Buffett recommends investing in index funds – but many of his employees can’t
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
This, for me, is the biggest issue with 401Ks - the lack of fund choices because the contributors are, in effect, a captive market. You have to change your job to change your 401K options.
This is just one aspect of a ridiculously complicated retirement saving system with separate rules for IRAs, Roth IRAs, Roth 401Ks (no idea what those are), self-employed 401Ks and who knows what else. Is it not possible the sheer complexity is a factor in turning people off retirement planning early in their career?
It also sets up a two-tier retirement and taxation system. Those lucky enough to work at employers that offer 401K plans are able to deduct $18k (and rising) from their taxes but everyone else can only deduct $5.5k (hasn't risen in the past 6 years) and a lucky few can contribute to both 401Ks and IRAs (but maybe not take deductions for both).
Don't even get me started on the backdoor IRA, 72t and all the other ludicrous shenanigans you have to go through if, by chance, you're a diligent saver who wants to stop working and access your retirement funds before turning 59.5.
Compare that to the Canadian RRSP system, where you can contribute 18% of your previous year's earnings tax-free up to a limit. And (I think) you can manage your own funds the way you want, take them to a different financial institution if you're not happy, etc.
But any separate contributions can be managed as you want, with some (broad) limits.
My understanding is that Canadian residents don't have the same number of low-cost index funds available to them as US residents. There's no Vanguard for individual investors, and no Schwab and Fidelity trying to compete with Vanguard's offerings.
That said, while I appreciate full control and low cost, it is a lot of rope and I do wish the system was simpler and less perilous for those who want to just dump money into something reliable and take it out when they retire. Any control at all is perilous given the track record of average investors vs the performance of the funds they go in and out of.
Article title:
"Warren Buffett recommends investing in index funds — but many of his employees don’t have that option"
"Buffett recommends index funds — many of his employees don’t have that option"
Wait, so they are complaining that there are only 10 vanguard low-fee funds as an option?
In many cases you may actually pay less in fees because you can get Institutional shares instead of Individual ones.
Even today, there's a good reason BRK is listed under insurance, not investment.
Second problem is that he is very, very much an activist investor. He doesn't buy shares, he buys 5% and up, and sometimes controlling interests. He invests enough that he is invited to talk to senior management before he even buys and bases investment decisions on what he hears mostly. That's his investment process. Sure, there's due diligence, but nobody reading this can do that !
I don't understand that the guy's an investment guru. Investment is a hobby for him at best, and it's not investment like you or I can do.
> He only started doing investments after that.
Not really, insurance came later, he became rich with his investments when he was 30.
> very much an activist investor.
Sometimes he, sometimes he is not.
> I don't understand that the guy's an investment guru
because when the banks or big hedge funds are in trouble, Buffett is called to bail them out.
1) the investing he does is not something you can do (it involves a lot more than just buying/selling shares, and without enough money you can't do it). So what does it matter if he's good at it ? What he does today and what he preaches are very different.
2) When it made the real difference to his wealth he did very, very different things than he is advising others today. He got very, very, very lucky when it mattered.
The real lesson from Buffett's career is. First, work VERY hard to get to a few hundred thousand dollars, then spend a ridiculous proportion (~33%) of it to buy 3 businesses. Work very hard to make them successful. Threaten, steal, ... as necessary (this is what a hostile takeover is of course). Very, very, very hard. And he failed on one of these businesses.
Three, use this success, as all billionaires did, Bill Gross, John Bogle, Kyle Bass, George Soros and indeed Warren Buffett, to convince your friends and family (doesn't work if you weren't born rich of course) to let you manage, say $100 million or so. Now play the hostile active investor game again, and again, and again. Buy yourself into management, and force management to put short-term stock price above all else BUT you can't "betray" your investment strategy (Buffett does that by holding back in his "central" investments, like KO). (I believe "central" is what he calls them)
Now look up, and find that all those billionaires had VERY different investment strategies and you will see that it's not the investments, nor the investment strategies, but rather the fees and assets under management, that mattered. I mean investments can boost them, or slow them down, so they matter.
The investment messages:
Warren Buffett : value investing (cfr. Benjamin Graham) (Note: value investing has been shown to not match market performance, at this point for decades, but of course Buffett is already a billionaire activist investor. HE of course makes his money insuring large projects, a game only open to people with the deepest of pockets, (almost entirely) not through value investing)
Bill Gross: governments will keep cheating the public on interest rates (he defended making a bet on secular stagnation and keep adding to that bet for 25 years ... and he was right) (Again, he's changed his mind, but he's already a billionnaire)
George Soros: essentially same bet as Bill Gross. More sordid, in that he did not just wait for governments to screw up the economy but in several cases sabotaged government economic policies for profit.
Kyle Bass: Also more or less the same bet as Bill Gross, but focused on the central bet that the US housing policy was going to crash in the 2008 crisis. He's famous for being too quick on the draw, and it's cost him. He's been right very often though.
John Bogle: essentially bet that there is no signal in the market, except in obvious cases (ie. that even the very weak efficient market hypothesis is wrong and that the market moves as a whole, and you should invest with him). Never mind that if Bogle is correct then a rebalancing strategy should make much more profit than Bogle's products.
Personally, I've never seen a 401k that lacked an index fund option. I'm sure they exist, but I highly doubt it's the norm.
One little law requiring company benefit managers to act as fiduciaries w.r.t. retirement plans would end this silliness right quick though.
Luckily, after a few years, they finally enabled a brokerage account option, which allows me to purchase index funds (of the iShares type) at low ERs..
You must be lucky, because I don't think my experience is all that rare.
(I've gone through Charles Schwab's account signup) Charles Schwab, for example, has minimum amounts for opening an account; IIRC, it's $5k. There's also ~200 pages of legal agreements to wade through. (But everyone just blindly accepts those, right? So that "doesn't count" /s) It also has tax implications.
It's also not a guaranteed thing that these accounts will make money, and I wouldn't be surprised if that uncertainty affects people's decisions.
Berkshire Hathaway is a conglomerate owning a wide variety of businesses. Not every employee working there is a finance whiz.