Vanguard has announced that they now support two-factor authentication via SMS text messages when logging into your financial accounts. There should be a little blurb when you log in, or after logging in you can navigate to “My Accounts > Account maintenance > Security code” to activate it.

I definitely appreciate the availability of two-factor authentication, although my actual usage depends on how often I have to use it and the importance of the account. Since my Vanguard accounts contain a significant chunk of my assets and I usually log in less than once a week, I enabled it immediately. Here are the highlights:

• If activated, you’ll receive a unique 6-digit code via text message that can only be used once to gain access to your account. The code will expire after 10 minutes.
• Security codes sent via e-mail, phone call or other methods are not supported. No future plans are mentioned.
• You can choose to receive a security code every time you log in, or only when Vanguard doesn’t recognize the device that you’re using. This can be a good compromise if you log in frequently from the same computer.
• You’ll still need your current user name and password. You may also need to answer your previous security questions like “high school mascot?” when calling Vanguard.
• Security codes work with Vanguard.com and their official mobile apps. They do not work with Vanguard.mobi.
• Two-factor authentication may conflict with financial aggregation tools such as Mint.com, Personal Capital, or Yodlee.

Also: TwoFactorAuth.org is a nifty website that tracks which financial websites (and other services) offer two-factor authentication.

Here another data point on the topic of adding international bonds to your portfolio. The AllianceBernstein Blog has post on how adjusting the US/Global mix of your bond asset allocation affects risk-adjusted returns:

Using data from 1994-2013, you can see some trends as you go from 100% US bonds to 50/50 to 100% International ex-US (hedged). As you add more international the historical return drops a little bit, but the volatility drops even more. Thus, the risk-adjusted return actually goes up (dotted-line). The author suggests a 50/50 US/non-US mix as a “realistic target”, while reminding you that if you do add international bond exposure it should be currency-hedged.

Also note the fine print that the chart measures the performance of an index, while international bond funds usually have higher fees in the real world. For example, the Vanguard Total International Bond ETF (BNDX) has an expense ratio of 0.20%, while the domestic Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) has an expense ratio of 0.08%. The gap is smaller that it used to be, but it still exists.

So it is a critical asset class to include? International bonds are the world’s largest asset class by market cap. Since 2013, Vanguard has included international bonds in their Target Date Retirement and LifeStrategy all-in-one mutual funds – currently 20% of the total bond allocation.

I’m still not convinced myself. I think there may be a benefit in a real-world portfolio, but it likely will be small and even smaller after the higher fund fees and internal trading costs. I just don’t feel the need for such added complexity. As the cost gap shrinks further, I will reconsider.

Inside this AllianceBernstein post about the more complex concepts of levering bonds and risk parity strategies, there was a reminder about simple portfolio construction. For a very long time now, holding both stocks and bonds has been considered a “balanced” portfolio. Why is this? Because stocks and bond returns tend to move in opposite directions.

This behavior can be summed up using the finance term Beta. The 5-year rolling average beta of the S&P 500 return to the 10-year US Treasury return has consistently ranged from negative 0.1 to negative 0.3 over the past decade. This means that when when stocks went up, bonds tended to go down (but not too far down). When stocks went down, bonds tended to go up (but not too far up).

Always good to have a reminder of the benefit of holding both stocks and bonds.

Since March 2009, the FTSE NAREIT All Equity index of US real estate stocks has has nearly quadrupled. When will the party end? Mathematically, we know that bond values will go down in general if interest rates rise. But how would rising interest rates affect future REIT performance?

Here are some articles that examine historical REIT performance relative to interest rates: A Wealth of Common Sense, AllianceBernstein Blog, and Altegris Whitepaper [pdf].

The TL;DR version is that based on historical data, an increase in interest rates will not necessarily hurt REIT prices. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn’t. Out of the seven past periods of rising interest rates, REIT performance was positive in four of them and sometimes they kicked butt. The average statistical correlation between REITs and bonds is very low. On top of that, the actual correlation oscillates from positive to negative. Sometimes REITs and rates move in the same direction, and sometimes they move in opposite directions.

Using predictions of future interest rates to further make predictions of future REIT performance seems doubly silly.

Here is a fairly balanced and informational Morningstar article about real estate investment trusts (REITs). Below are my notes and excerpts:

• Equity REITs are publicly traded companies that own and manage income-generating real estate properties. REITs are required to distribute at least 90% of their income to investors, which allows them to avoid paying corporate taxes. The bad news is that most of their distributions are taxed as ordinary income.
• In order to further improve diversification, investors can hold a portfolio of REITs through a low-cost fund, like the Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ). (This is how I hold my REITs, via the mutual fund equivalent VGSIX and VGSLX.)
• REITs represent about 3.6% of the CRSP US Total Market Index, which tracks the entire U.S. investable equity market on a market-weighted basis.
• Much like homeowners with mortgages, REITs buy properties using debt financing. This leverage amplifies both gains and losses in real estate values and increases share price volatility. In other words, REIT values will be a lot bumpier than just estimated your home’s resale value whenever a neighbor sells their house.
• From 1972 through September 2014, the FTSE NAREIT All Equity REITs Index generated a 12% annualized total return, while the S&P 500 posted 10.5%.
• Nearly two-thirds of the REIT index’s return from 1972-2014 came from distributions, which are largely derived from rental income. Investors should have modest expectations for capital gains.
• REITs have historically not been a good hedge against inflation in the short term. As noted, long-term returns are significantly above inflation.
• Current REIT valuations as of November 2014 are considered relatively high by traditional metrics.

Random fact: Did you know you can buy partial ownership of the Empire State Building in New York City via the Empire State Realty Trust (ticker ESRT)? You’d be collecting rent from some big name tenants. ESRT currently makes up about 0.17% of the Vanguard REIT Fund, so if you own VNQ you also own a tiny piece.

(Update 10/28: Schwab has indeed announced their free robo-advisory platform called Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, although it won’t actually start opening new accounts until Q1 2015 and not much new was leaked besides confirming that they will not charge any advisory fees, trading fees, or account fees. You’ll need $5,000 minimum to open, $50k minimum for tax-loss harvesting. Media coverage at Reuters, NYT.)

Original post below:

Speaking of robo-advisors, Reuters reports that discount brokerage Schwab is “weeks away” from announcing their own automated online portfolio management service similar to what is provided by Betterment, Wealthfront, and FutureAdvisor. This is big news because:

• Schwab is a well-recognized name brand in the financial industry and has their own army of affiliated financial advisors.
• This service will reportedly be free with no advisory fees, just the cost of underlying ETFs.
• Schwab has their own set of in-house index ETFs with very low fees. Their Core US Index ETF (SCHB) has an annual expense ratio of 0.04%. Their Core International Index ETF (SCHF) charges 0.08%. Their Core US Bond Index ETF (SCHZ) charges 0.06%, and US REIT Index ETF (SCHH) charges 0.07%. (full list)

Theoretically, this could mean you could get a managed ETF portfolio with automatic rebalancing for safely under 0.10% annually or 10 basis points, all-in. If that happens, that would certainly shake up the industry and perhaps light a fire under Vanguard to do something similar. Hopefully they don’t force you to own some of their more expensive niche ETFs. Vanguard Target Retirement Funds offer a diversified portfolio of index funds and internal rebalancing, but the average cost is 0.17% annually.

If the article is correct, it may be worth waiting to see what Schwab has to offer before opening a “robo-advisor” account elsewhere.