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.”
Each year in August we publish a compendium of statistics about 401(k) plans administered at Vanguard. As the report covers over 3 million American participants, it often generates a lot of interest from the media, policymakers, consultants, and employers. (You’re certainly welcome to read the entire book—please do!—but for the CliffsNotes version, just take a look at the executive summary.)
I recently participated in a live webcast attended by a number of Vanguard retirement plan participants. The topic was retirement investing, and questions came fast and furious. We answered as many as we could in our allotted 30 minutes.
One question we didn’t get to: What are the plusses and minuses of keeping money in a 401(k), as opposed to rolling over to an IRA? It’s unfortunate that we didn’t have time to discuss this, as it’s an important question, and the answer can vary depending on what’s going on in your life.
There’s been lots of talk since late last year about the plusses and minuses of financial engineering, including a debate (see blogs by Felix Salmon and Tyler Cowen) about the overall merits of various modern financial innovations. While it’s easy to pick on stuff like “NINJA” loans (No Income, No Job, No Assets) and various mortgage-backed securities as examples of financial innovations that we’d have been better off without, I think it would be foolish to let these mistakes convince us that we’d be better off going back to the barter system.
Of all the generally accepted investment concepts called into question by the recent market environment, it seems to me that rebalancing is pretty close to the top of the list.
During late 2008 and early 2009, rebalancing your portfolio to stay close to your asset allocation target would have been almost a daily ritual—and one that would have felt increasingly futile. Even if you’d stuck to an annual approach, closing the gap between your actual asset allocation and your target would have required strong nerves.
