Inquiring Minds Want to Know

A few days ago, I wrote about how most of us believe our investments are doing well, but that may not always be true. I used the example of a family who may unknowingly end up with $1.7M LESS. We don't know what we don't know.

In the last few days, I received dozens of messages from people asking what's actually good. Most of them perceive their investments as "doing good," but doubt started to creep in after reading that post. To figure it out, they dug into their investments in one of two ways: 1) look at what the trailing annual returns were for the last 5, 10, 15, or 20 years (which you can often find on your statements.....especially if you've been investing for a while), or 2) look at each fund in their portfolio to see what that specific fund has done over those periods (and use the proportions to run some averages). 

Results were all across the board. Examples include 6% per year, 7% per year, and even 8% per year (and everywhere in between). There was even a 9%ish number in there! Most people felt these numbers were solid. But the question attached to each inquiry was what to compare it to. Was it actually good? Were these numbers up to par? Were they unknowingly underperforming?

Here are a few numbers to consider. The following is the performance of a popular total stock market index fund containing approximately 3,800 U.S. companies of all shapes and sizes, wrapped up in one inexpensive and accessible investment. We can view this as the barometer for the entirety of the U.S. stock market. These numbers represent an average annual return over the designated period:

• Last 5 years: 10.2% per year

• Last 10 years: 10.7% per year

• Last 15 years: 12.7% per year

Through the lens of these numbers, the results submitted to me by readers look really sad. As a reminder, in the illustration I ran the other day, a 2% difference resulted in a $1.7M worse result for the family in the example. Based on our reader's numbers, we're talking about 3%, 4%, 5%, and even 6% difference between what they are getting and what the market is getting. This can be the make or break between having enough down the road....or not. This discrepancy gets magnified the younger the investor is. 

Ouch! Here's the good news. What's in front of us is more important than what's behind us. Let's say we're 40 years old and have been investing for 15 years. Sure, it would have been nice to have better returns for the first 15 years. However, you still have 40+ years ahead of you......with a higher base to start with. 

Let me end with this. Yes, it feels scary. Nobody wants to take risks. In the 153-year history of the U.S. stock market, there's never been a 15-year period where the market lost money Ever. The worst was +1.15% per year from 1929-1943. While past performance never dictates future results, that doesn't feel overly risky.

This post is a lot more about money than meaning, but it’s important we handle our finances with confidence. When we do, we worry a lot less and can focus on what’s really important….the meaning!

*This post does not constitute formal financial advice. It is meant to provide general insight without the full context of each person's financial situation. 

Sometimes, "Pretty Good" Sucks

I recently had a conversation that I repeat multiple times per week. I was meeting with a friend, and the topic of investing came up. They mentioned they use a financial planner who does a "pretty good job." This comment always sets off my red flag and warning sirens. What is the definition of a pretty good job? How do we know our investments are performing well? Because they are going up? Because they are being watched? Because they are spread across a few dozen funds that sound like some sort of twisted alphabet soup? Because they are being managed by someone we know and trust? 

I asked them what company they use for their investments. In my head, all I could think was, "please don't say xyz, please don't say xyz, please don't say xyz." "We work with xyz." Nooooooo! That's the moment I knew they were in a tough spot. For what it's worth, xyz is a very prominent, highly respected, broadly welcomed financial advising company. Before I go on, please let me clarify that nothing this company does is inherently immoral, illegal, or ill-intentioned. Rather, they do things the old way. By "the old way," I mean the way things used to be done before they didn't need to be done that way anymore. In today's world, we have access to the very best funds in the world, at the tip of our fingers (er, screen), at little to no cost. 

Knowing what company they are working with, I know the general lay of the land. They are most likely paying around 1.25% for management fees and have a portfolio that will, over a long period of time, perform at least 0.75% worse than the overall stock market. Therefore, this person is likely invested in a portfolio that will perpetually perform 2% less than the overall stock market. If the stock market performs at a long-term 9% (just below its historical average), this person may receive 7%. This doesn't seem like a meaningful difference, but let's look at the math:

Here are the assumptions:

• Current age: 42

• Ending age: 65

• Current balance: $500,000

• Annual contributions: $25,000

• These are very simple, rough numbers for illustrative purposes.

At age 65, their current strategy would result in a balance of approximately $3,700,000. See, that's pretty good! That's a lot of money! Their person did a great job! 

But wait, what about the other way? If this person were to simply invest in the overall market (readily accessible to each of us at practically no cost), they would have approximately $5,400,000 instead. That's a $1,700,000 difference!!! I don't know the definition of "pretty good," but in my book, ending up $1,700,000 worse off fails my smell test. 

This isn't my friend's fault. After all, nobody teaches us this stuff! Here's the beautiful part, though. All it takes is one simple tweak. It seems too good to be true, but it's not.