Does anyone have a socially conscious financial planner they can recommend ?

[annm4peace]

I don't own a house but I do work for a corporation and have a 401k and some savings. Single, no kids.

I want to move my 401k into socially conscious investments and not the current defense contracting corporations.

and I need help with what to so with my small savings. I'm headed into middle age and need some good advise.

thanks,

[EgyptianDentist]

1. Start with a small portion of your money

And see if it will work or not. Then add another portion when you gain the same amount of money you previously invested.

I dont know about US, but opening a small beauty salon in a street that doesnt have one usually works..

[progree]

2. RBC Wealth Management, Vanguard, Google socially responsible investing;

A couple of things come to mind. (and more as I started typing)

RBC Wealth Management https://www.rbcwm-usa.com/index.htm advertises a lot on AM 950 progressive talk radio in the Twin Cities and I remember hearing them claim to socially conscious investing. To me, though, they look like the kind of place that will charge 1 to 2% or more of your assets per year. They might be tilted towards high net worth clients. But they've been advertising on AM 950 for a long time, so I'd be inclined to see if they are a fit if I was "looking".

www.vanguard.com -- it is client-owned. https://investor.vanguard.com/about/video-transcript-about-vanguard They are probably the lowest cost provider, with a vast array of mutual funds and ETFs (and yes, a full brokerage service too). Anyway, I've been using them since the 80's. And they provide financial planning help (at a cost for most investors), but a lot of free advice too.

They are also the pioneers in very low-expense ratio passive index funds, which, in my opinion, should be the bedrock of the equity portion of one's assets. (And equities should be the bedrock of one's non-house assets in my opinion -- with earnings averaging an increase of 9% or so a year since WWII (i.e. doubling on average every 8 or 9 years), prices inevitably over the long run, with ups and downs, follow).

(Don't make too much of my "non-house" assets in the above. My house investment: a townhome in 1980 for $59,500 that, according to the tax assessment valuation, peaked at $165,000 in 2007 and is now $58,000. And it probably needs about $15,000 or more work at the minimum to get it into the condition it was when I bought it).

There are self-described socially conscious mutual funds out there, you can Google them: "socially conscious mutual funds" without the quotes. Or "socially responsible investing".

I don't have any familiarity with the various self-described socially conscious mutual funds, but from what I read, I think something in The Nation of The New Republic, is that their holdings are often socially conscious in one or two ways and socially unconscious awful in some other ways.

Anyway, one that advertises a lot in The Nation magazine is Domini -- www.domini.com . Check out Amy Domini too (just something that came up in Google -- "Amy Domini is an American investment adviser and author known for her work in "social investing". As one of the founders of KLD Research & Analytics, Inc., she helped created the Domini 400 Social Index&quot .

[geardaddy]

25. I agree with progree

RBC Wealth Management is a good one to go with. I worked there and the environment was mostly liberal.

[annm4peace]

3. thanks for the info..

it is good to know that stuff

[Randomthought]

4. Sit Investment

I work there. They treat their employees well and try to operate and invest in an ethical manner. Consistently in the top ten Morningstar ratings

[progree]

30. "Consistently in the top ten Morningstar ratings" - what does that mean? (performance megapost)

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2013, 10:31 PM - Edit history (3)

[font color=red]See bottom of post for explanation of edits[/font]

[font color=blue] >> 4. Sit Investment
I work there. They treat their employees well and try to operate and invest in an ethical manner. Consistently in the top ten Morningstar ratings << [/font]

First, I'm glad they [font color=blue]"try to operate and invest in an ethical manner."[/font] I try hard to be good too.

I don't know where you get [font color=blue]"Consistently in the top ten Morningstar ratings"[/font]. The Morningstar performance rating system is 1 star through 5 stars, more stars are better. None of the 7 SIT equity funds has the 5 star rating. That means none of them are in the top 10% of funds in their category ("Within each Morningstar Category, the top 10% of funds receive five stars" - Morningstar. For more on the star ratings please see about midway down this post).

(Morningstar doesn't have any "half-star" ratings like 3 1/2 stars. So there are only 5 gradations, not 10)

One of the 4 bond funds -- SNGVX (SIT U.S. Governement Securities) -- has 5 stars, so it, and it alone is in the top 10% of funds in its category (I haven't checked if it is "consistently" in the top 10%, other than to note that it is below it's category average in 1 year (-1.55% return vs. category average of -0.70%) and YTD, per Morningstar. In fairness, it is top 10% v. category in all of these: 3 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr, and 15 yr).

The SIT Balanced Fund has a 3 star rating.

So in summary, only 1 of the 12 SIT funds of all kinds has a 5-star rating and thus is in the top 10% of funds in its category, according to Morningstar.

Of the SIT equity funds (shown in blue below),
2 have a 2-star rating, 3 have a 3-star rating, and 2 have a 4-star rating. Average: 3.00 stars.

Of the Vanguard equity funds (shown in red below),
0 have a 2-star rating, 4 have a 3-star rating, 2 have a 4-star rating, 1 has a 5-star rating. Average: 3.57 stars

Morningstar doesn't have any forward-looking "analyst ratings" for SIT funds (negative, neutral, bronze, silver, gold). They are shown below for the Vanguard funds (except VHGEX Global Equity which for some unknown reason doesn't have a Morningstar analyst rating)

(It is no surprise that Morningstar has a higher average rating for the 7 Vanguard funds than the 7 SIT funds, given that the 7 Vanguard funds outperformed their SIT counterparts by an average of 2.63% over 1 year, 1.42%/yr over 3 years, 1.66%/yr over 5 years, and 1.71%/yr over 10 years. The 5 year difference of 1.66%/yr (8.73%/yr performance for the SIT funds and 10.39%/yr performance for the Vanguard funds) comes to a $1,196 difference on a $10,000 investment over 5 years (10000*1.1039^5 - 10000*1.0873^5 = 1196). If those performances continued over 25 more years, for a total of 30 years, the seemingly small 1.66%/yr difference in performance would mount up to an amazing $70,877, or 7.1 times the original $10,000 investment. And you end up with 36.5% less in your nestegg after 30 years as a result. More on this later in this post.) (10000*1.1039^30 - 10000*1.0873^30 = 70,877)

There was a Frontline episode back in April 2013, "The Retirement Gamble", that talked about the big fees that 401(k) plans were taking from employees, and how much that compounded to in dimished returns over 20-30 years. It got a lot of outraged discussion on DU. So, why would someone picking funds to invest in on their own choose to throw away so much money?
_ _ Video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/
_ _ Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/retirement-gamble/transcript-43/


Morningstar ratings and Expense ratios of the Equity funds:

In the below, the [font color=blue]blue is the SIT fund[/font] while the [font color=red]red is the corresponding Vanguard fund[/font].

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] MornStar Expense Ratio[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]Fund Ratings and MornStar classification[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]=============================== ====== ===========================[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]SNIGX (Large Cap Gro) 3 ---- 1.00% (average) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]VIGRX / VIGAX (Gro Idx) 4 Silver 0.24% / 0.10% (both low) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]NBNGX (Mid Cap Gro) 3 ---- 1.25% (above average) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]VMGIX / VMGMX (Mid Cap Gro Idx) 3 Silver 0.24% / 0.10% (both low) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]SSMGX (Small Cap Gro) 3 ---- 1.50% (high) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]VISGX / VSGAX (Small Cap Gro Idx) 4 Silver 0.24% / 0.10% (both low) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]SDVSX / SDVGX (Dividend Gro) 4 ---- 1.27% / 1.00% (both above average) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]VDIGX (Dividend Gro) 5 Gold 0.29% (low) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]SNGRX (Intl Gro) 2 ---- 1.51% (high) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]VWIGX / VWILX (Intl Gro) 3 Silver 0.49% / 0.36% (both low) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]SDMGX (Developing Markets Gro) 2 ---- 2.00% (high) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]VEIEX / VEMAX (Emerging Mkts Idx) 3 Silver 0.33% / 0.18% (both low) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]GDGSX / GDGIX (Global Dividend Gro) 4 ---- 1.53% / 1.28% (both above average) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]VHGEX (Global Equity) 3 ---- 0.59% (low) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/font]

ABBREVIATIONS: "Gro" = Growth, "Idx" = Index

To check the Morningstar rating and expenses of a fund, e.g. SNIGX, go to the below URL, where the fund symbol is at the end as shown:
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=SNIGX
To switch to another fund, enter the fund's symbol in the "Quote" box at the top center of the Morningstar page.

The Expense Ratio in the above comes from SITfunds.com for SIT Funds (they call it the annual operating fund expense), and from Vanguard for the Vanguard funds. They agree exactly (or very closely in a couple of instances) with those given by finance.yahoo.com and Morningstar. The classification of the expense ratio (e.g. low, average, above average, high) comes from Morningstar.

Using the higher cost / lower initial minimum investment choices from the table above (the first of each pair),

SIT average expense ratio = average(1.0,1.25,1.50,1.27,1.51,2.00,1.53)=1.437%
Vgd average expense ratio = average (.24,.24,.24,.29,.49,.33,.59)= 0.346%
Difference: 1.09%

The 1.09%/yr difference in the average expense ratio goes a long way to explaining the performance difference


Some notes on the SIT funds:

For SDVSX / SDVGX (Dividend Growth), the first one is the "S class" and the second one is the "I Class". The "I class has a minimum initial investment of $100,000 ($2,000 for IRAs), while the "S class" has a minimum initial investment of $5,000 ($2,000 for IRAs), according to SITFunds.com.

It is hard to believe that for SDVGX, the I-class Dividend Growth, the IRA has a $2,000 minimum while an ordinary (i.e. non-IRA) investment has a $100,000 minimum, given that GDGIX, the I-class Global Dividend Growth has a $100,000 minimum for both the IRA and for the ordinary investment. finance.yahoo.com reports a $100,000 minimum for SDVGX for both the IRA and ordinary investment. (Vanguard has no minimum information on SDVGX, while Morningstar reports only one minimum figure ($100,000), not a separate figure for IRA and ordinary investments). (ON EDIT 10/20: The SIT Fund prospectus (http://www.sitfunds.com/documents/Sit%20Stock%20Statutory%20Prospectus%2011-1-12.pdf ) says the initial minimum for both the Dividend Growth I-class and the Global Dividend Growth I-class is $100,000, both for ordinary investments and IRA investments. So Sitfunds needs to correct their website information on SDVGX)

For the other SIT funds, the minimum initial investment is $5,000 ($2,000 for IRAs)


Some notes on the Vanguard funds:

VIGRX / VIGAX (Gro Idx) - while it is named "Growth Index", the Morningstar Style Box shows its holdings in the large cap growth box. (This fund is being compared to SIT's SNIGX (Large Cap Gro). The Morningstar box shows both the SIT and Vanguard funds virtually at the top right corner of the large cap growth box, i.e. essentially 100% large cap and 100% growth. So they are very similar at least in the cap size and value-growth characteristic.

VEIEX / VEMAX (Emerging Mkts Idx) - Morningstar shows it as large cap blend - just slightly more growth than value. However, the SIT fund I'm comparing it to: SDMGX (Developing Markets Growth) is also shown by Morningstar as large cap blend -- only slightly more growth than VEIEX / VEMAX. So they are very similar at least in the cap size and value-growth characteristic.

VHGEX (Global Equity) - Morningstar shows it as large cap blend - about 55% of the way on the value-growth line (i.e. slightly more growth than value). The SIT fund I'm comparing it to: GDGSX (Global Dividend Growth) is also large cap blend -- about 40% of the way on the value - growth line (i.e. a bit more value than growth). As for the "Dividend" part of it, the Vanguard fund has a TTM (Trailing Twelve Month) yield of 1.56% vs. the 1.34% for the SIT Fund, so the Vanguard fund is a bit more "dividendy" than the SIT fund and somewhat more "growthy". To summarize, the Vanguard Global Equity fund is more growthy and more dividendy than the SIT Global Dividend Growth fund, despite their names. Also the Vanguard fund is more diversified globally (57% non-US stocks) than the SIT Fund (only 40% non-U.S. stocks). (Remember these call themselves global funds, not "U.S. with a little international seasoning" funds)

Vanguard: Minimums all the funds shown are $3,000 for the first listed member of a pair, and $10,000 for the second member of a pair. True also for IRAs. Where only one is listed, it is $3,000 minimum. Exception: VWILX, the lower cost one of the VWIGX / VWILX pair, has a $50,000 minimum instead of the expected $10,000 minimum . All of the Vanguard funds shown have a $100 minimum for ADDITIONAL investments in the fund, the same as all the SIT funds. <-last part of sentence edited 10/20 ~230p CT - see bottom of post for explanation.


Morningstar performance rating for funds (also called the "star rating&quot
http://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/morningstar_rating_for_funds.aspx

Morningstar rates mutual funds from one to five stars based on how well they've performed (after adjusting for risk and accounting for all sales charges) in comparison to similar funds.

Within each Morningstar Category, the top 10% of funds receive five stars, the next 22.5% four stars, the middle 35% three stars, the next 22.5% two stars, and the bottom 10% receive one star. Funds are rated for up to three time periods--three-, five-, and 10 years--and these ratings are combined to produce an overall rating. Funds with less than three years of history are not rated.

Ratings are objective, based entirely on a mathematical evaluation of past performance. They're a useful tool for identifying funds worthy of further research, but shouldn't be considered buy or sell recommendations.

Morningstar also has recently introduced "analyst rating for funds" which are analysts' forward-looking rating (negative, neutral, bronze, silver, gold).

http://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/morningstar-analyst-rating-for-funds.aspx

But none of the SIT Funds have this kind of rating.

More details of the Morningstar star rating system:

http://corporate.morningstar.com/US/documents/MethodologyDocuments/FactSheets/MorningstarRatingForFunds_FactSheet.pdf


Performance Comparison - Performance of the Equity Funds As of September 30, 2013 (end of quarter)

The blue funds are the SIT equity funds, The red funds are the Vanguard equivalent, and the difference is the performance advantage of the Vanguard fund over the SIT fund (negative differences mean the SIT fund outperformed the Vanguard fund).

Below are the annualized average returns. Negative numbers are in parenthesis ()'s

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 1 yr 3 yr 5 yr 10 yr Name[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]====== ====== ====== ===== =================[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]14.64% 13.71% 8.16% 7.67% SNIGX (SIT Lg Cap Gro)[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]18.50% 16.86% 11.57% 7.89% VIGRX (Vgd Gro Idx)[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 3.86% 3.15% 3.41% 0.22% Difference[/font]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]24.41% 15.09% 11.06% 9.42% NBNGX (SIT Mid Cap Gro)[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]26.48% 16.83% 13.01% — VMGIX (Vgd Mid Cap Gro Idx)[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 2.07% 1.74% 1.95% — Difference[/font]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]27.29% 17.33% 12.36% 9.63% SSMGX (SIT Small Cap Gro)[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]30.83% 20.26% 14.68% 11.24% VISGX (Vgd Small Cap Gro Idx)[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 3.54% 2.93% 2.32% 1.61% Difference[/font]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 1 yr 3 yr 5 yr 10 yr Name[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]====== ====== ====== ===== =================[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]17.10% 14.76% 9.99% — SDVSX (SIT Dividend Gro) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]20.02% 16.29% 10.36% 9.45% VDIGX (Vgd Dividend Gro) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 2.92% 1.53% 0.37% — Difference[/font]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]19.73% 8.39% 4.90% 6.38% SNGRX (SIT Intl Gro) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]22.39% 8.36% 8.34% 9.38% VWIGX (Vgd Intl Gro) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 2.66% (0.03%) 3.44% 3.00% Difference[/font]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue] 3.69% (1.04%) 4.20% 10.20% SDMGX (SIT Developing Markets Gro) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red](0.29%) (1.11%) 6.32% 12.19% VEIEX (Vgd Emerging Mkts Idx) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black](3.98%) (0.07%) 2.12% 1.99% Difference[/font]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]15.36% 10.90% 10.42% — GDGSX (SIT Global Dividend Gro) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]22.72% 11.60% 8.46% 8.50% VHGEX (Vgd Global Equity) [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 7.36% 0.70% (1.96%) — Difference[/font]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.67em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]Averages of the equity funds [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 1 yr 3 yr 5 yr 10 yr Name[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black]====== ====== ====== ===== =================[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= blue]17.46% 11.31% 8.73% 8.66% Average SIT Fund[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= red]20.09% 12.73% 10.39% 9.78% Average Vgd Fund[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=black] 2.63% 1.42% 1.66% 1.71% Difference[/font]


There are 7 pairs of funds, and 25 differences between these pairs (most pairs have 1, 3, 5, and 10 year differences, but 3 pairs don't). Only 4 of these 25 differences (16% of the differences) are negative, meaning the SIT fund outperformed the Vanguard fund, and the average of these 4 differences (0.03%, 3.98%, 0.07%, 1.96%) is 1.51%. The average of the 21 differences where the Vanguard fund has the advantage is 2.52%.

The averages in the last 3 rows of the table above are simple arithmetic averages of the funds above.

What is the impact of these differences? To judge funds, I tend to favor the longer timeframes because that covers a larger range of market conditions, and diminishes the impact of random good luck (it is harder to be lucky over 10 years than for just 1 year). I would pick the 10 year time for my primary comparison except that 3 of the 7 pairs is missing 10 year data. So I'll choose the 5 year one (which incidentally has a slightly lower average difference than the 10 year one -- that is, I'm favoring SIT a little bit by using 5 years instead of 10 years).

Over 5 years, a $10,000 lump sum invested in the average SIT fund returning 8.73%/yr would grow to 10,000 * 1.0873^5= $15,197

Over 5 years, a $10,000 lump sum invested in the average Vanguard fund returning 10.39%/yr would grow to 10,000 * 1.1039^5 = $16,393

For a difference of $1,196, or 12% of the original $10,000 investment.

That may not seem like much of a difference to us glitterati types. But consider what that performance difference would amount to over longer time frames. If one fund earns 8.73%/yr over 10 years while another fund earns 10.39%/yr over 10 years, the difference is $3,778. Over 15 years the difference is: $8,955. Over 20 years the difference is: $18,878 (1.9 times our original $10,000 investment). Over 30 years the difference is: $70,877 (7.1 times our original $10,000 investment). Resulting in a nest egg that is 36.5% less (that's more than 1/3 less).

Are these unrealistic sky high returns for a 30 year period? I don't think so. VFINX, the Vanguard S&P 500 index fund, has since its inception 8/31/76 through 10/11/13 returned an average of 10.83%/yr. That is a 37 year 41 day period or 37.112 years. $10,000 invested on 8/31/76 in this fund (just a plain vanilla S&P 500 index fund representing about 75% of the U.S. equity market in capitalization) would have grown 1.1083^37.112 = 45.429 fold over this time period to a total of $454,290. (Put it another way, $22,000 invested 8/31/76 would have made you into a millionaire). Source of the return since inception: http://www.thestreet.com/quote/VFINX.html

Bond funds - All of this post has been about equity funds, but I've also looked into the bond funds. Average star rating = average(4,3,5) = 4.00 stars, which is good. Average expense ratio = average(.82, .90, .80, .80) = 0.83%. Morningstar classifies the expense ratio of 2 of the funds as "above average" and the other 2 of the funds as "high". I have not yet looked for comparable Vanguard bond funds, as most of the discussion in this thread has been about equities. Also, because the bond funds are too short-term and too low-yield for my taste (and admittedly that would certainly be true of the Vanguard equivalents).

The SIT Balanced Fund (SIBAX) It is 3 stars with an expense ratio of 1.05%. It is 63.7% stocks, 33.2% bonds, and 3.1% in other assets and liabilities. Its trailing 12 month yield is 1.45%. I have not yet looked for an equivalent Vanguard fund.

Note: the SITFunds.com website as of 10/16/13 still showed performance only through 6/30/13. On 10/17 I found some were in transition to 9/30/13 figures - e.g. some funds had their "overview" and "performance" tab both one date or the other, and some had their "overview" and "performance" tabs showing different dates (either 6/30/13 or 9/30/13). Contrast that to the Vanguard website which has been all 9/30/13 ever since I started this, about Monday 10/14. Also, note that the Vanguard website updates their performance numbers monthly rather than quarterly, so there is never a 3 month lag in latest performance data

Source of the performance numbers in the above table

Go to:
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/vanguard-fund-options

Put in the first fund, "SNIGX" in the "Already know what fund you're looking for? Enter fund name or symbol" box. In the search results, click on the only search result, "1. Sit Large Cap Growth Fund (SNIGX)"

the following page will come up:

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=1770&FundIntExt=EXT

On the right hand side menu, choose "Compare fund details".

The page that comes up should show 5 columns with the first column being Sit Large Cap Growth Fund and the remaining columns blank.

-Now, at the top of the second column click on "Add fund, ETF, or benchmark"

-In the pop up box that comes up titled "What do you want to compare?", put in the 2nd fund, "VIGRX" in the "Enter name or symbol" box at the upper right. A little pop up box should show your choice fully spelled out. Select it.

-Now, in the 3rd column click on "Add fund, ETF, or benchmark"

-(To add a SIT fund, such as SIT Mid Cap Gro) After completing the above step (clicking on "Add fund, ETF, or benchmark&quot , in the pop up box that comes up titled "What do you want to compare?", on the left side, select the "Other fund families" radio button, and in the pull-down box at the top center, select "SIT". Several SIT funds should appear in the box. Pick the 3rd fund, SIT Mid Cap Growth from the list (you'll have to pull down the scroll bar slider on the right side to scroll down and see it). Up will pop a box "Did You Know Vanguard Has Similar Funds?" Click on the Cancel button on the lower left. The SIT Mid Cap Growth fund should now show up at the top of the 3rd column of the main table.

-And so on. To add a Vanguard fund, such as Vgd Mid Cap Gro Idx Whenever adding a Vanguard fund to a column (click on "Add fund, ETF, or benchmark" at the top of the next blank column), in the "What do you want to compare?" pop-up window that comes up, one has to select the Vanguard radio button on the left and then enter a Vanguard fund symbol (e.g. our 4th fund, VMGIX) into the "Enter Name or Symbol" box. A little pop up box should show your choice fully spelled out. Select it.

-And whenever adding a SIT fund, one has to follow the procedure described in the paragraph above the last paragraph (remember to first click on the "Add fund, ETF, or benchmark" at the top of the next blank column)

Since the table has only 5 columns, one can only show 5 funds. Since I want to do pair-wise comparisons, I only did 4 funds at a time. I then copy and pasted what I wanted (the "Average annual performance—quarter end&quot into an Excel spreadsheet.

And then I had to clear the table and start over with the next 4 funds.

Yes, it would be less tedious to put in 5 Vanguard funds, put them in a spreadsheet, clear the table, put in the remaining 2 Vanguard funds, put them in a spreadsheet, clear the table, then repeat the above with 5 SIT funds and then the remaining 2 SIT funds. And then in the Excel spreadsheet, rearrange to how I want things (pairwise comparison of SIT fund and equivalent Vanguard fund). But I couldn't get ALL the data (not just the quarterly performance data) to show nicely in Excel without too much work and I did want to see pairwise comparisons of all the information in the web page, so that's why I'm describing the alternating Vanguard - SIT - Vanguard - SIT procedure.

[font color=red]
# ON EDIT 10/20 ~230p CT: The SIT Fund prospectus (http://www.sitfunds.com/documents/Sit%20Stock%20Statutory%20Prospectus%2011-1-12.pdf ) says the initial minimum for both the Dividend Growth I-class and the Global Dividend Growth I-class is $100,000, both for ordinary investments and IRA investments. So Sitfunds needs to correct their website information on SDVGX)

# ON EDIT 10/20 ~230p CT: All SIT funds have a minimum ADDITIONAL investment of $100, according to the prospectus, not $1000 as I stated previously. (The SITFUNDs.com website had no information on minimum ADDITIONAL investments that I could find, and some non-SIT source said $1000, so I went with that. On probing further, two other non-SIT sources say $100, and the prospectus says $100, so that settles it, the prospectus governs).

# ON EDIT 10/20 ~230p CT: Link to more details of the Morningstar rating system added: http://corporate.morningstar.com/US/documents/MethodologyDocuments/FactSheets/MorningstarRatingForFunds_FactSheet.pdf

# ON EDIT 10/20 ~653p CT: Put an "Averages" label above the average fund section of the 2nd (performance) table for clarity. Also, clarified the titles of the two tables that these are the equityfunds

# ON EDIT 10/21 ~932p CT: Added that the performance difference between the fund returning 10.39%/yr and the one returning 8.73%/yr would result in 36% less in one's nestegg over 30 years. Also, mentioned the Frontline episode "The Retirement Gamble" that talked about the high fees some employees were paying in their 401(k) programs, and wondered why anyone who has a choice would inflict the same financial loss on themselves.
[/font]

[annm4peace]

5. you work at RB Wealth ?

[Randomthought]

6. ??

are you asking me? I work at Sit Investment

[progree]

7. I mentioned RB Wealth (Later: oops: RBC Wealth Management)

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

-- I don't know beans about them except their ads on AM 950, and

Mark Heaney used to have Dan Brooks on regularly for a segment every Wednesday or something like that back when Heaney was hosting a show about 4 years ago. No, I don't work there and have never contacted them, no ties, no nothing, other than an AM 950 listener.

ON EDIT 915 am 10/1/13 - The title should be RBC Wealth Management. Annm4peace asked in #5 "you work at RB Wealth" and I didn't notice that it was different than the RBC Wealth Management that I mentioned as an advertiser on AM950, and in the past a frequent guest on the Mark Heaney show that used to be on AM 950 a few years ago.

[Randomthought]

8. RB Wealth

is a division of USB another big global banking brokerage corporation.

[progree]

9. I think RBC is Royal Bank of Canada

http://www.rbcwealthmanagement.com/

At the top left is Royal Bank of Canada's logo, and on the far upper right, a link to rbc.com -- the Royal Bank of Canada website.

Oh, when you hover the cursor over "Strength and Stability" it is explicit. I don't think there is any tie with USB - that's US Bank Corp?

My understanding is that the banks in Canada were much much more prudent during the housing bubble than U.S. banks

[Randomthought]

10. no UBS is not USBank

I misread your original post. There is a RBWealth that is a division of UBS. UBS is not USBank; it is global corporation. I think it is based in Switzerland.
I certainly would not choose an investment company on where they advertise. Anyone can buy advertising and capitalist definitely know to go where the market is.
Most "green funds" have a few green companies in them and the rest are the same old money grubbers. If you want to invest in the market and want to stay green then open a brokerage account and invest in individual stocks you have researched yourself.

I recommended the investment company I work for because I know that at least the people running the company are ethical.

[progree]

11. I did not say anywhere that U B S is US Bank. I asked if U S B was US Bank

From your post #8 -

RB Wealth is a division of USB another big global banking brokerage corporation.

From my post #9 [div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]I don't think there is any tie with USB - that's US Bank Corp?

From your post #10 -

no UBS is not USBank. I misread your original post. There is a RBWealth that is a division of UBS. UBS is not USBank; it is global corporation. I think it is based in Switzerland.

In post #8 you said U S B.

I never said anywhere, that U B S is US Bank.

My only mention of either U B S or U S B is post #9 above, "I don't think there is any tie with USB - that's US Bank Corp?".

You are correct that RB Wealth is a division of U B S, and yes, U B S is based in Switzerland. And yes, in post 7, I said "RB Wealth" when I meant the "RBC Wealth Management" that I talked about in post #2. My bad.

I certainly would not choose an investment company on where they advertise. Anyone can buy advertising and capitalist definitely know to go where the market is.

Nor would I. I also mentioned in the original version of #7 that [div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]Mark Heaney used to have Dan Brooks on regularly for a segment every Wednesday or something like that back when Heaney was hosting a show about 4 years ago. So that was part of my basis for thinking of them as a possibility (I liked most of what I heard him say), but only a possibility, with caveats, hardly a ringing endorsement --

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]RBC Wealth Management https://www.rbcwm-usa.com/index.htm advertises a lot on AM 950 progressive talk radio in the Twin Cities and I remember hearing them claim to socially conscious investing. To me, though, they look like the kind of place that will charge 1 to 2% or more of your assets per year. They might be tilted towards high net worth clients. But they've been advertising on AM 950 for a long time, so I'd be inclined to see if they are a fit if I was "looking".


And yes, you have an excellent point about advertisers on AM 950 -- there are a bunch of skank weeds advertising on AM 950. Saturday and Sundays is a cesspool of infomercial programs by snake oil salesmen. And there is constant advertising by companies that will fix your debt problems, fix your tax problems with the IRS, etc.

From your post #10

I recommended the investment company I work for because I know that at least the people running the company are ethical.

Myself, I would not choose an investment company on the basis of their claim to be ethical. I don't know any that don't claim that. And I would want to choose one that didn't imply that someone said that U B S is US Bank when no such statement was made.

I think annm4peace would be interested in how SIT might be a fit for her situation other than a claim to be ethical.

Most "green funds" have a few green companies in them and the rest are the same old money grubbers. If you want to invest in the market and want to stay green then open a brokerage account and invest in individual stocks you have researched yourself.

Yes, that is a possibility, but with a caveat. To be properly diversified, one should have at least 20 stocks, and would still likely end up with a lot more volatility overall than say a broad-based index fund like the S&P 500 index fund, or a Total U.S. Market Index Fund. Plus I would add an international index fund (Myself, I'm working towards 50% US and 50% non-US as my goal for my investments). And then as she has the time to do research, careful research on individual stocks, she can add those.

I would strongly *not* recommend that anyone, except a very experienced and exceptionally gifted investor, put all or most of their retirement into individual stocks. Either of their own choosing, and definitely not ones chosen by an investment advisor who stands to gain by churn -- that is the road to inevitable disaster.

I only have one individual stock, and it is a short way down on my "sell list" despite it doing very well. The rest of my investments are mostly in a few low cost index funds and ETFs, and a smaller portion in a few actively managed mutual funds.

[Randomthought]

12. I just work in the industry so what do I know

Obviously you know more than someone who works in the finance industry and looks at research all day.

[progree]

13. So, tell us about your record, then.

[font color=blue]Obviously you know more than someone who works in the finance industry and looks at research all day.[/font]

I'll tell you the research that I do know -- index funds on average do better than actively managed mutual funds. Those actively managed mutual funds have people that look at research all day, but few of them can beat the S&P 500 index on a long-term basis.

If you have any information that contradicts that, let's hear it.

And yes, when an investment advisor gains from churn, that is bad news for their client.

[progree]

14. You're ethical and you look at research all day. OK, got it. n/t

[Randomthought]

15. Two very similar names

RBWealth is very similar to RBC Wealth and UBS is often mistaken for US Bank. I'm sorry that I misread your original post and said so earlier. As for my company not being ethical -our reputation is very good and you are free to refute that with any facts you can find but not infer because i misread your post with I'm apologizing for the third time now.
Investment balancing is also dependent on your age.
My suggestion that an individual who wants to invest only in socially conscious stock do their own research stands.
annm4peace stated she had a company 401k and she wants to invest other savings. I'm merely suggesting she look at the individual stocks because the stock portfolios of mutual funds change constantly.

[progree]

16. I'm much more concerned that you "misread" #9. Please read #11 again.

{HEAVILY EDITED at 1203p Oct 1}

Are you apologizing for #10 as well? "no UBS is not USBank"

Actually, I don't think you owe an apology for #8 "RB Wealth is a division of USB another big global banking brokerage corporation."

Since I (mistakenly) said "RB Wealth" in #7. Except that you probably meant "UBS" instead of "USB". No biggie -- they both are big global banking brokerage corporations (and both of them have less than stellar reputations to put it mildly). So no need to apologize about anything before #10.

It was your #10 that upset me, and I laid out why with pain-staking clarity in #11.

[font color = blue]As for my company not being ethical -[/font]

I never said that. As for you, I was OK until post#10. And #15. (On edit: and #12)

And what I said about someone putting their retirement in individual stocks of their own choosing stands. As does trusting an investment advisor that stands to gain from churn. Or anyone who claims to be a good stock picker because they are ethical and look at research all day.

[progree]

17. Uhh, no, she said she wants to reinvest her 401k too, not just her other savings

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

From your #15: [font color = blue]annm4peace stated she had a company 401k and she wants to invest other savings. [/font]

Uhh, no, this is what she said in her OP:

[font color = brown]...I do work for a corporation and have a 401k and some savings. ... I want to move my 401k into socially conscious investments ... and I need help with what to so with my small savings. [/font]

(ON EDIT 1234p Oct 1} It is much different to advise someone on what to do with a small portion of their net worth, than to advise them on what to do with their entire retirement account. For a small portion, individual stocks might not be a bad idea, as there isn't that much to lose. For one's entire retirement account, as I stated before, picking ones own stocks is very risky, and letting an advisor do it who gains from churn is a train wreck waiting to happen.

(ON EDIT 1256p Oct 1} Actually, come to think of it, suggesting that someone whose assets consists of a 401k and a small amount of savings put the savings in the stock market is something very few financial advisors, nor I, would recommend. The savings (which I assume are in a regular rather than a tax-advantaged account) should mostly be positioned for emergencies and short-term purposes, and invested in a low-risk way. That's so that in an emergency one has those savings intact to use, rather than having to liquidate part of their 401k -- losing the tax deferral on the withdrawn amount and paying a 10% penalty on the withdrawn amount besides (she said she is "headed into middle age" so that sounds like she's nowhere near age 59 1/2, the threshold of penalty-free withdrawals).

If I were to choose an investment advisor, I'd put near the top of my list is that they listen to and understand their customers.

[Randomthought]

18. I wouldn't move the 401 k either

And I question whether that is even possible as long as she is working for the same company. I didn't think you could roll over a 401k while still employed. I'm not an adviser I just do research. The research isn't that tough to do on an individual company. I do think that a company that treats it's employees well and generally behaves in an ethical manner is trustworthy. What other criteria do we have?
So should we all just buy Costco stock?

[progree]

19. 401 k

[font color = blue]>>I wouldn't move the 401 k either

And I question whether that is even possible as long as she is working for the same company. I didn't think you could roll over a 401k while still employed. I'm not an adviser I just do research. <<[/font]

I don't kinow that one can roll over a 401 k while employed by that company either. So yes, that's something she has to check into.

If she were able to roll it over into say a Vanguard IRA (or Fidelity or Schwab or ...) -- either because the employer (and the law) allows it, or if it were from a former employer in which case she certainly can -- it would give her much more choices as to how to invest it than her 401 k likely does.

Well, OTOH, if it is the current employer, if she rolled it away to somewhere else (assuming she was allowed to), she would lose any future company match, though. (On edit 10/1 1113p I added the "future". Dunno, maybe she could lose past company matches too, but I've never heard that)

If it is a former employer, I would strongly urge her to roll it over into an IRA for the much greater number and types of investment choices. And consolidation -- nothing worse than having several former employers each with a 401 k account to keep track of.

[font color = blue]>>The research isn't that tough to do on an individual company. I do think that a company that treats it's employees well and generally behaves in an ethical manner is trustworthy. <<[/font]

Sounds like some pretty subjective judgements have to be made there. Like the socially responsible funds you talked about in general in #10 [font color = blue]("Most "green funds" have a few green companies in them and the rest are the same old money grubbers.&quot [/font]

the same thing can be said about most companies -- they are good in some ways and awful in others. But there are plenty of lists out there of "best companies to work for" or "best green companies to invest in" (I just googled it). No need to pay 1% to 2% of assets / year for that. Or worse, to get advice from someone who makes their living on commissions or otherwise benefits from churn.

Virtually all financial planners would agree with what I said in #17 -- if she has a small amount of savings outside of her 401 k, say 3 to 6 months of living expenses, she shouldn't be sticking it in the stock market.

[Randomthought]

20. rules on the 401k

the short answer is "no you can't roll it over" but there are some situations where you can.
http://www.accumulatingmoney.com/can-i-rollover-my-401k-while-still-employed/

It's all subjective. Some of our bond research people actually go look at institutions and make judgements based on is the place in good repair and clean; that can tell you a lot about the management. Obviously they look at debt and credit ratings but it's not all crunching numbers.
As to paying 1% or 2% of your assets many mutual funds like ours are no load. We do charge a service charge for small accounts. I don't remember the amount -under $10,000 but don't hold me to that. The service charge is small $15/ year.
i suspect that's the standard among no load funds but I haven't looked in to it.

[progree]

21. She's looking for a financial advisor, not just some no-load funds of her choice to buy on her own

[font color = blue]>> As to paying 1% or 2% of your assets many mutual funds like ours are no load. We do charge a service charge for small accounts. I don't remember the amount -under $10,000 but don't hold me to that. The service charge is small $15/ year.
i suspect that's the standard among no load funds but I haven't looked in to it.<< [/font]

She is not just talking about buying mutual funds on her own. She is looking for a socially conscious financial advisor to help with investing in a socially conscious way. And up to now you've been talking about picking a portfolio of stocks to accomplish that.

A fee-only financial planner is going to charge a lot more than $15/year to help someone pick stocks, and advise when and what to buy and sell (typically 1% to 2% / year ) throughout the year. And a "free" financial planner is going to effectively charge a lot more than 1% or 2% by the time one adds up all the loads, commissions, hidden fees, high expense ratios, biases towards high fee / high commission products, performance degradation due to churn etc.

And back to mutual funds -- there is the issue of expense ratio. 0.17% for Vanguard's S&P 500 index fund (VFINX), and 0.05% for the corresponding ETF. How do SIT's funds compare to that? (Not that I'd recommend an S&P 500 fund, I'd look more at small cap and/or value index funds as these categories have outperformed large cap and growth funds over time).

On Edit 10/2 1028a - by the way, that was a very informative link in your #20 on moving 401 k rules. I hope she reads it!

[Randomthought]

22. I don't work in mutual funds

so I don't know the fee structures on the funds. I will tell you that in the past 4 years my husbands return on investment has been very good. the website is www.sitfunds.com
Also Sit Mutual Funds has financial advisers. One of them I consider very knowledgeable and another is almost as good.
Small Cap funds in general outperform others but if you are getting older like me then less volatile bond funds are usually recommended.

[progree]

23. I don't work in mutual funds either, but I have a browser and an Internet connection

[font color = brown]>>And back to mutual funds -- there is the issue of expense ratio. 0.17% for Vanguard's S&P 500 index fund (VFINX), and 0.05% for the corresponding ETF. How do SIT's funds compare to that? (Not that I'd recommend an S&P 500 fund, I'd look more at small cap and/or value index funds as these categories have outperformed large cap and growth funds over time).<< [/font]

[font color = blue]>> I don't work in mutual funds so I don't know the fee structures on the funds. <<[/font]

For someone who who works in the industry and looks at research reports all day, I'd think you can manage this bit of research. Try http://www.sitfunds.com/funds/index.php for starters. I didn't look at all the equity funds, but the large cap fund has a 1.01% expense ratio. Mid cap: 1.25%. Dividend growth: 1.27%.

Do any SIT equity funds have expense ratios or annual operating expenses below 1%?

Vanguard's Funds are at:
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/vanguard-fund-options
Their expense ratios: Large Cap Index: 0.10%, Mid Cap Growth Index: 0.10% Dividend Growth: 0.29%.

Their ETF's are even less expensive.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/etf

[font color = blue]>>I will tell you that in the past 4 years my husbands return on investment has been very good. the website is www.sitfunds.com << [/font]

One would have to be totally hopeless not to have a very good return over the past 4 years. The market bottomed out in March 2009 (S&P 500 closed 3/9/09 at 677). Just to take the end of the last quarter / last month: The S&P 500 index closed 9/30/13 at 1682. 4 years ago, it closed 9/30/09 at 1057. So its up 59% in 4 years, not including dividends which would add another approximately 2%/year to the return.

[font color = blue]>>Small Cap funds in general outperform others but if you are getting older like me then less volatile bond funds are usually recommended. << [/font]

I expect to live another 20 years. Annm4peace is "approaching middle age" so almost certainly has a life expectancy of at least that (at least based on general life expectancy tables. I don't know anything about her health situation). I don't know of any 20 year period where bonds have outperformed stocks. And never starting at such low interest rates as we have today.

[Randomthought]

24. and you have more time

I have work to do and sitting on the internet doesn't get it done. Balancing of funds is usually worked out on the years one has before retirement not your life expectancy. The woman's question was recommendations for a financial adviser and you don't have an answer. I recommended a solid firm with a good reputation in the industry. I recommended them because of personal knowledge of the ethics of the CEO and other key executives. The woman can put her money anywhere she wants; under her mattress or in MS stocks.

[glinda]

26. Is this anything?????

http://ecowatch.com/2013/partnership-helps-investors-identify-socially-responsible-companies/

[annm4peace]

27. thanks everyone. I was just looking for a name

so all the educational info listed is helpful.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

28. FWIW, just because a place advertises with AM950 ...

... as mentioned upthread ... doesn't mean anything. After all, Coburns Delivers advertises a lot on AM950:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/16/coborns-health-care

[progree]

29. I agree, and never said that was my only reason - see #11 where I responded to that point. n/t

[roody]

31. If I were younger and more energetic,

I would buy some land for the purpose of developing a green burial cemetery. I will soon retire and I don't want to work that hard.