That’s the finding of a new paper from investment firm Research
Associates looking at 401k retirement plans. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2612595)
Broadly speaking, there are two principal ways to amass a capital
sum: one is to put money aside, the other to invest it cleverly.
Alas, far more ink, effort and blood is spilled trying to beat the
market than in trying to get people to simply save early and often.
There are many reasons for this. For one, it is easier to sell
outperformance, which gives the illusion of a tactic which is
self-funding. Much harder to sit down with a client and tell them
that their savings are insufficient for their needs than to soft
soap them with the prospect of effortless and sacrifice-less gain.
None of this makes asset allocation unimportant, but only implies
that it often gets attention which would better be spent elsewhere.
Indeed, the authors suggest, sometimes the usual strategy of taking
on more risk early and less late can have unintended and negative
consequences.
The study looked at target date funds (TDFs), the default option in
many defined contribution retirement plans. TDFs make asset
allocation choices in an attempt to maximize gains by some specific
date, often the desired retirement date of the saver.
While not all TDF funds are the same, they will tend to hold more
equity during earlier periods, on the theory that the saver has time
to bounce back from market corrections. As the target date nears,
these funds often allocate more to 'safer' assets like bonds.
But running millions of simulations on different scenarios indicated
a different approach may work better.
“Our quantitative results confirm that contributions matter more
than allocations early in lifecycle investing,” said Jason C. Hsu,
Jonathan Treussard, Vivek Viswanathan and Lillian Wu of Research
Associates.
“Asset allocation decisions in the first 20 years of a TDF scheme
have no appreciable impact on the ending account balance. And it
takes unreasonably high allocations to risky asset classes to make
up for low initial contributions.”
But in later stages approaching the target date, or retirement,
investment returns, and hence asset allocations, are the “primary
determinant” of final portfolio values, according to the study.
FEAR AND GREED AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE
Some of this is just common sense. Contribute $5,000 to the $10,000
401k account of a 27-year-old and, presto, a 50 percent advance. Put
the same $5,000 in two decades later when the account has grown to
$220,000 and you only get a 2.3 percent gain.
In the same respect a higher market return from that $450,000 is far
more meaningful than a big year when balances are low early on.
[to top of second column] |
This leads the authors to argue for some unusual tactics. Besides
the importance of preaching saving to young plan members, they also
acknowledge that the usual equity-heavy allocations in many
early-stage TDF plans can backfire.
Earlier studies have shown that investors’ contribution rates are
affected by losses, even though a fall in the market logically
implies that the next dollar is a better long-term investment than
the one previous to it. A saver who lives through a bear market
early in her career might shy away from making contributions. The
reverse may also hold true: equity gains in early years could give
savers a false idea of what their long-term returns will be. That
can lead to pension contribution 'holidays' with terrible long-term
consequences. Catch a few years of 15 percent returns and you will
be tempted to take a vacation, both from contributions and to the
beach, next year.
Therefore it might be a good idea, from a behavioral point of view,
for plans to have a lower equity weighting early on. The gains from
a bull market early on will matter less than a bull market in a
saver's 50s, and the chances of the saver turning away from the 401k
or from riskier assets will be less.
None of this presupposes what the best allocation in the years
nearing retirement might be. Allocations inevitably involve
tradeoffs between hoped-for returns and feared volatility. In theory
return chasing won’t be any more successful for a 55-year-old than
it usually is for the young and feckless.
Still, the older saver should, on balance, spend more time, money
and energy on asset allocation. In the same way, wealth advisors who
can encourage clients to save early, even if they take fewer risks
then and generate less in fees, are providing the best service.
(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct
investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an
owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. You can email him at
jamessaft@jamessaft.com and find more columns at http://blogs.reuters.com/james-saft)
(Editing by James Dalgleish)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|