new VG fund

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
Gregory
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:26 pm

new VG fund

Post by Gregory » Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:43 pm

VG is planning on introducing a new series of income funds.

" Each fund is structured to provide steady monthly payments without dipping into capital."

http://tinyurl.com/3xoz7d

Greg
Pecuniae imperare oportet, non servire. | Fortuna vitrea est; tum cum splendit frangitur. -Syrus

User avatar
alec
Posts: 3056
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:15 pm

Post by alec » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:04 pm

well, that's interesting to say the least. anyone have a link to the registration statement?

ETA: I found the prospectus. Looks like endowment type retirement income streams for 0.34%.

- Alec
Last edited by alec on Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
joe8d
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: Buffalo,NY

Post by joe8d » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:20 pm

All the Best, | Joe

User avatar
zhiwiller
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:47 pm
Location: Central Florida
Contact:

Post by zhiwiller » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:31 pm

I'm a bit confused by these as I've no exposure to them. If you buy the 7% one, you get 7% of the average NAV for the past three years per year? So if the NAV stays flat over those three years, you get 7% and if it dips you get less?

Angst
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:31 am

Post by Angst » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:32 pm

From the prospectus, this caught my eye. A first for Vanguard, no?

"Commodity-Linked Investments. The Fund may allocate a portion of its assets to investments that create exposure to the total return of a diversified basket of exchange-traded futures contracts on physical commodities. Commodities include real assets such as agricultural products, livestock, precious and industrial metals, and energy products. Commodity futures prices have a historically low-to-negative correlation with the returns of the stock and bond markets. The Fund's commodity-linked investments may not be structured to conform to the composition, weighting, roll dates, reset dates, or contract months of any particular commodity futures market index. The Fund's commodity-linked investments may consist of any combination of commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, commodity-linked total return swaps, commodity-linked structured notes, and other commodity-linked instruments."

angie

User avatar
Ariel
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:17 am

Post by Ariel » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:44 pm

Very interesting development. It will be interesting to see how well the products work.

7% payout with capital preservation seems a pretty tall order if a bear comes around growling at the wrong time, no?
Do what you will, the capital is at hazard ... - Justice Samuel Putnam (1830), as quoted by John Bogle (1994)

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39791
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:52 pm

Ariel wrote:Very interesting development. It will be interesting to see how well the products work.

7% payout with capital preservation seems a pretty tall order if a bear comes around growling at the wrong time, no?
Seems impossible to me, unless I'm misunderstanding or missing something.

Assuming that "X%" means a withdrawal that begins at X% of principal and increases with the cost of living subsequently, The stuff I've been reading says: 3% is easy. 4% is the traditional rule-of-thumb, but even 4% that has far-from-negligible risk of running out. 5% is risky and 6% is very risky.

So something does not seem right.

I suspect that either a) that 7% payout is level and does not increase with the cost of living, or b) in practice it will turn out that the payouts from the fund fluctuate quite a bit.

Still sounds interesting, though.

User avatar
Ariel
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:17 am

Post by Ariel » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:01 pm

zhiwiller wrote:I'm a bit confused by these as I've no exposure to them. If you buy the 7% one, you get 7% of the average NAV for the past three years per year? So if the NAV stays flat over those three years, you get 7% and if it dips you get less?
My quick take, based on skimming prospectus: Yes, if the NAV dips, then so does one's payout. Except Vanguard aims (eventually) to base the payout on a moving three-year average. And payout may include return of capital, as is clearly stated in prospectus.
Do what you will, the capital is at hazard ... - Justice Samuel Putnam (1830), as quoted by John Bogle (1994)

User avatar
Ariel
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:17 am

Post by Ariel » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:11 pm

nisiprius wrote:... I suspect that either a) that 7% payout is level and does not increase with the cost of living, or b) in practice it will turn out that the payouts from the fund fluctuate quite a bit. ...
Again, my quick take is that the 7% withdrawl rate does not presume a cost-of-living increase. By contrast, the 3% withdrawl fund aims to grow the payout even in real terms, while the 5% fund aims to sustain but not grow real purchasing power.

Following is excerpted from the article linked by joe8d:
Managed Payout Real Growth Fund ... for investors who seek a modest initial current payout, and wish to see their capital and payouts grow in real terms ... This fund is expected to sustain a managed distribution policy with a 3% annual distribution rate ...

Managed Payout Moderate Growth Fund ... for investors who want to balance their initial payout stream with maintaining the purchasing power of their future payouts and capital ... 5% annual distribution rate ...

Managed Payout Capital Preservation Fund ... investors who seek a higher payout level to satisfy current spending needs while preserving their capital over the long term ... expected to sustain a managed distribution policy with a 7% annual distribution ...
http://insurancenewsnet.com/ar....30b844acb3

EDIT: Table from prospectus, page 28, added that confirms above:
FUND LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE TARGET/1/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Growth Fund Average annual total returns exceeding inflation (CPI-U/2/) plus 5% over the long term
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderate Growth Fund Average annual total returns equal to inflation (CPI-U) plus 5% over the long term
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Preservation Fund Average annual total returns equal to 7% over the long term
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 The long-term performance targets do not guarantee or project the future performance of any Fund. The long-term performance targets should not be considered to represent actual Fund performance from the past or for the future. A Fund's actual future performance for any period of time may be higher or lower than the Fund's long-term performance target.

2 CPI-U represents the non-seasonally adjusted U.S. City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI-U is the benchmark the U.S. government uses to measure inflation for purposes of making adjustments to the principal amount of inflation-indexed bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury. CPI-U reflects no deduction for fees, expenses, or taxes.
Last edited by Ariel on Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do what you will, the capital is at hazard ... - Justice Samuel Putnam (1830), as quoted by John Bogle (1994)

User avatar
stratton
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Puget Sound

Post by stratton » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:12 pm

Here's the fun part from the prospectus:

Code: Select all

ASSET CLASS OR INVESTMENT                           VANGUARD FUND    ASSET ALLOCATION RANGE
                                                                          (MINIMUM-MAXIMUM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Stocks                         Total Stock Market Index Fund                 15%-35%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-U.S. Stocks                   FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund                 15%-35%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonds                                Total Bond Market Index Fund                  0%-25%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash                                        Market Liquidity Fund                  0%-20%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Neutral Investments                    Market Neutral Fund                  0%-25%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity-Linked Investments                       Not applicable                  0%-10%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflation-Linked Investments  Inflation-Protected Securities Fund                  0%-20%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Estate Investments                           REIT Index Fund                  0%-10%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like a combination of the Target Retirement and Life Strategy funds on steroids. Your own private little endowment or immediate annuity. If you want market neutral and commodities from Vanguard you'll have to buy them in this fund. Unless you can come up with the $250K minimum for the market neutral fund by itself.

Paul

Buckeye
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:08 pm

Post by Buckeye » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:04 pm

Didn't they just announce three new giant cap funds yesterday or the day before??

I can't seem to find any info on it though.

User avatar
Ariel
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:17 am

Post by Ariel » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:11 pm

Buckeye wrote:Didn't they just announce three new giant cap funds yesterday or the day before??
I can't seem to find any info on it though.
... different topic from thread but ...
Mega-cap funds announced on Vanguard's Financial Advisor's site:
https://institutional.vanguard.com/VGAp ... ilActivity
Do what you will, the capital is at hazard ... - Justice Samuel Putnam (1830), as quoted by John Bogle (1994)

thepommel
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:59 pm

Re: new VG fund

Post by thepommel » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:56 pm

Gregory wrote:VG is planning on introducing a new series of income funds.

" Each fund is structured to provide steady monthly payments without dipping into capital."

http://tinyurl.com/3xoz7d

Greg
I know it's mentioned in the article, but I had just seen earlier this week or late last week that Fido has launched similar lineup of funds... interesting developments.

Regards,

Pacific
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Lost in the middle of the Pacific

Post by Pacific » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:37 am

Paul said:
If you want market neutral and commodities from Vanguard you'll have to buy them in this fund. Unless you can come up with the $250K minimum for the market neutral fund by itself.
Not exactly, since the fund can have 0% of these assets in it.

This reminds me of Asset Allocation Fund.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39791
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:56 am

stratton wrote:Your own private little endowment or immediate annuity.
Just for the record: no individual investment plan can be equivalent to an immediate annuity. An immediate annuity pools the premiums of many people and redistributes unspent premiums from short-lived people in the form of payouts to longer-lived people. The payouts from an annuity come is the sum of three things: return of principal, income on investments, and the premiums of other annuitants.

An individual can't duplicate the third part of the equation, which is of course potentially a loss if you die young but a gain if you live a long time.

Furthermore, it comes into play at the exact time when any non-annuity "withdrawal strategy" becomes increasingly unstable, because the principal is shrinking (more and more rapidly!), and the amount of principal as you enter the closing laps is variable.

Finally, there's something I've don't get about these withdrawal strategies. Look at an article recently mentioned in this forum, typical of the genre. It discusses withdrawal strategies intended to last thirty years.

It's all well and good to say there is only one chance in ten that a 65-year-old male will live thirty years, but there's one chance in ten that he will, and surely running out of money at age 95 is just as serious as running out at age 85? (And surely one chance in ten is much higher than the risk of an insurance company failing to pay an annuity).

It seems to me that for these withdrawal strategies to be prudent, they need to be targeted to at least age 100... or, better, targeted to have 1/4 or 1/3 of the principal left after thirty years under worst-historical-case market conditions. Unfortunately, I don't think that yields the payout percentages people wish for.
Last edited by nisiprius on Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:19 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39791
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Do these funds do anything...

Post by nisiprius » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:57 am

Do these funds do anything you can't fairly easily do for yourself? Not that that's necessarily an objection to them, but it's a salient detail.

(Oh, tax management... of course... but virtually all of my assets are in tax-advantaged retirement accounts so that's not a concern...)

User avatar
mas
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:54 pm

Re: Do these funds do anything...

Post by mas » Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:49 am

nisiprius wrote:Do these funds do anything you can't fairly easily do for yourself?
Aside from quantitatively determined dynamic asset allocation, and possibly exposure to Vanguard's new market neutral fund (for small $ amounts), no. I'm dubious about both of those, but we will see. Maybe they have engineered the perfect retirement withdrawal vehicle.

The same can be said for target retirement funds, and I think that the audience is the same... Those who want simplicity, are hands off, and want someone else to manage their investments. Despite the popularity of this forum, we are vastly outnumbered.

prh2s
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

New funds

Post by prh2s » Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:56 am

It's possible to get results roughly similar to those of the "managed payout" funds simply by investing in balanced/TR funds, having the dividends reinvested, and setting up automatic withdrawals at a fixed percentage.

The problem with both fixed-percentage withdrawals from balanced funds and these new managed payout funds (at least as I understand them) is that they don't make a lot of sense in tax-deferred accounts—where you'll eventually have to take RMDs based on life expectancy, thus complicating the simple X%-per-year plan—and they aren't a tax-efficient way to invest in taxable accounts. The price of complete simplicity appears to me to be just too high.

The kinds of investments Vanguard's proposing for the new funds is another concern, at least for me.

Patrick

unclemick
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 am
Location: greater Kansas City

Post by unclemick » Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:15 am

Hmmm - perhaps I'm getting too old and sceptical?, cranky?, curmudgeony?

Bogle's admonition(on a different subject) jumps to mind: 'Nothing Fails Like Success.'

Perhaps I'll hurry up and wait on this one. I did buy the new kids of the recent Past - Bogle's 94 Book, then Lifestrategy moderate, and most recently Target Retirement.

Interesting though - eh?

heh heh heh - since I'm big time trad IRA it will be interesting to see how RMD fits in - in about 6 years in my case. :wink:

pkcrafter
Posts: 13749
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

New Funds

Post by pkcrafter » Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:36 am

And we haven't even talked about the market timing aspects of these funds :)

This is something you might do with some of your retirement money as it would tend to smooth out distributions vs portfolio volatility. It will probably be attractive to those who don't really want to commit to an immediate annuity but still want some stabilization.

Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.

prh2s
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

CCFs, market neutral funds, absolute return funds, etc.

Post by prh2s » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:00 am

I just finished reading the prospectus. Am I the only one who thinks that Vanguard has lost its bearings? Its mind? Its soul (as Bogle would say)? I never thought I'd see the day that a Vanguard prospectus would offer "Plain Talk About Short Sales" (LOL!). We've come a long way from "common sense" investing.

Patrick

xenial
Posts: 2671
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:36 am
Location: USA

Re: CCFs, market neutral funds, absolute return funds, etc.

Post by xenial » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:10 am

prh2s wrote:I just finished reading the prospectus. Am I the only one who thinks that Vanguard has lost its bearings? Its mind? Its soul (as Bogle would say)? I never thought I'd see the day that a Vanguard prospectus would offer "Plain Talk About Short Sales" (LOL!). We've come a long way from "common sense" investing.
Vanguard has offered un-Bogleheadish funds for a very long time, e.g., actively managed stock sector funds and the Asset Allocation Fund, which can jump entirely among stocks, bonds, and cash.

Best wishes,
Ken

prh2s
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: CCFs, market neutral funds, absolute return funds, etc.

Post by prh2s » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:22 am

Ken Schwartz wrote:Vanguard has offered un-Bogleheadish funds for a very long time, e.g., actively managed stock sector funds and the Asset Allocation Fund, which can jump entirely among stocks, bonds, and cash.
Yes, but I don't recall so many "un-Bogleheadish" things being offered all at once, in one fund. Here we've got commodity futures, a market neutral fund, and (eventually) an absolute return fund, together with an opportunistic asset allocation plan. And, unlike the sector funds, which Vanguard claimed were being marketed to sophisticated institutional investors who needed and knew how to use them, these new funds appear to be directed to individual investors who are just entering retirement and want a bit of help managing their cash flows. I think it's a significant departure from past practices.

Patrick

User avatar
alec
Posts: 3056
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:15 pm

Post by alec » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:36 am

I hope Jack doesn't need a new heart after hearing about these funds. 8)

xenial
Posts: 2671
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:36 am
Location: USA

Post by xenial » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:01 am

prh2s wrote:And, unlike the sector funds, which Vanguard claimed were being marketed to sophisticated institutional investors who needed and knew how to use them, these new funds appear to be directed to individual investors who are just entering retirement and want a bit of help managing their cash flows.
The Health Care, Energy, and Precious Metals & Mining funds are marketed to sophisticated institutional investors? I bet you're actually thinking of Vanguard's relatively new sector index funds.

Best wishes,
Ken

prh2s
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by prh2s » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:06 am

Ken Schwartz wrote:The Health Care, Energy, and Precious Metals & Mining funds are marketed to sophisticated institutional investors? I bet you're actually thinking of Vanguard's relatively new sector index funds.
Yes, I was thinking of the bevy of new sector funds launched in 2004, not the handful of old ones.

Patrick

User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
Posts: 3176
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Evolution:

Post by Barry Barnitz » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:08 am

Twenty five years ago, institutional endowment funds were investing in "exotic" investments such as international stocks and commercial real estate. Small retail investors had virtually no access to a diversified portfolio of these asset classes.

Eventually, endowment fund success with these asset classes led to commercial development of low cost retail access to these asset classes, and eventual acceptance of these asset classes by individual investors.

For over ten years, institutional endowment funds have had success investing in "exotic" alternate asset classes. As is typical, endowment success eventually trickles down to the retail level.

Significantly, Vanguard, as is usual for their paternalistic culture, is not yet giving small investors direct access to long/short , absolute return, or collateralized commodity futures as stand alone portfolios, but rather places them under the guiding hands of their quantitative index shop. Functionally, the small investor now has low cost access to an institutional Endowment Fund.

Twenty five years from now, your grandchildren will be investing differently than we do today, as investment vehicles and investment theory evolve.

Fifty years from now, our descendants will look back on us as investors, as we now look back at investors in the 1950's.

regards,
Additional administrative tasks: Financial Page affiliate blog; finiki the Canadian wiki; The Bogle Center for Financial Literacy site; Wiki Bogleheads® España.

User avatar
Kenster1
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:50 pm

Post by Kenster1 » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:20 pm

News alert -- Vanguard just filed a name change request to the SEC...

Vanguard is re-naming these portfolio funds to 'Yale-Endowment Strategic Payout Funds'












.....just kidding.... :lol:
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Any overconfidence in your ability, willingness and need to take risk may be hazardous to your health.

User avatar
Justin618
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:37 am
Location: accumulation phase

Post by Justin618 » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:03 pm

After quickly skimming the prospectus I have some initial thoughts:

Pros -
apparently 50/50 equity allocation to Dom/Intl equity (not including domestic market neutral fund)

access to commodities, reit, tips, market neutral fund in one package - amazing diversification for a $3000 investment (or whatever the minimum will be)

Cons -
Forced payouts - I am not sure if I see the rationale, under the prospectus distributions will be funded with dividends, interest, cap gains and return of capital.

Market Neutral fund up to 25% of asset allocation.

"The Funds do not have fixed asset allocations. The assets of each Fund are independently allocated based on the Fund's investment objective and long-term performance target. The exact proportion of each asset class or investment held by a Fund may change to reflect shifts in the advisor's risk and return expectations. "


The moving asset allocation might be a deal-breaker for me - the asset allocation fund ruined the life-strategy funds for me. Isn't it an inconsistent investment philosophy to believe in low cost indexing and still advocate shifting asset allocations based on "risk and return expectations"?

I'll wait and see on this one.

Justin
Last edited by Justin618 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenster1
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:50 pm

Post by Kenster1 » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:06 pm

Here comes the nouveau investing products from Vanguard...

'Active Investing with Index Funds' :shock:
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Any overconfidence in your ability, willingness and need to take risk may be hazardous to your health.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39791
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:32 pm

I'm torn: the stated "investment objectives" and "long-term performance target" of the Moderate Growth Fund are

a) exactly what I want

b) seem too good to be true

It certainly does simplify the investing life cycle, though. Two-stop shopping: put everything in the target date retirement fund until retirement, then in the managed payout fund thereafter. How long before they create a single fund that automatically switches from one to the other on the retirement date?

I feel a little cognitive dissonance between the phrase "capital preservation" and the phrase "moderate level of risk for the Fund."

And how do I feel about breaking the rule never to invest in anything I don't understand?

I need to sit down and work through the formula for calculating the monthly distribution and see if I understand what happens if the market does poorly.

If the market does well, the fund will meet all its goals and probably become very popular. If it doesn't, I assume--as I say I need to read the details and think them through, but I assume--that the fund's holders will both see their capital decline--it is only "preserved" in the "long run" and also see their monthly distributions decline.

I suspect a lot of retirees will be confused about this and have incorrect and optimistic expectations about what those numbers, like 5%, mean. The (draft) prospectus says clearly, of course, that "There is
no guarantee that the Fund will achieve its investment objective."

stebul
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by stebul » Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:27 pm

The baby boomers are beginning to retire. Most do not have traditional pensions. Many will like the idea of a stable monthly income that resembles a pension. Some will choose to annuitize their 401Ks.

I'm all for taking insurance companies out of the loop. If Vanguard can offer a product that comes close to an annuity without mortality expenses / fees, isn't that potentially a good option for many people who don't want to micromanage their own investments or worry about calculating safe withdrawl rates? Also the balance of the fund can be included in your estate -- no need to worry about losing money if you die right after you purchase an annuity. Cuts out one non-value added middleman.

I'm seeing quite a few pros here for many Americans.

User avatar
Dale_G
Posts: 3298
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Central Florida - on the grown up side of 82

Post by Dale_G » Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:29 pm

This is certainly an interesting development.

If I were to hold this fund it would be part of an IRA.

The dividends wouldn't mean much - they would simply be reinvested - and my RMDs wouldn't necessarily come from the Managed Payout fund.

I am presently 50% equities & 50% bonds. I might have to change to 45% equities, 45% bonds and 10% FS (financial stew).

I'll go back and read the prospectus again, but it appears to me that all three of the Payout funds will hold the same portfolio - and the only difference will be the payout rates. Correct?

Dale
Volatility is my friend

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39791
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius » Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:16 am

Dale_G wrote:The dividends wouldn't mean much - they would simply be reinvested - and my RMDs wouldn't necessarily come from the Managed Payout fund.
??? You're going to take a fund whose purpose is to provide payouts and reinvest the payouts? Not sure I understand your rationale.

User avatar
mas
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:54 pm

Post by mas » Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:50 am

Dale_G wrote:I'll go back and read the prospectus again, but it appears to me that all three of the Payout funds will hold the same portfolio - and the only difference will be the payout rates. Correct?
Hard to say, it looks like they will all conform to the same asset allocation ranges (if you can call it that). They may not actually end up with the same portfolio though.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39791
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Let's see if I've got it.

Post by nisiprius » Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:56 pm

I think I've got the fundamental proposition. Please critique my understanding. It goes something like this:

a) The fund managers invest in a bunch of real good stuff in a smart way, which, others in this forum tell me, resembles the way in which large universities manage their endowments. It uses some asset classes not readily accessible to small investors and therefore is not something any small investor could easily do for himself.

b) The fund calculates the experience of a hypothetical shareholder who buys 100 shares when the fund starts and holds them. If a real shareholder make a single initial buy, then holds, his experience will be in exact proportion to the hypothetical shareholder's: his number of shares and number of dollars will always equal C times the hypothetical shareholder's, where C is a constant, and the calculation used to determine the withdrawal rate could be made on his real account just as it is on the hypothetical account.

c) Each year the fund calculates the average balance in the hypothetical shareholder's account for the last three years, calculates 3%, 5%, or 7% of that value (depending on the fund) as the amount to be distributed for the upcoming year, and sets the monthly distribution accordingly.

The distribution is whatever the formula says it is, and what happens to the principal in the account is whatever happens to the principal.

The prospectus states goals, which are what the fund managers think will happen as a consequence of the distribution policy and of their ability to invest the funds. For the 3% rate, they think both the distributions and the undistributed fund value should grow faster than inflation. At 5%, they think the distribution and the undistributed fund value should keep up with inflation. At 7%, they think the distributions and remaining value should hold at a level dollar value.

The old rule of thumb is that an investor with a traditional asset allocation can draw down 4% to start, increasing with the cost of living subsequently, and expect to deplete his assets but have them last out thirty years. If I've got it, the "moderate" fund hopes to pay out 5% at the start and apparently have the principal and thus the distributions continue to increase at CPI-U. You get 20% more to spend and your nest egg keeps growing. Nice work! if you can get it.

There are two means by which returns get levelled or smoothed out, hopefully giving a smooth ride through a bear market.

1) The fund managers' ability to blend uncorrelated asset classes.

2) The three-year-averaging calculation used to calculate the distribution.

Consider the moderate or "5%" account, and again assume an investor who makes one lump-sum buy and then does nothing but take the distributions, thus paralleling the hypothetical investor used to calculate the distribution.

If the fund is doing well and growing rapidly, the amount distributed in a given year will be signficantly less than 5% of the account value. For example, if my account balance grows smoothly at 20% per year and shows a balance of $69444, $83333, $100,000, and $120,000 at the start of 2012, -3, -4, and -5 respectively, then my monthly withdrawals in 2015 will NOT be 5% of 120000/10000 = $500 a month. The average balance over the last three years is only $91728, so the monthly withdrawals will be only $382. A naïve investor who didn't read the prospectus might feel as if he were getting 3.8% rather than the expected 5%.

If the fund is doing poorly, the amount distributed will be more than 5% of the account value. For example, if we suppose the account now declines at 10% per year, so that the balance is 120000, 108000, 97200, 87420 at the start of 2015, -6, -7, and -8 respectively, then the average balance was $103337.17 and the monthly withdrawal will be $430 a month The naïve investor might feel pleased at getting 5.9% of $87420, instead of only 5%.

So, when the account value is growing, the three-year-averaging calculation effectively holds back a sort of rainy-day reserve and pays it out when the account value declines.

The three-year-averaging calculation doesn't seem like a bad idea, but of course it's the same thing any investor could use to decide on how much to withdraw from any portfolio.

(Something's nagging at the back of my mind. Does this averaging stabilize the fund? Or does it destabilize it? When the fund shrinks, the distribution calculates the distribution based on larger values from the past... so it distributes a larger percentage of the fund's actual current value... making it shrink faster than it would otherwise?)

The big question in my mind is what happens if it turns out that the goals are basically just a bit too ambitious. All of the funds, even the 7%, have a goal of capital preservation. If an investor puts in $100,000 and then lets it alone apart from accepting the withdrawals, and it is clear five years down the line that the number of dollars on the statement is inexorably shrinking and is down to $90,000, $80,000, $75,000, what happens? Everyone shrugs and says "well, it was just a goal?" Or the fund adjusts the formula and distributes less? Or what? I wonder.

unclemick
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 am
Location: greater Kansas City

Post by unclemick » Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:17 pm

They say - hmmm - well that didn't work - merge with another fund and remain silent.

Isn't that what the other guys do?

heh heh heh - if you believe in progress - maybe this will work. Hey I took a flyer on that 'Un-American' Index 500 in 1977. Still digesting TR here so I'll watch a while - BUT???

User avatar
Murray Boyd
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:00 pm

Post by Murray Boyd » Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:55 pm

This is a joke, right?

User avatar
Munir
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Managed Payout Funds

Post by Munir » Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:07 am

How can one obtain a copy of the prospectus for these funds? I called Vanguard, and the Flagship rep said they will mail it to me in December (!) since they are not currently available.

Munir

Akriel
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:57 pm

Post by Akriel » Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:13 am

A link to the preliminary prospectus for the Vanguard Managed Payout Funds was provided earlier in this thread. It was:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... ed485a.txt

Regards,
Akriel

User avatar
Munir
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Prospectus

Post by Munir » Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:07 pm

"A link to the preliminary prospectus for the Vanguard Managed Payout Funds was provided earlier in this thread. It was:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed....ed485a.txt

Regards,
Akriel"


Thanks, Akriel. When I had tried to access that web site earlier, I got an "error" message. Now it's functioning OK.

Munir

pollendoctor
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Vancouver, WA

It seems to be designed for rollovers

Post by pollendoctor » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:35 pm

This is structured to give retail investors access to institutional-type management. Now that your company isn't going to do it for you, Vanguard has decided to create a product that comes close.

This looks like this is designed for people to roll over their 401k in a lump sum, put it in one of the accounts, and spend the dividends as your retirement income.

If you think you (and spouse) will live only a few years, take the capital preservation or 7% option. Maybe someone in their 90s, or with chronic medical conditions. I would be nervous about being wrong here if there is no other backup.

If you think you will live a medium amount of time, pick the 5% option. Maybe a sprightly 80 year-old.

If you are 65, generally healthy, best take the 3% option.

I would think there are retirees who could mix the options to customize a withdrawal rate. Most should pick one, and stick with it.

Clearly, these funds would only be appropriate for someone who wants to set it and forget it. Some active management on an index base. It does look like there will be a separate management fee above what the underlying funds charge, but hopefully, this will be minimal.

I am not sure I would jump in, but the concepts are actually interesting.

BostonBogle
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:08 am

Post by BostonBogle » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:01 pm

it's the world we live in...everyone's trying to sell you something...even vanguard...like all the other mutual fund companies...coming up with new funds....all competing for the money boomers have to invest for the future financial security....seems if you are a true boglehead you should just ignore all the new funds and stick to the basic index funds of which there already seem to be too many. whatever....it's like cnbc....they give you the standard investment advice...establish a long term plan and ignore the "noise"...then they proceed to broadcast nothing but "noise" 24/7.

User avatar
zalzel
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:40 pm

Re: It seems to be designed for rollovers

Post by zalzel » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:39 pm

pollendoctor wrote: If you are 65, generally healthy, best take the 3% option.


That seems unnecessarily cautious. The funds appear to be well thought out, extraordinarily well diversified, and I expect will be managed very well with regard to taxes. If any portfolio offers the chance to draw 5% real income, it would be something a lot like this.
It does look like there will be a separate management fee above what the underlying funds charge, ... (snip).
Don't know about that. The e.r. of .34% includes exposure to a CFC and a long-short fund. I would also expect a lower cost share status in the future for larger holdings.

Rupe

User avatar
zalzel
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:40 pm

Post by zalzel » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:57 pm

BostonBogle wrote:seems if you are a true boglehead you should just ignore all the new funds and stick to the basic index funds of which there already seem to be too many.

With that attitude, someone who's been a "true boglehead (sic)" for more than 10 years would probably have the 500 rather than Total Stock Market Index, very little international, no TIPS, little or no REIT, and certainly no slice and dice or CFC...

No thanks...


Rupe

User avatar
mickeyd
Posts: 4770
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:19 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of South Texas

Post by mickeyd » Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:03 pm

With a .34 ER, this thing looks really gimmicky...exactly what my fellow boomers are waiting for.

No more need to do all of that managing and re balancing year after year, just dump your entire stash hear and live it up!.....aaaaaah you just caught me trying out a few new marketing ideas for this beauty.
Part-Owner of Texas | | “The CMH-the Cost Matters Hypothesis -is all that is needed to explain why indexing must and will work… Yes, it is that simple.” John C. Bogle

User avatar
mas
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:54 pm

Re: It seems to be designed for rollovers

Post by mas » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:02 am

zalzel wrote:... I would also expect a lower cost share status in the future for larger holdings...
Since it is structured as a fund of funds, I would not expect any other share classes.

Post Reply