Sunlight is the best disinfectant. – Justice Brandeis
The ongoing attempts by the Department of Labor (DOL) and Congress to delay or completely reverse the DOL’s fiduciary rule sends a clear message to pension plan sponsors and plan participants – we care more about Wall Street and the overall investment industry than we do about you.
The arguments put forth by Wall Street and the investment industry thus far have been nothing more than self-serving rhetoric and speculation, totally devoid of any legally admissible evidence. And yet, both the DOL and Congress have gone out of their way to agree to any requests for further delays in full implementation of the DOL’s new fiduciary rule.
The DOL recently agreed to delay the effectiveness of the full DOL rule for eighteen months, even though a private foundation estimated that the delay would result in an $11 billion loss to pension plan participants. The DOL agreed to the additional delay even though CEOs for some of the nation’s leading broker-dealers have publicly stated that no delay is necessary, that they were completely prepared for a full and immediate implementation of the DOL’s rule.
So what does this all mean for plans, plan sponsors and plan participants, the primary beneficiaries of the DOL’s fiduciary rule? It means that they need to become more proactive in order to protect their financial security or, in the case of plan fiduciaries, to protect against any unwanted potential personal liability.
In my legal and fiduciary consulting practices, I use five core questions to establish the failure of a meaningful due diligence process by a financial adviser and resulting unsuitable/imprudent advice, in both ERISA and non-ERISA situations. The five core questions that I use in my practices analyze the true nature of the effective returns that investors receive once certain factors are considered. The four factors that I consider in my forensics analyses are: nominal, or stated, annualized returns; load-adjusted annualized returns; risk-adjusted annualized returns, and potential “closet index” returns, using both Ross Miller’s Active Expense Ratio metric and my Active Management Value Ratio™ 3.0 metric.
Nominal, or Stated, Returns
These are essentially a fund’s absolute returns, based on the difference between a fund’s beginning and ending value over a certain period of time, with no consideration of any other factors. A fund that started the year with a balance of $10,000 and a balance of $10,000 at the end of the year would have earned a return of 10 percent for the year. [(11,000-10,000)/10,000=1,000/10,000, or 10 percent.
The problem with using nominal returns in analyzing a fund’s performance is that it overstates a fund’s effective annualized returns if an investor paid a front-end fee, or load, when they purchased the fund. Front-end loads are immediately subtracted from a fund at the time they are purchased, putting an investor who pays a front-end load behind investors who do not pay a front-end load when they purchase their mutual fund shares.
All things being equal, a front-end load will always cause an investor paying same to lag behind an investor who did not pay any type of load. And the difference in cumulative returns grows larger over time. As a result, mutual funds often use various marketing techniques in an attempt to conceal the negative impact of front-end loads on returns.
Mutual funds are required by law to disclose a fund’s load-adjusted return in a fund’s prospectus. However, it is common knowledge that most investors do not read a fund’s prospectus. One common marketing technique that fund companies use in advertising to hide the negative impact of front-end loads on returns is to use a fund’s nominal returns rather than its lower load-adjusted returns in their ads.
Then, in an attempt to avoid any potential charges of violations of the Exchange Act or the Advisors Act, the fund will ad a footnote, in much smaller print, at the end of the article stating that they did not use the fund’s load-adjusted returns and that, had they done so, the fund’s return numbers would have been lower. They never say how much lower or provide the actual load-adjusted returns numbers. In my opinion, the use of such tactics by a fund or financial adviser is a clear indication of their business ethics and respect for investors, or their complete lack thereof.
Risk Adjusted Returns
Studies have suggested a direct relationship between the level of investment risk assumed and investment return. As the Restatement (Third) Trusts (Restatement) points out, the natural inclination of investors and the duty of investment fiduciaries is to seek the highest level of return for a given level of risk and cost.
The investment industry often downplays the evaluation of a fund’s risk-related returns, with the familiar quote, “investors cannot eat risk-related returns.” However, mutual funds certainly have no problem referencing the number of Morningstar “stars” one of their funds earned if the rating is favorable, even though Morningstar has publicly acknowledged that it bases a fund’s “star” rating on the fund’s relative risk-related returns.
“Closet Index” Returns
“Closet index” funds, also known as “index huggers,” have become an increasing issue with regard to wealth management. Closet indexing refers to situations where a mutual fund holds itself out as an actively managed mutual fund, and charging higher fees for such active management, but whose actual performance closely tracks that of a comparable, but less expensive, index fund. Therefore, such funds are not cost-efficient and violate a fiduciary’s duty of prudence.
One of the best ways to identify a closet index is by using a statistic called R-squared (or R2), which measures the percentage of a fund’s movements that can be explained by fluctuations in a benchmark index. The higher a fund’s R-squared number, the greater the likelihood that the funds can be designated as a closet index fund. R-squared ratings for funds are available for free on various public internet sites, such as Morningstar, Yahoo!Finance and MarketWatch.
One commonly method commonly used to evaluate a fund’s potential closet index status is to use a fund’s R-squared number to compute a fund’s Active Expense Ratio (AER). A fund’s AER number provides investors and investment fiduciaries with a fund’s effective annual expense ratio given the fund’s reduced active management component. In my practice, I take a fund’s AER and use it in my proprietary metric the Active Management Value Ratio™ 3.o (AMVR). The AMVR allows investors and investment fiduciaries to quantify the cost-efficiency of an actively managed mutual fund.
The impact of such returns on the performance of a fund can be seen in the following example. Capital Group’s American Funds mutual funds are among the most commonly recommended funds to both ERISA and non-ERISA accounts. Financial advisors like the fact that American Funds pay one of the highest commission rates of any fund group, based largely on the 5.75 percent front-end load that American charges non-ERISA accounts. ERISA accounts typically do not charge investors a front-end load on their purchases.
In our example, we will compare the ten-performance of two of American Fund’s most popular funds, Growth Fund of America (retail AGTHX, retirement RGAGX) and Washington Mutual (retail AWSHX, retirement RWMGX) to their comparable fund at Vanguard. Morningstar classifies AGTHX/RGAGX as a large cap growth fund and AWSHX/RWMGX as a large cap value fund. We will use the Vanguard Growth Index Fund and the Vanguard Value Index Fund as benchmarks to evaluate the AGTHX/RGAGX and AWSHX/ RWMGX, respectively. Unless otherwise indicated, the return numbers reflect the ten-year period ending June 30, 2017
*AGTHX 10-year cumulative returns – $197,636
*VIGRX 10-year cumulative returns – $229,243
Here, AGTHX lags VIGRX both in terms of nominal and load-adjusted return. AGTHX has a high R-squared number, 93, which results in a significantly higher effective annual expense ratio of 4.19, versus its stated annual expense ratio of 0.66 percent, as compared to VIGRX’s annual expense ratio of 0.18. Based on these numbers, it would be hard to justify AGTHX as a suitable/ prudent investment choice over VIGRX.
A similar comparison on the retirement shares of both funds produces the following results.
*RGAGX 10-year cumulative returns – $209,385
*VIGAX 10-year cumulative returns – $232,428
Once again, RGAGX lags VIGAX both in terms of nominal and load-adjusted return. RGAGX has a high R-squared number, 93, which results in a significantly higher effective annual expense ratio of 4.07, versus its stated annual expense ratio of 0.33 percent, as compared to VIGAX’s annual expense ratio of 0.06. Based on these numbers, it would hard to justify RGAGX as a suitable/ prudent investment choice over VIGAX.
It should be noted that when using the AMVR, a fund that fails to provide any incremental return for an investor, or a fund whose incremental costs exceed a fund’s incremental return, is clearly unsuitable and imprudent since an investment in the fund would provide no positive benefit for an investor.
Turning to AWHSX and VIVAX, we find the following results.
*AWSHX 10-year cumulative returns – $187,361
*VIVAX 10- years cumulative returns – $173,915
Here, AWSHX has a better performance than VIVAX both in terms of nominal and load-adjusted return. AWSHX has a high R-squared number, 97, which results in a significantly higher effective annual expense ratio of 4.24, versus its stated annual expense ratio of 0.58 percent, as compared to VIVAX’s annual expense ratio of 0.18. Even with AWSHX’s higher incremental return (0.79), the incremental costs (4.06), based on AWSHX’s AER number, greatly exceeds AWSHX’s incremental return. Based on these numbers, it would hard to justify AWSHX as a suitable/ prudent investment choice over VIVAX.
Finally, a comparison of the retirement shares for each fund produces the following results.
*RWMGX 10-year cumulative returns – $205,337
*VVIAX 10-year cumulative returns – $176,233
RWMGX clearly has significantly higher returns than VVIAX. WMGX has a high R-squared number, 97, which results in a higher effective annual expense ratio of 1.76, versus its stated annual expense ratio of 0.30 percent, as compared to VVIAX’s annual expense ratio of 0.06. RWMGX’s higher incremental return (1.63) exceeds its incremental costs (1.48). Based on these numbers, RWMGX could be considered a suitable and prudent investment choice for the period analyzed.
Based upon my experience, far too many investors and investment fiduciaries simply take a quick glance at a fund’s nominal return numbers and a fund’s standard deviation and make their decisions based on those numbers alone. Those numbers, alone, simply do not constitute an acceptable due diligence process or a meaningful analysis of a mutual fund.
Based upon my experience, four definite patterns emerge in analyzing mutual funds:
(1) All things being equal, no-load funds typically outperform funds that charge a front-end load and/or excessively high annual expense ratios, especially over the long-term. A front-end load simply puts an investor in a position that is difficult to overcome over the long-term.
(2) Actively managed mutual funds often have lower standard deviation numbers that index funds, showing one potential benefit of active management. However, the difference in standard deviation numbers is rarely enough to make up for the impact of a front-end load.
(3) Both fiduciary and non-fiduciary investors should look for cost efficient funds, funds whose incremental returns exceed a fund’s incremental costs, in order to maximize the benefit of compound returns. Losses, whether due to poor returns and/or excessive costs, deny an investor the benefits of compounds returns.
(4) Closet index funds are never cost-efficient, and therefore are never suitable or prudent investments. Funds with a high R-squared number and/or high incremental cost relative to a comparable index fund should always be avoided, as they are typically the prime candidates for closet index status.
It really is that simple. Investors and fiduciaries should always ask their financial advisors the four questions discussed herein. If an advisor cannot or will not supply all such information, it should raise a red flag as to the professionalism of your advisor, or lack thereof, and how he determined that the advice he has provided to you is suitable and prudent for you – based on your best interests or on the compensation he could receive.
When it comes to the question of suitability/prudence of actively managed mutual funds, the Restatement (Third) Trusts provides investors and investment fiduciaries with a simple test which incorporates the forensic standards discussed herein. After noting the additional costs and risks generally associated with actively managed funds, the Restatement simply states that
These added costs and risks must be justified by realistically evaluated return expectations. Accordingly, a decision to proceed with such a program involves decisions by the trustee that gains from the course of action in question can reasonably be expected to compensate for its additional costs and risks;…
I would strongly suggest the use of the four questions by both plan fiduciaries and plan participants, in fact investors in general, as the cornerstone of their own due diligence process. . The questions can provide the transparency needed to properly evaluate a plan’s available investment options
As noted ERISA attorney Fred Reish likes to say, forewarned is forearmed.