highest levels ever. The Babson Capital Corporate Investors (NYSE: MCI ) is rated five stars by Morningstar and has a great track record, but no fund is worth a 20%-plus premium. The PIMCO Municipal Income Fund (NYSE: PMF ), PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund II (NYSE: PCK ), PIMCO New York Municipal Income Fund II (NYSE: PNI ), and PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund III (NYSE: PZC ) are all trading at very high premiums. No matter how bullish you are on muni-bonds, there’s no reason to pay up this much for exposure. The financial markets may not make sense all of the time, but, as you can tell, craziness is the norm in CEF land. When a CEF you own trades at a small premium to its NAV, you should at least consider selling it. When that premium exceeds 15%… hit the bid and get out as if you’re fleeing a communist dictatorship.