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).

PERA: It’s Even Better Than You Think

pera

Most Colorado (public school) educators know that Colorado PERA is a “good” retirement program, especially compared to Social Security, but often they don’t know just how good it is. Fully exploring this topic is beyond the scope of this blog post, but let me briefly hit some of the highlights.

As part of SB 14-214, the the state of Colorado commissioned three independent studies of Colorado PERA, two of which are particularly relevant to this discussion. The Milliman Retirement Benefits Study, released in January of 2015, looked at how Colorado PERA’s benefits fit into the larger picture of total compensation, and was designed to evaluate the value of PERA compared to other retirement packages offered by other states and by private companies. The executive summary states,

The state’s total retirement compensation package is equivalent to 15.7% of pay (15.4% defined benefit and 0.3% retiree health), relative to the market median of 14.7% (combined sources: defined contribution, defined benefit, social security, and retiree health)

Basically, this says that as part of a total compensation package, Colorado PERA is just above the median benefit paid by states and private companies.

The second study, the Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company Plan Design Study is a bit more in-depth and relevant to this discussion. The purpose of this study was to compare Colorado PERA’s plan design and, specifically, the costs and effectiveness of PERA, as compared to other retirement plans offered in the public and private sectors (including the one that affects the most people, Social Security). Again, from the executive summary,

This study found that the current PERA Hybrid Plan is more efficient and uses dollars more effectively than the other types of plans in use today.

When the study was presented to the State of Colorado’s Legislative Audit Committee, GRS officials told members,

Colorado’s largest public employee pension system is the most efficient and effective a state could have.

Those are important pieces of background to know, especially when the legislature is in session and various bills are offered regarding PERA. But I want to point out some specific features of Colorado PERA that are particularly relevant to you from an investment and financial planning perspective.

Colorado PERA represents over 500,000 members which provides some significant advantages to you in terms of economies of scale and in terms of investment returns. Because PERA is so large, it is able to both invest at low cost and to invest in areas that are not available to you as an individual investor. Because they are a large, institutional investor, they are able to negotiate investment fees that are lower than what you can typically achieve on your own. They can also invest in areas such as real estate and private equity that are not available to you as an individual investor. Both of these help PERA achieve higher returns (at the same level of risk) than most individual investors.

Perhaps even more importantly, however, is the fact that PERA is the ultimate long-term investor. As an individual, you have a “life-cycle” to your investments. Typically as you get older and then eventually when you are retired, conventional wisdom indicates that you should get more conservative with your investments because you don’t have time to “recover” from a market downturn. But because PERA pools money from over 500,000 members, and because they are essentially investing in perpetuity, in many ways PERA can invest like each one of those investors is an unchanging 35-year old.

While PERA does have to deal with cash flow issues in order to pay benefits, and they certainly have to manage risk and particularly be concerned with sequence-of-returns risk, overall they can truly invest for the long term. Which means that even as you get older, PERA doesn’t have to adjust its investments based on your age, they continue to invest as if you were 35. This allows them to stay fully invested for the long-term at an appropriate level of risk that will generate good long-term returns.

In addition, once you do retire and start drawing your PERA benefits, those benefits are guaranteed for life, including a 2% annual increase to help cover inflation. (Note: that 2% applies to those hired before 2007, and can temporarily decrease following calendar years that PERA investments lose money, which does happen, but not that frequently. For those hired after 2007, it could also be 2%, but it’s a bit more complicated.) Let’s use a specific example to put that into perspective.

The median PERA retiree earns about $35,000 per year in benefits. There’s a rule-of-thumb in financial planning circles called the 4% rule which says that, based on historical results, people can typically withdraw 4% of their investment balance each year to live on and still expect their money to last until they die. While not perfect, the 4% rule is pretty robust, which means that the $35,000 per year in our example equates to about $875,000 in savings. Many career educators will likely qualify for a much higher benefit, maybe $55,000 a year or more, which equates to $1.375 million in savings.

Now, this is a very rough equivalency, as an investment balance using the 4% withdrawal rule has a decent chance of actually growing over time, which means you could leave a healthy inheritance, while your pension income ends when you die (or when your beneficiary dies if you take Option 2 or 3). But I think it still gives you a rough idea of the incredible value of your PERA pension. It really does allow teachers to become millionaires by the time they retire (and multi-millionaires if you invest your own savings wisely).

There’s one other important aspect of this that I think many Colorado educators may not notice. Because this pension income is guaranteed, in many ways you can think of your PERA pension as the fixed income (bonds) portion of your portfolio. This means you can invest your other retirement savings (401k/403b/457 – I’ll write a post soon on retirement savings plans) more aggressively than folks who don’t have a pension plan like PERA, which can ultimately generate a lot of increased wealth and therefore financial security. (I will write a post soon on investment “risk” and how “aggressive” investments are not necessarily more risky for the long-term investor.)

This is one of the main reasons why I think it’s unfortunate that many Colorado educators don’t really start thinking about PERA until they are close to retirement. In reality, the fact that you have PERA as your retirement plan should affect your financial planning from the first day you begin PERA-covered employment. (This is also one of the reasons I decided to start Fisch Financial – after talking with colleagues over the years about PERA, I realized how little many of them have thought about how PERA should affect their financial planning.)

So, how good is PERA? It’s great in-and-of-itself, but it also allows you to be more successful with the rest of your investments as well. Please consider incorporating the affordances that your PERA benefit allows you in the rest of your financial planning.