Skip to main content

Ohio College Savings (529) Plan to add Dimensional Funds


On March 3rd, the Ohio 529 Board announced changes to the college savings program fund lineup. The Board announced, "Based on extensive research, Dimensional was recommended because it offers relatively low-cost options and has many products that are ranked highly by OTTA’s investment consultant, Wilshire Associates, Inc."

This is great news for Ohio 529 plan participants. Dimensional Funds have a strong, empirical underpinning and have long been a core component of the True Wealth Design investment portfolios. For participants that well-utilize their funds, this should help provide more dollars on a tax-free basis for qualified higher education expenses.

To Your Prosperity,

Kevin Kroskey, CFP® MBA

 
Click here for the full news release from the Ohio 529 Board.

 
Click here for cover story from Baron's “A Different Dimension” for more information on Dimensional Funds and what makes them different. Selected highlights are below:

DIMENSIONAL'S FUNDS aim to capture the returns of an asset class -- be it small or large companies, developed or emerging markets -- without slavishly adhering to an index. And they do. For example, take the Vanguard Small Cap Value index fund (VISVX), which is based on the S&P 600 Small Cap Value index and is the counterpart toDimensional's DFA US Small Cap Value (DFSVX). The DFA fund has a much smaller tilt -- its average market value is $1.1 billion, versus Vanguard's $2.7 billion -- and on all measures is much more value-oriented. So the Dimensional fund better captures the market-beating advantage of small and value stocks. In fact, a lot better: The DFA fund returned 42% in 2013, beating 88% of its peers in Morningstar's small-cap value category, versus the Vanguard fund's 36% return, which beat just 53%. Over 15 years, which includes periods that were less favorable to small and/or value stocks, DFA's fund returned an average of 12% a year, beating 80% of peers. The Vanguard fund returned 10% on average, beating just 37% of peers.

The Dimensional fund costs twice as much as Vanguard's -- 0.52% versus 0.24% -- but the significant outperformance more than makes up for that difference.

TRADING IS ALSO a crucial factor in DFA's outperformance. Index funds trade in baskets -- whenever a stock is added or dropped from the index, it's bought or sold almost immediately, which can drive the price up or down. Similarly, active managers often want to get into or out of a stock quickly. DFA, however, takes a more methodical, opportunistic approach to trading. There's never pressure to buy or sell a fund within a certain time frame. Instead, it serves as a market-maker for the 14,000 stocks it owns, offering to sell when frenzied buying has sent the bid higher, and taking a stock off another trader's hands when the shares can be acquired cheaply. Every morning, traders get a list of stocks the firm wants to buy or sell, but instead of mandated trading orders, the trading desk determines if conditions are good for each transaction. "We go into the market and see where the most anxiety is and where we can trade at favorable prices," says Booth. "We provide liquidity."

Trade execution is critical to another factor that Fama and French added to their model more recently: Stocks that are falling tend to continue to fall, and those that are rising tend to continue to rise. "So you want to trade slowly," Booth says. "We are slow to trade most of the new names that have recently fallen into the value category, because they are negative-momentum stocks. We're also slow to sell positive-momentum stocks. We'll hold on for years."

Trading costs have also influenced portfolio construction, as have the sharp advisors that work with the firm. Dimensional's 5,000-stock international core funds, for instance, were created at the behest of the firm's largest client, $22 billion Buckingham Asset Management. The international core fund combines developed and emerging markets, minimizing the trading costs that would occur, say, when a country like Israel or South Korea "graduates" from the emerging to the developed category. Rather than one fund selling and another buying, advisors who want exposure to both asset classes can get it in one fund. "That eliminates risk and costs, and we don't have to rebalance," says Larry Swedroe, a principal at Buckingham. "That's a huge advantage, and a big innovation." Dimensional also has a 3,000-stock U.S. core fund.

Dimensional has 76 funds, many of which overlap because of its willingness to work with advisors to meet their needs. "We have several versions of our core portfolios to accommodate advisors who want more or less of a small or value tilt," Repetto says.

The latest factor, profitability, has been steadily implemented since being introduced in four funds a year ago; it will be a factor in all DFA funds by early this year. The profitability factor incorporates firms with higher profitability relative to price, cash flow, or other metrics. That's essentially the secret behind Warren Buffett's success. Investors tend to pay too much for -- or, in other words, not apply enough of a risk discount to -- "lottery" stocks. Think of a bell curve of stock returns: You'll see far more returns to the left of the mean, and a few outsize winners on the right. That market's willingness to pay for the small chance of outsize gains means that other profitable firms, relatively speaking, have lower prices.

Popular posts from this blog

Are We All Socialists Now: Government Intervention and Stock Market Returns

As a recent Newsweek cover asked, "Are We All Socialists Now?" And if so, should U.S. equity investors be alarmed by the prospect of greater government intervention in the economy? Historical data looking at this very question may be surprising to you. Click the link below to watch a short 6 minute video, which provides some objective comparisons of stock market returns from the more free-market system in the U.S. compared to the returns from more interventionist governments from around the world. The evidence suggests that government intervention is just one factor among many affecting stock returns, and that an above-average degree of intervention is not necessarily associated with below-average returns. https://admin.acrobat.com/_a772887163/governmentinterventionandstockreturns/ To Your Prosperity ~ Kevin Kroskey

Last Week Was Not One To Miss

Last week the Dow rose 7.3% last week amid earnings reports from many companies, as reported in the Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124782681174757379.html ). For most companies, it's not like the reports were necessarily good. It was that the news was not as bad as expected . This rapid rise in the market occurred despite poor economic news, including rising unemployment now predicted to go north of 10%. To many investors, this seems counter-intuitive: poor economic news and declining earnings reports compared to the same time last year yet the market goes up markedly. How come? It's quite simple actually. The market looks forward and reacts to new and unknowable information . So even though the news was bad, much of it was not as bad as expected . Thus the new information positively changed market expectations and prices adjusted upward. Unless you can predict the future, as investors we must stay invested through good times and bad to ensure we experien...

The Cruel Psychology of the 1,000-Point Drop

If you don't already read Jason Zweig's regular column in the Wall Street Journal, you should. He is one of the few financial journalists worth reading. His recent article on the psychology of the recent market drop is rational and instructive. ==== Click here to read the article in it's entirety: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/08/24/the-cruel-psychology-of-the-1000-point-drop/ See below for a snippet: Experiments have shown , for instance, that people believe cancer is riskier when they are told that it kills “1,286 out of 10,000 people” than when they hear that it kills “24.14 out of 100 people.” Hearing “1,286” immediately brings a large number of victims to mind, while “24.14” is simply a much smaller number. To notice that the first number is less than 13%, while the second is more than 24%, you have to focus on the denominators of the fractions and do some quick division. But your emotions will likely hijack your brain long before you get to that poi...