In the spring of 2016 the US Department of Labor (DOL) issued new rules which sought to change the landscape for investments held in retirement accounts. The DOL sought to extend the rules governing how large pension plans and 401(k) accounts were managed to every IRA account held by individuals.
The regulations were a thousand pages long, the result of 6 years of discussion and millions of dollars of lobbying by various players in the financial services industry. To no one’s surprise that lobbying paid off and the final rule was a watered down version of prior drafts that had actually excluded some of the riskiest investments from all retirement accounts.
The final rules also allowed brokerage firms to create exemptions if the rules did not fit specific individual accounts that were called “best interest of the investor” exemptions. The current administration in Washington and several courts have stopped these rules from being implemented. The discussion of what investments and investment strategies are in the “best interest of investors” continues.
At no point along the way did the regulators, industry or consumer groups ask investors what they thought would be in the best interest of their retirement accounts. Had anyone done so, they would have been told that investors would be very happy if their retirement account was worth more today than it was a year ago and worth more in one year than it is today.
Before you scream “impossible” I think you should consider that even though no one can win every year, it is important that you at least try. If you clear your head of all the BS that you hear about the stock market and investment advice and start at the basics, you will see it is not as difficult as many people think.
The primary reason that anyone ever buys a stock is because they believe that the price of that stock will go up. When the price does go up to where you think it will go no higher you sell the shares. You may not be right every time but you can certainly be right most of the time and you should be happy with that.
Selecting investments takes time, effort and skill. The large brokerage firms and investments banks will usually have a fairly large research department and the best ones seek out and hire the best analysts in each industry. In order to “cover the market” a firm may have analysts that will be analyzing companies from 15 different industries if not more. An analyst with expertise in the automotive industry might not understand the banking industry and neither might be able to understand the value of drugs that the large pharmaceutical companies have in the development pipeline.
The truth is that no one firm has the best analysts in every industry. That is one reason large institutions frequently deal with multiple firms so they have access to research reports prepared by the analysts they think are the best in each industry.
Beginning in the mid-1990s a lot of stockbrokers began to abandon the traditional business model and the large firms and transformed themselves into self employed Registered Investment Advisors. This was a result of their commission income being under attack from discount brokerage firms that charged much less. It was not unusual for a customer to have an account at one of the wire houses to get access to the research, buy 100 shares through that firm and 900 shares of that stock through their account at a discount firm.
After the tech wreck in 2001 it became clear than many of the “best” analysts covering the tech industry were conflicted. They were following companies that were grossly overpriced but which were bringing in large underwriting and investment banking fees, so the firms found ways to “value” companies with no revenue claiming it was appropriate for them to do so.
The result is that many of the newly minted investment advisors were willing to leave the research analysts behind. They convinced themselves and their customers that they could be portfolio managers even though they lacked the most basic tools to do so.
This led to the rise of asset allocation using mutual funds and ETFs. The argument was that the losses from the tech crash arose because people had too much of their portfolio in tech stocks. Diversify your portfolio became the new mantra of the market. Buy large baskets of stocks and you will never have to worry again.
Asset allocation had been around since the 1950s. The purpose of a diversified portfolio is to reduce overall portfolio risk. If one or two market sectors do poorly, your losses would be balanced by those sectors that would profit.
As applied it is often an attempt to mitigate all risks which it cannot do. If you are trying to manage risk without defining what that risk is, asset allocation will never be the optimal method for any investor.
Asset allocation did not work very well in 2008-2009 as the sectors that were most affected and took the largest losses, banking and real estate touched virtually every other market sector. The losses, especially in the home value portion of investors’ net worth reduced consumer spending, led to increased unemployment and just about all portfolios took some losses.
All of that has apparently been forgotten in the ensuing bull market. Forgotten is the idea that asset allocation does not work in all markets. Forgotten is the idea that loading up a portfolio with mutual funds or ETFs full of stocks is a recipe for disaster unless you have some good reason to believe that market will continue to rise.
Advisors, because they had no good research to support their portfolio selections, told investors that they did not need research. The rise of robo-investment advisors is indicative of how foolish the investment world has and will become.
Investors are now told that they should invest based upon their age as if an investor’s age had anything to do with how the market will perform. Younger investors are directed to select portfolios with more stocks because they had the time to could “make up the losses” if losses occurred.
No robo-advisor suggests that it would be better to not take the losses in the first place. None suggests that the basic tenets of the “investment pyramid” which would have younger investors build a solid base of more conservative investments first might be more appropriate.
Most importantly no robo-advisor seems to think it is important to tell investors when they should sell. That advice is as important as any advice to buy anything because no stock and certainly no market can go up forever.
At the end of the day, the discussion about what is in the “best interests of investors” boiled down to a discussion of cost. Investment advice has become commoditized and therefore the argument goes, consumers should be charged the cheapest price. This is one of the largest crocks of BS that has ever been foisted on investors.
Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the largest pension plans, endowments and serious professional investors all rely upon research and analysis to make investment decisions. The best analysts earn 7- figure salaries because they are the best. All that smart money pays dearly for advice. At the same time, regulators and others are telling individual investors that it is their best interest to get the cheapest advice or none at all.
If the person offering you investment advice is suggesting stocks, bonds,mutual funds or ETFs without some reasoned opinion about what those investments will be worth in 90 or 180 days, that advice is useless and you should not pay anything for it. If they tell you that they construct portfolios that use an algorithm, ask them if the algorithm is aware that the US government is imposing new tariffs on imports or that the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates.
The SEC, DOL and other regulators would do investors a favor if they required those giving investment advice to always share with their customers why they bought and why they sold every position. A little transparency is always in investors’ best interests.
When I was diagnosed with cancer I wanted the best doctors, not the cheapest. When a neighbor or friend called me in search of a lawyer because their kid was picked up on a DUI, I declined to handle the representation because it was not my field of law and they really needed a specialist. And guess what, specialists cost more.
People need investment advice because bad investment advice or no advice will severely impact their retirement and they should be willing to pay more not less for good advice. Good investment advice will always be in the investors’ best interest. The discussion really needs to stop with that.