Fees Matter: Vanguard, PERA, TIAA and MetLife Comparison

Inspired by some of the work Ben Johnson has been doing, I decided to revisit two posts I’ve previously done on the retirement plans (401k/403b/457) available through Littleton Public Schools and Douglas County Public Schools. (Note that the expense ratios are slightly lower now than when I wrote those posts.)

It’s probably worth reading at least one of those posts for context, but I basically compared the fees you would pay for investing in PERA’s 401k/457 plan with those you would pay in the other vendor offered (TIAA for LPS, MetLife for DCSD). In this post I thought I’d take that a step further by showing the compounded effects of those fees over time, as well as throw in a comparison to an IRA at Vanguard.

Important note: IRA’s have much lower contribution limits than 401k/403b/457 ($6,000 vs. $19,500 if you are under the age of 50), so you can invest much more each year into your workplace plans. And there are also income limitations on whether you can contribute to an IRA, whereas there are no income limitations on 401k/403b/457 plans. And don’t forget the behavioral aspect – some folks need to have the money taken directly from their paycheck otherwise they won’t ever end up investing it.

So I created this spreadsheet to illustrate the impact of fees over time. Like all spreadsheets of this nature, it is based on many assumptions and those assumptions may be incorrect. Feel free to make a copy of the spreadsheet and change any of the assumptions you wish. For example, for the return on different asset classes, I put in the long-term compounded average return, but many folks think those will be lower in the future, so feel free to adjust. You also can adjust your asset mix between the different asset classes (I kept it fairly simple by limiting to US Large Cap Stocks, US Small/Mid Cap Stocks, International Stocks, US Bonds, and a Target Date fund choice.) Make sure the asset allocation mix adds up to 100%!

You can also change the initial amount you have invested (currently $0 in my examples) and the amount you are adding to your investment each year (currently $6,000 in my examples). You should not change the fees charged by Vanguard, PERA, TIAA or MetLife (unless you are reading this enough in the future that those have changed as well), nor the columns that keep track of your running totals with each vendor. Note that the fees for each are based on the lowest-cost fund offered within each asset class with each vendor.

You can change any of the numbers that are in cells with a purple outline, leave the rest alone.

So, let’s look at some selected results. First, what if you had an aggressive, all-equity allocation of 40% Large Cap, 30% Small/Mid Cap and 30% International? This is what it look like after 10 years:

As you can see, investing at Vanguard is going to get you the best overall return, and investing with PERA is going to be a better choice than either TIAA (LPS) or MetLife (DCSD).

How about after 30 years?

Wow. You’d have over $110,000 more in Vanguard than with MetLife, and over $90,000 more if you choose PERA over MetLife. And if you take it out to 50 years (think starting when you are 22 and not withdrawing until age 72 when you have to start taking Required Minimum Distributions):

Almost $1.5 million more in Vanguard than in MetLife, $1.2 million more with PERA than MetLife. (Note that these numbers get even further apart with contributions that are greater than $6,000 per year, although the percentage differences will be the same.)

Okay, well what if you just chose a Target Date fund (which is the default option in your 401k/403b/457 plans, and a good, simple choice for lots of folks) and put 100% of your money into that? Here’s after 10 years:

Note that here PERA is actually ahead of Vanguard due to the lower expense ratios on their Target Date funds, but both Vanguard and PERA are still doing much better than TIAA or MetLife.

30 years?

50 years?

Play around with the assumptions in the spreadsheet, including the asset mix that most closely reflects your desired asset allocation. But no matter what mix you choose, Vanguard and PERA will come out the best (usually Vanguard as the best, with PERA only if you go with just a Target Date fund). TIAA will come in a distant third, and MetLife a very distant last place. (And keep in mind that the negotiated fees with TIAA and MetLife are actually pretty good compared to many folks’ 403b choices around the country.)

And yet many employees in LPS and DCSD choose TIAA and MetLife. Why? Perhaps because a sales rep contacted them and was kind, concerned, and “helpful”. Perhaps because they think they can choose investments and “beat the market”. Or perhaps they just chose without much knowledge.

So, now that you know a bit more, what changes might you make with your investments? In general, if your adjusted gross income is not too high (varies depending on Traditional vs. Roth, and increases slightly each year), opening up an IRA at Vanguard is going to be your best choice to fund first (this is assuming you are disciplined enough to invest the money when it doesn’t come directly out of your paycheck).

If you max that out (remember, IRA’s have much lower contribution limits each year), then fund your PERA 401k or 457 next. In LPS, I would choose the 457 over the 401k, as it’s a bit easier to access the money before age 59.5 (unfortunately, DCSD has not chosen to offer the PERA 457), but otherwise the 401k and 457 are essentially the same.

If you are able to max out your personal IRA and your 401k or 457, then you can invest in the one you haven’t yet, as the 401k and 457 are different “buckets” and they each have their own, separate contribution limit (note that the 401k and 403b draw from the same contribution “bucket”). This means that in 2021 if you are under the age of 50 (if your income isn’t so high that you can’t contribute to an IRA), you can contribute up to $6,000 to an IRA, $19,500 to a 457, and another $19,500 to a 401k, for a total of $45,000. If you are 50 or older, you get “catch up” contributions, which gives you an extra $1,000 for your IRA and $6,500 for both the 401k and 457, for a total of $59,000. (And, depending your plan, there may be special catch up contribution provisions in your last 3 years of work that can let you contribute even more.) Keep in mind that for all of these you have the option of doing a Traditional (pre-tax) contribution or a Roth (post-tax) contribution, which is a complicated and entirely different conversation.

As always, feel free to reach out with questions (or comment below).

Working Teens and Roth IRAs

Summary: If you have a teenager with a job, opening a Roth IRA for them is really good idea from both a learning and a financial perspective.

roth

Our daughter is 17 and has had a part-time job for a little over a year. She makes minimum wage and probably works about 8 hours a week on average during the school year, and a bit more during breaks if we are in town. (Ironically, this summer she’s interning at a summer camp, which means she’s working full-time but making less.) While I think it’s safe to say that not many 17-year-olds are thinking much about retirement, ours is (well, at least she is when I make her :-).

As a result, as soon as she received her first paycheck, she opened a Roth IRA via Vanguard (since she’s not yet 18, it’s a custodial account, but will become completely hers once she turns 18). Why in the world would we do that? Simple, because it’s a fantastic opportunity for her to learn about finances and planning ahead, and also because it’s an incredibly smart move financially for her to do this now.

If you aren’t familiar with Roth IRAs, they allow you to put money (earned income up to $5500 per year for those under 50) in post-tax (so you don’t get an immediate tax deduction like regular IRAs or 401ks). That money then grows tax-free (like a regular IRA or 401k) but then, and this is key, upon withdrawal is also tax free. That means for my daughter, and most teens working part-time like her, this money is never, ever taxed because she doesn’t make enough in a year right now to owe state or federal taxes.

In 2016 she earned a total of $1651 and contributed the same amount to her Roth IRA. In 2017 so far she has earned $2133 and contributed that to her Roth IRA. With some investment gains, her current balance is about $4000. She’s invested in a low-cost Vanguard Index ETF because since she started with $0 she didn’t meet the $3000 minimum for the index mutual fund, and the ETF allows you to buy individual shares at whatever the current cost is. We’ll wait until she surpasses $10,000 so that she qualifies for the low-cost admiral fund and then probably move it over into the mutual fund version (same expense ratio as the ETF, but a little less hassle on our part to invest).

So why is this an “incredibly smart move financially”? In a word (okay, two words): compound interest. If she continues to work about the same amount between now and August 2018 (she graduates in May 2018 and will probably be going to college in the fall), she will have invested somewhere around $7,500 in her Roth IRA. Including the investment gains she’s had so far and assuming a bit of a gain in the next year, let’s call it $8,000 at the point she starts college.

Now she’s likely to work part-time in college, and eventually she will begin full-time work, at which point she will most likely add a 401k to her retirement savings plan and she may or may not continue to contribute to a Roth IRA depending on the circumstances. For the moment, let’s assume she never contributed another dollar to her Roth IRA for the rest of her life, let’s explore what happens.

Well, predictions are just that, predictions, but we can do some decent estimates based on historical results. The stock market has typically returned over 10% a year on average for a long time (and small-cap value, what our daughter is invested in, is even a bit higher), but most folks think that at least in the short term (the next 10 years or so), those returns will be muted a bit. So for demonstration purposes, we’ll use 8% returns (feel free to substitute in a lower or higher amount if you want). So if she has $8,000 invested in her Roth IRA at age 18, doesn’t invest another dollar for the the rest of her life, and “retires” (whatever that will mean at that point) at age 68, how much money will she have? Over $375,000.

That’s fantastic, considering it’s totally tax free and it came simply from the part-time jobs she worked while in high school. But it also overstates it a bit, as those are not today’s dollars, but 2068 dollars, which means you have to take into account inflation. We’ll assume inflation of 3%. Historically inflation has averaged 3.5%, but it’s been lower lately, and governments try harder now to manage that rate, so lots of folks think it will be lower going forward (that’s also part of the reason that the expectation is that stocks will earn lower than 10% going forward as well). So, in reality, what we’re calculating here is a 5% real return after inflation (8% nominal return minus 3% inflation). That amounts to over $91,000 in today’s dollars. That may not sound quite as impressive, but keep in mind that’s assuming no additional investments after she graduates from high school, and that money is completely tax free. (That’s also likely more than a lot of the adults reading this post currently have saved in their retirement account.)

This entire scenario assumes, of course, that the teen can afford to invest this money. Many teens have to work to help support their family day-to-day, so this unfortunately isn’t an option for them. Ours doesn’t have to help support the family, so this is another advantage of us being financially secure – we can not only help our daughter learn about saving, investing, financial planning and retirement planning, but we can give her a head-start on her savings and investing. If your family is in a similar position, I highly recommend you consider this option and, if you choose to work with me, this is something we will investigate.

photo credit