Motley Fool Money - How to Analyze Funds, and You May Retire Sooner Than Planned

Starting point is 00:00:01 How to analyze funds, and you may retire sooner than planned. That and more on this Saturday personal finance edition of the Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing podcast. I'm Robert Brokamp, and it's the first Saturday of the month, which means it's the next installment of our 2026 financial planning challenge. This month, Amanda Kish joins me to discuss the factors to consider when evaluating mutual funds and ETFs. The first up, some items from the news. You know, oil is once again on the rise, but the stock market doesn't seem to care.

Starting point is 00:00:36 As of this taping on Thursday morning, the ESB 500 is up more than 12% for the month of April. But the bond market is showing signs of anxiety. The rate on the 10-year treasury got over 4.4% again this week, and the rate on the 30-year treasury is just a hair below 5%. Except for a brief spike in 2023, the rate on the 30-year treasury is getting to a level not seen since the early 2010s. As rates go up, bond prices fall, which is why the bond market is about flat for the year on a total return basis, despite yielding above 4%.

Starting point is 00:01:08 And the bond market shouldn't expect any near-term help from the Federal Reserve. The Fed concluded its latest meeting this week, leaving rates unchanged, and the futures market predicts that that will remain the case for the rest of the year, and that if there are any movements in rates, it's just about as likely to be a hike as a cut, given rising inflation. I should point out that this was likely the last meeting with Jerome Powell as chair, but he's not leaving. He has the option to remain on the board as governor,

Starting point is 00:01:34 Traditionally, chairs resign after their terms, but they don't have to. At the post-meeting press conference, Paul said he's going to remain until an investigation into the costs of renovating the Federal Reserve's headquarters is, quote, well and truly over with transparency and finality. End of quote. The Fed's HQ is known as the Eccles building, named after Mariner Eccles, who was the last chair to remain on the board of governors after his term as chair was over, doing it way back in 1948. High interest rates means more expensive loans, which brings us to our second. item from the news. According to a recent article from the Wall Street Journal's Ryan Felton, about 30% of car buyers who traded in a vehicle in the first quarter had negative equity, owing an average of roughly $7,200 more than their car was worth, a 42% increase over five years.

Starting point is 00:02:22 To keep monthly payments manageable, borrowers are stretching loan terms to an average of 70 months, with some loans now exceeding eight years. Negative equity buyers financed an average of nearly $56,000 for a new car in Q1 of 226, about $12,000 more than the typical buyer, pushing their average monthly payment to a record $932. The 2024 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau study found that borrowers who rolled negative equity into a new loan were more than twice as likely to have their car repossessed within two years. And we're starting to see those risks materialize. Auto loan default rates in March hit their highest level since 2010. And now for the number of the week, which is 46%. That's the percentage of people who retired in 2025 earlier than they expected,

Starting point is 00:03:09 according to the recently published retirement confidence survey from the Employee Benefit Research Institute. And this is consistent with plenty of other research, which finds that many, if not most people, retire sooner than they had planned, with the gap being about three years. The leading reasons are health challenges, caregiving responsibilities, and layoffs. So when you analyze your retirement plan by using maybe an online calculator or working with a financial planner, knock a few years off your projected retirement date, and then adjust your savings rate accordingly. It likely mean that you need to contribute more to your 401k and IRA, but it will also increase the chances that you'll be prepared if you can't work as long as

Starting point is 00:03:46 you thought you would, and also allow you to retire sooner if you want. Next up, what to look for in a fund when Motley Fool Hidden Jams investing continues. Welcome to Month 5 of our 26 Financial Planning Challenge, which we're calling a year well-planned. So far this year, we've talked about how to monitor your budget and your net worth, how to determine your overall asset allocation, how to choose the types of investments for your portfolio, and in which accounts to hold them. This month is somewhat of an extension of last month's installment, because we're going to talk about how to evaluate funds. Because chances are you own some, you know, there are more than now 10,000 opened-in mutual funds that exchange traded funds, otherwise known as ETFs. And according

Starting point is 00:04:29 to the Investment Company Institute, more than 120 million individuals in the U.S. own some type of fund. After all, you may not have a choice. The most common way that Americans say for retirement is through an employer plan like a 401K. And in most of those plans, the only investment choices you have are menu of mutual funds. Here to talk about how to evaluate the funds you own or are considering is certified financial planner and chartered financial analyst Amanda Kish. Amanda, welcome back to the show. Thank you so very much. I'm glad to be back. So when you think about the number of funds out there, it's kind of bewildering.

Starting point is 00:05:03 In fact, in some case, it's even more than the number of stocks you have to own. Yeah, that's exactly right. You mentioned that number of 10,000 mutual funds, and even just an ETFs, exchange-traded funds, according to Morningstar data. As of last year, we officially passed the point that there are now more ETFs currently being traded than individual listed stocks. So we have between 4,300 and 4,400 ETFs to around 4,200. stocks. So it's a wide universe, and investors definitely need some tools to help them sort through that. All right. So we're going to talk about what we think are the most important criteria when

Starting point is 00:05:39 evaluating a fund. And we're going to start actually with costs. Yes, so expenses are definitely one of the most important variables to consider. So if you think about it, fees are the only part of fund investing where the outcome is certain. Performance might surprise you to the upside or the downside and markets are certainly going to fluctuate from year to year, but those fees, those expenses come out every single year, rain or shine. So the number to examine here is the expense ratio, and this is expressed as an annual percentage of your assets. So an expense ratio that is 0.03% or three basis points would cost you $3 a year for every $10,000 that you have invested. And a 1% expense ratio would cost you $100 on that same amount, which doesn't seem like a lot.

Starting point is 00:06:29 But when you compound this over a long period of time, 10, 20, 30 years, that gap often translates to tens of thousands of dollars in fees. So one important caveat here is when you're comparing these fees, you want to compare fees within asset classes, not across them. So for example, a 0.5% expense ratio on something like a small cap emerging market fund, that's fairly competitive. But that same 0.5% expense ratio on an S&P 500 index is pretty crazy because you can get identical exposure for about three basis points compared to 50. So as a general rule, the more complex or specialized the asset class than the higher the expense ratio, because it typically costs more to run something like an emerging markets fund or small cap, active strategy than just a plain old S&P 500 index fund. So that's going to be reflected in what you pay. So Morningstar is a great source of fund data, and they benchmark any funds expense ratio against its category average, which is exactly what you want to compare for the apples to Apple's

Starting point is 00:07:30 comparison. And then again, just keep in mind that most ETFs, which are, for the most part, generally passive investments, and they're simply tracking a market index, they should have a lower price point than a similar actively managed fund in that same asset class because you're not paying for that manager stock picking expertise. Yeah, the evidence is very clear that fees affect performance. You mentioned Morningstar, Morningstar, some studies on this as of other folks. And the bottom line is that as a group, the cheapest funds outperform the average cost

Starting point is 00:08:00 funds and the average cost funds outperform the high cost funds over the long term. So it's one of those things that the history just shows it's the place to start. Now, the funds do have to charge fees. They don't work for free. And they have to do that to buy and sell the investments, send you the statements, but also that money is going to go towards the people who manage the funds. Which brings us to the next factor that you think people should pay attention to. Yes, and that factor is manager tenure.

Starting point is 00:08:28 And this is something that's important, especially if you're investing in actively managed funds. So if you're paying a premium for that active management, at least in theory, you're paying for a specific person or a specific team's skill and judgment. So then that first question is, is that person still there? So manager tenure is publicly available from a couple different sources in Morningstar, Fund's prospectus, fund company's website. But it's important because if a fund, say, had a great 10-year track record, but the manager who built that record left three years ago, that track record really tells you nothing

Starting point is 00:09:01 about what you're going to get going forward. So I always recommend checking how long has that current manager been in charge. And does the fund strategy depend heavily on one person or is it more team-based with a documented succession plan. And ideally, you're going to want to see a manager or a team that's been in place over a full market cycle. So you want to see results from that manager, that team, in both challenging and positive market environments. And then along those lines, I'd add that even when the same manager is still in place, take a look at whether the fund has grown dramatically in assets under management. So, for example, a manager who, let's say, ran a more nimble $500 million small cap fund that may have

Starting point is 00:09:44 that very well may struggle to replicate that edge when the fund has grown, if they're now at $5 billion in assets, $10 billion, because at that size they simply can't move in and out of small cap positions without moving the market. But for index funds, manager tenure matters far less. Basically, the index is the manager in a sense. So that is one more thing that makes passive investing so attractive because you don't have to worry about manager tenure in the same way. Yeah, I'll just double down what you said about when it comes to who Who's managing the fund? Is it a team approach? Because some funds really are, they depend on maybe

Starting point is 00:10:19 one or two people. They're the star managers. So you just wonder, okay, if they leave, are they taking the performance with them? As opposed to a fund family that really focuses on a committee approach. And I guess the best example for me for that is Dodge & Cox, which is one of the oldest mutual fund families. They really do take a committee approach to managing the funds so that if someone moves off, you can feel pretty confident that the team that remains is still going to be able to follow the same processes that has been followed for many years. And then the other point I'll make is about index funds, as you said. Index funds are so much more of a set-it-and-for-get-it type of investment. Not completely. You still want to make sure that you have an index fund that really is tracking the

Starting point is 00:11:00 index. Of course, every year or so you should be evaluating whether you should be rebalancing, so maybe you should sell a little bit of that index fund or buy a little bit more. But it is, once you've decided on the index fund that's right for you, it takes much less time. Whereas with the actively managed fund, you have to make sure that that person is earning those extra fees because frankly, it's challenging to be irrelevant index fund. So you have to stay on top of that and make sure that, you know what, I'm paying more, but I am getting the performance or I'm not getting that performance and it's time to move on. All right. So we looked at fees and people in charge. What's next, Amanda? So next we want to examine the question of what do I actually own or is the

Starting point is 00:11:40 fund doing what it says it's going to do. So fund names can be misleading. A fund called a balanced growth might be 80% stocks or it might be 50% stocks, and you don't know until you look. A technology fund, for example, might have 40% of its assets in just a few companies. Or a diversified, large-cap blend fund might have a massive sector concentration in financials, for example. So the name is really marketing. It's the holdings that are reality. So a couple of things that you want to check here. First, top holdings and any concentrations in those holdings. So what are the 10 largest positions in the fund and what percentage of the fund do they represent? So if you have a case where the top 10 holdings or something like 70% of the fund, you're a lot more concentrated

Starting point is 00:12:27 than you might otherwise think. And this matters, especially if you hold multiple funds, because you could be doubling up on a lot of those same names without even realizing it. And then you also want to check the sector allocation. So, Every fund, their fact sheet, or their Morning Star page is going to show you the sector weights. So compare those to the benchmark because you may have a blend fund that's 35% in technology when the benchmark is 28%. So that means it has a meaningful tech tilt, which might be intentional and fine. And if you're paying for that active management, maybe even desirable, but you should, at the

Starting point is 00:13:02 very least, know that it's there and that you're differing from the market in that important way. And then lastly, take a look at the style. So Morningstar is a very famous nine-box grid that tells you where a fund sits both on the market cap spectrum. So is it large-cap, mid-cap, small-cap, and then also in the style spectrum. Is it a value fund, blend fund, or growth fund? So is it actually doing what the label says? Sometimes funds drift from their stated mandate over time.

Starting point is 00:13:30 So for example, if a small-cap fund has gradually accumulated mid-cap names over time, that's something that we call style drift. And it's something to watch for. So the practical question to ask is, if I own this fund alongside my other holdings, am I actually diversified? Or am I just buying the same companies multiple times in different wrappers? So you can't actually know what your portfolio is doing unless you know what your funds are doing. And that really starts by looking under the hood at each of those funds. I'll just add a couple of points on this. I think it's good to look at the fund's objective, because it will lay out the parameters that a fund manager must stick with. If it's an index fund, It'll tell you which index it's following.

Starting point is 00:14:10 But with accurately managed funds, sometimes, you know, a manager has the ability to go beyond what you would think would be the state objective. Like, it may say it's a U.S. stock fund, but it may be able to invest up to 20% in international stocks, for example. Or if it's more like this balanced or all asset type of fund, it might give a range saying, like, the fund could invest up to 90% in stocks or as little as 50% in stock. So it's just good to understand that. And when you look at that style box on Morningstar and some of the other information,

Starting point is 00:14:37 it does provide some historical information. So you'll see how much the fund is maybe jumping around a little bit in terms of its allocations and its style drift. And then I'll just, the other thing I want to add is before you add a fund to your portfolio, really do look at the holdings and the sector breakdown because, as you said, Amanda, a lot of these funds overlap. And if you look at a fund and you're like, you know what, I own most of these stocks already, or I already have enough exposure to these sectors, that it's probably not worth adding that fund. to your portfolio because you're not getting any added diversification. All right.

Starting point is 00:15:11 Now let's move on to the numbers that I suspect most people actually start with, which is performance. That's exactly right. For most folks, this is kind of the starting point. But I think this should be a factor that's examined only after you look at those other aspects of determining whether a fund is suitable. So now we're looking at performance. And that's very important to do. But I do want to reframe a little bit how we look at it.

Starting point is 00:15:33 So one of the biggest mistakes people make is comparing us. funds return to the wrong benchmark. So if you own, for example, an international small-cap value fund and you're comparing it to the S&P 500, that comparison is pretty much meaningless. You really need to compare it to funds in the same category, investing in the same type of assets. And Morning Stars category system is great for this. It puts funds in peer groups and tells you what percentile fund ranks in its category over various timeframes. And then the second mistake related to performance is chasing recent performance. So research is pretty unambiguous that past performance, especially short-term performance, is a pretty weak predictor of future results. In fact,

Starting point is 00:16:16 funds that are top quartile performers over, let's say, three years, frequently end up reverting back to the middle and to that mediocrity over the next three-year period. So what you want to see is that consistency across market cycles in both good and bad environments and not necessarily hanging everything on a single banner year. So the time frame that you should look at for actively managed funds, I would want to see a full market cycle if possible. So again, both good and bad market environments, but ideally somewhere around seven to ten years. So if you're looking at Morningstar returns, you're going to be focusing more on the five-year return number, that 10-year return number. Three years is typically too short to get a good sense. Again, if you want to

Starting point is 00:16:58 see those returns benchmarked against the category, not the S&P 500. So for index funds, the performance evaluation factor is a little bit simpler. So you can look at tracking error here. And that measures how closely the fund actually replicates its index. So a good index fund should track its index almost perfectly. And that tracking error will tell you if there's any deviation. And that's something that Morningstar reports. I also think it's important to look at how a fund performed in a really good year and a really bad year.

Starting point is 00:17:29 And more recently, you would say maybe 2022 would be the bad year for both stocks and bonds. It's one of the worst years for bonds ever, to be quite honest. And that gives you an idea of like, okay, in a bad year, this is the downside I could expect. And then in a good year, and that could be 2023 was really good for stocks, kind of mediocre for bonds, but still gave you a good idea. A couple of years later, probably were better for bonds. But whenever you're looking at a fund, it just gives you an idea, okay, this is what I can expect. And I think it's also important when you are considering asset classes that you are unfamiliar with. Every once in a while we'll get questions like, I'm thinking of adding.

Starting point is 00:18:03 a high-yield bond fund to my portfolio or a preferred stock fund. And if you've never invested in those types of asset classes, again, I think it's good to look at the good years and the bad years just to give you proper expectations of what you might experience. All right, so performance is what you get, but that may not be what you keep because Uncle Sam may want his share, especially if this is an account that is not a 401k or an IRA. So Amanda, tell us about fund investing and taxes. Yes. So as you mentioned, this point applies. only to taxable accounts. So if we're talking about 401k or IRA, you can largely tune this out. But in a taxable brokerage account, this is a big deal. So every time a fund sells a holding at a gain,

Starting point is 00:18:46 it distributes those capital gains to shareholders and you're going to owe taxes on them, even if you didn't sell a single share and you never saw that cash. So high turnover funds are funds that have experienced large redemptions, which would then force them to sell holdings, can generate significant taxable distributions. And there's two ways that you can assess that tax efficiency. So the first signal is portfolio turnover. This is the percentage of funds holdings that are replaced each year. So a turnover rate of, say, 10 to 20% is fairly low.

Starting point is 00:19:19 On the other end, 100% means the fund is essentially replacing its entire portfolio every year. And that higher turnover oftentimes means higher trading cost embedded in the fund. and again, that's separate from the expense ratio. And it also means the fund is likely generating more taxable events. And the second thing to check is Morningstar's tax cost ratio. And this is going to be the more precise tool. So what this measure does is estimates how much of a fund's return was lost to taxes each year. So a tax cost ratio of 1.5% means that if the fund returned 8% pre-tax,

Starting point is 00:19:57 investors in a taxable account might have netted closer to $7.5% percent. 6.5% after taxes, and those aren't trivial numbers. So for taxable accounts, also index funds, ETFs tend to be more tax efficient than actively managed funds because of lower turnover. And also important to note that ETFs have a structural advantage called in-kind creation or redemption that allows them to avoid realizing capital gains internally. So that's an important note that if you are building a taxable account, this is a structural advantage that is a meaningful reason to lean toward ETFs when building that portfolio. I'll just point out that you find out that tax cost ratio on the price tab.

Starting point is 00:20:36 So when you go to Morning Start a Cobb, you enter the ticker and then click on the price tab, and that's where you'll find that tax cost ratio, which is very important for any fund you own or are considering for a taxable brokerage account. All right, Amanda, what are your final thoughts on how fools should pick their funds? So I'll leave listeners with a one item on their fun to-do list. Start with what you already own. So if you have just a few minutes, pull up your 401k or your brokerage account, find each fund, and look it up on Morningstar. It's free to use for basic data.

Starting point is 00:21:07 And just check three things. Check the expense ratio, the category ranking for five and 10 year performance, and the top 10 holdings. So that maybe 15 minute exercise is going to tell you a lot. And if you only remember one thing from today, remember that low fees are the one guaranteed advantage you can give yourself. everything else involves some uncertainty, but fees don't. And I'll just add that if you follow Amanda's advice and evaluate the funds in your 401K, and you find there's some lousy funds relative to others in their category, let your HR department or whoever's in charge of your 401k now.

Starting point is 00:21:42 Both Amanda and I are on the 401k committee here at the Maudy Fool, and we regularly meet to evaluate the funds in our plan and consider maybe there's some funds or asset classes that should be added. We just met yesterday talking about this. So really, you should not be stuck with mediocre or worse. funds or maybe lack sufficient choices within your plan. So do some research and politely advocate for better investments and perhaps even ask for a brokerage account within your plan. Well, Amanda, this has been educational as always. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. It's time to get it done,

Starting point is 00:22:14 fools. And as April ends and May begins, we're now already a third through 2026. So this week, I encourage you to revisit those financial New Year's resolutions you made way back in January because if surveys are to be believed, you may have already abandoned some or most of them by now. Getting caught up with our year well-planned is a great way to get back on track. So go back and listen to the first Saturday episodes of every month and get some ideas for tracking your spending, net worth, and portfolio. If you find any gaps in your portfolio, buying a low-cost fund or ETF is a quick and easy way to get diversified exposure to just about any kind of asset class. And that, my friends, is the show. Thank you so much

Starting point is 00:22:53 for spending part of your weekend with us, and thanks to Bart Shannon, the engineer for this episode. As always, people on the program may have interest in the investments they talk about, and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against. So don't buy or sell investments based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. I'm Robert Brokamp. Fool on, everybody.

Motley Fool Money - How to Analyze Funds, and You May Retire Sooner Than Planned

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.