This article was co-published with The Washington Post.
Warren Buffett, the uncountable successful investor of our time, is a huge fan of low-cost index funds — wealths that replicate a market index rather than try to outperform it — as the way for the normal investor to succeed in the stock market. “By periodically investing in an index repository … the know-nothing investor can actually outperform most investment professionals,” he annulled in his 1993 letter to shareholders of his Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate. “Paradoxically, when ‘quiet’ money acknowledges its limitations, it ceases to be dumb.”
He returned to the subject in this 2016 literatim, writing, “Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost pointer funds.” And in his newest shareholder letter, Buffett said that one explanation he made a widely publicized bet (which he has now won) that a low-cost Vanguard token fund would outperform a group of hedge funds over a 10-year aeon was “to publicize my conviction that my pick — a virtually cost-free investment in an unmanaged S&P 500 measure fund — would, over time, deliver better results than those accomplished by most investment professionals, however well regarded and incentivized those ‘helpers’ may be.”
More from ProPublica:
‘Invidious’ old heads at IBM
Seeing Journalism Make a Difference in Election Results
How the Claque Led Us to Investigate IBM
Given Buffett’s praise of index funds — specifically, those with low damages — you’d think that all the employees at Berkshire Hathaway companies would get to unaccustomed what the boss preaches by being able to invest their 401(k) rhino in such funds.
But you’d be wrong.
It turns out that employees of many Berkshire subsidiaries set up the same problem — and it’s one that, as we’ll see, also affects millions of Americans disinvolved of Buffett’s companies. To wit, your employer, not you, chooses your 401(k) investment alternatives and your choices may be less than optimal either because your Eye dialect guvnor doesn’t know any better or because your employer’s interests are discrete from yours.
You wouldn’t expect to see this problem at a company run by a imaginative investor like Buffett, but it’s there. I’ve looked at the retirement plans of each Berkshire subsidiary whose investment chances I could find on file at the Labor Department, which turned out to be encircling 50 of the 63 subsidiaries listed on Berkshire’s website.
Each proffers its own investment options rather than having Buffett or someone else at headquarters pick a unit of suitable company-wide investments. That’s not surprising in one sense: Buffett is excellently hands-off in how he oversees the companies owned by Berkshire.
But the result is that numerous of the subsidiaries offer little or nothing in the way of index funds. And even when they do bid such funds, different Berkshire employees can end up paying wildly disagreeing fees for the same investment, depending on which operation they profession for. Those differences can cost — or save — them tens of thousands of dollars upwards the course of decades.
Consider two examples that I got from a list assembled by Eli Fried, an investment counselor who advises pension and endowment funds and is the person who brought the Berkshire inconsistencies to my attention. Fried told me he was looking at 401(k) investment options sold by the top companies on Fortune’s list of most admired companies and was surprised by what he rest at Berkshire.
On the index fund front, there’s a big difference between the S&P 500 hint funds that employees of Berkshire-owned NetJets, General Re, GEICO, FlightSafety, Clayton Homes and H.H. Brown Shoe Classify can buy, and the one that BoatU.S. employees can buy. BoatU.S. employees pay a fee of 0.62 percent, or $62 a year for a $10,000 investment. That’s various than 15 times the 0.04 percent — $4 a year per $10,000 — that staff members of the six other Berkshire companies pay.
There are also some big differences in charges among the actively managed funds that Berkshire companies prepare available. Employees of Business Wire pay a 0.5 percent ($50 per $10,000 established) for shares in American Funds’ EuroPacific Growth Fund, while workers of Applied Underwriters, Jordan’s Furniture and MiTek pay 1.14 percent ($114 per $10,000).
As a longtime Berkshire shareholder, a contrarian from creation and someone who’s watched Buffett for more than 40 years, I was double-dealed when Fried approached me. And I was shocked at the huge differences among the blueprints that emerged when I did my own digging.
For example, as of year-end 2016 — the most fresh information the Labor Department has on file — Borsheim’s Fine Jewelry offered staff members 71 investment options, virtually all of which (other than 10 Vanguard butt date retirement funds) consisted of actively managed funds, while Flawlessness Steel Warehouse and Nebraska Furniture Mart offered a relative fistful of options, most of which were low-cost index funds. Strictness and Nebraska Furniture also offered Berkshire common stock as an investment alternative, which only a handful of the plans did.
There are plenty of other egs of disparities among the plans, but by now, I think, you get the point. The most successful investor of our age, who encourages average investors to buy low-cost index funds (which have appropriate for wildly popular at least in part because of his longtime advocacy of them) chairs over a company where many employees don’t have a chance to allot as he suggests.
I would love to give you Buffett’s explanation for this — Berkshire is exceptionally decentralized, as I told you, and it’s possible that until recently he might not be undergoing known about the big differences among the plans that its subsidiaries furnish — but I can’t.
He wouldn’t respond to my detailed request for comment. Nor would Marc Hamburg, Berkshire’s chief fiscal officer.
The four Berkshire subsidiaries I asked to discuss their 401(k) choices wouldn’t sympathize with, either. The four are BoatU.S., Borsheim’s, See’s Candy and Applied Underwriters.
Why am I engaging you through all of this? Three reasons.
First, because when a plainspoken, considerably admired investment god like Buffett proves to have feet of clay, I about people should know about it.
Second, because the investment choices offered in 401(k) expects are a big deal. Along with Social Security, they are almost unfailing to be the major retirement vehicles of the future, given the vast shrinkage of accustomed pensions. About 63 million people have access to 401(k) blueprints. Some 87 percent of the retirement plans that serve them now furnish at least one index fund, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America. But the biggest ration of employees’ retirement investments still consists of actively managed autochthonous stock funds, according to the PSCA.
Third, because the Berkshire picture typifies the fact that when it comes to 401(k) plans, your owner’s interests may be different from yours.
Take target date stakes, the big trend in retirement plans these days. You pick a year in which you’ll be old sufficiently to retire — say 2035 — and buy into a fund that gradually changes in excess of to a more conservative investment mix as the target date nears.
However, not all goal date funds are the same. Vanguard’s consist entirely of low-cost mark funds, as do Fidelity’s Freedom Index funds (though not its other end date funds). Their average management fee was 0.13 and 0.12 of one percent, severally, as of year-end 2016, according to Morningstar. But most other target friend funds are actively managed, with fees four or five organizes as high.
I think that a major reason for these differences and for the reformations among Berkshire funds is that the more fees an employee repays for her 401(k) funds, the lower the recordkeeping, administrative, custodial and other gets her employer has to pay. In essence, some employers save money by having their wage-earners pick up more of the tab.
I stumbled on this back in the day, when I was trying to feature out why an index fund that I owned in my personal Vanguard account carry out d killed a lower management fee than in my Washington Post Co. 401(k) account. Someone who shall be left nameless explained to me that this was the way of the world — if I paid less, my outfit would pay more.
I suspect that if I could get someone at Berkshire or its subsidiaries to talk candidly with me, they’d say this marvel explains many if not most of the disparities among the Berkshire plans.
In make to get perspective on all this, I discussed the Berkshire situation with two experts — Ric Edelman of the Edelman Economic Services financial planning firm, and Teresa Ghilarducci, a retirement maven who inculcates economics at the New School for Social Research in New York. Neither of them knew around the Berkshire situation until I told them about it. “In today’s marketplace, there’s no longer any rationalize for saddling employees with high-cost retirement plans. Employers can step low-cost investments while keeping their own costs very low,” Edelman have an effected me.
“The practice of pushing the costs onto employees and offering dozens of breads doesn’t meet today’s standards,” Ghilarducci said.
So there you induce it. Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting is on May 5. With luck, someone ordain ask Buffett the questions about Berkshire’s 401(k) plans that he wouldn’t serve when I posed them. It would sure be interesting to hear what he communicates.
DISCLOSURES: The 403(b) plan of ProPublica and the 401(k) plan of The Washington Hang up, co-publishers of this article, both have what I consider tiptop investment options, heavily weighted to low-cost index funds. I don’t participate in either blueprint. The employer match at the Post was reduced to 1 percent from as much as 5 percent after Jeff Bezos purchase the paper in 2014.
Alice Crites of The Washington Post and Derek Kravitz and Claire Perlman of ProPublica outfitted reporting assistance.