Tuesday, May 28, 2013

High-return tax-efficient or low-return tax-inefficient assets in Roth IRA?

From Reddit Personal Finance we read: I see a lot of guides (e.g. Bogleheads) recommend putting tax-inefficient assets in tax-advantaged accounts, which makes sense. However I would think that due to the contribution limits on tax-advantaged accounts like a Roth IRA you would also do better putting an asset with a high rate of return in rather than one with a low rate of return. My reasoning is as follows:

If you put $100 of bonds yielding 3% in dividends into a Roth and $100 of 7% stocks into a taxable account taxable at a 25% capital gains tax rate, both set to reinvest earnings, and cash out after ten years, you end up with $34.99 in untaxed bond dividends and $101.38 in capital gains taxed at 25% (so $76.04). This results in a net return of $111.03.

On the other hand, if you put $100 of bonds yielding 3% in dividends distributed quarterly into a taxable account taxed at a 33% marginal tax rate and $100 of stocks yielding 7% into a Roth, both set to reinvest earnings, and cash out after ten years, you end up with (I think) $22.26 in bond dividends and $101.38 in untaxed capital gains. This results in a net return of $123.64.
Is there something off with my math? Am I misunderstanding or missing something to do with investments and taxes? Or is this the correct way to manage the portfolio with respect to taxes this combination of tax efficiency and yield? Is there anything else I should consider?

Since I'm not sure I calculated bond return in the second scenario correctly, here's my method: I had a gross return of 3% annually, but that was taxed at 33%, which lowered my net return to (3%)*(67%)=2.01%. I then calculated the continuously compounded return at 2.01%.

all 8 comments
[–]kurds_way 2 points  ago
The Bogleheads advice is still usually correct, though less important than it once was due to low interest rates and tax law changes.
At a glance, what % of that 7% stock return is divs and what's cap gains in your model? And don't forget to adjust for risk - $1 in a pretax taxable account is less risky than $1 in a Roth.
[–]Kibatsu[S] 1 point  ago
I was modeling the stock return as 100% capital gains to make the point about tax efficiency vs return rate while keeping it as simple as possible. I'm less interested in the precise numbers than knowing if high enough returns can trump tax-inefficiency for space in a tax-advantaged account, which it seems is possible. The difference between calculating expected returns and variance to choose allocations versus not worrying about it and following the Bogleheads advice, I suppose.
[–]kurds_way 2 points  ago
I was modeling the stock return as 100% capital gains
Well there's your problem. The reason stocks in taxable works is that most of the stock gains grow tax deferred for decades, sometimes forever. You've just turned a tax efficient investment into a very tax inefficient one.
Also, note my point about risk adjusting (picture what you'd be left with if stocks dropped 99.99% at the end of the period with each alternative).
The difference between calculating expected returns and variance to choose allocations versus not worrying about it and following the Bogleheads advice, I suppose.
Better to prove stuff to yourself - sometimes Bogleheads gets it right, sometimes not so much ;)
[–]Kibatsu[S] 1 point  ago
You've just turned a tax efficient investment into a very tax inefficient one.
Is this because the stocks are being sold after too short a period, then? Or because of something about capital gains vs income taxes I've missed?
[–]kurds_way 2 points  ago
You're assuming every year you sell you entire stock holding, pay cap gains on it, then buy it back. A little spreadsheet work will show this costs you a lot more in taxes that modeling what actually happens, where you only pay taxes on the divs, and don't pay cap gains until you sell (or avoid cap gains completely).
[–]Kibatsu[S] 1 point  ago
I don't think that's what I did, unless it was implicit somehow. I allowed the stock value to appreciate at 7% annually for ten years, and then took the profit at the end of the ten year period and took 25% off. The capital gains tax applies to the whole profit at the point of sale, right? Not just the profit in that year? ($100 * exp[0.07 * 10] - $100) * 0.75 = $76.03
[–]kurds_way 1 point  ago
Oh, so you're assuming no div taxes paid each year. In that case your $100 grows to $134.39 (100*1.0710), then you pay 25% taxes on the $34.39 gains, for an after tax value of $125.79.
[–]Plum12345 1 point  ago
Its not that you made a mistake, but it all depends on the numbers you choose. Why did you pick 10 years? If you pick 30 then its a whole different story because of compounding.
Another thing to consider is the state you live in. I live in California. My state income tax is over 10%. Some general obligation bonds are both state and federal tax free and very safe.
Posted on 9:58 AM | Categories:

Tax-managed indexing can offer boost / Such strategies can offer can be even better than ETFs and mutual funds

Rey Santodomingo for Investment News writes: 2013 will be a year of higher taxes for many high income earners. The passage of the American Tax Payer's Relief Act of 2012 and the addition of the 3.8% unearned income Medicare tax leads to higher investment taxes. For top tax bracket investors, short-term capital gains tax rates have increased from 35% to 43.4% – an increase of close to 25%. Long-term capital gains tax rates increased from 15% to 23.8% – an increase of close to 60%. Higher taxes for investors creates an opportunity for advisers to help their clients even more by helping them to invest more tax efficiently.
In the current high-tax environment, advisers need to pay more attention to taxes because of the drag they cause on wealth growth. The amount may surprise you. Tax drag can reduce investment growth by 1%-3% annually. This is even higher than the amount many people pay in management fees. Given the current state of government debt and budget deficit, tax rates are not expected to be lowered any time soon. Advisers should assess their clients' exposure to the harsh tax rate environment and adjust accordingly. One powerful tool that advisers need to consider is tax-managed indexing.
Most advisers know about tax-efficient strategies such as the use of tax-deferred accounts, municipal bonds, year-end loss harvesting and low turnover indexing strategies. Indexing or passive index investing entails investing in a broadly diversified index like the S&P 500® or the Russell 3000®. One way to get exposure to these indexes is through an ETF or a mutual fund. Compared to active mutual funds, passive index mutual funds tend to be relatively tax efficient. This is because the indexes exhibit very low turnover and subsequently distribute few capital gains. ETFs, in general, tend to be a little more tax efficient than mutual funds because they are able to avoid some capital gain realization through in-kind redemptions, and because mutual funds are often forced to realize (and distribute) gains when investors redeem shares. Some mutual funds that are labeled tax advantaged strive to reduce capital gain distributions by realizing losses to offset any gains. While these approaches are tax efficient, by employing tax managed indexing in a separately managed account, one has the opportunity for additional tax efficient exposure.
As an alternative to ETFs and indexed mutual funds, separately managed accounts can offer flexibility that results in a hyper-tax-efficient index exposure. Unlike ETFs and index funds, a separately managed account can pass capital losses through to the individual investor. Realized capital losses are valuable because they can be used to offset capital gains, thereby reducing an investor's tax bill. A tax-managed separate account can be designed to seek index returns similar to those from an ETF or mutual fund, but with the added benefit of excess realized losses. Here's how it works…
Two goals of tax managed indexing are: (1) to track the selected index; and (2) to produce a tax benefit through excess realized losses. As an example, consider an S&P 500® benchmarked, tax-managed portfolio. Initially, the portfolio is invested in about 250 securities selected to track the index. The securities and weights are selected such that the portfolio very closely resembles the index in terms of sector and industry weights. Care is also taken to ensure that the portfolio lines up against the index in terms of risk factors like yield, beta, and market capitalization. After the initial portfolio is invested, it is continuously monitored for risk and tax-loss harvesting opportunities. With a portfolio of 250 securities, some equity prices will rise and some will fall. The names that go down present loss harvesting opportunities. When such opportunities occur, the portfolio is loss harvested. The tax lots exhibiting a loss are sold, and a replacement set of securities is bought. Care is taken not to violate wash sale rules. The intended result is a portfolio that closely tracks the index while also producing excess realized losses.
Excess losses realized by a tax-managed index portfolio can be used to offset gains that exist elsewhere in the investor's overall portfolio. Taxable gains may be generated from the investor's active manager investments, hedge fund investments, or sale of real estate or concentrated stock. In the end, the goal is for investors to pay fewer taxes, keep more of their money invested and reap the benefits of tax deferral.
With the recent increase in taxes, advisers need to consider tax-efficient strategies in order to help their clients retain more of what they earn. Tax-efficient solutions such as ETFs and mutual funds are a good start, but hyper-tax-efficient strategies like tax-managed indexing can be even better.
Posted on 9:58 AM | Categories: