‘Mad Money’s’ Mixed Bag

 Last week a reader brought to my attention an episode of Jim Cramer’s “Mad Money” — an episode wherein he referred to the 401(k) as a “mixed” bag. 

In it, he acknowledged the benefits of tax deferral, the benefit of compounding on returns, and — where it’s found, anyway — the “free” money of an employer match. In that, he was at least more honest about such things than many[i] who make their living offering investment advice (generally accompanied by a subscription fee to their services — which, to be fair, Mr. Cramer has and mentions in this show). 

In point of fact, Mr. Cramer would clearly prefer an IRA option — if the contribution limits were equal to the 401(k) — though they’re not even close (not to worry — he says he’s going to continue to fight to remedy that situation). Indeed, Mr. Cramer counsels that once you’ve gotten the full match in your 401(k), you should just put everything else into an IRA (though he doesn’t get into the “nuances” of contributing to both in the same year). 

But Mr. Cramer is also concerned about the “hidden” fees in a 401(k) — so much so that he counsels folks to “always” roll out of that 401(k) when they change employers. And little wonder — since he appears to think that your typical 401(k) is charging administrative fees in excess of 200 basis points — more than 2%, in other words. I’ve no doubt those can be found but would caution Mr. Cramer that those are not the “norm.”

That said, he told viewers they should be “skeptical” of a 401(k) plan that doesn’t let you buy individual stocks via a self-directed IRA — one that he maintains gives you “control” of your money. As he’s a stock picker (of sorts), it’s not surprising that he has an affinity for individual stocks[ii] rather than mutual funds (though he admitted that those who don’t have the time for the former might be well-served by investing in a low-cost index fund).

Indeed, as do most folks touting mass media investment advice, Mr. Cramer prefers the ability to go beyond the investment menu “constraints” of a 401(k) menu — and surely for individuals like him who have the time and expertise (or think they do) to make and track individual investments, that resonates.

Programs like “Mad Money” are ostensibly positioned for more experienced/engaged investors — though that did NOT seem to be composition of the callers to this particular episode. Just as well, because he wasn’t providing much more than high-level generic wisdom on basic tax deferral, compounding benefits,[iii] and a heavy dose of equities in your portfolio until you get to your 50s. 

The reality for most individuals, of course, is that without a workplace retirement plan, they don’t save for retirement, much less invest. The match may be “free” money for the individual, but it surely has a cost — one borne by their employer in support of their eventual retirement. The mutual funds Cramer rejects are — increasingly — a portfolio not only selected, but managed by professionals, either in a target-date fund or managed account. For most, it’s not “mad” money, after all — it’s about thoughtfully building a secure, reliable financial foundation.   

Those with “mad” money to spare might not need that kind of help — but plenty of “regular” people do.

  • Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

[i] See Is the 401(k) Really a 'Horrible' Retirement Plan?, When You Assume, The 'Plot' Thickens

[ii] He did make an interesting argument for investing in stocks as a way to curb spending. Specifically, he noted that you’d have to sell your favorite stock in order to raise the cash to spend — and that you wouldn’t want to sell that favorite stock — so you wouldn’t spend the money.

[iii] One assumes that he’s more specific in his “investment club,” which came up several times during this program.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do Roth and 401(k) Pre-Tax Holders Really Spend Differently?

Image
An interesting—and somewhat counterintuitive—report came out last week, one that cast doubt on the “common wisdom” regarding Roth versus traditional pre-tax savings. The assumption underlying the research [i] was that those who had not yet paid taxes on their savings (the traditional pre-tax savings) would be hesitant to tap into those savings and trigger taxes, certainly more so that individuals that had already paid those taxes. Instead, the research suggested that the opposite occurred; that individuals who had saved on a pre-tax basis actually withdrew more/sooner—but with a twist.  This they hailed as good news. They noted that the research suggests investing in a CT (current-taxed, or Roth) plan could help ease concerns about outliving funds—because they spend at a lower rate (though they saw this as a negative for those who saved on a deferred tax (DT) basis).  They even managed to find a silver lining in the “cloud” of faster spending by the pre-tax c...
Read more

The Biggest 401(k) Rollover Mistake

Image
  Readers of these columns know that for years I held off rolling over my old 401(k) balances. Oh, I had rational reasons for (not) doing so; the institutional pricing of a particular fund in one, the low fees in another, the managed account option in a third—but the reality was that the process of rolling over your accumulated savings has been—and in many cases remains—painful. Rollovers are a big deal. Vanguard reports that annual contributions to IRAs ($701 billion as of 2020) far exceed all DC plan contributions, largely due to rollovers ($618 billion in 2020), while the Investment Company Institute claims that investors now hold an estimated $13.5 trillion in IRAs—“approximately $3 trillion more than in DC plans, despite the fact that 45 million fewer Americans own IRAs than participate in DC plans,” according to the report Two things, in particular, stayed my hand over the years—trying to time the liquidation of funds (I know, but I’m human), and worrying about the timing I’d...
Read more

Facts Versus Factoids

Image
“What if the entire retirement-crisis narrative playing out in opinion polls, the government, and the media was a massive case of confirmation bias?” That’s the provocative position of an intriguing new white paper titled “ America’s ‘Retirement Crisis’: The Emperor Has No Clothes ” by  Andrew Biggs . [i]   Readers of my work will note that with frightening regularity there are any number of assertions, “studies” and surveys all painting a dismal picture of the state of the nation’s retirement—each and every one embraced and promoted with attention-grabbing headlines without so much as a question as to the veracity of the underlying data, the logic of the conclusions drawn, or the motivations of the proponents that have drawn them. Consequently, I was delighted to come across this paper that provides a detailed, thoughtful, and data-driven analysis that focuses on a number of points that have been made (and uncritically trumpeted by the media) by none other than Teresa Ghilard...
Read more