The fund has adopted a Distribution and Shareholder Services (12b-1) Plan pursuant to which the fund is subject to an annual 12b-1 fee of up to 0.25% of its average daily net assets. However, the Board has determined that no such fees will be charged prior to November 14, 2011 (more than 12 months from the commencement of the fund’s operations).

I wanted to clarify this information so I sent my Schwab contact the following email:

On page 5 of the ETF prospectus, the following note is attached to 12b-1 fees:

The fund has adopted a Distribution and Shareholder Services (12b-1) Plan pursuant to which the fund is subject to an annual 12b-1 fee of up to 0.25% of its average daily net assets. However, the Board has determined that no such fees will be charged prior to November 14, 2011 (more than 12 months from the commencement of the fund’s operations).

What does this mean exactly? Does it mean that Schwab is reserving the right to charge 12b-1 fees on the ETFs or is it their intention to do so at some point in the future?

He forwarded my email to the appropriate person and this is the answer I received:

I understand that you had a question about our ETFs and 12b-1 fees. I just want to be clear that Schwab ETFs do not charge 12b-1 fees and there is currently no intention to assess such fees in the future. Maintaining the ability to begin a 12b-1 plan in the future is common industry-wide practice and intended to provide the flexibility that may be needed to address future unexpected significant industry developments.

Jon De St Paer
Vice President, Investment Management Strategy
Charles Schwab

They left the window open just in case…

That’s the information I got. You can take it for what it’s worth. Thanks for the catch, Lucas.

The S&P Midcap 400 is up 5.61% for November (31.58% YTD) and the S&P Smallcap 600 is 49.93% for the month and 18.21% YTD.

Just a little FYI for you.

The intial list is slim but I expect that new offerings will be added with time.

Domestic Equity ETFs

• Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF™ SCHB – 0.08%
Offers diversified exposure across large-, mid- and small-cap U.S. stocks. Seeks investment results that track performance, before fees and expenses, of the approximately 2,500-stock Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market Index(SM).

• Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF™ SCHX – 0.08%
Provides exposure to large-cap U.S. companies. Seeks investment results that track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Total Stock Market Index(SM) made up of approximately the largest 750 U.S. stocks.

• Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF™* SCHG – 0.15%
Provides exposure to large-cap U.S. stocks that exhibit growth style characteristics. Seeks investment results that track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index(SM), representing approximately half of the market capitalization of stocks in the Dow Jones U.S. Large Cap Total Stock Market Index(SM).

• Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Value ETF™* SCHV – 0.15%
Provides broad exposure to large-cap U.S. stocks that exhibit value style characteristics. Seeks investment results that track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Value Total Stock Market Index(SM), representing approximately half of the market capitalization of stocks in the Dow Jones U.S. Large Cap Total Stock Market Index(SM).

• Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF™ SCHA – 0.15%
Offers exposure to small-cap U.S. companies. Seeks investment results that track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the Dow Jones U.S. Small-Cap Total Stock Market Index(SM), made up of approximately 1,750 U.S. small cap stocks.

International Equity ETFs

• Schwab International Equity ETF™ SCHF – 0.15%
Provides broad exposure to international large-and mid-cap companies in over 20 developed international markets. Seeks investment returns that track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the FTSE Developed ex U.S. Index made up of approximately 1,400 international stocks.

• Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF™* SCHC – 0.35%
Offers diversified exposure to international small-cap companies in over 20 developed international markets and seeks investment results that track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the FTSE Developed Small Cap ex U.S. Liquid Index made up of approximately 1,800 international small cap stocks.

• Schwab Emerging Markets Equity ETF™* SCHE – 0.35%
Offers diversified exposure to large- and mid-cap companies in over 20 emerging markets. The ETF seeks investment results that track the performance, before fees and expenses, of the approximately 740-stock, FTSE All Emerging Index.

It will be interesting to see if Schwab puts pressure on the competition to lower their ETF fees. It will also be interesting to see if Schwab somehow integrates these ETFs into their 401(k) offerings.

Related:

The Schwab Guide to ETFs

*Available in December

Have a question:

What reasonable standards should investors use to measure how well or poorly that they are doing?

I’m sure that an answer would include “it depends” but if so, depends on what?

We are about 10% under our 12.31.07 balances and we are pleased but how pleased should we be? There is always someone who well fare better or worse but I’m at a loss as to which reasonable “standards” that I should use to know how I’m doing?

That’s a very good question.

Unfortunately, the appropriate answer is: it depends.

From a general standpoint, your portfolio’s performance should be judged against the appropriate benchmark or benchmarks.

For instance, if you have a portfolio of 50% large-cap stocks and 50% bonds, you would not base your performance on solely on the S&P 500 Index. Rather, you’d base it on a 50/50 split between the S&P 500 Index and the appropriate bond index.

If your portfolio is comprised of large-cap, mid-cap, small-cap, bonds, and real-estate investment trusts, then you need to base the performance on benchmarks for all of those asset classes.

The reason for this is that it’s easy to say, “Wow! We did awesome last year. Our portfolio was up 8%!” The reality could be that a benchmark portfolio might have been up 12%, making your 8% return not so stellar.

Of course, another way to judge your performance is to do what BG suggested in the comments of that post and that is to base your performance on whether or not you’re meeting your future goals. It doesn’t matter how your portfolio is doing if it’s not helping you meet your future goals.

For example…

Let’s say you have a retirement goal of $1,000,000 (purely hypothetical, ignoring inflation). Your retirement is 20 years away and you have $100,000 saved up so far. You are contributing $500 per month into an S&P 500-based fund. You don’t expect your contribution amount to change (again, hypothetical).

Using the RATE function in Excel, I figured that the required rate of return to meet that goal is .78% per month (9.79% annualized). Given that the monthly geometric average total return on the S&P going all the way back to 1926 is .77% (9.64% annualized), you most likely will fall short of your goal by around $25,000.

This leaves you a few choices:

1. You can accept the lower amount at retirement.

2. You can take on more risk by moving into small cap stocks, which have a higher expected return but also are a lot more volatile (more on that in a future post).

3. You can increase your contributions. Based on my numbers, increasing the contribution amount to $540 per month, put’s the expected account value at a little over $1 million.

I realize that we are talking about math based on linear growth, which never happens in the real world. But, it can still be beneficial to have some sort of basis in reality. If your goal is $1 million and you’re investing a certain amount per month, it would be wise to know if you have a shot at meeting your goal.

Thoughts?

In the second quarter, the 500 largest nonfinancial U.S. firms, by total assets, held about $994 billion in cash and short-term investments, or 9.8% of their assets, according a Wall Street Journal analysis of corporate filings. That is up from $846 billion, or 7.9% of assets, a year earlier.

The trend appears to have continued in the third quarter, despite an improving economy. Of those 500 companies, 248 have reported third-quarter results. Their cash increased to 11.1% of assets, from 10.1% in the second quarter.

The article goes on to talk about how this is both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing in that companies have cash on hand, at the ready, for capital spending or hiring. The downside is that hoarded cash isn’t being used to help jumpstart the economy.

Large cash balances from an investor’s viewpoint can be both good and bad. They are good if the money is used wisely and bad if they do something stupid like paying too much in an acquisition or “deworsification” as Peter Lynch used to call it.

Anyway, on the whole, I would take the increased cash position of companies as a good sign.

For example, looking at the month of January….

There were 84 January months in my sample. Of those 84 months, 36.9% of them produced negative total returns, while 63.1% of them showed positive returns. The months with the biggest positive spread was December which showed that 78.3% of the months were positive compared to only 21.7% were negative.

For those who are interested, I ran the numbers for all the months and found that there were 1,006 months, of which 383 were negative months (38.1%) and 623 (61.9%) were positive.

Just a little trivia for your Thursday…

*The S&P 500 was known as the S&P 90 prior to February 1957.

As of yesterday’s close, the S&P 500 Index’s total return for October is -1.26%. If that number holds through tomorrow, it will break the seven-month streak of positive returns for the index.

Why was October a down month?

I can think of a few reasons:

1. Profit-taking. It seems to happen after we have a massive runup in stocks, like we saw from March through September when the index was up nearly 46%.

2. Investors might be wondering how much further up the market can go considering the current economic conditions. Unemployment is still up and is still trending up. It’s hard to have a recovery with legs if unemployment is high.

3. Consumer spending is down, which puts pressure on GDP since 71% of our GDP comes from consumer spending. People are still paying off debt. Those dollars going towards debt aren’t going towards spending.

I don’t know about you but I have been scratching my head, wondering why the market was marching back up as quickly as it did.

If you picked Value Trust you’d be…

WRONG!

Much was made about the end of Bill Miller’s 15-year streak of beating the S&P 500 Index a few years ago. Fifteen years of consecutively beating the index is a pretty mean feat. But, as you can see from the graphic below, a 15-year streak can go down the drain quite quickly with a few years of underperformance:

Notice that those numbers INCLUDE 2009’s performance through October 20th. In other words, even including 2009’s performance, Mr. Miller is STILL trailing the S&P 500 Index since 1986.

One other interesting thing to note is the difference between the average returns and the geometric average returns. If you’ll notice that average returns are neck-in-neck between the two. But, the geometric averages are vastly different. This is due to the fact that Value Trust is a highly volatile mutual fund. It has years of great performance and years of really bad performance. In other words, it’s a much bumpier ride on the Value Trust train than on the S&P 500 Index train.

Once again, this just proves how hard it is to beat the index on a long-term consistent basis and the risk that investors take when pursuing such performance.

Get this: Despite the biggest and broadest decline in financial markets in a generation, the median 401(k) retirement account at Vanguard Group on Sept. 30, 2009, was up 7% from where it was two years earlier, when the market was near its all-time high.

The Reason?…

Continued regular savings matter a lot. If you have continued contributing to your retirement account throughout the stock-market debacle—and even better, if your employer continues to match your contributions—your account probably has more in total dollars than you expected. Younger people, who have smaller balances to begin with, will see a bigger impact from their regular savings.

You can read the full article here.

In a way, continued contributions during a down market masks the losses and helps you feel better about where you are. It’s also a good strategy for making the down market work for you. You can even make it work harder for you by increasing your contributions during the down market. That’s the strategy my wife and I took during this downturn. So far it’s paying off. Our account value is about where it was at the high. Our personal rate of return for 2009 is around 30%.

I have never counted myself among the Dave Ramsey fans. Sure, his advice is better than racking up lots of debt and not saving for the future. But, he also generalizes and has a one-size-fits-all approach to the advice he offers his listeners.

What bugs me most is the math behind his assumptions.

For example…

On page 3 of the above-mentioned workbook, is this:

“The American Dream

Imagine if…
A 30-year old couple made $48,000 a year and saved 15% ($7,200 per year or $600 per month) in a 401(k) at 12% growth.

At 70 years old, they will have…
$7,058,863.50 in the 401(k)”

How did Dave arrive at that number? Here’s the math:

That’s a lot of money!

But, how would this look in the real world? I summarized Dave’s information into the following graphic and used 2009″s numbers from the IRS to calculate income taxes.

For my example, I assumed that this couple does not have children. If that were the case, it would probably be possible for them to sock away $7,200 per year. Their budget would be tight unless they economized.

Then comes my next question:

WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GET A 12% RATE OF RETURN FOR 40 YEARS?

Seriously, WHO assumes a 12% rate of return for 40 years? Later on in the book, Dave stresses diversification. There’s not a properly diversified portfolio on earth that is going to average a 12% rate of return on a consistent basis. The ONLY way you’re going to get that kind of return is to invest ALL YOUR MONEY in small cap stocks, which are highly volatile.

I think the word “imagine” was the proper word to use for his scenario because the only way he’s going to get those numbers is with IMAGINATION!

To bring us back to REALITY, I reran Dave’s numbers using a much more conservative .77% monthly rate of return, which happens to be the geometric average return for the S&P going back to 1926. Take a wild guess at what the 401(k)’s expected value becomes with that number?

And that number’s even somewhat inflated because it assumes 100% of the money is invested in the S&P for all 40 years.

And…

Neither of those numbers include inflation, which would eat up at least half of those accounts.

So why does Dave use such a high number for an assumed rate of return? I would have to say it’s to give people hope (a false sense of hope, but hope nonetheless). When people look at those numbers, they go, “WOW! I can do that? I had no idea!” I will admit, that those numbers are eye-popping.

But,…

Thoughts?