Skip to main content

Stable value funds - the controversy continues

As markets began to tumble early last year I wrote a couple of posts advocating that workers put a sizable percentage of 401k investments into stable value funds.

This generated some debate as stable value funds are somewhat murky investments. It is difficult to find out exactly what investments are held within the funds and there was some fear regarding the fact that it had been common for these funds to hold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds, for example. Adding to the apprehension, AIG was one of the companies that was well known for providing insurance (known as a "wrap") for these funds in the event they are not able to generate promised returns and needed to make up the difference. Most investors remember when these companies were in the spotlight and eventually required government bailouts.

Despite all the worry, stable value funds have been quite stable during all the market turmoil of the last year or so. Except for one.

The Wall Street Journal recently wrote about an Invesco stable value fund that lost 1.7% of its value in December. The fund was managed on behalf of Lehman Brothers. This particular fund was hit by falling bond prices. The problem was that some of the insurance coverage or "wrap" ended after Lehman's abrupt mid-September bankruptcy filing. Apparently two of the seven arrangements were discontinued in the confusion surrounding the hurried collapse of Lehman.

So how bad was this? The investors in this stable value fund lost 1.7% of their returns but still received about 2% in gains. The loss, therefore, was minor compared to how much they might have lost in most any stock fund over the course of the last year.

Regardless of the limited amount of the loss, it has generated jitters among stable value fund investors. A few bloggers, like David Merkel of the Aleph Blog, suggest that this might be the "first crack in the foundation" and recommend that investors may want to consider switching to Treasury bond funds if those choices are available in their 401k. Merkel adds, however, that his purpose is not to scare investors out of stable value funds.

I came across an interesting item today that in a way supports stable value funds. In a press release from writer Barry J Dyke, he contends that 69.7% of funds in the $4.5 billion 401(k) Thrift Plan for the 22,000 Employees of the Federal Reserve System is invested in its Fixed Income Fund. This fund is exclusively invested in stable-value group annuity contracts from major U.S. life insurance companies. The fund has returned 5.8% while major stock averages have lost roughly 30%.

So if stable value is good enough for the Fed, is it good enough for the rest of us? I think it is indeed good enough but if you are looking for ultimate safety it won't hurt to allocate some of your 401k funds into Treasuries as well. I know I have.


Popular posts from this blog

Brazil - in a bubble or on a roll?

A couple of years ago, no one recognized the real estate bubble even though it was under everyone's nose. Now, analysts and bloggers are seeing bubbles everywhere they look. One of them, they say is in Brazil whose Bovespa stock market index has doubled in the last 12 months. Does the bubble accusation hold water? I don't think so and here are 7 reasons why Brazil is by no means a bubble economy: Exports have held up over the past year thanks to demand from China for Brazil's soya exports and iron ore. This was helped by the the Brazilian government's drive to improve trade links with Asia and Africa. Export diversification, spurred by a more active trade policy and increased focus on "south-south" trade under current president Lula, helped mitigate the decline in demand from OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries A "sensible" economic framework has been in place since the 1990's. This has included inflation

Thursday Bounce: Trend Busters, Swing Signals and Trend Leaders for July 9, 2009

This is a quick post to announce that we have published Thursday's Trend Leaders, Swing Signals and Trend Busters at Alert HQ . All are based on daily data. Today we have the following: 72 Swing Signals -- A couple of days ago we had 35 signals, today we have twice as many. Happily, we now have 65 BUY signals, a mere 4 SELL Signals plus 3 Strong BUYs. Whoo-hoo! 56 Trend Leaders , all in strong up-trends according to Aroon, MACD and DMI. There are 18 new stocks that made today's list and 60 that fell off Tuesday's list. 48 Trend Busters of which 5 are BUY signals and 43 are SELL signals The view from Alert HQ -- Talk about mixed signals. If you look at our Swing Signals list you would think the market was in the middle of a big bounce. BUY signals are swamping the SELL signals and we even have a few Strong BUYs. Yes, there's a good sprinkling of tech stocks and tech ETFs but the distribution is pretty broad-based with a good number of different sectors represented, eve

Trade Radar gets another update

Some of our data sources changed again and it impacted our ability to load fundamental/financial data. In response, we are rolling out a new version of the software: 7.1.24 The data sourcing issues are fixed and some dead links in the Chart menu were removed. So whether you are a registered user or someone engaged in the free trial, head over to our update page and download the latest version. The update page is here: Contact us if you have questions or identify any new issues.