This free financial information site publishes articles on how to develop a self-directed personal financial planning program strategy

The financial and investment planning articles on this free website supply important ideas to families and individuals about personal finance plan issues that they should take into consideration. These essays help in developing a lifetime family financial planning strategy. A fully personalized lifetime financial plan also depends upon using the best financial planning tool you can get. On our front page, you to find the best all-in-one lifetime financial planning calculator, including the top financial retirement plan program, a high quality personal budget planner, and the leading investment projection calculators for your personal finance planning.

Post-financial crisis commentary on tactical versus strategic asset allocation

The best individual financial planning and investment rules and practices are enduring and should not change due to market cycles or a financial crisis. This article looks at asset allocation strategy in light of the recent credit crisis.

The credit crisis was a systemic, global financial event that impacted any financial or securities instrument influenced by debt and borrower credit worthiness. In short, the credit crisis affected everything. So many investors sought liquidity at the same time, because they either had to do so to meet their cash flow obligations and/or they feared greater losses and sought “safer” places for their money. Presto — the result was a global valuation downdraft that affected all asset classes. While some — but not all — classes of bonds did better relative to other asset classes, the real beneficiaries were those who already held bond positions before broader groups of investors got into a panic.

Whenever you are already there and invested in an asset class, it means that you probably were already following a passive asset allocation strategy. While tactical asset allocation strategy advocates will suggest that you can anticipate the crowd, this is not verified by studies of flows-of-funds into and out of investment mutual funds. While a very narrow segment of investors might have some skill in anticipating trends and does actively pre-position their investments relative to the movement of the crowds, most people already have their money invested in an asset class, because they have chosen strategically to be invested in that asset class for the long-term as a buy-and-hold investor. Flow-of-funds studies show that almost all tactical asset allocation fund flows are late money flows that chase performance after valuations have already moved. On average, this tactical asset allocation money is late money and these investors get inferior returns.

At the end of the first decade of the new millennium, huge cash flows into bond funds still continued relative to flows into other asset classes, such as stocks. This is a trend that was almost three years in the making. We have not seen similar disproportionate fund flows into bonds since the 1984 to 1987 period, when interest rates were much higher than today’s paltry yields. In succession during the past decade, we have experienced a technology bubble market crash, a housing bubble crash, a credit crunch, and a resulting global economic/business cycle crash. Barring a total global economic depression, which we seem to have skirted but avoided, what will happen to the bond markets when interest rates inevitably rise? Stay tuned for the next sector bubble crash.

Recently, there has been more advocacy of “tactical” asset allocation strategies by certain financial advisors. The logic goes as follows. Broad passively-managed asset class diversification strategies seemingly did not work during the credit crisis. Even broadly diversified investor portfolios went down, although not as much as portfolios that were more exposed to particular asset classes that had suffered the worst percentage declines. Therefore, buy-and-hold strategic asset allocation apparently did not work and should be thrown out. As a replacement, these financial advisors advocate that it is time to employ tactical asset allocation strategies that ‘could’ get better risk-adjusted portfolio returns in the future. You know, start moving things around to get ahead of the crowd and be there before the crowd arrives to drive up valuations.

Unfortunately, tactical asset allocation strategy advocates do not offer anything to back up their claims that tactical investment activity would actually be superior to a passive asset allocation strategy in the future. Tactical asset allocation strategies have not been superior in the past. Advocacy for tactical asset allocation strategies flies in the face of the broad body of investment research that consistently has shown that low-cost, broadly diversified, passive buy-and-hold asset allocation strategies tend to yield superior long-term risk-adjusted portfolio returns.

Broad portfolio diversification has never meant that a portfolio could not and would not experience short-term losses at the portfolio level. When you have an investment banking industry that finds clever ways to repackage smelly sub-prime mortgages as gilt-edged investment grade derivative mortgage securities and resells these stinkers in vast quantities to other “smart money” financial professionals across the banking and investment world, then we just might all have a problem. When doing this over and over gets a lot of clever investment banking types some very large bonuses, then there is a lot of motivation to keep that gravy train moving along.

While you might question the ethics of these clever investment bankers, you should not forget that they sold these toxic mortgage securities to other willing professional buyers in the global banking industry. Those professional banker purchasers, in turn, tucked these gilt-edged derivative securities into their banks’ capital asset portfolios — the very capital portfolios upon which the banks ran their leveraged loan operations. When the music stopped and all the emperors had no clothes, bank capital evaporated and so did their ability and willingness to make loans. Of course, this was all compounded by tens of trillions of dollars in CDOs (credit default swaps) that tried to pass the ultimate repayment responsibility for bad debt hot potatoes around. Did the investment bankers also make some sweet bonuses on the multi-trillion dollar CDO market? You betcha!

Without your taxpayer dollars via the TARP bank bailout, the US and the rest of the world would all be in the financial black hole of a long-term global financial depression. In that event, most people would not have had to worry about short-term paper losses on their investment portfolios. Instead, many would have liquidated their portfolio holdings at cents on the dollar to meet living expenses after their jobs vanished.

If you have been following the chatter, you might remember hearing that most TARP funds have been paid back and some TARP loans to the banking industry have been reasonably profitable. Of course, this supposed profitability is only positive from a very narrow perspective. Taypayers are not normally in the business of making bailout loans to the financial industry. While unfortunately necessary, it is difficult to argue that TARP loans were profitable to taxpayers, when you consider the vast global economic destruction that resulted; the job losses and the millions unemployed and under-employed; and the unreimbursed hole that many still have in their personal investment portfolios.

So, when a huge and systemic toxic asset problem exists in the financial system, and the credit house of cards begins to fall, why would or should a diversified strategic asset allocation strategy prevent a short-term loss at the portfolio level? And, why would tactical asset allocation be a superior replacement strategy? To the contrary, higher cost, less diversified, active investment strategies will do what they always do, which is lead on average to inferior risk-adusted returns at the porfolio level. Even in a dire financial crisis, you should not lose sight of the long-term and forget the lessons of financial history. Broadly diversified, passive, low-cost, buy-and-hold strategies have been superior in the past, and they are much more likely to beat tactical asset allocation strategies in the future.

Click here for a more extensive article on personal Investment Asset Allocation

Sophisticated Roth IRA calculator tools are necessary to produce a sound plan for your retirement financial freedom

This free financial freedom resources website provides essays concerning how to develop a self-directed family financial plan

Family financial plan postings on this free site provide families and individuals with vital information about personal finance planning issues to take under consideration. Our publications help you in producing a full life personal financial planning strategy. Also, to produce a fully personalized plan for your financial success in life depends upon you using a high quality financial planning tool with the best financial investment software and first-rate personal finance tools.

Also, our free financial freedom website enables you to find a really superior ALL-IN-ONE financial planning tools, including the top retirement planning calculator, the top personal budget spreadsheet planner, and the best investing calculator for your self-directed full life personal financial planning.

Deciding between traditional retirement plan contributions and Roth retirement plan contributions

Whether or not to make investments into “traditional” tax-advantaged employer accounts and IRAs versus investing in “Roth” tax-advantaged employer accounts and personal IRAs is not always a straightforward decision. The decision on the trade offs happens to be one of the most complex aspects of lifetime personal financial planning.

A broad array of factors can influence whether a traditional retirement plan account contribution or a Roth retirement account contribution decision would be optimal. Given the significant importance of this decision on your lifetime financial plan and the build-up of your retirement savings, it would be worth taking a closer look at this decision. For most people’s lifetime circumstances, making deposits in traditional accounts is the preferred decision, when those contributions would be deductible against current income taxes.

Factors favoring Roth plan contributions over traditional plan contributions

Many people struggle with the traditional versus Roth contribution decision for their personal financial and investment planning. The trade-offs over a lifetime are very complex. Rules-of-thumb, back-of-the-envelope calculations, and simple retirement planning spreadsheets cannot model all the important personal financial factors.

The decision is not simply about present versus future tax rates and whether rates might be higher or lower. Instead, the decision requires a personalized and comprehensive projection and valuation of an investor’s lifetime income, expenses, debts, net assets, and taxes. (Look here for a sophisticated Roth IRA and Roth 401k calculator tool that fully automates the traditional versus Roth analysis.)

Also, be clear in noting that this discussion focuses ONLY on situations where an investor has the choice of making a CURRENTLY TAX-DEDUCTIBLE traditional IRA, 401k, etc. contribution VERSUS a CURRENTLY NON-TAX DEDUCTIBLE Roth IRA, 401k, etc. contribution. For most people, this is often they case, because they have not maxed-out their current opportunities to make tax-deductible traditional retirement plan account contributions.

If under the U.S.’s incredibly complex tax-advantaged retirement account rules, an investor does NOT have any further opportunities to make currently tax-deductible retirement account contributions, then a Roth contribution is the choice to make. Since an investor cannot take a current tax-deduction and since Roth account contributions avoid future taxation of asset appreciation in retirement, that is why such Roth contribution would be preferred over traditional retirement account contributions, under these limited circumstances of non-deductibility.

Whether or not a person or family will save enough and invest efficiently across a lifetime dominates the Roth retirement plan versus currently deductible traditional retirement plan contribution decision.

If an investor does not earn sufficiently high income, does not save aggressively, does not control investment costs, and/or does not grow a sufficiently substantial investment asset portfolio retirement nest egg, then that investor will not have to worry about being in high tax brackets in retirement — whether or not state and federal income tax brackets had moved up or down in the interim. If an investor will not have substantial assets and income in retirement, then the current tax savings an investor could get from contributing to a traditional tax-advantaged retirement savings plan will tend to be much more economically advantageous over a lifetime.

For an investor to justify making current Roth contributions in lieu of currently deductible “traditional” contributions, here are eight personal circumstances, taken together, that might reverse the average person’s preference for traditional tax-advantaged plan contributions.

Roth retirement plan contributions might be more advantageous over currently deductible traditional retirement plan contributions, when a retirement investor:

1. has a long time for her assets to appreciate before and during retirement.
2. is likely to earn high enough taxable income over her working lifetime to have a realistic chance of amassing enough assets to cover her retirement expenses easily and still build up financial assets.
3. is more likely to have increasing earned income that is expected to continue to rise in real dollar terms across a working life cycle, enhancing that investor’s ability to feed her investment program through increasing savings.
4. saves at sufficiently high percentage rates across her working lifetime. (This means consistently saving at rates that are well in excess of 10% of gross earned income.)
5. will fully fund either traditional and/or Roth tax-advantaged accounts up to maximum annual contribution limits.
6. may have proportionately higher front-loaded itemized deductions (e.g. mortgage interest and real estate taxes) and lower earned income that effectively lowers an investor’s nearer term federal, state, and local marginal ordinary income tax rates compared to her more distant retirement years.
7. will adopt a very low-cost investment strategy to improve her chances of capturing higher asset appreciation rates.
8. will maintain an investment asset allocation that is skewed heavily toward equities, and when her financial assets continue to grow at rates that are similar to long-term historical rates of return on equities.

Given all these factors, an investor may find that her assets in traditional tax-advantaged accounts would grow to be so substantial that when they are distributed under the mandatory distribution rules after age 70 and 1/2, she is pushed into much higher marginal tax brackets. If her traditional tax-deferred assets are sufficiently large, then ordinary income taxes on these mandatory distributions COULD wipe out the value of the tax shield assets that an investor gained by making traditional account contributions that reduced her taxable earned income in earlier years. This is the crossover point where Roth contributions become more desirable on a present value basis compared with currently deductible traditional retirement new investments. Again, the majority of those saving for retirement are less likely to be in this position and should therefore prefer reducing their currently taxable income through traditional retirement plan contributions.

<<<<< Go back to the previous part: Tax-Advantaged Retirement Investment Planning