Recent posts by John Ameriks
John Ameriks leads Vanguard's Investment Counseling & Research group, which provides portfolio recommendations along with topical commentary and investment counseling.
The issues aren’t quite the same as those one faces when considering the deepest aspects of personal faith and religious doctrine, but a “Roth conversion” can pose some difficult issues for investors nonetheless. And we’re going to hear much more about this going forward because of a scheduled change in the law: Unless something unexpected happens in D.C., come 2010 there will no longer be income limits on Roth IRA conversions.
There will be a lot written on the issue of whether one should convert or not, as well as endless articles describing all kinds of “strategies” to potentially leverage the change (some legitimate and others more questionable). For me, three things are important in considering this kind of “conversion”:
Jeremy Siegel has a recent piece in the Financial Times that restates his view that stocks are the most appropriate investment for investors with a long horizon. I wonder how most of you look at this issue, especially after the recent market gyrations.
Are you still listening to Professor Siegel, or did you shred his book along with your fund statements from last year? I’d love to know how many of you agree with that view, and if your investment strategy reflects it.
I’m a little tired of reading about how “buy and hold” is dead, and diversification doesn’t work, and how “target-date funds don’t work,” and that there was too much risk, especially for pre-retirees, in these balanced funds. These stories seem to continue regardless of what’s going on in the real world.
So I won’t discuss much. Instead, here’s some math.
In 1976, Vanguard launched its 500 Index Fund, making it the first index mutual fund available to non-institutional investors. The creation of an index fund intended for individual investors was an important salvo in the now long-running battle over which investing approach—active or passive—is superior.
This is a 35-year-old fight (at least) that I certainly don’t think I can settle. But in discussions of the issue over the years, I’ve found that a few points are really critical, and often not appreciated by more casual participants.
I realize this will be about my third post on this issue, but the things people are writing about 401(k)s just get more and more absurd, and it’s tough to sit by and let this go unchallenged.
Now the editors of The New York Times are claiming that “Even with recent stock market upswings, account balances are roughly 25 percent lower than before the crash.”