How to finish Jack Bogle's revolution in saving for
retirement
Send a link to a friend
[January 24, 2019]
By Mark Miller
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Jack Bogle did more to
help the average American working household save for retirement than
anyone else in the modern era of investing.
When Bogle died last week at age 89, Vanguard Group - the company he
founded in 1974 - was putting about $21.1 billion annually into investor
retirement accounts that otherwise would be lining the pockets of Wall
Street as fee income.
And $21.1 billion is a conservative estimate. It is a Vanguard
calculation, based on Morningstar data, of the amount investors saved on
its ultra-low cost mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and money market
funds compared with the rest of the industry. It does not even begin to
measure the lower fees being paid by customers of other firms that were
dragged kicking and screaming into Bogle’s revolution, which preached
the virtues of investing in low-cost passive index funds that tracked
markets instead of trying to beat them.
Some observers think the real annual amount of investor savings
delivered by Bogle is closer to $100 billion.
Whatever the correct figure, the death of John "Jack" Bogle leaves me
with this question: how do we finish the job he started? How do we
create a square deal for American workers when it comes to retirement
planning? By square deal, I mean a suite of high-quality, low-cost
retirement products and advisory services, enveloped by tough regulation
that protects average households from financial exploitation.
Plenty of work remains to be done.
For starters, that $21.1 billion figure should remind us that millions
of investors still pay far too much to invest for retirement.
Morningstar reported recently that U.S. investors plowed $460 billion
into passive index mutual funds and ETFs last year, while withdrawing
$300 billion from actively managed funds. Total assets under management
are on track to outpace active funds by the end of the year.
But small, less-sophisticated investors have no business being in
high-cost actively managed mutual funds. Any given fund might beat the
market for a year or two, but almost none stay on top over the long
haul. For example, S&P Dow Jones Indices reported recently that just 7
percent of domestic equity funds that were in the top quartile of
performance in September 2016 were still there two years later.
EXTENDING LOW-COST ADVICE
But the need for a square deal goes further than funds.
Another huge remaining challenge is bringing down the cost of retirement
planning advice, and extending it beyond affluent households to
middle-class households. Numerous studies have demonstrated retirement
advice produces better asset allocation, higher saving and less exposure
to risk.
Low-cost passive funds have made room to add a layer of fees and still
keep overall costs at a reasonable level. The most promising advisory
ventures use software, or a blend of automation and human advice. These
digital-driven solutions are growing quickly - consulting and research
firm Cerulli Associates projects that assets under management in the
United States will jump from an estimated $295 billion last year to just
over $1 trillion in 2023.
[to top of second column] |
Screens display a
tribute to Jack Bogle, founder and retired CEO of The Vanguard
Group, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New
York, U.S., January 17, 2019. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo
Vanguard already is one of the largest players in this space. The
company’s Personal Advisor Services provides access to a managed
portfolio of Vanguard index funds and exchange-traded funds, along with
portfolio management services from a human adviser, charging 30 basis
points. Since its launch in 2015, the service has nearly quadrupled in
size, finishing 2018 with $115 billion in assets under management.
Of course, the right kind of advice is necessary, and this is the other
great unfinished business in creating a more square-deal environment
that helps the middle class prepare for retirement. Most of these
households would be surprised to learn that when they hire a brokerage
firm to make a retirement plan, the “adviser” need not put the client’s
best interest ahead of their own - the so-called fiduciary standard.
The Obama-era Department of Labor promulgated a rule that would have
required brokers to adhere to a fiduciary standard, but it was opposed
by the financial services and insurance industries, and the Trump
administration allowed it to lapse.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is moving toward adoption of
a so-called regulation best interest standard. The SEC rule would
require brokers to put their customers' financial interests ahead of
their own, but it does not require them to act as fiduciaries. The rule
also would require disclosures to clients of any potential conflicts,
and it reaffirms existing higher standards for registered investment
advisers.
The draft regulation has come under fire from consumer advocates who
note it does not clearly define the term "best interest" and that the
proposed disclosure forms are confusing for investors. The SEC is
expected to release a final rule in the second half of this year.
Meanwhile, New York, Nevada and New Jersey, worried about the lapsed
state of federal fiduciary regulation, are moving toward adoption of
their own fiduciary standards.
Bogle was a passionate advocate of a strong fiduciary standard to
protect investors from conflicts of interest and high fees. That should
be no surprise, coming from a visionary who got the rest of us to
understand the paramount importance of cost, the folly of market timing,
and owning the entire stock market via passive index funds.
A square deal for all on retirement advice? There could be no better
lasting tribute to Jack Bogle.
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for
Reuters)
(Reporting and writing by Mark Miller in Chicago; Editing by Matthew
Lewis)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |