Although I’m still decades away from Social Security, I see a constant stream of articles about the “best” time to start taking benefits. Often, you are told to delay claiming until age 70, as you will receive a more valuable, inflation-adjusted, government-guaranteed payout for the rest of your life. But if you have a spouse, it may be better for one of them to claim as early as possible, at age 62. There are many calculators out there – here is one free tool for Optimal Social Security Claiming Strategy.

Apart from the theoretically optimal, when do people actually start taking Social Security? Here is a chart from this Morningstar article (which otherwise includes a lot of speculation):

The three most popular times are:

• Age 62: As early as possible. Many people feel that they have little choice but to ask for the money the moment it is available. Some have health issues which change the odds against waiting. Some just want the bird in the hand now. Finally, this may be the mathematically optimal strategy for one member of a couple. Together, this makes ASAP the most popular choice by far.
• Age 66: “Full” retirement. Although there is nothing technically magical about the age 66, it is called “full retirement age” for people retiring in 2019. This is when you’ll get “100%” of your “full” benefits, and anything less is called a “benefit reduction” and anything more is called an “benefit increase”. I wonder if behavior would change if they changed their wording? They could, for example, also just call 62 the base age and call everything after that a benefit increase.
• Age 70: As late as possible. In order to decline “free” money from the government for 8 years, you must believe in your odds of having an average/above-average life expectancy and have enough financial assets to pay for your expenses during the wait. Less than 10% of people go this route. Your reward is a monthly benefit that is 33% higher than claiming at age 66, and 76% more than claiming at age 62. This increased income will also increase with inflation each year, and inflation-adjusted annuities are only sold by a few insurance companies and are quite expensive.

This matches my anecdotal experience from family and friends. Most people don’t consult a complicated calculator. They either take it as soon as they can for whatever reason, or they “follow the rules” and take it at the “full” retirement age. I’ll probably cough up the money for a calculator when the time comes.

Vanguard recently released a report on “How America Invests”, based on the 5 million households with Vanguard retail accounts (taxable and IRAs, not 401ks). It looked at investor behavior from 2015 through 2019, along with the first quarter of 2020, when there was a sharp market decline due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a lot of information packed inside, but here are a few quick takeaways.

The average portfolio of a Vanguard household. The averages seem reasonable, but I was a bit surprised that 16% of households are 100% bonds. Even if I was extremely conservative, I would still own something like 20% stocks to hedge against the risk of inflation and rising rates.

The typical Vanguard household holds a long-term, risk-taking portfolio that’s both diversified and balanced. The average portfolio consists of 63% equities (stocks), 16% fixed income (bonds), and 21% cash (short-term reserves). However, there are substantial differences in risk-taking across investors, with equity risk ranging from conservative to aggressive for investors with otherwise similar asset levels or ages. At the extremes, 16% of households hold no equities, while 22% hold very risky portfolios containing at least 98% equities.

Self-directed investor glide path vs. what Vanguard thinks is best. It is interesting to see what people actually own when they are self-directed, as compared to what Vanguard recommends in their Target-date Retirement Fund and their Vanguard Personal Advisory Services (VPAS) that charges an 0.30% annual fee.

This chart compares the asset allocation (% in stocks) of self-directed investors (blue line is median) against that of Vanguard target-date funds (red line). We see that there is a lot of variation amongst self-directed investors, but overall they do decrease their exposure over time like nearly all target-date funds. However, they don’t decrease it nearly as much as Vanguard’s target-date funds past the age of 65. (Click to enlarge.)

This chart compares the asset allocation (% in stocks) of self-directed investors (dark beige is median) against that of those being advised by Vanguard Personal Advisory Services (light blue line is median). Here, the recommended median asset allocation is much closer to that of the self-directed median. Comparing with the chart above, we see a gap betwewn VPAS and their own Target Retirement funds. Why are their target-date funds so much more conservative? (Click to enlarge.)

Mutual funds are still the most popular, but ETFs are gaining. Only 13% of Vanguard households hold any ETFs at all as of 2019, but that number is double that of 2015.

Younger investors tend to own index funds, while older investors still hold a lot of actively-managed funds. This chart tracks the usage of index funds/actively-managed funds/cash vs. age. I’m actually a little surprised at how much actively-managed funds are held by the older cohorts. Contrast this with the fact that roughly 2/3rd of Vanguard’s global assets under management are in their index funds/ETFs. (Click to enlarge.)

Vanguard account owners are not active traders! Over 75% of Vanguard households place zero trades per year. The Vanguard stereotype would probably be the polar opposite of the Robinhood stereotype. (As someone with the majority of their assets at Vanguard and only a small percentage in trading apps, I’m quite fine with that!) Check out this quote (emphasis mine):

Fewer than one-quarter of Vanguard households trade in any given year, and those that do typically only trade twice. Most traders’ behavior is consistent with rebalancing or is professionally advised.

During the COVID-19 market volatility, Vanguard households stayed boring and long-term focused. The quote below essentially says “they did nothing different”.

Twenty-two percent of households traded in the first half of 2020—a rate typical of trading for a full calendar year. Despite the increase in trading, less than 1% of households abandoned equities completely during the downturn, while just over 1% traded to extremely aggressive portfolios. The net result of the portfolio and market changes was a modest reduction in the average household equity allocation, from 63% to 62%.

If you have a workplace 401k/403b/457 retirement plan, there is probably a target-date fund (TDF) inside. TDFs provide a “set-and-forget” investment option that automatically adjusts the asset allocation over time as you move towards your target retirement age. A recent WSJ article The High Cost of Target-Date Funds (paywall?) and academic paper Off Target: On the Underperformance of Target-Date Funds reinforce many of the things that most “Bogleheads” and DIY index fund investors have known for a while:

• Some TDFs are low-cost, while others can have higher fees. Higher fees will likely result in lower performance over the long run.
• You can replicate a TDF by using low-cost index ETFs. This takes more work, but increases your odds of higher returns at the same level of risk.
• The paper found an average fee difference of 0.33% annually if you replicate with ETFs. The actual average performance difference found was closer to 1% annually, due to other factors like cash drag and poor active timing.

The Fidelity Freedom 2030 fund was used as the example of an expensive, overly-complex fund. Vanguard ETFs are used as the example of low-cost index ETF building blocks. Here is their example of a possible real-world difference in returns:

To add concreteness to our analysis, consider a hypothetical married couple, Ross and Rachel, in March 2006. Ross and Rachel are in their early 40s and expect to retire in 2030. As such, they put their 401(k) savings of $1MM into the Fidelity Freedom 2030 Fund (the largest TDF that holds both index funds and actively managed mutual funds). In December 2017, Ross and Rachel’s savings would have grown to just over $1.95MM. However, had Ross and Rachel replicated the Fidelity Freedom 2030 Fund using our RF, their saving would have grown to nearly $2.22MM, an outperformance of over $271K or 14%!

Now, you could focus on the $270,000 difference between the $1.95 million and $2.22 million ending balances. But don’t forget that the “bad option” still nearly doubled the $1 million into $1.95 million in the span of 11 years, all as the result of doing absolutely nothing after the initial investment. We should still appreciate that such an option is available to individuals and not take for granted the availability of public stock markets, mutual funds, and target-date funds even at 0.70% in fees annually.

(At the same time, we should be thankful for Jack Bogle, Vanguard, index funds, and all the people willing to move their money over the lower-cost option each year, as those flows have resulted in lower fees for everyone. We need to keep pressuring companies for lower costs, especially when we see little value-added.)

Should we expect everyone to manage their own ETF portfolios? Sure, it doesn’t take much *time* to DIY and rebalance annually but it does take some knowledge, experience, risk tolerance, and most importantly the ability to take repeated *action*. It doesn’t take that much time to create a simple will and testament either, but most people put that off every year as well. The unfortunate story of former Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh also included the lack of a will.

The average job tenure is now only 4.3 years. Therefore, a good middle ground might be to stay in whatever TDF fund is available in your employer plan, but when you switch jobs, immediately roll it over to an IRA and then invest it into a low-cost TDF with automatic dividend reinvestment. Instead of an ongoing series of actions, it’s a one-time action. I have recommended the Vanguard IRA and the Vanguard Target Retirement series to my family. There is still some paperwork, but once it is completed, you are “set-and-forget” until retirement with a low-cost option that should keep up with the industry’s best practices.

I still build and maintain my own portfolio of low-cost index funds, and I enjoy the ability to know and control what I own. However, I also appreciate the value of TDFs a little bit more each year. One reason for this is the amount of effort that it took to get my parent’s to move over their retirement funds to Vanguard from a more expensive, complex option. They just kept putting it off. I can’t imagine them having to manage and rebalance even a few funds. There is an enormous difference between “good enough but done” for most and “optimal if you do XYZ”.

You can run the ticker symbol of your TDF through Morningstar to check its annual expenses and portfolio contents. The good news is that each year there are fewer bad ones, and most are at least mediocre these days. See also: Morningstar Target Date Retirement Fund Rankings 2020: Not All The Same

Allan Roth is one of the financial planners whose independent opinions I have come to respect, and he shares seven takeaways from 40 years of financial planning. Financial Planning is an industry trade magazine targeted at (obviously) professional financial planners, but many of the articles are quite useful for DIY investors as well.

Read the article first, but here are my personal interpretations of his lessons (not his words):

• A solid income and frugality both matter, but either one is not enough. He’s advised a high-income doctor with a net worth smaller than an emergency fund, and a 10X millionaire who is still afraid to spend their money. Both needed help.
• Many people overestimate their ability to handle real-world risk. He has seen firsthand how clients answer the theoretical, as compared to how they later react during a real-world market crisis. Same idea as how paper trading is not real trading.
• Indexing and low fees = higher returns. Some things take time to work out, especially when billions are spent on marketing against it.
• You can’t predict the future. Other people can’t predict the future. Market cap indexing means that you will own the winners, many of which will be companies that don’t even exist today. Own bonds for safety, and accept whatever yield there is. You can’t predict rates either. The problem is that someone will always get it right any given time, and they’ll be loud about it.
• The CFP designation doesn’t mean much (good or bad). CFP wants to be the gold standard for a professional financial planners, but they don’t do enough to put the clients first. It just means they have a minimum level of education, 2 years of industry experience, and chose to pay the annual dues that year. You could be a great planner without being a CFP, or a bad planner with multiple complaints and still be a CFP.
• Financial planners provide the greatest value in: “real planning, improving tax-efficiency, behavioral coaching, and insurance analysis.” That means this stuff is harder and often benefits from an outside perspective. Note that this list excludes stock-picking and market-timing.