New Here? Get the Free Newsletter

Oblivious Investor offers a free newsletter providing tips on low-maintenance investing, taxes, and retirement planning. Join over 13,000 email subscribers:

Articles are published Monday and Friday. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Vanguard Increases International Allocation to Target Retirement and LifeStrategy Funds

A few readers have asked what I think about the recent announcement that Vanguard will be increasing the international allocation in the Target Retirement and LifeStrategy funds. (In case you missed the announcement: The international equity allocation will increase from 30% to 40%, and the international bond allocation will increase from 20% of nominal fixed-income to 30% of nominal fixed income.)

Is Increasing International Allocation a Good Idea?

The most important part of the answer is that I don’t have any strong opinion about the merits of the change itself. We’re talking about 10% of the portfolio (or less, in some cases). And the change isn’t even from stocks to bonds or vice versa. It’s just from domestic to international. In other words, I don’t expect it to have a particularly large effect.

I’m not thrilled about the bond change, because I’m not especially enamored with the Total International Bond Index Fund. It has a higher expense ratio than the Total Bond Market II Index Fund (0.23% rather than 0.12%). And, despite having more interest rate risk (due to an average duration of 7.3 years rather than 5.6) and more credit risk, it has a significantly lower yield (as of this writing, 0.81% as opposed to 1.94%).

As far as the stock change, it doesn’t bother me. Back when I used a DIY allocation, I used a 55/45 domestic/international split. Also, while I am not the type to make tactical asset allocation changes, with Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund having underperformed Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund so heavily over the last 5 years (6.53% annualized return as opposed to 16.26%), if there was ever a time to move more heavily to international stocks, now would seem to be it.

In other words, I’m slightly happy about one aspect of the change and slightly unhappy about the other aspect of the change. But, again, I wouldn’t expect the overall effect to be a big deal. It’s a modest change to a small part of the portfolio.

But I Wish They’d Stop Tinkering

The thing that I most dislike about the change is simply the fact that it’s a change. A big part of the reason that I hold a LifeStrategy fund is to counteract my temptation to tinker — to make it easy to buy and hold a given asset allocation. But, unfortunately, the portfolio is being tinkered with, even if I’m not the one doing it.

That said, to Vanguard’s credit, they’re open about that fact. For example, back in 2012, in an interview for Oblivious Investor readers, Vanguard’s John Ameriks made the following statement:

In terms of changes to target date, it’s important to say that we do expect these portfolios to evolve over time. We are going to continue to do research. We are looking at these things on an ongoing basis and doing formal updates of our analysis around the glide path. We look at it a lot. But that doesn’t mean we’re going to change it.


At this point, there are no specific plans to make changes to the target date funds. But I would make sure that everyone understands that it is not something that we set and forget. We’re constantly looking for ways to either improve diversification or reduce costs or provide a better fit for the shareholders. So people should expect some evolution over time.

What will not change is the philosophy: that it should be easy for every investor to understand what’s going on in those funds.

In other words, I do not love the fact that Vanguard changes the Target Retirement and LifeStrategy portfolios from time to time, but I can’t claim to be surprised that it happens.

Investing Blog Roundup: Schwab “Intelligent Portfolios” Suddenly Less Exciting

For several months now, Schwab has been promoting their upcoming “Intelligent Portfolios” platform, which will offer automated rebalancing and tax-loss harvesting of a portfolio of ETFs. The big selling point is that there is no fee for the service, aside from the cost of the funds held in the portfolio.

Frankly, an automatically rebalanced portfolio of Schwab’s super low-cost ETFs sounds pretty darned neat to me. For lazy investors such as myself, such a thing could even be preferable to a low-cost Target Retirement or LifeStrategy fund from Vanguard.

Unfortunately, now that Schwab has released additional information, we can see that the service isn’t going to be nearly as exciting as it could have been. You don’t get to choose the portfolio. Schwab assesses your risk tolerance and puts you into one of a few portfolios that they’ve created. And those portfolios have (what I consider to be) two drawbacks:

  1. They include some higher-cost ETFs, and
  2. They include a mandatory cash holding (which will earn almost nothing).

The Finance Buff has more information:

Investing Articles

Other Money-Related Articles

Thanks for reading!

What Is Estate Planning, and Do I Need to Worry About It?

When I recently asked for suggestions of specific estate-planning-related topics to write about, one thing that immediately became clear is that many people aren’t entirely sure what estate planning is — and whether it’s something they should be thinking about.

To put it bluntly, estate planning is planning for your incapacitation or death — choosing, for example, what will happen to your financial assets, your minor children, and your health care in such situations. As you can imagine, that’s a pretty broad field, and almost everybody has at least some degree of estate planning that they should be doing.

At the simplest level, estate planning would include making sure that the beneficiary designations on your retirement accounts and insurance policies are up-to-date. (Remember, it’s the beneficiary designation that controls where the money goes, regardless of what you say in your will.)

A very basic level of estate planning would also include making sure that you have a will that accurately reflects your wishes for any other assets (i.e., assets that do not pass directly to a named beneficiary outside of the will).

At a more advanced level of estate planning, some people will benefit from creating a trust to serve any of several different purposes. In short, a trust is a legal entity to which you would give some of your assets. Those assets are then managed by a person or entity whom you name (the “trustee”), for the benefit of some other person(s) or entity.

A trust can be helpful, for example, if there is somebody to whom you wish to leave assets, yet who you do not think should be put in charge of managing those assets (e.g., because of a disability or because of a well-established history of poor financial decisions).

Alternatively, trusts can be helpful for people on their second marriage. For example, imagine that you want to leave your assets to your new spouse, but you want to be sure that any assets remaining after that spouse dies go to your children from your first marriage (rather than to that spouse’s children from his/her first marriage). In such a case, you could put the assets in a trust, naming your spouse as a beneficiary to receive income from those assets for the duration of his/her life, and naming your children as beneficiaries who will receive those assets after your spouse’s death.

For some people, estate planning involves engaging in various activities to minimize the effect of estate taxes. This is, however, not a concern for most people these days, given the size of the federal estate tax exemption: $5.43 million in 2015, twice that for married couples.

Estate planning also includes several topics that are not strictly of a financial nature, such as choosing a guardian who will care for your children in the event of your death, or granting a medical power of attorney to a trusted family member or friend, so that he/she can make health care decisions on your behalf if you become incapacitated.

Investing Blog Roundup: Staying Flexible with Retirement Withdrawals

There are many personal finance rules of thumb that can be helpful when developing a rough-draft retirement plan. However, as Darrow Kirkpatrick and Christine Benz remind us this week, following a given rule of thumb may not be the best approach. Kirkpatrick addresses the question of how much to spend per year, while Benz looks at which account(s) to spend from each year.

Investing Articles

Other Money-Related Articles

Thanks for reading!

Don’t Change Tax Plans Based on Presidential Budgets

A reader writes in, asking:

“I heard on the radio recently that Obama will be changing IRA rules so that Roth IRAs will require RMDs and so there will be a limit on IRA account size. Do you think this has a big effect on the decision of which type of account to contribute to?”

To be clear, these are proposed changes that were included in the Obama Administration’s budget for the 2016 fiscal year. Every year, the President is required to submit a budget to Congress. And every year, the budget includes a list of tax changes — the nature of which naturally varies depending upon whether a Democrat or Republican is in office.

A key point, however, is that the President does not actually have the power to implement such changes to existing law.** For such a change to take effect, somebody would have to introduce a bill in the House of Representatives, where it would ultimately have to be passed. And the Senate would have to pass it as well. Then the President comes into play by signing the bill into law (or, in some cases, refusing to do so).

So, what ultimately ends up happening with most tax-related proposals in presidential budgets? Nothing. Most never even get introduced as bills. And, of those that do, many never get anywhere near becoming law. This is especially true in situations such as we have today in which the President is of one party and both houses of Congress are controlled by the other party. In fact, some ideas (the limit on retirement account sizes, for instance) have been proposed repeatedly without ever going anywhere.

From a civic duty perspective, it may be worth following such proposals so that you can contact your elected representatives to let them know whether (and why) you do or do not support various tax changes.

But from a financial planning perspective, if nobody has even introduced a bill yet, it’s far too early to start making any changes to your tax planning.

That said, you don’t want to bet everything on the idea that nothing will change. Tax law does change over time, which is why “tax diversification” — having some money in tax-deferred accounts and some money in Roth accounts — is generally considered to be a good idea.

**The executive branch does have some power with regard to how existing law is applied. That is, in cases in which a particular provision in the tax law is ambiguous, the Treasury Department has some leeway in choosing how to administer the law. And then if taxpayers oppose the way in which the Treasury Department applies the law, the judicial branch (i.e., the courts) will ultimately get involved as well.

For More Information, See My Related Book:


Taxes Made Simple: Income Taxes Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Topics Covered in the Book:
  • The difference between deductions, exemptions, and credits,
  • Itemized deductions vs. the standard deduction,
  • Several money-saving deductions and credits and how to make sure you qualify for them,
  • Click here to see the full list.

A testimonial from a reader on Amazon:

"Very easy to read and is a perfect introduction for learning how to do your own taxes. Mike Piper does an excellent job of demystifying complex tax sections and he presents them in an enjoyable and easy to understand way. Highly recommended!"

Investing Blog Roundup: Nominating Jack Bogle for the Presidential Medal of Freedom

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian award given by the U.S. government. The idea is to recognize people who have made “especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” In the fields of economics/business, for instance, the award has been given to many people, including Warren Buffett, Daniel Kahneman, Sam Walton, and Milton Friedman.

This week, Phil DeMuth of Forbes made the case that John Bogle should be a candidate for such an award. Not only did Bogle create the first retail index fund, he created a financial services company that, by its structure, puts client interests first — because clients are essentially the shareholders.

Demuth writes:

“An American success story, Bogle inevitably became a millionaire. Here’s what his sacrifice meant he didn’t become: a multi-billionaire.  Bogle doesn’t own a private jet; he flies coach. It’s unlikely that you will read about future generations of Bogles becoming U.S. Senators or owning professional sports franchises. That money went into your pocket instead.”

Investing Articles

Thanks for reading!

Disclaimer: By using this site, you explicitly agree to its Terms of Use and agree not to hold Simple Subjects, LLC or any of its members liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information made available on this site. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information on this site is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

Copyright 2015 Simple Subjects, LLC - All rights reserved. To be clear: This means that, aside from small quotations, the material on this site may not be republished elsewhere without my express permission. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy