Over at Bogleheads we came across the following discussion:
Tax efficiency concern?
16 posts • Page 1 of 1
Tax efficiency concern?
This year I will probably start putting funds into a taxable account to be used for a future house. My basic question is: How much, if any, should I be concerned about the tax efficiency of my investments?
We are currently in the 15% tax bracket, and will likely be there for 2015, but beyond that we may get pushed up into 25%.
My preferred long-term portfolio is:
35% SCHP (Schwab TIPS)
15% SCHR (Schwab Interm. Treasury)
15% RPV (Guggen. 500 Value)
13% RZV (Guggen. Small Value)
6% SCHC (Schwab Int. Small)
6% FNDF (Schwab Fundamental Int. Large)
5% SCHE (Schwab Emerging)
5% SCHH (Schwab REIT)
As this will not really be a long-term portfolio, I may consider adjusting the stock/bond split, or the tilt. However, as my timeline is pretty open-ended, I may also consider just sticking with the above, barring any tax-efficient adjustments.
I'm just not quite sure where to start in evaluating. How tax-efficient are the above ETFs (And where do I find this info)? Even if they arebad, how much of a difference does it really make? Do I stick with those until we are in the 25% bracket, then worry about it?
P.S. - I see that Schwab lists a "Tax Cost Ratio" for each ETF, which seems to be in the range of 0.5 - 1. What exactly does this mean?
Edit: P.S. answer:
Tax Cost Ratio represents the percentage-point reduction in returns that results from Federal income taxes (before shares in the fund are sold, and assuming the highest Federal tax bracket). Example: if a fund has a 10% pre-tax return, and taxes reduce that return to 9%, then the tax cost ratio is 1.00.
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:10 pm
Need fund names
Gecko:
I doubt if anyone has memorized the ticker symbols. It will be helpful, and you will get more replies, if you edit your post to include the name of the funds. Use the "edit" button at the top of your window.
Thank you and best wishes.
Taylor
Advisory Board
Posts: 20454
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL
Re: Need fund names
Taylor Larimore wrote:Gecko:
I doubt if anyone has memorized the ticker symbols. It will be helpful, and you will get more replies, if you edit your post to include the name of the funds. Use the "edit" button at the top of your window.
Thank you and best wishes.
Taylor
Added.
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:10 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Gecko:
If you are saving for a house in the near future, you should not be investing in stocks unless you have substantial savings elsewhere. In your attempt to achieve higher return, there is a good chance you will not achieve your goal. Stocks regularly plunge 30% to 50% or more (there goes your house).
Your "tax efficiency concern" for a short term investment is way down on what's important--especially if you are in a low-income tax bracket. Your savings for a house should probably be in CDs or a short-term bond fund (better liquidity).
You may find this Vanguard article helpful:
Best wishes.
Taylor
Advisory Board
Posts: 20454
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Taylor, thanks for the advice.
I agree; the reason for my waffling on the AA is that the timeline is going to be 10+ years... probably somewhere in the 11-15yr range. In addition, I don't have a problem waiting 1-3yrs for a recovery. So, for me that puts it just within the "stocks are OK" range. Although I likely wouldn't be happy with a large crash near the end and a slow recovery, so if I start with a decent stock allocation, I'll likely trim it as I near my goal.
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:10 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Gecko:
Gecko10x wrote:Taylor, thanks for the advice.
I agree; the reason for my waffling on the AA is that the timeline is going to be 10+ years... probably somewhere in the 11-15yr range. In addition, I don't have a problem waiting 1-3yrs for a recovery. So, for me that puts it just within the "stocks are OK" range. Although I likely wouldn't be happy with a large crash near the end and a slow recovery, so if I start with a decent stock allocation, I'll likely trim it as I near my goal.
Gecko:
With a minimum 10+ year timeline I think it is reasonable to hold a portfolio of bonds and stocks. And yes, tax-efficiency is important.
Consider saving in a Roth for the down-payment. You and your spouse could contribute a total of $13,000/year and withdraw thecontributions (plus $20,000 earnings) whenever you wish--all tax-free. Consider a diversified Target Fund with the stock/bond ratio you want; 60% stocks/40% bonds might be reasonable. Exchange to a different Target Fund holding more bonds as you approach your purchase date.
If you decide you must use a taxable account for saving, consider Total Stock Market Index Fund for its diversification (less risk) and tax-efficiency for the stock portion.
Best wishes.
Taylor
Advisory Board
Posts: 20454
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Tax Cost Ratio represents the percentage-point reduction in returns that results from Federal income taxes (before shares in the fund are sold, and assuming the highest Federal tax bracket). Example: if a fund has a 10% pre-tax return, and taxes reduce that return to 9%, then the tax cost ratio is 1.00.
Tax Cost Ratios (1yr annualized):
35% SCHP (Schwab TIPS) ..................... 0.48
15% SCHR (Schwab Interm. Treasury) ...... 0.54
15% RPV (Guggen. 500 Value) ............... 0.8
13% RZV (Guggen. Small Value) ............ 0.61
6% SCHC (Schwab Int. Small) ............... 1.16
6% FNDF (Schwab Fundamental Int. Large) 1.55
5% SCHE (Schwab Emerging) ................ 0.85
5% SCHH (Schwab REIT) ..................... 2.00
Weighted total for above = 0.75
For reference, AOM (iShares Moderate Allocation ETF) was 1.49
So, the above portfolio doesn't seem too bad(?), especially considering my drag will be significantly less, even in the 25% bracket. I could make it a little better by dropping the REIT fund, and maybe looking for alternative international funds.
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:10 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Hi Gecko,
Taylor has provided excellent advice. Personally I think you have too many funds. More funds involve increased complexity from rebalancing, tax reporting, and overall paperwork and administration. If you are going to go the Vanguard route, consider a much more simplified portfolio that will be as effective or more. I would suggest the "Three Fund Portfolio" comprising of Total Stock Index, Total International Index, and Intermediate Term Tax Exempt. There is an excellent Three Fund Portfolio thread on this forum that I would recommend taking time to read through.
Best.
John C. Bogle: "You simply do not need to put your money into 8 different mutual funds!" | | Disclosure: Three Fund Portfolio + REITs
Posts: 6801
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: At the Beach
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
abuss368 wrote:If you are going to go the Vanguard route, consider a much more simplified portfolio that will be as effective or more. I would suggest the "Three Fund Portfolio" comprising of Total Stock Index, Total International Index, and Intermediate Term Tax Exempt.
I'm not. But just for the argument's sake, lets say I was; How do I compare the tax efficiency of your suggested funds to my own? The best I can find is 1yr before/after tax returns. Is this correct and comparable to the Schwab tax ratios? Is there a better way to get this info?
I don't see an ETF version of Intermediate Term Tax Exempt, and I'm not all that interested in using funds. Here's the closest I see to your suggestion using ETFs, with the 1yr before/after tax return differences:
VTI: 0.48
VEU: 0.9
VGIT: 0.7
Assuming a 25/25/50 split, that gives me a weighted average tax drag of 0.7 (again, assuming I'm doing this correctly). This is quite comparable to my portfolio. Granted, you suggested the tax exempt bond fund (which appears to have 0 tax drag), but I am not a fan of funds, especially for small portfolios. Is there something I'm missing? Am I dismissing the fund route too easily?
Respectfully, I get the feeling my actual question is being skirted to poke at my AA and fund choice. I am only interested in debating my AA as it relates to tax efficiency.
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:10 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Trying to calculate the tax drag could be very complicated in your situation.
While you are in the 15% bracket (up to possibly $85-95k per year income), the taxes on cap gains and qualified dividends for the stock funds will be zero. So there will be no significant "tax drag" from those. However, income from the REITs and bond funds will be taxed at 15%. So there is indeed a drag there.
If/when you move into the 25% bracket, dividends and cap gains will be taxed at 15%, but interest and income from the REIT and bond funds will be taxed at 25%. So both will have a tax effect, but one group will be less impact than the other.
To get an accurate picture of the real tax drag, you need to factor those differing rates into your calculations.
BH87
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:08 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
I try to be very tax-efficient. Are you asking Does it matter? I think so in the long run.
Every bit one pays for taxes is a drag on the portfolio performance. It is like an increase in the expense ratio if one is not careful. Also, worse tax efficiency can creep up on one with long-term investing. For instance, one may think, "Oh, I'm in the 15% tax bracket now, so no big deal." But that may not always be the case or tax laws can change. And as one's portfolio gets larger, the dividends and distributions from funds / ETFs / stocks start to really add up and one cannot easily lower them without incurring a huge realized capital gain and the taxes that go with that. Then there can be surprises such as an index fund paying out a distribution of 10% of the share value.
Also the "tax-cost ratio" or whatever one wants to call it really does depend on one's personal tax situation. One may have offsetting losses to help with long-term capital gains distributions or one may have qualified dividends taxed at 0% or whatever. The reported tax costs are suspicious and the conventional wisdom is suspect, too. For instance, I think for 2014 that it will turn at the the Total Int'l Stock Market Index fund will be much less tax-efficient than it has been in the past while the FTSE all-world ex-US small-cap index fund will be much more tax-efficient than it has been in the past. One needs a little research and a spreadsheet to determine all these things for themselves. Each year is different, too, so 2015 will be different from 2014.
All one can hope for is that one tries not to do much worse that Total US Stock Market index which for 2014 has a tax-cost of about 0.3% for someone in the 25% marginal income tax bracket. That's like an added 0.3% to the expense ratio. So as long as one can get all their taxable investments under 0.35%, I think they are doing pretty well.
As far as down payment for house goes, probably the worst tax efficiency is a CD or savings account which is often suggested, so even a fund with poor tax efficiency could be better. But why bother with poor tax efficiency when one doesn't have to?
This signature message sponsored by LadyGeek. 
Posts: 35733
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
bhsince87 wrote:Trying to calculate the tax drag could be very complicated in your situation.
While you are in the 15% bracket (up to possibly $85-95k per year income), the taxes on cap gains and qualified dividends for the stock funds will be zero. So there will be no significant "tax drag" from those. However, income from the REITs and bond funds will be taxed at 15%. So there is indeed a drag there.
If/when you move into the 25% bracket, dividends and cap gains will be taxed at 15%, but interest and income from the REIT and bond funds will be taxed at 25%. So both will have a tax effect, but one group will be less impact than the other.
To get an accurate picture of the real tax drag, you need to factor those differing rates into your calculations.
Just the kind of info I need 
That said, do you not think this would already be accounted for by Schwab/Vanguard?
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:10 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
I appreciate your thoughts, Livesoft.
livesoft wrote:Also the "tax-cost ratio" or whatever one wants to call it really does depend on one's personal tax situation. One may have offsetting losses to help with long-term capital gains distributions or one may have qualified dividends taxed at 0% or whatever. The reported tax costs are suspicious and the conventional wisdom is suspect, too. For instance, I think for 2014 that it will turn at the the Total Int'l Stock Market Index fund will be much less tax-efficient than it has been in the past while the FTSE all-world ex-US small-cap index fund will be much more tax-efficient than it has been in the past. One needs a little research and a spreadsheet to determine all these things for themselves. Each year is different, too, so 2015 will be different from 2014.
Understandable... but is there anything I can really do about it? Other than just pick the funds that have been most tax efficient in the past?
livesoft wrote:All one can hope for is that one tries not to do much worse that Total US Stock Market index which for 2014 has a tax-cost of about 0.3% for someone in the 25% marginal income tax bracket. That's like an added 0.3% to the expense ratio. So as long as one can get all their taxable investments under 0.35%, I think they are doing pretty well.
That's a good benchmark, thanks
livesoft wrote:As far as down payment for house goes, probably the worst tax efficiency is a CD or savings account which is often suggested, so even a fund with poor tax efficiency could be better.
OK, so.. why are those the worst? (I feel like that's a dumb question 
)
)
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:10 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Gecko10x wrote:IUnderstandable... but is there anything I can really do about it? Other than just pick the funds that have been most tax efficient in the past?
And avoid the funds that have NOT been tax-efficient in the past like REITs.
livesoft wrote:OK, so.. why are those the worst? (I feel like that's a dumb question 
)
)
Suppose a CD pays 3% per year, what is the tax-cost ratio for someone in the 25% marginal income tax bracket if the CD is held in a taxable account?
This signature message sponsored by LadyGeek. 
Posts: 35733
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Thoughts on excluding world markets to get taxes down?
On one hand, I'd hate to give up all that diversification. OTOH, there's lots of diversification within the US market, and plenty of international exposure via LC. Plus, with a decreasing equity exposure, would it really matter much?
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:10 pm
Re: Tax efficiency concern?
Foreign ETFs and funds are trickier to judge the tax cost because one pays foreign taxes regardless of whether one gets a foreign tax credit or not and all the returns are really quoted post-foreign-tax anyways. For instance, when dividends are paid, one doesn't even know what the taxes are until a 1099-DIV shows up months later.
That said, if you include the foreign taxes and the US taxes, the tax hit is about 0.6% for foreign funds. If you get the foreign tax credit, then the tax hit is between 0.08% and 0.4% for the additional US taxes. I think it is worthwhile owning foreign equities. One saves so much money from tax-loss harvesting! 
Oh, none of this takes into account the capital gains taxes from selling and realizing gains nor the benefits of losing money and selling at a loss.
0 comments:
Post a Comment