Live data from Hacker News

Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

wallstreetonparade.com

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#51
post #18
post #4

Which is why as soon as you get a chance you immediately transfer your 401k into a self managed IRA account, which if you did nothing but put all the money into an S&P 500 index fund you would do better than having these guys pilfer your account over time. Not a big issue for you young folks but it does add up. What is worse is that there is a lot of double dipping that goes on, for example BigBank1 manages the 401k…

Except for those companies where you must have a 401K in order to collect a company matching contribution, in which case you are net ahead by keeping it in the 401K rather than forgoing the match

Which you should do, then every penny over that you want to invest in retirement goes into your personally managed IRA.

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#52
post #4

Which is why as soon as you get a chance you immediately transfer your 401k into a self managed IRA account, which if you did nothing but put all the money into an S&P 500 index fund you would do better than having these guys pilfer your account over time. Not a big issue for you young folks but it does add up. What is worse is that there is a lot of double dipping that goes on, for example BigBank1 manages the 401k…

Well, I thought the point was that even an S&P-500 fund will suck some money away from you through fees. I wonder at which point it makes most sense to dump the fund and do just SPDR ETFs instead.

>I wonder at which point it makes most sense to dump the fund and do just SPDR ETFs instead.

At any given point in time, an ETF will have the lowest fees compared to other options (mutual fund, professional money management fund, etc). There is no "breaking point" in which it makes sense to switch. If given your parameters, investment objectives and desired sector exposure tell you that an ETF and another option are possible, then at least from a "fee" perspective, it always makes sense to go with the ETF.

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#53
post #18
post #4

Which is why as soon as you get a chance you immediately transfer your 401k into a self managed IRA account, which if you did nothing but put all the money into an S&P 500 index fund you would do better than having these guys pilfer your account over time. Not a big issue for you young folks but it does add up. What is worse is that there is a lot of double dipping that goes on, for example BigBank1 manages the 401k…

Except for those companies where you must have a 401K in order to collect a company matching contribution, in which case you are net ahead by keeping it in the 401K rather than forgoing the match

Also, even the crappiest 401k plans have a few "passively managed" index'y mutual funds with relatively low fees (in the range of 0.1%/year) that you can choose.

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#55
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I ran this program: p = 100000 w = 0 for i in range(50): p = p * 1.07 w = w * 1.07 w = w + (p * 0.02) p = 0.98 * p print "Year: " + str(i+1) print "\t You: {:.2f}".format(p) print "\tWall St.: {:.2f}".format(w) And what is remarkable is that around year 35, wall street starts making more money than you do even though you're the one putting the money into it (assuming wall street is earning the same interest you ar…

This is assuming you can get the same return, pre-fees, as Wall Street can. This is generally true, but what they're selling you is the idea that this isn't true. Which is my point. It's not some evil Wall Street thing, it's like every other sector of the economy. Ralph Lauren sells jeans made in the same Chinese sweatshop as Levis, but you pay a premium for the illusion that it's different.

I get your point but paying more for financial services is very different than paying more for a retail product.

If you pay more, you can buy jeans made in the USA from both Ralph Lauren and Levi. The fabric may be from a Cone Denim factory in China instead of the White Oak Cone Denim factory in the US, but my impression of the denim mills is that it's far from your stereotypical sweatshop.

Further, there are brands that are entirely made in the US from mill to assembly, from the affordable brands like Gusset to high end like Raleigh Denim.

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#56

Little too hysterical for me. Yes, you pay a fee to have your funds managed. No, that does not mean "you work for Wall Street", whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. This is like dropping into the middle of a demented rant. There's no disagreement on the facts here, but there's a lot of smoke and heat, and not much fire. If you don't like paying to have your funds managed, you have plenty of other options. Use o…

I've watched the Frontline piece that this article is based on. It's not quite as hysterical, but it does make the case that the high-cost actively managed funds offered by most 401k plans underperform low-cost index funds, which are not available in many 401k plans. So, you're stuck paying the high fees or losing out on the tax-advantages of the 401k.

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#57

This is fundamentally wrong. The statement assumes the whole of the management fees is being reinvested at 7%, when in reality it is being used by those who have jobs in the financial sector to pay their bills. That is quite literally like taking the price you pay for anything and multiplying it by (1.07)*50 (which is ~30) and claiming that is what they are actually charging you, since you could have otherwise invest…

So... why not buy a Vanguard index fund, which is currently charging 0.07% for a management fee? The difference between a 2% management fee and a 0.05% management fee from Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index... or 0.09% fee from SPY ETFs (+$7/trade from your typical broker). Run the math, if you are paying 2% fees, you are getting straight up robbed. If your employer doesn't offer low-fee index funds, it would be wor…

Hmm. Both Google and my fund options page at Vanguard list the Total Stock Market Index as having a 0.17% expense ratio:

https://www.google.com/finance?q=MUTF:VTSMX

Are we talking about different things?

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#58
post #4

Which is why as soon as you get a chance you immediately transfer your 401k into a self managed IRA account, which if you did nothing but put all the money into an S&P 500 index fund you would do better than having these guys pilfer your account over time. Not a big issue for you young folks but it does add up. What is worse is that there is a lot of double dipping that goes on, for example BigBank1 manages the 401k…

>as you get a chance you immediately transfer your 401k into a self managed IRA account

Another reason to do this is that you can buy "anything" in your IRA account, including stock market ETFs, leveraged bond fund ETFs (which can be a nice diversification option since you don't pay the full income tax on the dividends that you otherwise would need to outside of a 401(k)/IRA), anything that your brokerage account has access to.

On the other hand, your typical 401(k) plan only has access to crappy financial products and shitty fund managers. My former employer offered a bare bones 401(k) plan with no employer match. I went through and looked at all ~20 of the funds available. There were 2 passively managed index funds, 17 active managers who had underperformed the market net fees, and 1 who had done decently well, maybe matched the Russell 2000 after fees (it was a mid cap fund). I looked further and found, exactly to my expectations, that every single one of the 17 bad funds were run by inexperienced, most likely young, managers. The one fund that did decently had two guys who had been running it for over a decade.

Not all money managers are bad. Some do actually provide some legitimate values, even after fees. But (a) most of the ones available to you in a 401(k) plan suck really really badly, and (b) even the good ones will break you with fees.

It is probably not that well known, but "The wealthy" combat (b) by negotiating fees that are significantly lower than the starting fee by saying, "I am bringing $N million to your account. What fee can you offer me? I am shopping you vs other banks."

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#59
post #56

Little too hysterical for me. Yes, you pay a fee to have your funds managed. No, that does not mean "you work for Wall Street", whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. This is like dropping into the middle of a demented rant. There's no disagreement on the facts here, but there's a lot of smoke and heat, and not much fire. If you don't like paying to have your funds managed, you have plenty of other options. Use o…

I've watched the Frontline piece that this article is based on. It's not quite as hysterical, but it does make the case that the high-cost actively managed funds offered by most 401k plans underperform low-cost index funds, which are not available in many 401k plans. So, you're stuck paying the high fees or losing out on the tax-advantages of the 401k.

>high-cost actively managed funds offered by most 401k plans underperform low-cost index funds

The keywords are "offered by most 401k plans". Within the universe of funds out there, it was utterly shocking to me how bad the funds offered in your typical 401k plan were. I honestly think they just stick random kids 3 years out of college to run them.

Re: Wall Street Is Gobbling Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k)

#60
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is with 401(k)s is that most plans don't have that many options, and its common for all of them to be expensive (compared to what you can get elsewhere). And not putting your money in 401(k)s is even worse due to the extra taxes.

I am very ignorant here. Do you know if putting your 401K money into passively managed index funds typically results in higher fees than if you invested in similar accounts outside your 401K? That is, can you escape having extra fees inside your 401K?

I saw a few (2?) passively managed index tracking funds in my former employer's 401k plan. IIRC their fees were something like 0.15%/year, which is higher than the <0.1%/year fee of the large index tracking funds with market caps greater than $40BB, but still reasonable compared to the actively managed funds that are offered.
Post reply on HN