• Tweet
• Share
• Email this.

By Grant Wasylik,

Asset allocation is paramount.

Numerous studies confirm it. They show, time and again, that asset allocation accounts for 90%-plus of your investment returns.

As you probably know, asset allocation means implementing an investment strategy that seeks to balance risk vs. reward. You do this by adjusting the percentage of different asset categories in a portfolio according to your risk tolerance, goals and investment time horizon.

The classic “60/40 model” is a real-life example. “60/40” refers to 60% in equities and 40% in fixed income. This numeric breakdown has been a widely used catch-all for financial advisers and institutions.

More recently — and especially after the last financial crisis — a modernistic model has evolved …

“Alternatives” have joined stocks and bonds.

The new equivalent to 60/40 is something like 50/30/20 now. This 20% goes to alternatives (and takes 10% away each from stocks and bonds).

For the record, the top 40 institutions devote an average 17.6% to alternatives in their recommended asset allocation models. (To see where the BlackRocks, JPMorgans and Morgan Stanleys of the world allocate capital, click here.)

Typically, these three broad asset classes (equities, fixed income and alternatives) are stockpiled with these types of investments:

 Equity bucket: U.S. stocks, foreign stocks, large stocks, small stocks, etc.

 Fixed income bucket: U.S. bonds (Treasuries, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, etc.), foreign bonds (developed sovereign debt and corporate, and the same for emerging markets).

 Alternatives bucket: Commodities, hedge funds, private equity, Real Estate Investment Trusts, etc.

Most individual investors grasp this concept. And they’re able to manage it on their own. (Of course, the alternatives sleeve can be difficult to figure out.)

But many investors aren’t aware of the importance of asset location.

Asset location is placing or locating assets in the most tax-efficient account type. (Note: If you’re using a financial planner or investment adviser, they should be taking care of this for you.)

This often-overlooked strategy centers on tax minimization. With asset location, an investor can take advantage of the fact that different types of investments — and different types of accounts — receive different tax treatments.

So, if you take special care of asset placement between your taxable and retirement investment accounts, it can turn out to be financially rewarding.

Michael Kitces, a distinguished financial planner and educator I’ve seen speak at numerous investment conferences, provides a powerful example:

An investor has $500,000 in a taxable account and $500,000 in an IRA. The investor intends to implement a 50/50 asset allocation model ($500,000 in bonds and $500,000 in stocks).

Kitces simplifies things with the following assumptions:

 Bonds generate a long-term average return of 5% and are taxed at a 25% ordinary tax rate.

 Stocks generate a long-term average return 10% and are taxed at a 15% long-term capital gains tax rate.

 All investments are bought and held for 30 years.

Here is how each scenario unfolds:

Bonds held in taxable account and stocks in the IRA …

Bonds grow at a 3.75% after-tax growth rate (5% gross returns less 25% taxation) … for a total future after-tax value of $500,000 x 1.0375^30 = $1,508,736.

Stocks grow at a gross return of 10% for 30 years … but are then fully taxable when withdrawn from the IRA (still assuming a 25% tax rate) … resulting in a final after-tax value of ($500,000 x 1.10^30) x (1-0.25) = $6,543,526.

Total after-tax wealth is $8,052,262.

Stocks held in taxable account and bonds in the IRA …

Bonds grow at a 5% gross return … but then are fully taxable at the time of IRA withdrawal … for a future after-tax value of ($500,000 x 1.05^30) x (1-0.25) = $1,620,728.

Stocks grow at a gross return of 10% for 30 years … and the growth is then taxable at a 15% long-term capital gains tax rate … resulting in a gross value of ($500,000 x 1.10^30) = $8,724,701 … a tax liability of ($8.724,701 — $500,000) x (0.15) = $1,233,705 … and a final after-tax value of $8,724,701 — $1,233,705 = $7,490,996.

Total after-tax wealth is $9,111,724.

The end result is a difference of over $1 million!

This was accomplished by strategically shuffling investments between two accounts with different tax consequences.

You don’t need three decades to see an effect. Adapt a sound asset allocation, and start increasing your after-tax returns today.

***

Check out this roadmap for a general idea of where you’ll want to consider placing different security types:

Source: Forbes

When making your next investment purchase, don’t just think about what to buy (asset allocation) … also think about where to buy it (asset location).

And you’ll no doubt see that, just like when you’re buying and selling real estate, location can make a big difference in the long-term value of your investment.

Best,

Grant Wasylik

http://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/the-what-asset-allocation-where-asset-location-of-investing-22825

 

---

Tags: 17.6% recommended alternatives asset class allocation to investment model, adjusting the percentage allocation of different asset classes in a portfolio, after-tax returns, alternatives bucket, asset allocation, asset allocation accounts for 90%-plus of your investment returns, Asset Location, balancing risk vs. reward, class 60-40 investment model, commodities, corporate bonds;, developed sovereign debt, different tax treatments, emerging markets corporate debt, emerging markets sovereign bonds, equity bucket, fixed income bucket, foreign bonds, foreign corporate debt, foreign stocks, hedge funds, investing strategies, investment goals, investment time horizon, large stocks, location can make a big difference in the long-term value of your investment, municipal bonds, new 50-30-20 investment model, private equity, Real-estate investment trusts, risk tolerance, small stocks, tax efficient accounts, tax minimization strategies, treasuries, U.S. bonds, U.S. stocks