Jump to content
Kim

Comparing 403bs

Recommended Posts

You have given the returns as of 11/30/04. I used 9/30/04 because the comparison to the benchmarks are on the same page. Let me know if you have trouble finding these pages and I will furnish you with the link.

Please do furnish the link. I can't seem to make your numbers coincide with the ones that ING provides on their website:

 

http://www6.ingretirementplans.com/custom/G5000OP_perf.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sierra
The results are on the ING website. I did the research as of 9/30/04 for the last 10 years or for a shorter period if the fund has not be operational for 10 years. The underperformers are the following with their superior benchmarks in ( ).

 

My contention that most Opportunity Plus customers invested in the underperformers is based on the fact that they follow the name brands like Fidelity and invest in very large funds like the fidelity index 500 and fidelity equity-income, very large and well known funds. Another one that underperformed is the large well known Fidelity asset allocation fund. Another one is the very large and well known fidelity high income fund. Moreover, it is my belief that to make his or her job easier the recognizable brand names as well as index funds are "suggested" by the rep ie the ING index plus small cap fund.

 

 

GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL

ING JP Morgan Fleming: minus 3.16 (minus 0.51)

ING VP Emerging mkts: minus 0.06 (plus 0.39)

ING VP International: minus 4.56 (minus 0.51)

 

AGGRESSIVE GROWTH

Aim V.I 7.33 (11.09)

FT vip 14.56 (14.71)

ING VP Global 0.20 ( 4.05)

ING VP Index plus small cap 9.79 ( 11.50)

Janus Aspen Mid Cap 7.63 ( 9.64)

 

GROWTH

Aim v.i. growth 5.41 (11.09)

Aim v.i premier 7.69 (11.09)

ING MFS minus 3.69 (minus 1.30)

ING UBS minus 2.16 (minus 1.30)

Janus Aspen Growth 8.16 (11.09)

 

GROWTH AND INCOME

AIM 9.07 (11.09)

Fidelity Equity-Income 10.22 (12.50)

Fidelity Index 500 10.80 (11.09)

ING VP Growth and Income 6.89 (11.09)

INg VP index plus large cap minus 1.68 (minus1.30)

Pioneer Equity Income 3.80 (4.31)

 

GROWTH AND INCOME

Calvert social balanced 8.20 (11.09)

ING vp balanced 9.54 (11.09)

 

ASSET ALLOCATION

Fidelity 7.09 (11.09)

ING vp strategic allocation 1.32 (2.95)

ING strategic allocation balanced 2.28 ( 4.03)

INg strategic allocation income 3.74 (4.88)

 

INCOME

Fidelity high income 4.55 (7.85)

ING intermediate bond 7.33 (7.66)

Oppenheimer Strategic Bond 7.53 (7.66)

FT:

 

I apologize to you. I failed to take into account the 1.00 percent fee for M & E. This fee results in a larger disparity between the fund's return and its superior benchmark. Or it narrows the disparity in those cases when the fund outperformed its benchmark. To our list of 24 underperformers we must now add 13 more. We now have 37 out of 51 funds as underperformers. Most unbiased observers would consider this investment platform as substandard. Here are the 13 additional underperforming funds.

 

GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL

Fidelity vip overseas

 

AGGRESSIVE GROWTH

Evergreen

ING Solomon

ING VP Real Estate

 

GROWTH

ING small co portfolio

Pioneer mid cap

ING T. Rowe Price Growth

ING VP Value Opportunity

Janus Aspen Capital Appreciation

 

Of note: The NYSUT/Opportunity Plus/ING lineup also includes 3 stable value funds which I have intentionally not included in this analysis. It is widely reported that many individuals just park their money in one of these funds "temporarily" until they decide what investment to choose. Fast forward 10+ years and they are still "deciding". Again these 3 funds underperformed their benchmarks when you factor in the 1.00 percent for M & E.

 

In summary: Out of your 51 choices 40 have underperformed their benchmarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FT:

 

I apologize to you. I failed to take into account the 1.00 percent fee for M & E. This fee results in a larger disparity between the fund's return and its superior benchmark. Or it narrows the disparity in those cases when the fund outperformed its benchmark. To our list of 24 underperformers we must now add 13 more. We now have 37 out of 51 funds as underperformers. Most unbiased observers would consider this investment platform as substandard. Here are the 13 additional underperforming funds.

 

 

Joel, this is still from fantasyland. Your numbers (where you provide them) still don't match up with the website you claim they come from. This is the link YOU provided:

 

http://www6.ingretirementplans.com/SponsorExtranet/NYSUT/AboutYourInvestments/index.html

 

Clicking here, then on "Opportunity Plus Fund Performance," and then on "Display monthly fund performance" leads me to a PDF document. The results they list, INCLUSIVE of M&E fees, do NOT correspond to anything that you're saying here! They are also results as of 11/30, not 9/30, so perhaps that is why your benchmarks appear to be trouncing the selections.

 

Anyone who's interested can feel free to click the links and see for themselves, but you are either following the wrong links or simply making stuff up. I also still have no idea where you are getting the benchmark information you are quoting, which might be another reason for the inaccuracies. Either way, you're off the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sierra

Once you get to Opportunity Plus Fund Performance scroll down until you come to a list of the funds. Click on the fund and you will come to the fund performance as of 9/30/04.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sierra

correction: Once you get to "Opportunity Plus Investment Options" scroll down to the fund list...click on the fund and you get a 2 page report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL

Fidelity vip overseas

 

AGGRESSIVE GROWTH

Evergreen

ING Solomon

ING VP Real Estate

 

GROWTH

ING small co portfolio

Pioneer mid cap

ING T. Rowe Price Growth

ING VP Value Opportunity

Janus Aspen Capital Appreciation

 

Of note: The NYSUT/Opportunity Plus/ING lineup also includes 3 stable value funds which I have intentionally not included in this analysis. It is widely reported that many individuals just park their money in one of these funds "temporarily" until they decide what investment to choose. Fast forward 10+ years and they are still "deciding". Again these 3 funds underperformed their benchmarks when you factor in the 1.00 percent for M & E.

 

In summary: Out of your 51 choices 40 have underperformed their benchmarks.

Joel, this is why it's hard to take you seriously...you get your facts wrong again, and again, and again, and again. Anyone who's unsure of this should NOT simply take my word for it, but please feel free to click back and forth for a while between Joel's assertions here and the facts as reported on ING's website:

 

http://www6.ingretirementplans.com/SponsorExtranet/NYSUT/AboutYourInvestments/index.html

 

My attention went immediately to the funds listed under "GROWTH" since the bulk of my own money is invested in this category. You didn't list numbers this tme around...I wonder why? Perhaps it's because consulting the numbers proves that the OPPOSITE of what you're saying is actually true?

 

You claim Pioneer Mid-Cap is an underperformer. The link YOU provided us shows a five-year return of 12.87 vs. a benchmark of 11.47. How is that an underperformer?

 

You claim ING T. Rowe Price Growth is an underperformer. The link YOU provided shows us a five-year return of 1.29 vs. a benchmark of NEGATIVE 1.30. How is that an underperformer?

 

You claim ING VP Value Opportunity is an underperformer. The link YOU provided shows us a five-year return of 1.72 vs. a benchmark of NEGATIVE 1.30. How is that an underperformer?

 

ING Small Company Portfolio has a five-year return of 8.02 vs. a benchmark of 7.41. At least here, the application of the 1.00& M&E fee does indeed make the fund an "underperformer," though by less than fifty basis points.

 

Evergreen's ten-year return: 15.85. Benchmark: 13.41. Underperforming? Not.

 

ING VP Real Estate: a genuine underperformer. Of course, since it has been in existence for LESS THAN A YEAR, forgive me for not being too excited about that yet.

 

I also noticed that when choosing benchmarks for the Calvert Social Balanced and the ING VP Balanced, you listed the much higher S&P benchmark of 11.09, conveniently ignoring the secondary benchmark listed in each case of 7.66, the Lehman Bros. Aggregate Bond index. Naturally, comparing a balanced fund to the all-stock S&P 500 will (mis)lead people into believing it's an underperformer!

 

I'm still amazed that you got so much wrong. Apparently you decided to cherry-pick your data, using one-year returns when they supported your claims, and ten-year returns when THEY were more convenient. What I did, above, was to use the longest time frame listed. If no ten-year return was available, then and only then did I use the five-year.

 

These are only the ones I've had time to get to, and I have frankly already spent too much time on this. But when someone has the capacity to come on a website and simply MAKE THINGS UP, or worse yet LIE, I feel compelled to put out the point-by-point rebuttals needed to expose this behavior.

 

Of course, if I created a similar post asserting that TIAA-CREF or Vanguard were chronic underperformers, making up phony numbers to "substantiate" my claims, there would be a legion of posts following mine, full of righteous indignation, hand-wringing, assertions that "this kind of crap really makes my blood boil," and of course the requisite references to sharks. It's a shame that only the "sharks" and their "prey" are being held to a higher standard of honesty.

 

The people you purport to want to educate with this website deserve better.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. . this topic surely gets ! After reading through all of the posts (opinions and debates) . . .I have gotten some good information out of them. It is still difficult for me to understand what to look for and how to analyze (ie: where to look for the growths, how to tell which will make more money for you, etc.). . I guess it is something I still have to learn! Maybe I should sign up for a personal finance class!

 

Let me get this straight. Through NYSUT I can get some financial counseling for $79 per year? Now, are they associated with ING? If so won't they be biased?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. . this topic surely gets ! After reading through all of the posts (opinions and debates) . . .I have gotten some good information out of them. It is still difficult for me to understand what to look for and how to analyze (ie: where to look for the growths, how to tell which will make more money for you, etc.). . I guess it is something I still have to learn! Maybe I should sign up for a personal finance class!

 

Let me get this straight. Through NYSUT I can get some financial counseling for $79 per year? Now, are they associated with ING? If so won't they be biased?

Hi Kim,

 

NYSUT's Financial Counseling Program has Ernst & Young as its primary provider. $79 buys you virtually unlimited contact with their financial advisors via the telephone, through which they'll advise you about ANY financial questions you may have, not just 403(b)-related matters. It's really a great program.

 

If you feel you want to meet with someone face-to-face, on the other hand, then you have two options: an Ernst & Young financial planner, with a fee of $400 (the locations at which they will meet with you are limited, though...I want to say their NYC and NJ offices only, but don't quote me on that), or an ING financial planner for a $70 fee, which I'm told they waive, but again, don't quote me on that. I know from people who have done this that ING's financial planners are salaried, and that the advice they give is not product-specific, but if you're more comfortable without the fear of bias, then it might make sense to pony up the extra bucks for E&Y.

 

Frankly, though, E&Y may well be able to answer all your questions via telephone sessions, so there may not ever be a need for a sit-down.

 

NYSUT Member Benefits (800-626-8101) has more information on the program, if you're interested. Whatever you decide, good luck!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sierra

Do you have the state's 457(b) plan at your disposal? This is my first choice. If not, do you have no-loads for 403(b) investing? This is my second choice. Just utilized the fine advice given on the "class asset returns" thread. JUST USE NO-LOADS.

 

If you do not have no-loads available for salary reduction investing then open up an IRA with the Vanguard Group and follow the advice of the posters. In my view you are not a candidate for fee only planning. You may also want to get a sample copy of Bob Brinker's monthly letter @ 914-591-2655. It costs about 180.00 per year but you could divide that by 10 if you get 1O teachers to join in. Check his website out @ www.bobbrinker.com. HE IS A CHAMPION OF NO-LOAD INVESTING.

 

Just do it!!!

 

Peace and hope,

Joel L. Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between the 403B and the 457B (I thought the 403B is for teachers and the 457 would be for police officers, etc.). What does "no-loads" mean? How is it better than a regular 403B?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the difference between the 403B and the 457B (I thought the 403B is for teachers and the 457 would be for police officers, etc.). What does "no-loads" mean? How is it better than a regular 403B?

 

Kim, before sweating the details, find out from your payroll dept. or your union rep if you have a 457 available to you. Most districts don't, but if you do, then it adds to your options. If you DO have it available, then find out who the provider is, what the costs are, etc., in comparison to the 403(b).

 

403(b) and 457 plans are named after the sections of the internal revenue code that spell out the rules of how they're run. In essence, they both offer the same thing: a way to defer your salary and save money, with taxes deferred. Which one is better for you depends entirely on a.) your needs for the plan itself, and b.) your options within the 403(b). Every district has a different list of available providers. At one point, you mentioned that you had it down to Fidelity and ING, both of which are great choices.

 

"No-loads" refer to mutual funds that do not charge sales commissions. In general, a no-load mutual fund is better than a mutual fund with sales charges, all other things being equal, because it means more of your money is going to your account and less to the company running the fund.

 

My personal opinion (and I daresay others will weigh in with theirs) is that if you decide to go the no-load route (in other words, if you're OK with making your own investment decisions and you don't feel you need the assistance of a professional in making asset allocation decisions, etc.), then a Fidelity 403(b) is a good way to go. If you decide you'd like someone assisting you, then the ING 403(b) is a good way to go. As I said before, it'd be a good idea to talk to the agent in question first to make sure (s)he will be willing and able to offer you the kind of assistance you need.

 

Whichever way you go, the Financial Counseling Plan will be available to you as a source of information. While it's included if you decide to become an ING client, it's only an additional $79 a year if you decide to go with Fidelity.

 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kim,

Going to a fee only advisor would actually be a good thing. I know a woman here in the Los Angeles area that does this. I think that she charges around $400 to $500 for a review of a person's financial life. She takes a look at everything: how you are using your money, insurance, savings, emergency funds, and investing. I wouldn't pay anyone unless they were going to give a good look. It is like going to the doctor. You want your doctor to give you a complete physical, not just take your pulse.

 

Now going to an advisor doesn't mean that you don't need to try to understand the basics because you do. If you are a teacher, believe me teaching is far more difficult. You don't need to understand everything at once, just get started and choose a vendor. Just make sure whomever you choose doesn't have a surrender charge attached to the plan. I don't think anyone should be allowed to hold your money hostage for years. Best Wishes.

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kim,

For a direct comparison between loads and no loads, go to my Load/No Load Direct Comparison topic, sschullo. Click on the link in my post which will take you to an awesome website. This website will explain, more than you want, the difference between load and no load. You should Never, EVER have to pay for a load. But you have to educate yourself enough to do what we do around here. You are on your way. Like they say in AA, "keep coming back" and ask more questions.

Best wishes,

Steve

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...