We were driving to Whistler last weekend and out of the blue my wife Lori said "it's RSP season and you still haven't written that column." It took me a minute to clue in, but what she was referring to was a piece she wanted me to write about a Financial Facelift column we'd seen last summer in The Globe and Mail (Aug. 12).
Lori got really worked up about this particular column because she just couldn't believe that someone could get themselves into the situation the Canmore couple found themselves in. The featured couple had registered retirement savings plans totalling $170,000 that were spread across 29 mutual funds. "Twenty-nine funds. How does that happen? What were they thinking? Where was their adviser through all of this? Tom, when are you going to do a column about this?"
Because I didn't have any other brilliant ideas for a column this week and do value my marriage, I thought I'd give it a go.
Holding 29 funds is ridiculous whether you're investing $170,000 or a million dollars. It demonstrates that you don't have a financial plan. There's no focus and certainly no commitment to the funds you own. If you're not willing to add money to a core group of funds (five to 10), then why do you own them?
Owning this many funds also makes it difficult to figure out what your asset mix is. It becomes a major project every time you want to figure out whether you're still on plan.
But more than anything, owning 29 mutual funds means you're seriously overdiversified. A little math would be useful here. Let's assume that 20 of the 29 funds are equity funds and, on average, these funds own 60 stocks. We have to assume that there are lots of stocks that are owned by more than one fund. In the case of Canadian equity funds, the overlap may be as high as 60 to 70 per cent between some funds. Indeed, it is conceivable that you own Royal Bank or Manulife in 10 to 15 funds.
If we assume that there were 45 unique stocks per fund, that's 900 stocks plus the ones that showed up in multiple funds. Let's say you own 1,000 stocks. What you really own is a very expensive index fund.
Through exchange-traded funds (ETFs) you could get the same market exposure for an average fee of 0.25 to 0.3 per cent a year on their management expense ratios. I hazard a guess that the couple in the article were paying in the neighbourhood of 2.5 per cent. It is no wonder they were disappointed with their mutual fund returns.
How does this happen? I don't really know, but I imagine it is a combination of things.
Each RRSP season has its own themes. While foreign funds are the dominant sellers one year, it could be tech funds the next and clone, income trust or life cycle funds in other years. If you are prone to chasing past performance and your adviser is inclined to take the easy road (that is, give you the current best seller), you could easily add two to five new funds a year.
Where was the adviser through all of this? Clearly, he or she never said: "XYZ fund has been out of favour for a while and I think you should put more money in it this year. Think of it as being on sale." While the Canmore couple continued to add funds, they weren't willing to sell any on the other side because of the redemption fees they would incur.
In general, I believe that patient, long-term investors don't need a lot of advice. It is more important that you keep your costs down. Occasional advice and low fees are a great combination. Having said that, I recognize that some people are in need of more help and that costs money. Unfortunately, this couple were getting the worst of both worlds. They were paying for advice they desperately needed, but they weren't getting it.
The Financial Facelift article that got Lori so worked up is obviously an extreme case, but overdiversification is definitely an issue for many mutual fund investors. In actual fact, holding even half the number of funds this couple owned could still result in an overdiversified portfolio, depending on what kind of funds they were.
If you haven't made a contribution to your RRSP for 2006, or even better, are contemplating what to do for 2007, I'd look first at the funds listed on your quarterly statement. If there was a good reason to buy a fund in the first place and those reasons haven't changed, then you might ignore the "flavours of the month" and show commitment to what you already hold.
And if the one you choose hasn't been doing well in the past year or two, all the better.
Tom Bradley is president of Steadyhand Investment Funds Inc.
Tom Bradley