Resources

How Betterment Anticipates Market Volatility—So You Don’t Have To Dec 26, 2022 12:00:00 AM It’s difficult to endure volatile markets when it affects your investment portfolio. Betterment has automated features in place to help address volatile markets when they occur. If you’ve ever been told to “sit tight and stay the course” when the market is dropping and your investment account is worth less than it was just moments ago, you’re not alone. Financial advisors, including Betterment, love this mantra and repeat it anytime there’s a market downturn—which every investor should be prepared to navigate at some point. But being told to do nothing when your account balance is dropping can feel like an inadequate response. And, unless your investment strategy has been designed from the ground up to anticipate and react to market volatility, you may be right. The reason Betterment advises our customers not to react or adjust their investment strategy during a market downturn is because our entire platform was designed with inevitable downturns of the market in mind. This article will cover how our investment portfolio creation process, ongoing automated account management system, and dynamic advice are designed with market fluctuations in mind, so that you can “sit tight and stay the course” and feel confident it’s actually the right thing to do. Our portfolios are constructed with market volatility in mind Betterment’s portfolio construction process strives to design a portfolio strategy that is diversified, increases value by managing costs, and enables good tax management. Ultimately, our goal is to help you build wealth. This means: Our intent is to create portfolios designed to have a better chance of making money and a lower chance of losing it. At a baseline, our allocation recommendations are based on various assumptions, including a range of possible outcomes, in which we give slightly more weight to potential negative ones, by building in a margin of safety—otherwise known as ‘downside risk’ or uncertainty optimization. So, even before you’ve invested your first dollar, your portfolio has already been designed to account for the market fluctuations you will inevitably experience throughout the course of your investment journey, including situations like the big downturns like 2008 and the more recent market crash in 2020. Furthermore, our risk recommendations consider the amount of time you’ll be invested. For goals with a longer time horizon, we advise that you hold a larger portion of your portfolio in stocks. A portfolio with greater holdings in stocks is more likely to experience losses in the short-term, but is also more likely to generate greater long-term gains. For shorter-term goals, we recommended a lower stock allocation. This helps to avoid large drops in your balance right before you plan to withdraw and use what you’ve saved. All you have to do is: Tell us what you are saving for (your investing goal). Let us know how long you plan to be invested (your time horizon). We take care of the rest. By using your personal assumptions, in conjunction with our general downside risk framework, we’re able to recommend a globally diversified portfolio of stock and bond ETFs that has an initial risk level recommended just for you. Our automated portfolio management features keep you on track during downturns How we construct our globally diversified portfolios and the risk framework we apply to each investor’s specific allocation recommendation is just the starting point. It’s our ongoing and automated portfolio management that provides an additional value-add, especially in times of heightened volatility. Our automated features like allocation adjustments over time, portfolio rebalancing, tax loss harvesting for those who select it, and updated advice when you need it, can help keep your investing goals on track during a downturn. Automated Allocation Adjustments When we ask you to tell us about your investment objective, including how long you plan to be invested for, it helps us choose the appropriate asset allocation for you throughout the course of your investment time horizon, not just in the beginning. For most Betterment goals, we usually recommend that you scale down your risk as your goal’s end date gets closer, which helps to reduce the chance that your balance will drastically fall if the market drops. This is an especially important consideration for an investor who plans to use their funds in the near term. We call this recommendation “auto-adjust” or a goal’s “glidepath”—a gradual reduction of stocks in favor of bonds. And instead of leaving this responsibility up to you, you can opt into our auto-adjust feature in eligible portfolio selections, which means our system monitors your account and adjusts your portfolio’s allocation automatically over time. Automated Portfolio Rebalancing Normal stock market fluctuations will likely cause your actual allocation to drift away from your portfolio target, which is calculated to be the optimal level of risk you should be taking on. We call this process portfolio drift, and though a small amount of drift is perfectly normal—and a mathematical certainty—a large amount of drift could expose your portfolio to unwanted risks. When the market fluctuates, not all of your investments are shifting to the same degree. For example, stocks are generally more volatile than bonds. As you can imagine, a period of sustained volatility could mean a significant shift in how your portfolio is actually allocated, relative to where it should be. Left unchecked, this drift could be harmful to your portfolio’s performance, which is why at Betterment our portfolio management system provides ongoing monitoring of your portfolio in order to determine whether rebalancing is needed once your account balance is at or past the minimum threshold. While we generally use any cash inflows, like deposits or dividends, and outflows, like withdrawals, to help rebalance your portfolio organically over time, when a significant market drop occurs, there might be a need to sell investments that have appreciated and buy investments that have depreciated, in order to adjust your portfolio back to its optimal allocation. Consider an instance where the value of your stock investments has dropped significantly and now your bond investments are overweighted relative to your stocks. Our rebalancing system might be triggered to correct the drift. Not only would our automated rebalancing seek to ensure your portfolio’s allocation is realigned relative to its target, it would also mean buying stocks at their currently cheaper price point, setting you up nicely for any market recovery. Furthermore, if effective rebalancing does require selling investments in a taxable account, the specific shares to be sold are selected tax-efficiently. This is designed with the aim that no short-term gains are realized. We never want the tax impact of maintaining proper diversification to counter the benefits of applying our risk framework. Automated Tax Loss Harvesting Tax Loss Harvesting is a feature that may benefit you most when the market is volatile. After all, if there aren’t any losses in your account, we can’t harvest them. Our automated TLH software monitors your account for opportunities to effectively harvest tax losses that can be used to reduce capital gains that you have realized through other investments in the same tax year. This can potentially reduce your tax bill, thereby increasing your total returns, especially if you have a lot of short-term capital gains, which are taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains. And, if you’ve harvested more losses than you have in realized capital gains, you can use up to an additional $3,000 in losses to reduce your taxable income. Any unused losses from the current tax year can be carried over indefinitely and used in subsequent years. Keep in mind, however, that everyone’s tax situation is different—and Tax Loss Harvesting+ may not be suitable for yours. In general, we don’t recommend it if: Your future tax bracket will be higher than your current tax bracket. You can currently realize capital gains at a 0% tax rate. You’re planning to withdraw a large portion of your taxable assets in the next 12 months. You risk causing wash sales due to having substantially identical investments elsewhere. Our dynamic financial advice works for you during market fluctuations Much like the automated features described in the section above, the advice we give our customers is dynamic and updates automatically based on many factors, including market performance. Just as your car’s GPS recommends the best route to take to reach your destination, Betterment recommends a tailored path toward reaching your financial goals. And just as the GPS updates its recommended route based on road conditions and accidents, we update our advice based on various circumstances, such as a market downturn. In addition to recommending a starting risk level tied to your specific objective, we also estimate how much you need to save. In the case of a really big market drop, we might advise you to do something about it, such as make a single lump-sum deposit, which will help keep your portfolio on track. Recognizing that coming up with sizable excess cash can be tough to do, we’ll also suggest a recurring monthly deposit number that may be more realistic. And, if it’s early on in a long-term goal, it’s unlikely you’ll need to change anything significantly, because you still have a lot of time on your side. Conclusion The path to investment growth can be bumpy, and negative or lower than expected returns are bound to make an investor feel uncertain. But, staying disciplined and sticking to your plan can pay off. Betterment’s investing advice has been purpose-built with all the worst and the best the market may throw at us in mind by focusing on three key elements: intentional portfolio construction, automated portfolio features, and advice that reflects market conditions. Feel confident that Betterment’s hard at work, for you, so that you can truly sit tight and stay the course.

Betterment’s Progress On Employee Representation Nov 9, 2022 2:01:47 PM Here’s the latest on our efforts to nurture diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging among our team. In 2020, we first shared our employee demographics and commitments to doing better and promised to make public reporting on our progress at regular intervals. A lot has happened at Betterment since then: Sarah Levy joined us as our new CEO, we raised our Series F to continue our mission of Making People’s Lives Better, acquired Makara to fast track a cryptocurrency offering, and grew our team to over 400. We’ve been focused on our Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (DEIB) strategy to drive sustained change for our employees and our broader community. We want to highlight some of the tangible outcomes we've created through community, hiring, retention, and training efforts. We're grateful for the dedication from all of those at Betterment who have made these outcomes possible, and recognize that our work is ongoing, and always will be. Betterment’s Employee Demographic Data We used 2020 as a call-to-action and reviewed our People strategy to make a significant impact on the diversity of our workforce. We implemented a multi-pronged approach focusing on: Recruiting and retention Goal setting and measurement Community-building and engagement, enhanced by creating and supporting ERGs (Employee Resource Groups) Full Time Employees 2020 Full Time Employees 2021 Leadership 2020 Leadership 2021 Recruiting and Retention A deliberate expansion of our candidate sourcing was a critical component of our strategy. We expanded our reach for potential candidates through various sources that are known for diversity hiring and were able to make significant progress, increasing representation of People of Color by 8 percentage points company-wide, with gains in our Black, Latinx, and Two or More Races populations. We also increased representation of women by 3 percentage points. Our Leadership Team is 33% women and 23% People of Color. We attribute much of our progress to our hiring outreach as well as our conscious efforts on inclusion and belonging. In 2021, 52% of our hires were People of Color, 46% were women, and 1% were non-binary. Our internal programming and ERG initiatives (more on these later) have also helped to build community and increase retention. Goal Setting and Measurement A strategic initiative we implemented at the start of 2021 was to incorporate DEIB progress into our company goals, performance metrics and bonus targets. Our bonus targets prioritized employee education and engagement in our DEIB curriculum to build cross-company awareness as well as for personal development. Bonus achievement required meaningful DEIB engagement at all levels of the organization: 100% of all employees participating in our DEIB core education 100% of the Executive Team and 65% of all other employees participating in at least one DEIB event or initiative per quarter A semi-annual qualitative assessment on representation efforts that is reviewed by the Executive Team and shared with the entire company In 2021, we achieved 100% of our bonus targets and we have set the same DEIB bonus weighting for 2022. To support our desire to drive both engagement and education, we refreshed our approach to DEIB education and made it a core pillar of our Talent Development offerings. We provided four streams of programming: All employees, including new hires, completed our online learning course: Inclusion and Belonging in the Workplace. Our Executive Team, People team, and all people managers attended bespoke trainings focused on building psychological safety and inclusive leadership provided by Merging Path & Collective DEI Lab. All employees were encouraged to attend our DEIB Learning Hours, featuring keynote speakers. Employees took advantage of counseling, support and facilitation resources to reflect on bias in the workplace, personal safety, how to overcome barriers and ways to foster support and allyship. Community Building and Engagement A big focus of 2021 was to build community and engagement via our Employee Resource Strategy Groups (“ERSGs”). We believe that the ERSGs are a great vehicle to support inclusion and for employees to develop a sense of belonging here at Betterment. A few facets of the program that contributed to its success included electing leadership for each of our 8 groups; pairing ERSGs with Executive Champions; and providing mentorship and support to build out roadmaps, goals, and budgets for the year. Each ERSG met monthly to build community, produced quarterly events to raise awareness and celebrate recognition months, and flexed their leadership skills working with our CEO, Exec Champs, and the People team. We are pleased with the engagement and the development opportunities the ERSGs have afforded our employees: “AoB provided a safe space to embrace our identities, celebrate our cultures, bring awareness to issues in our communities, and empower us to speak up and share our perspective and experiences with the company - something I used to shy away from or dismiss. It was powerful to connect with peers in this way, and to see people across the organization listen, support, and participate in the unique and diverse cultures we shared.” - Pamela Do, Senior Manager Talent Development who served on the leadership team for Asians of Betterment   “Being the President of Black at Betterment was one of my greatest opportunities at Betterment. At a time when the rest of the world was really opening their eyes to the daily experiences of BIPOC—and we ourselves were being pushed to our limits—Black at Betterment was able to provide community, solace, and celebration of our collective and individual identity. Being able to advocate for Black employees and knowing we had voices, empathy, and understanding in the rooms where change happens is something I am constantly grateful for.” – Dan Bound-Black, Black at Betterment, President ‘21   “This experience was a wonderful way to create and strengthen relationships with a diverse group of employees across the Betterment organization. I found it to be a valuable exercise in helping grow and nurture a team of leaders that was facing many of the typical challenges one would expect on any team trying to get things done. I am grateful to the entire team for welcoming me into their conversations and both taking my feedback seriously and also pushing back when they disagreed. I believe they helped me grow as a leader and equipped me to help ensure Betterment continues on its journey to becoming a more inclusive organization." - Mike Reust, President of Betterment who served as Exec Champ to Black at Betterment Conclusion We’re proud of the progress we’ve made over the past 18 months to scale our diversity and inclusion efforts and increase representation of People of Color and women at Betterment. Our journey is a testament to the commitment and focus across the team and our community. We’re looking forward to building on the strong foundation we’ve laid so far to continue to make Betterment a place where everyone can do their best work and where all identities are reflected and appreciated. If this sounds like a place where you’d like to work, check out our careers page!

Asset Location Methodology Nov 1, 2022 12:00:00 AM Intelligently applying asset location to a globally diversified portfolio is a complex, mathematically rigorous, and continuous undertaking. TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary Part I: Introduction to Asset Location Part II: After-Tax Return—Deep Dive Part III: Asset Location Myths Part IV: TCP Methodology Part V: Monte Carlo on the Amazon—Betterment’s Testing Framework Part VI: Results Part VII: Special Considerations Addendum Summary Asset location is widely regarded as the closest thing there is to a "free lunch" in the wealth management industry.1 When investments are held in at least two types of accounts (out of three possible types: taxable, tax-deferred and tax-exempt), asset location provides the ability to deliver additional after-tax return potential, while maintaining the same level of risk. Generally speaking, this benefit is achieved by placing the least tax-efficient assets in the accounts taxed most favorably, and the most tax-efficient assets in the accounts taxed least favorably, all while maintaining the desired asset allocation in the aggregate. Part I: Introduction to Asset Location Maximizing after-tax return on investments can be complex. Still, most investors know that contributing to tax-advantaged (or "qualified") accounts is a relatively straightforward way to pay less tax on their retirement savings. Millions of Americans wind up with some combination of IRAs and 401(k) accounts, both available in two types: traditional or Roth. Many will only save in a taxable account once they have maxed out their contribution limits for the qualified accounts. But while tax considerations are paramount when choosing which account to fund, less thought is given to the tax impact of which investments to then purchase across all accounts. The tax profiles of the three account types (taxable, traditional, and Roth) have implications for what to invest in, once the account has been funded. Choosing wisely can significantly improve the after-tax value of one’s savings, when more than one account is in the mix. Almost universally, such investors can benefit from a properly executed asset location strategy. The idea behind asset location is fairly straightforward. Certain investments generate their returns in a more tax-efficient manner than others. Certain accounts shelter investment returns from tax better than others. Placing, or "locating" less tax-efficient investments in tax-sheltered accounts should increase the after-tax value of the overall portfolio. Allocate First, Locate Second Let’s start with what asset location isn’t. All investors must select a mix of stocks and bonds, finding an appropriate balance of risk and expected return, in line with their goals. One common goal is retirement, in which case, the mix of assets should be tailored to match the investor’s time horizon. This initial determination is known as "asset allocation," and it comes first. When investing in multiple accounts, it is common for investors to simply recreate their desired asset allocation in each account. If each account, no matter the size, holds the same assets in the same proportions, adding up all the holdings will also match the desired asset allocation. If all these funds, however scattered, are invested towards the same goal, this is the right result. The aggregate portfolio is the one that matters, and it should track the asset allocation selected for the common goal. Portfolio Managed Separately in Each Account Enter asset location, which can only be applied once a desired asset allocation is selected. Each asset’s after-tax return is considered in the context of every available account. The assets are then arranged (unequally) across all coordinated accounts to maximize the after-tax performance of the overall portfolio. Same Portfolio Overall—With Asset Location To help conceptualize asset location, consider a team of runners. Some runners compete better on a track than a cross-country dirt path, as compared to their more versatile teammates. Similarly, certain asset classes benefit more than others from the tax-efficient "terrain" of a qualified account. Asset allocation determines the composition of the team, and the overall portfolio’s after-tax return is a team effort. Asset location then seeks to match up asset and environment in a way that maximizes the overall result over time, while keeping the composition of the team intact. TCP vs. TDF The primary appeal of a target-date fund (TDF) is the "set it and forget it" simplicity with which it allows investors to select and maintain a diversified asset allocation, by purchasing only one fund. That simplicity comes at a price—because each TDF is a single, indivisible security, it cannot unevenly distribute its underlying assets across multiple accounts, and thus cannot deliver the additional after-tax returns of asset location. In particular, participants who are locked into 401(k) plans without automated management may find that a cheap TDF is still their best "hands off" option (plus, a TDF’s ability to satisfy the Qualified Default Investment Alternative (QDIA) requirement under ERISA ensures its baseline survival under current law). Participants in a Betterment at Work plan can already enable Betterment’s Tax-Coordinated Portfolio feature (“TCP”) to manage a single portfolio across their 401(k), IRAs and taxable accounts they individually have with Betterment, designed to squeeze additional after-tax returns from their aggregate long-term savings. Automated asset location (when integrated with automated asset allocation) replicates what makes a TDF so appealing, but effectively amounts to a "TDF 2.0"—a continuously managed portfolio, but one that can straddle multiple accounts for tax benefits. Next, we dive into the complex dynamics that need to be considered when seeking to optimize the after-tax return of a diversified portfolio. Part II: After-Tax Return—Deep Dive A good starting point for a discussion of investment taxation is the concept of "tax drag." Tax drag is the portion of the return that is lost to tax on an annual basis. In particular, funds pay dividends, which are taxed in the year they are received. However, there is no annual tax in qualified accounts, also sometimes known as "tax-sheltered accounts." Therefore, placing assets that pay a substantial amount of dividends into a qualified account, rather than a taxable account, "shelters" those dividends, and reduces tax drag. Reducing the tax drag of the overall portfolio is one way that asset location improves the portfolio’s after-tax return. Importantly, investments are also subject to tax at liquidation, both in the taxable account, and in a traditional IRA (where tax is deferred). However, "tax drag", as that term is commonly used, does not include liquidation tax. So while the concept of "tax drag" is intuitive, and thus a good place to start, it cannot be the sole focus when looking to minimize taxes. What is "Tax Efficiency" A closely related term is "tax efficiency" and this is one that most discussions of asset location will inevitably focus on. A tax-efficient asset is one that has minimal "tax drag." Prioritizing assets on the basis of tax efficiency allows for asset location decisions to be made following a simple, rule-based approach. Both "tax drag" and "tax efficiency" are concepts pertaining to taxation of returns in a taxable account. Therefore, we first consider that account, where the rules are most elaborate. With an understanding of these rules, we can layer on the impact of the two types of qualified accounts. Returns in a Taxable Account There are two types of investment income, and two types of applicable tax rates. Two types of investment tax rates. All investment income in a taxable brokerage account is subject to one of two rate categories (with material exceptions noted). For simplicity, and to keep the analysis universal, this section only addresses federal tax (state tax is considered when testing for performance). Ordinary rate: For most, this rate mirrors the marginal tax bracket applicable to earned income (primarily wages reported on a W-2). For all but the lowest earners, that bracket will range from 25% to 39.6%. Preferential rate: This more favorable rate ranges from 15% to 20% for most investors. For especially high earners, both rates are subject to an additional tax of 3.8%, making the highest possible ordinary and preferential rates 43.4% and 23.8%, respectively. Two types of investment returns. Investments generate returns in two ways: by appreciating in value, and by making cash distributions. Capital gains: When an investment is sold, the difference between the proceeds and the tax basis (generally, the purchase price) is taxed as capital gains. If held for longer than a year, this gain is treated as long-term capital gains (LTCG) and taxed at the preferential rate. If held for a year or less, the gain is treated as short-term capital gains (STCG), and taxed at the ordinary rate. Barring unforeseen circumstances, passive investors should be able to avoid STCG entirely. Betterment’s automated account management seeks to avoid STCG when possible,4 and the rest of this paper assumes only LTCG on liquidation of assets. Dividends: Bonds pay interest, which is taxed at the ordinary rate, whereas stocks pay dividends, which are taxed at the preferential rate (both subject to the exceptions below). An exchange-traded fund (ETF) pools the cash generated by its underlying investments, and makes payments that are called dividends, even if some or all of the source was interest. These dividends inherit the tax treatment of the source payments. This means that, generally, a dividend paid by a bond ETF is taxed at the ordinary rate, and a dividend paid by a stock ETF is taxed at the preferential rate. Qualified Dividend Income (QDI): There is an exception to the general rule for stock dividends. Stock dividends enjoy preferential rates only if they meet the requirements of qualified dividend income (QDI). Key among those requirements is that the company issuing the dividend must be a U.S. corporation (or a qualified foreign corporation). A fund pools dividends from many companies, only some of which may qualify for QDI. To account for this, the fund assigns itself a QDI percentage each year, which the custodian uses to determine the portion of the fund’s dividends that are eligible for the preferential rate. For stock funds tracking a U.S. index, the QDI percentage is typically 100%. However, funds tracking a foreign stock index will have a lower QDI percentage, sometimes substantially. For example, VWO, Vanguard’s Emerging Markets Stock ETF, had a QDI percentage of 38% in 2015, which means that 38% of its dividends for the year were taxed at the preferential rate, and 62% were taxed at the ordinary rate. Tax-exempt interest: There is also an exception to the general rule for bonds. Certain bonds pay interest that is exempt from federal tax. Primarily, these are municipal bonds, issued by state and local governments. This means that an ETF which holds municipal bonds will pay a dividend that is subject to 0% federal tax—even better than the preferential rate. The table below summarizes these interactions. Note that this section does not consider tax treatment for those in a marginal tax bracket of 15% and below. These taxpayers are addressed in "Special Considerations."   Dividends (taxed annually) Capital Gains (taxed when sold) Ordinary Rate Most bonds Non-QDI stocks (foreign) Any security held for a year or less (STCG) Preferential Rate QDI stocks (domestic and some foreign) Any security held for more than a year (LTCG) No Tax Municipal bonds Any security transferred upon death or donated to charity The impact of rates is obvious: The higher the rate, the higher the tax drag. Equally important is timing. The key difference between dividends and capital gains is that the former are taxed annually, contributing to tax drag, whereas tax on the latter is deferred. Tax deferral is a powerful driver of after-tax return, for the simple reason that the savings, though temporary, can be reinvested in the meantime, and compounded. The longer the deferral, the more valuable it is. Putting this all together, we arrive at the foundational piece of conventional wisdom, where the most basic approach to asset location begins and ends: Bond funds are expected to generate their return entirely through dividends, taxed at the ordinary rate. This return benefits neither from the preferential rate, nor from tax deferral, making bonds the classic tax-inefficient asset class. These go in your qualified account. Stock funds are expected to generate their return primarily through capital gains. This return benefits both from the preferential rate, and from tax deferral. Stocks are therefore the more tax-efficient asset class. These go in your taxable account. Tax-Efficient Status: It’s Complicated Reality gets messy rather quickly, however. Over the long term, stocks are expected to grow faster than bonds, causing the portfolio to drift from the desired asset allocation. Rebalancing may periodically realize some capital gains, so we cannot expect full tax deferral on these returns (although if cash flows exist, investing them intelligently can reduce the need to rebalance via selling). Furthermore, stocks do generate some return via dividends. The expected dividend yield varies with more granularity. Small cap stocks pay relatively little (these are growth companies that tend to reinvest any profits back into the business) whereas large cap stocks pay more (as these are mature companies that tend to distribute profits). Depending on the interest rate environment, stock dividends can exceed those paid by bonds. International stocks pay dividends too, and complicating things further, some of those dividends will not qualify as QDI, and will be taxed at the ordinary rate, like bond dividends (especially emerging markets stock dividends). Returns in a Tax-Deferred Account (TDA) Compared to a taxable account, a TDA is governed by deceptively simple rules. However, earning the same return in a TDA involves trade-offs which are not intuitive. Applying a different time horizon to the same asset can swing our preference between a taxable account and a TDA.Understanding these dynamics is crucial to appreciating why an optimal asset location methodology cannot ignore liquidation tax, time horizon, and the actual composition of each asset’s expected return.Although growth in a traditional IRA or traditional 401(k) is not taxed annually, it is subject to a liquidation tax. All the complexity of a taxable account described above is reduced to two rules. First, all tax is deferred until distributions are made from the account, which should begin only in retirement. Second, all distributions are taxed at the same rate, no matter the source of the return. The rate applied to all distributions is the higher ordinary rate, except that the additional 3.8% tax will not apply to those whose tax bracket in retirement would otherwise be high enough.2 First, we consider income that would be taxed annually at the ordinary rate (i.e. bond dividends and non-QDI stock dividends). The benefit of shifting these returns to a TDA is clear. In a TDA, these returns will eventually be taxed at the same rate, assuming the same tax bracket in retirement. But that tax will not be applied until the end, and compounding due to deferral can only have a positive impact on the after-tax return, as compared to the same income paid in a taxable account.3 In particular, the risk is that LTCG (which we expect plenty of from stock funds) will be taxed like ordinary income. Under the basic assumption that in a taxable account, capital gains tax is already deferred until liquidation, favoring a TDA for an asset whose only source of return is LTCG is plainly harmful. There is no benefit from deferral, which you would have gotten anyway, and only harm from a higher tax rate. This logic supports the conventional wisdom that stocks belong in the taxable account. First, as already discussed, stocks do generate some return via dividends, and that portion of the return will benefit from tax deferral. This is obviously true for non-QDI dividends, already taxed as ordinary income, but QDI can benefit too. If the deferral period is long enough, the value of compounding will offset the hit from the higher rate at liquidation. Second, it is not accurate to assume that all capital gains tax will be deferred until liquidation in a taxable account. Rebalancing may realize some capital gains "prematurely" and this portion of the return could also benefit from tax deferral. Placing stocks in a TDA is a trade-off—one that must weigh the potential harm from negative rate arbitrage against the benefit of tax deferral. Valuing the latter means making assumptions about dividend yield and turnover. On top of that, the longer the investment period, the more tax deferral is worth. Kitces demonstrates that a dividend yield representing 25% of total return (at 100% QDI), and an annual turnover of 10%, could swing the calculus in favor of holding the stocks in a TDA, assuming a 30-year horizon.4 For foreign stocks with less than perfect QDI, we would expect the tipping point to come sooner. Returns in a Tax-Exempt Account (TEA) Investments in a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k) grow tax free, and are also not taxed upon liquidation. Since it eliminates all possible tax, a TEA presents a particularly valuable opportunity for maximizing after-tax return. The trade-off here is managing opportunity cost—every asset does better in a TEA, so how best to use its precious capacity? Clearly, a TEA is the most favorably taxed account. Conventional wisdom thus suggests that if a TEA is available, we use it to first place the least tax-efficient assets. But that approach is wrong. Everything Counts in Large Amounts—Why Expected Return Matters The powerful yet simple advantage of a TEA helps illustrate the limitation of focusing exclusively on tax efficiency when making location choices. Returns in a TEA escape all tax, whatever the rate or timing would have been, which means that an asset’s expected after-tax return equals its expected total return. When both a taxable account and a TEA are available, it may be worth putting a high-growth, low-dividend stock fund into the TEA, instead of a bond fund, even though the stock fund is vastly more tax-efficient. Similar reasoning can apply to placement in a TDA as well, as long as the tax-efficient asset has a large enough expected return, and presents some opportunity for tax deferral (i.e., some portion of the return comes from dividends). Part III: Asset Location Myths Urban Legend 1: Asset location is a one-time process. Just set it and forget it. While an initial location may add some value, doing it properly is a continuous process, and will require adjustments in response to changing conditions. Note that overlaying asset location is not a deviation from a passive investing philosophy, because optimizing for location does not mean changing the overall asset allocation (the same goes for tax loss harvesting). Other things that will change, all of which should factor into an optimal methodology: expected returns (both the risk-free rate, and the excess return), dividend yields, QDI percentages, and most importantly, relative account balances. Contributions, rollovers, and conversions can increase qualified assets relative to taxable assets, continuously providing more room for additional optimization. Urban Legend 2: Taking advantage of asset location means you should contribute more to a particular qualified account than you otherwise would. Definitely not! Asset location should play no role in deciding which accounts to fund. It optimizes around account balances as it finds them, and is not concerned with which accounts should be funded in the first place. Just because the presence of a TEA makes asset location more valuable, does not mean you should contribute to a TEA, as opposed to a TDA. That decision is primarily a bet on how your tax rate today will compare to your tax rate in retirement. To hedge, some may find it optimal to make contributions to both a TDA and TEA (this is called "tax diversification"). While these decisions are out of scope for this paper, Betterment’s retirement planning tools can help clients with these choices. Urban Legend 3: Asset location has very little value if one of your accounts is relatively small. It depends. Asset location will not do much for investors with a very small taxable balance and a relatively large balance in only one type of qualified account, because most of the overall assets are already sheltered. However, a large taxable balance and a small qualified account balance (especially a TEA balance) presents a better opportunity. Under these circumstances, there may be room for only the least tax-efficient, highest-return assets in the qualified account. Sheltering a small portion of the overall portfolio can deliver a disproportionate amount of value. Urban Legend 4: Asset location has no value if you are investing in both types of qualified accounts, but not in a taxable account. A TEA offers significant advantages over a TDA. Zero tax is better than a tax deferred until liquidation. While tax efficiency (i.e. annual tax drag) plays no role in these location decisions, expected returns and liquidation tax do. The assets we expect to grow the most should be placed in a TEA, and doing so will plainly increase the overall after-tax return. There is an additional benefit as well. Required minimum distributions (RMDs) apply to TDAs but not TEAs. Shifting expected growth into the TEA, at the expense of the TDA, will mean lower RMDs, giving the investor more flexibility to control taxable income down the road. In other words, a lower balance in the TDA can mean lower tax rates in retirement, if higher RMDs would have pushed the retiree into a higher bracket. This potential benefit is not captured in our results. Urban Legend 5: Bonds always go in the IRA. Possibly, but not necessarily. This commonly asserted rule is a simplification, and will not be optimal under all circumstances. It is discussed at more length below. Existing Approaches to Asset Location: Advantages and Limitations Optimizing for After-Tax Return While Maintaining Separate Portfolios One approach to increasing after-tax return on retirement savings is to maintain a separate, standalone portfolio in each account with roughly the same level of risk-adjusted return, but tailoring each portfolio somewhat to take advantage of the tax profile of the account. Effectively, this means that each account separately maintains the desired exposure to stocks, while substituting certain asset classes for others. Generally speaking, managing a fully diversified portfolio in each account means that there is no way to avoid placing some assets with the highest expected return in the taxable account. This approach does include a valuable tactic, which is to differentiate the high-quality bonds component of the allocation, depending on the account they are held in. The allocation to the component is the same in each account, but in a taxable account, it is represented by municipal bonds which are exempt from federal tax , and in a qualified account, by taxable investment grade bonds . This variation is effective because it takes advantage of the fact that these two asset classes have very similar characteristics (expected returns, covariance and risk exposures) allowing them to play roughly the same role from an asset allocation perspective. Municipal bonds, however, are highly tax-efficient, and are very compelling in a taxable account. Taxable investment grade bonds have significant tax drag, and work best in a qualified account. Betterment has applied this substitution since 2014. The Basic Priority List Gobind Daryanani and Chris Cordaro sought to balance considerations around tax efficiency and expected return, and illustrated that when both are very low, location decisions with respect to those assets have very limited impact.5 That study inspired Michael Kitces, who leverages its insights into a more sophisticated approach to building a priority list.6 To visually capture the relationship between the two considerations, Kitces bends the one-dimensional list into a "smile." Asset Location Priority List Assets with a high expected return that are also very tax-efficient go in the taxable account. Assets with a high expected return that are also very tax-inefficient go in the qualified accounts, starting with the TEA. The "smile" guides us in filling the accounts from both ends simultaneously, and by the time we get to the middle, whatever decisions we make with respect to those assets just "don’t matter" much. However, Kitces augments the graph in short order, recognizing that the basic "smile" does not capture a third key consideration—the impact of liquidation tax. Because capital gains will eventually be realized in a taxable account, but not in a TEA, even a highly tax-efficient asset might be better off in a TEA, if its expected return is high enough. The next iteration of the "smile" illustrates this preference. Asset Location Priority List with Limited High Return Inefficient Assets Part IV: TCP Methodology There is no one-size-fits-all asset location for every set of inputs. Some circumstances apply to all investors, but shift through time—the expected return of each asset class (which combines separate assumptions for the risk-free rate and the excess return), as well as dividend yields, QDI percentages, and tax laws. Other circumstances are personal—which accounts the client has, the relative balance of each account, and the client’s time horizon. Solving for multiple variables while respecting defined constraints is a problem that can be effectively solved by linear optimization. This method is used to maximize some value, which is represented by a formula called an "objective function." What we seek to maximize is the after-tax value of the overall portfolio at the end of the time horizon. We get this number by adding together the expected after-tax value of every asset in the portfolio, but because each asset can be held in more than one account, each portion must be considered separately, by applying the tax rules of that account. We must therefore derive an account-specific expected after-tax return for each asset. Deriving Account-Specific After-Tax Return To define the expected after-tax return of an asset, we first need its total return (i.e., before any tax is applied). The total return is the sum of the risk-free rate (same for every asset) and the excess return (unique to every asset). Betterment derives excess returns using the Black-Litterman model as a starting point. This common industry method involves analyzing the global portfolio of investable assets and their proportions, and using them to generate forward-looking expected returns for each asset class. Next, we must reduce each total return into an after-tax return.7 The immediate problem is that for each asset class, the after-tax return can be different, depending on the account, and for how long it is held. In a TEA, the answer is simple—the after-tax return equals the total return—no calculation necessary. In a TDA, we project growth of the asset by compounding the total return annually. At liquidation, we apply the ordinary rate to all of the growth.8 We use what is left of the growth after taxes to derive an annualized return, which is our after-tax return. In a taxable account, we need to consider the dividend and capital gain component of the total return separately, with respect to both rate and timing. We project growth of the asset by taxing the dividend component annually at the ordinary rate (or the preferential rate, to the extent that it qualifies as QDI) and adding back the after-tax dividend (i.e., we reinvest it). Capital gains are deferred, and the LTCG is fully taxed at the preferential rate at the end of the period. We then derive the annualized return based on the after-tax value of the asset.9 Note that for both the TDA and taxable calculations, time horizon matters. More time means more value from deferral, so the same total return can result in a higher annualized after-tax return. Additionally, the risk-free rate component of the total return will also depend on the time horizon, which affects all three accounts. Because we are accounting for the possibility of a TEA, as well, we actually have three distinct after-tax returns, and thus each asset effectively becomes three assets, for any given time horizon (which is specific to each Betterment customer). The Objective Function To see how this comes together, we first consider an extremely simplified example. Let’s assume we have a taxable account, both a traditional and Roth account, with $50,000 in each one, and a 30-year horizon. Our allocation calls for only two assets: 70% equities (stocks) and 30% fixed income (bonds). With a total portfolio value of $150,000, we need $105,000 of stocks and $45,000 of bonds. 1. These are constants whose value we already know (as derived above). req,tax is the after-tax return of stocks in the taxable account, over 30 years req,trad is the after-tax return of stocks in the traditional account, over 30 years req,roth is the after-tax return of stocks in the Roth account, over 30 years rfi,tax is the after-tax return of bonds in the taxable account, over 30 years rfi,trad is the after-tax return of bonds in the traditional account, over 30 years rfi,roth is the after-tax return of bonds in the Roth account, over 30 years 2. These are the values we are trying to solve for (called "decision variables"). xeq,tax is the amount of stocks we will place in the taxable account xeq,trad is the amount of stocks we will place in the traditional account xeq,roth is the amount of stocks we will place in the Roth account xfi,tax is the amount of bonds we will place in the taxable account xfi,trad is the amount of bonds we will place in the traditional account xfi,roth is the amount of bonds we will place in the Roth account 3. These are the constraints which must be respected. All positions for each asset must add up to what we have allocated to the asset overall. All positions in each account must add up to the available balance in each account. xeq,tax + xeq,trad + xeq,roth = 105,000 xfi,tax + xfi,trad + xfi,roth = 45,000 xeq,tax + xfi,tax = 50,000 xeq,trad + xfi,trad = 50,000 xeq,roth + xfi,roth = 50,000 4. This is the objective function, which uses the constants and decision variables to express the after-tax value of the entire portfolio, represented by the sum of six terms (the after-tax value of each asset in each of the three accounts). maxx req,taxxeq,tax + req,tradxeq,trad + req,rothxeq,roth + rfi,taxxfi,tax + rfi,tradxfi,trad + rfi,rothxfi,roth Linear optimization turns all of the above into a complex geometric representation, and mathematically closes in on the optimal solution. It assigns values for all decision variables in a way that maximizes the value of the objective function, while respecting the constraints. Accordingly, each decision variable is a precise instruction for how much of which asset to put in each account. If a variable comes out as zero, then that particular account will contain none of that particular asset. An actual Betterment portfolio can potentially have twelve asset classes,15 depending on the allocation. That means TCP must effectively handle up to 36 "assets," each with its own after-tax return. However, the full complexity behind TCP goes well beyond increasing assets from two to twelve. Updated constants and constraints will trigger another part of the optimization, which determines what TCP is allowed to sell, in order to move an already coordinated portfolio toward the newly optimal asset location, while minimizing taxes. Reshuffling assets in a TDA or TEA is "free" in the sense that no capital gains will be realized.10 In the taxable account, however, TCP will attempt to move as close as possible towards the optimal asset location without realizing capital gains. Expected returns will periodically be updated, either because the risk-free rate has been adjusted, or because new excess returns have been derived via Black-Litterman. Future cash flows may be even more material. Additional funds in one or more of the accounts could significantly alter the constraints which define the size of each account, and the target dollar allocation to each asset class. Such events (including dividend payments, subject to a de minimis threshold) will trigger a recalculation, and potentially a reshuffling of the assets. Cash flows, in particular, can be a challenge for those managing their asset location manually. Inflows to just one account (or to multiple accounts in unequal proportions) create a tension between optimizing asset location and maintaining asset allocation, which is hard to resolve without mathematical precision. To maintain the overall asset allocation, each position in the portfolio must be increased pro-rata. However, some of the additional assets we need to buy "belong" in other accounts from an asset location perspective, even though new cash is not available in those accounts. If the taxable account can only be partially reshuffled due to built-in gains, we must choose either to move farther away from the target allocation, or the target location.11 With linear optimization, our preferences can be expressed through additional constraints, weaving these considerations into the overall problem. When solving for new cash flows, TCP penalizes allocation drift higher than it does location drift. Against this background, it is important to note that expected returns (the key input into TCP, and portfolio management generally) are educated guesses at best. No matter how airtight the math, reasonable people will disagree on the "correct" way to derive them, and the future may not cooperate, especially in the short-term. There is no guarantee that any particular asset location will add the most value, or even any value at all. But given decades, the likelihood of this outcome grows. Part V: Monte Carlo—Betterment’s Testing Framework To test the output of the linear optimization method, we turned to a Monte Carlo testing framework,12 built entirely in-house by Betterment’s experts. The forward-looking simulations model the behavior of the TCP strategy down to the individual lot level. We simulate the paths of these lots, accounting for dividend reinvestment, rebalancing, and taxation. The simulations applied Betterment’s rebalancing methodology, which corrects drift from the target asset allocation in excess of 3% once the account balance meets or exceeds the required threshold, but stops short of realizing STCG, when possible. Betterment’s management fees were assessed in all accounts, and ongoing taxes were paid annually from the taxable account. All taxable sales first realized available losses before touching LTCG. The simulations assume no additional cash flows other than dividends. This is not because we do not expect them to happen. Rather, it is because making assumptions around these very personal circumstances does nothing to isolate the benefit of TCP specifically. Asset location is driven by the relative sizes of the accounts, and cash flows will change these ratios, but the timing and amount is highly specific to the individual.19 Avoiding the need to make specific assumptions here helps keep the analysis more universal. We used equal starting balances for the same reason.13 For every set of assumptions, we ran each market scenario while managing each account as a standalone (uncoordinated) Betterment portfolio as the benchmark.14 We then ran the same market scenarios with TCP enabled. In both cases, we calculated the after-tax value of the aggregate portfolio after full liquidation at the end of the period.15 Then, for each market scenario, we calculated the after-tax annualized internal rates of return (IRR) and subtracted the benchmark IRR from the TCP IRR. That delta represents the incremental tax alpha of TCP for that scenario. The median of those deltas across all market scenarios is the estimated tax alpha we present below for each set of assumptions. Part VI: Results More Bonds, More Alpha A higher allocation to bonds leads to a dramatically higher benefit across the board. This makes sense—the heavier your allocation to tax-inefficient assets, the more asset location can do for you. To be extremely clear: this is not a reason to select a lower allocation to stocks! Over the long-term, we expect a higher stock allocation to return more (because it’s riskier), both before, and after tax. These are measurements of the additional return due to TCP, which say nothing about the absolute return of the asset allocation itself. Conversely, a very high allocation to stocks shows a smaller (though still real) benefit. However, younger customers invested this aggressively should gradually reduce risk as they get closer to retirement (to something more like 50% stocks). Looking to a 70% stock allocation is therefore an imperfect but reasonable way to generalize the value of the strategy over a 30-year period. More Roth, More Alpha Another pattern is that the presence of a Roth makes the strategy more valuable. This also makes sense—a taxable account and a TEA are on opposite ends of the "favorably taxed" spectrum, and having both presents the biggest opportunity for TCP’s "account arbitrage." But again, this benefit should not be interpreted as a reason to contribute to a TEA over a TDA, or to shift the balance between the two via a Roth conversion. These decisions are driven by other considerations. TCP’s job is to optimize the relative balances as it finds them. Enabling TCP On Existing Taxable Accounts TCP should be enabled before the taxable account is funded, meaning that the initial location can be optimized without the need to sell potentially appreciated assets. A Betterment customer with an existing taxable account who enables TCP should not expect the full incremental benefit, to the extent that assets with built-in capital gains need to be sold to achieve the optimal location. This is because TCP conservatively prioritizes avoiding a certain tax today, over potentially reducing tax in the future. However, the optimization is performed every time there is a deposit (or dividend) to any account. With future cash flows, the portfolio will move closer to whatever the optimal location is determined to be at the time of the deposit. Part VII: Special Considerations Low Bracket Taxpayers: Beware Taxation of investment income is substantially different for those who qualify for a marginal tax bracket of 15% or below. To illustrate, we have modified the chart from Part II to apply to such low bracket taxpayers.   Dividends Capital Gains Ordinary Rate N/A Any security held for a year or less (STCG) Preferential Rate N/A N/A No Tax Qualified dividends from any security are not taxed Any security held for a year or more is not taxed (LTCG) TCP is not designed for these investors. Optimizing around this tax profile would reverse many assumptions behind TCP’s methodology. Municipal bonds no longer have an advantage over other bond funds. The arbitrage opportunity between the ordinary and preferential rate is gone. In fact, there’s barely tax of any kind. It is quite likely that such investors would not benefit much from TCP, and may even reduce their overall after-tax return. If the low tax bracket is temporary, TCP over the long-term may still make sense. Also note that some combinations of account balances can, in certain circumstances, still add tax alpha for investors in low tax brackets. One example is when an investor only has traditional and Roth IRA accounts, and no taxable accounts being tax coordinated. Low bracket investors should very carefully consider whether TCP is suitable for them. As a general rule, we do not recommend it. Potential Problems with Coordinating Accounts Meant for Different Time Horizons We began with the premise that asset location is sensible only with respect to accounts that are generally intended for the same purpose. This is crucial, because unevenly distributing assets will result in asset allocations in each account that are not tailored towards the overall goal (or any goal at all). This is fine, as long as we expect that all coordinated accounts will be available for withdrawals at roughly the same time (e.g. at retirement). Only the aggregate portfolio matters in getting there. However, uneven distributions are less diversified. Temporary drawdowns (e.g., the 2008 financial crisis) can mean that a single account may drop substantially more than the overall coordinated portfolio. If that account is intended for a short-term goal, it may not have a chance to recover by the time you need the money. Likewise, if you do not plan on depleting an account during your retirement, and instead plan on leaving it to be inherited for future generations, arguably this account has a longer time horizon than the others and should thus be invested more aggressively. In either case, we do not recommend managing accounts with materially different time horizons as a single portfolio. For a similar reason, you should avoid applying asset location to an account that you expect will be long-term, but one that you may look to for emergency withdrawals. For example, a Safety Net Goal should never be managed by TCP. Large Upcoming Transfers/Withdrawals If you know you will be making large transfers in or out of your tax-coordinated accounts, you may want to delay enabling our tax coordination tool until after those transfers have occurred. This is because large changes in the balances of the underlying accounts can necessitate rebalancing, and thus may cause taxes. With incoming deposits, we can intelligently rebalance your accounts by purchasing asset classes that are underweight. But when large withdrawals or transfers out are made, despite Betterment’s intelligent management of executing trades, some taxes can be unavoidable when rebalancing to your overall target allocation. The only exception to this rule is if the large deposit will be in your taxable account instead of your IRAs. In that case, you should enable tax-coordination before depositing money into the taxable account. This is so our system knows to tax-coordinate you immediately. The goal of tax coordination is to reduce the drag taxes have on your investments, not cause additional taxes. So if you know an upcoming withdrawal or outbound transfer could cause rebalancing, and thus taxes, it would be prudent to delay enabling tax coordination until you have completed those transfers. Mitigating Behavioral Challenges Through Design There is a broader issue that stems from locating assets with different volatility profiles at the account level, but it is behavioral. Uncoordinated portfolios with the same allocation move together. Asset location, on the other hand, will cause one account to dip more than another, testing an investor’s stomach for volatility. Those who enable TCP across their accounts should be prepared for such differentiated movements. Rationally, we should ignore this—after all, the overall allocation is the same—but that is easier said than done. How TCP Interacts with Tax Loss Harvesting+ TCP and TLH work in tandem, seeking to minimize tax impact. As described in more detail below, the precise interaction between the two strategies is highly dependent on personal circumstances. While it is possible that enabling a TCP may reduce harvest opportunities, both TLH and TCP derive their benefit without disturbing the desired asset allocation. Operational Interaction TLH+ was designed around a "tertiary ticker" system, which ensures that no purchase in an IRA or 401(k) managed by Betterment will interfere with a harvested loss in a Betterment taxable account. A sale in a taxable account, and a subsequent repurchase of the same asset class in a qualified account would be incidental for accounts managed as separate portfolios. Under TCP, however, we expect this to occasionally happen by design. When "relocating" assets, either during initial setup, or as part of ongoing optimization, TCP will sell an asset class in one account, and immediately repurchase it in another. The tertiary ticker system allows this reshuffling to happen seamlessly, while attempting to protect any tax losses that are realized in the process. Conceptualizing Blended Performance TCP will affect the composition of the taxable account in ways that are hard to predict, because its decisions will be driven by changes in relative balances among the accounts. Meanwhile, the weight of specific asset classes in the taxable account is a material predictor of the potential value of TLH (more volatile assets should offer more harvesting opportunities). The precise interaction between the two strategies is far more dependent on personal circumstances, such as today’s account balance ratios and future cash flow patterns, than on generally applicable inputs like asset class return profiles and tax rules. These dynamics are best understood as a hierarchy. Asset allocation comes first, and determines what mix of asset classes we should stick to overall. Asset location comes second, and continuously generates tax alpha across all coordinated accounts, within the constraints of the overall portfolio. Tax loss harvesting comes third, and looks for opportunities to generate tax alpha from the taxable account only, within the constraints of the asset mix dictated by asset location for that account. TLH is usually most effective in the first several years after an initial deposit to a taxable account. Over decades, however, we expect it to generate value only from subsequent deposits and dividend reinvestments. Eventually, even a substantial dip is unlikely to bring the market price below the purchase price of the older tax lots. Meanwhile, TCP aims to deliver tax alpha over the entire balance of all three accounts for the entire holding period. *** Betterment does not represent in any manner that TCP will result in any particular tax consequence or that specific benefits will be obtained for any individual investor. The TCP service is not intended as tax advice. Please consult your personal tax advisor with any questions as to whether TCP is a suitable strategy for you in light of your individual tax circumstances. Please see our Tax-Coordinated Portfolio Disclosures for more information. Addendum As of May 2020, for customers who indicate that they’re planning on using a Health Savings Account (HSA) for long-term savings, we allow the inclusion of their HSA in their Tax-Coordinated Portfolio. If an HSA is included in a Tax-Coordinated Portfolio, we treat it essentially the same as an additional Roth account. This is because funds within an HSA grow income tax-free, and withdrawals can be made income tax-free for medical purposes. With this assumption, we also implicitly assume that the HSA will be fully used to cover long-term medical care spending. The tax alpha numbers presented above have not been updated to reflect the inclusion of HSAs, but remain our best-effort point-in-time estimate of the value of TCP at the launch of the feature. As the inclusion of HSAs allows even further tax-advantaged contributions, we contend that the inclusion of HSAs is most likely to additionally benefit customers who enable TCP. 1"Boost Your After-Tax Investment Returns." Susan B. Garland. Kiplinger.com, April 2014. 2But see "How IRA Withdrawals In The Crossover Zone Can Trigger The 3.8% Medicare Surtax," Michael Kitces, July 23, 2014. 3It is worth emphasizing that asset location optimizes around account balances as it finds them, and has nothing to say about which account to fund in the first place. Asset location considers which account is best for holding a specified dollar amount of a particular asset. However, contributions to a TDA are tax-deductible, whereas getting a dollar into a taxable account requires more than a dollar of income. 4Pg. 5, The Kitces Report. January/February 2014. 5Daryanani, Gobind, and Chris Cordaro. 2005. "Asset Location: A Generic Framework for Maximizing After-Tax Wealth." Journal of Financial Planning (18) 1: 44–54. 6The Kitces Report, March/April 2014. 7While the significance of ordinary versus preferential tax treatment of income has been made clear, the impact of an individual’s specific tax bracket has not yet been addressed. Does it matter which ordinary rate, and which preferential rate is applicable, when locating assets? After all, calculating the after-tax return of each asset means applying a specific rate. It is certainly true that different rates should result in different after-tax returns. However, we found that while the specific rate used to derive the after-tax return can and does affect the level of resulting returns for different asset classes, it makes a negligible difference on resulting location decisions. The one exception is when considering using very low rates as inputs (the implication of which is discussed under "Special Considerations"). This should feel intuitive: Because the optimization is driven primarily by the relative size of the after-tax returns of different asset classes, moving between brackets moves all rates in the same direction, generally maintaining these relationships monotonically. The specific rates do matter a lot when it comes to estimating the benefit of the asset location chosen, so rate assumptions are laid out in the "Results" section. In other words, if one taxpayer is in a moderate tax bracket, and another in a high bracket, their optimal asset location will be very similar and often identical, but the high bracket investor may benefit more from the same location. 8In reality, the ordinary rate is applied to the entire value of the TDA, both the principal (i.e., the deductible contributions) and the growth. However, this will happen to the principal whether we use asset location or not. Therefore, we are measuring here only that which we can optimize. 9TCP today does not account for the potential benefit of a foreign tax credit (FTC). The FTC is intended to mitigate the potential for double taxation with respect to income that has already been taxed in a foreign country. The scope of the benefit is hard to quantify and its applicability depends on personal circumstances. All else being equal, we would expect that incorporating the FTC may somewhat increase the after-tax return of certain asset classes in a taxable account—in particular developed and emerging markets stocks. If maximizing your available FTC is important to your tax planning, you should carefully consider whether TCP is the optimal strategy for you. 10Standard market bid-ask spread costs will still apply. These are relatively low, as Betterment considers liquidity as a factor in its investment selection process. Betterment customers do not pay for trades. 11Additionally, in the interest of making interaction with the tool maximally responsive, certain computationally demanding aspects of the methodology were simplified for purposes of the tool only. This could result in a deviation from the target asset location imposed by the TCP service in an actual Betterment account. 12Another way to test performance is with a backtest on actual market data. One advantage of this approach is that it tests the strategy on what actually happened. Conversely, a forward projection allows us to test thousands of scenarios instead of one, and the future is unlikely to look like the past. Another limitation of a backtest in this context—sufficiently granular data for the entire Betterment portfolio is only available for the last 15 years. Because asset location is fundamentally a long-term strategy, we felt it was important to test it over 30 years, which was only possible with Monte Carlo. Additionally, Monte Carlo actually allows us to test tweaks to the algorithm with some confidence, whereas adjusting the algorithm based on how it would have performed in the past is effectively a type of "data snooping". 13That said, the strategy is expected to change the relative balances dramatically over the course of the period, due to unequal allocations. We expect a Roth balance in particular to eventually outpace the others, since the optimization will favor assets with the highest expected return for the TEA. This is exactly what we want to happen. 14For the uncoordinated taxable portfolio, we assume an allocation to municipal bonds (MUB) for the high-quality bonds component, but use investment grade taxable bonds (AGG) in the uncoordinated portfolio for the qualified accounts. While TCP makes use of this substitution, Betterment has offered it since 2014, and we want to isolate the additional tax alpha of TCP specifically, without conflating the benefits. 15Full liquidation of a taxable or TDA portfolio that has been growing for 30 years will realize income that is guaranteed to push the taxpayer into a higher tax bracket. We assume this does not happen, because in reality, a taxpayer in retirement will make withdrawals gradually. The strategies around timing and sequencing decumulation from multiple account types in a tax-efficient manner are out of scope for this paper. Additional References Berkin. A. "A Scenario Based Approach to After-Tax Asset Allocation." 2013. Journal of Financial Planning. Jaconetti, Colleen M., CPA, CFP®. Asset Location for Taxable Investors, 2007. https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s556.pdf. Poterba, James, John Shoven, and Clemens Sialm. "Asset Location for Retirement Savers." November 2000. https://faculty.mccombs.utexas.edu/Clemens.Sialm/PSSChap10.pdf. Reed, Chris. "Rethinking Asset Location - Between Tax-Deferred, Tax-Exempt and Taxable Accounts." Accessed 2015. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2317970. Reichenstein, William, and William Meyer. "The Asset Location Decision Revisited." 2013. Journal of Financial Planning 26 (11): 48–55. Reichenstein, William. 2007. "Calculating After-Tax Asset Allocation is Key to Determining Risk, Returns, and Asset Location." Journal of Financial Planning (20) 7: 44–53.

Socially Responsible Investing Portfolios Methodology Oct 27, 2022 12:00:00 AM See the methodology for our Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) portfolios. Table of Contents Introduction How do we define SRI? The Challenges of SRI Portfolio Construction How is Betterment’s Broad Impact portfolio constructed? How is Betterment’s Climate Impact portfolio constructed? How is Betterment’s Social Impact portfolio constructed? Conclusion Introduction Betterment first made a values-driven portfolio available to our customers in 2017, under the Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) label, and has maintained SRI as the umbrella term for the category in subsequent expansions and updates to that offering. Betterment’s portfolios represent a diversified, relatively low-cost solution that will be continually improved upon as costs decline, more data emerges, and as a result, the availability of SRI funds broadens (in this paper, “funds” refer to ETFs, and “SRI funds” refer to either ETFs screened for some form of ESG criteria or ETFs with an SRI-focused shareholder engagement strategy). Within Betterment’s SRI options, we offer a Broad Impact portfolio and two additional, more focused SRI portfolio options, a Social Impact SRI portfolio (focused on social governance criteria) and a Climate Impact SRI portfolio (focused on climate-conscious investments). How do we define SRI? Our approach to SRI has three fundamental dimensions: Reducing exposure to companies involved in unsustainable activities and environmental, social, or governmental controversies. Increasing investments in companies that work to address solutions for core environmental and social challenges in measurable ways. Allocating to investments that use shareholder engagement tools, such as shareholder proposals and proxy voting, to incentivize socially responsible corporate behavior. We first define our SRI approach using a set of industry criteria known as “ESG”, which stands for Environmental, Social and Governance, and then expand upon the ESG-investing framework with complementary shareholder engagement tools. SRI is the traditional name for the broad concept of values-driven investing (many experts now favor “sustainable investing” as the name for the entire category). ESG refers specifically to the quantifiable dimensions of a company’s standing along each of its three components. In our SRI portfolios, we use ESG factors to define and score the degree to which our portfolios incorporate socially responsible ETFs. We also complement our ESG factor-scored socially responsible ETFs with engagement-based socially responsible ETFs, where a fund manager uses shareholder engagement tools to express a socially responsible preference. Using ESG Factors In An SRI Approach A significant and obvious aspect of improving a portfolio’s ESG score is reducing exposure to companies that engage in unsustainable activities in your investment portfolio. Companies can be considered undesirable because their businesses do not align with specific values—e.g. selling tobacco, military weapons, or civilian firearms. Other companies may be undesirable because they have been involved in recent and ongoing ESG controversies and have yet to make amends in a meaningful way. SRI is about more than just adjusting your portfolio to minimize companies with a poor social impact. Based on the framework of MSCI, an industry-leading provider of financial data and ESG analytics that has served the financial industry for more than 40 years, a socially responsible investment approach also emphasizes the inclusion of companies that have a high overall ESG score, which represents an aggregation of scores for multiple thematic issues across E, S, and G pillars as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. A Broad Set of Criteria Across E, S and G pillars 3 Pillars 10 Themes 35 Key ESG Issues Environment Climate Change Carbon Emissions Product Carbon Footprint Financing Environmental Impact Climate Change Vulnerability Natural Resources Water Stress Biodiversity & Land Use Raw Material Sourcing Pollution & Waste Toxic Emissions & Waste Electronic Waste Packaging Material & Waste Environmental Opportunities Opportunities in Clean Technology Opportunities in Renewable Energy Opportunities in Green Building Social Human Capital Labor Management Human Capital Development Health & Safety Supply Chain Labor Standards Product Liability Product Safety & Quality Privacy & Data Security Chemical Safety Responsible Investment Consumer Financial Protection Health & Demographic Risk Stakeholder Opposition Controversial Sourcing Community Relations Social Opportunities Access to Communications Access to Health Care Access to Finance Opportunities in Nutrition & Health Governance Corporate Governance Board Ownership Pay Accounting Corporate Behavior Business Ethics Tax Transparency Source: MSCI Ratings Methodology Shareholder Engagement The most direct ways a shareholder can influence a company’s decision making is through shareholder proposals and proxy voting. Publicly traded companies have annual meetings where they report on the business’ activities to shareholders. As a part of these meetings, shareholders can vote on a number of topics such as share ownership, the composition of the board of directors, and executive level compensation. Investors receive information on the topics to be voted on prior to the meeting in the form of a proxy statement, and can vote on these topics through a proxy card. A shareholder proposal is an explicit recommendation from an investor for the company to take a specific course of action. Shareholders can also propose their own nominees to the company’s board of directors. Once a shareholder proposal is submitted, the proposal or nominee is included in the company’s proxy information and is voted on at the next annual shareholders meeting. ETF shareholders themselves do not vote in the proxy voting process of underlying companies, but rather the ETF fund issuer participates in the proxy voting process on behalf of their shareholders. As investors signal increasing interest in ESG engagement, more ETF fund issuers have emerged that play a more active role engaging with underlying companies through proxy voting to advocate for more socially responsible corporate practices. These issuers use engagement-based strategies, such as shareholder proposals and director nominees, to engage with companies to bring about ESG change and allow investors in the ETF to express a socially responsible preference. The Challenges of SRI Portfolio Construction For Betterment, three limitations had a large influence on our overall approach to building an SRI portfolio: 1. Poor quality data underlying ESG scoring. Because SRI is still gaining traction, data for constructing ESG scores are at a nascent stage of development. There are no uniform standards for data quality yet. In order to standardize the process of assessing companies’ social responsibility practices, Betterment uses ESG factor scores from MSCI, who collects data from multiple sources, company disclosures, and over 1,600 media sources monitored daily. They also employ a robust monitoring and data quality review process. See the MSCI ESG Fund Ratings Executive Summary for more detail. 2. Many existing SRI offerings in the market have serious shortcomings. Many SRI offerings today sacrifice sufficient diversification appropriate for investors who seek market returns, allocate based on competing ESG issues and themes that reduce a portfolio’s effectiveness, and do not provide investors an avenue to use collective action to bring about ESG change. Betterment’s SRI portfolios do not sacrifice global diversification and all three portfolios include a partial allocation to an engagement-based socially responsible ETF using shareholder advocacy as a means to bring about ESG-change in corporate behavior. These approaches allow Betterment investors to take a diversified approach to sustainable investing and use their investments to bring about ESG-change. Engagement-based socially responsible ETFs have expressive value in that they allow investors to signal their interest in ESG issues to companies and the market more broadly, even if particular shareholder campaigns are unsuccessful. The Broad Impact portfolio seeks to balance each of the three dimensions of ESG without diluting different dimensions of social responsibility. With our Social Impact portfolio, we sharpen the focus on social equity with partial allocations to gender and racial diversity focused funds. With our Climate Impact portfolio, we sharpen the focus on controlling carbon emissions and fostering green solutions. 3. Integrating values into an ETF portfolio may not always meet every investor’s expectations, though it offers unique advantage For investors who prioritize an absolute exclusion of specific types of companies above all else, the ESG Scoring approach will inevitably fall short of expectations. For example, many of the largest ESG funds focused on US Large Cap stocks include some energy companies that engage in oil and natural gas exploration, like Hess. While Hess might rate relatively poorly along the “E” pillar of ESG, it could still rate highly in terms of the “S” and the “G.” Furthermore, maintaining our core principle of global diversification, to ensure both domestic and international bond exposure, we’re still allocating to some funds without an ESG mandate, until satisfactory solutions are available within those asset classes. We expect that increased asset flows across the industry into such funds would continue to drive down expense ratios and increase liquidity. Since the original offering, which was the predecessor to what is now our Broad Impact portfolio, we’ve been able to expand the ESG exposure to now also cover Developed Market stocks, Emerging Market stocks, and US High Quality Bonds. We also now include ESG exposure to an engagement-based fund. Sufficient options also exist for us to branch out in two different areas of focus—Climate Impact, and Social Impact. 4. Most available SRI-oriented ETFs present liquidity limitations. In an effort to control the overall cost for SRI investors, a large portion of our research focused on low-cost exchange-traded funds (ETFs) oriented toward SRI. While SRI-oriented ETFs indeed have relatively low expense ratios compared to SRI mutual funds, our analysis revealed insufficient liquidity in many ETFs currently on the market. Without sufficient liquidity, every execution becomes more expensive, creating a drag on returns. Median daily dollar volume is one way of estimating liquidity. Higher volume on a given asset means that you can quickly buy (sell) more of that asset in the market without driving the price up (down).The degree to which you can drive the price up or down with your buying or selling must be treated as a cost that can drag down on your returns. In balancing cost and value for the Broad Impact portfolio, the options were limited to funds that focus on US stocks , Developed Market stocks, Emerging Market stocks, US Investment Grade Corporate Bonds, and US High Quality bonds. How is Betterment’s Broad Impact portfolio constructed? In 2017, we launched our original SRI portfolio offering, which we’ve been steadily improving over the years. In 2020, we released two additional Impact portfolios and improved our original SRI portfolio, the improved iteration now called our “Broad Impact” portfolio to distinguish it from the new specific focus options, Climate Impact and Social Impact, and the legacy SRI portfolio for those investors who elected not to upgrade their historical version of the SRI portfolio (“legacy SRI portfolio”). For more information about the differences between our Broad Impact portfolio and the legacy SRI portfolio, please see our disclosures. As we’ve done since 2017, we continue to iterate on our SRI offerings, even if not all the fund products for an ideal portfolio are currently available. Figure 2 shows that we have increased the allocation to ESG focused funds each year since we launched our initial offering. Today all primary stock ETFs used in our Broad Impact, Climate Impact, and Social Impact portfolios have an ESG focus. 100% Stock Allocation in the Broad Impact Portfolio Over Time Figure 2. Calculations by Betterment. Portfolios from 2017-2019 represent Betterment’s original SRI portfolio. The 2020 portfolio represents a 100% stock allocation of Betterment’s Broad Impact portfolio. As additional SRI portfolios were introduced in 2020, Betterment’s SRI portfolio became known as the Broad Impact portfolio. As your portfolio allocation shifts to higher bond allocations, the percentage of your portfolio attributable to SRI funds decreases. Additionally, a 100% stock allocation of the Broad Impact portfolio in a taxable goal with tax loss harvesting enabled may not be comprised of all SRI funds because of the lack of suitable secondary and tertiary SRI tickers in the developed and emerging market stock asset classes. Betterment has built a Broad Impact portfolio, which focuses on ETFs that rate highly on a scale that considers all three ESG pillars, and includes an allocation to an engagement-based SRI ETF. Broad ESG investing solutions are currently the most liquid, highlighting their popularity amongst investors. Due to this, we will first examine how we created Betterment’s Broad Impact portfolio. In order to maintain geographic and asset class diversification and to meet our requirements for lower cost and higher liquidity in all SRI portfolios, we continue to allocate to some funds that do not have SRI mandates, particularly in bond asset classes. How does the Broad Impact portfolio compare to Betterment’s Core portfolio? Based on the primary ticker holdings, the following are the main differences between Betterment’s Broad Impact portfolio and Core portfolio: Replacement of market cap-based US stock exposure and value style US stock exposure in the Core portfolio, with SRI-focused US stock market funds, ESGU and VOTE, in the Broad Impact portfolio. Replacement of market cap-based developed market stock fund exposure in the Core portfolio, with SRI-focused emerging market stock fund, ESGD, in the Broad Impact portfolio. Replacement of market cap-based emerging market stock fund exposure in the Core portfolio, with SRI-focused emerging market stock fund, ESGE, in the Broad Impact portfolio. Replacement of market cap-based US high quality bond fund exposure in the Core portfolio, with SRI-focused US high quality bond funds, EAGG and SUSC, in the Broad Impact portfolio. ESGU, ESGV, SUSA, ESGD, ESGE, SUSC, and EAGG each track a benchmark index that screens out companies involved in specific activities and selectively includes companies that score relatively highly across a broad set of ESG metrics. ESGU, ESGD, ESGE, SUSC, and EAGG exclude tobacco companies, thermal coal companies, oil sands companies, certain weapons companies (such as those producing landmines and bioweapons), and companies undergoing severe business controversies. The benchmark index for ESGV explicitly filters out companies involved in adult entertainment, alcohol and tobacco, weapons, fossil fuels, gambling, and nuclear power. SUSA benchmark index screens out tobacco companies and companies that have run into recent ESG controversies. VOTE tracks a benchmark index that invests in 500 of the largest companies in the U.S. weighted according to their size, or market capitalization. This is different from the other indexes tracked by SRI funds in the Broad Impact portfolio, because the index does not take into account a company’s ESG factors when weighting different companies. Rather than invest more in good companies and less in bad companies, VOTE invests in the broader market and focuses on improving these companies’ social and environmental impact through shareholder engagement. Some of our allocations to bonds continue to be expressed using non-SRI focused ETFs since either the corresponding SRI alternatives do not exist or may lack sufficient liquidity. These non-SRI funds continue to be part of the portfolios for diversification purposes. As of September 2022, the Broad Impact portfolio’s asset weighted expense ratio, while relatively low-cost, has a range of 0.12-0.18%. This is dependent on the risk level (% allocation to stocks vs bonds) that you are invested in. The Broad Impact portfolio’s asset weighted expense ratio is higher than the Betterment Core portfolio strategy which has a range of 0.05-0.13%. SRI portfolios are also able to support our core tax products, Tax-loss Harvesting+ (TLH) and Tax-coordinated portfolios (TCP). In the Broad Impact portfolio, because of limited fund availability in the developed and emerging market SRI spaces, we use non-SRI market cap-based funds, like VWO, SPEM, VEA, and IEFA as secondary and tertiary funds for ESGE and ESGD when TLH is enabled. How socially responsible is the Broad Impact portfolio? As mentioned earlier, we first use the ESG data and analytics from MSCI to quantify how SRI-oriented our portfolios are. For each company that they cover, MSCI calculates a large number of ESG metrics across multiple environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) pillars and themes (recall Table 1 above). All these metrics are first aggregated at the company level to calculate individual company scores. At the fund level, an overall MSCI ESG Quality score is calculated based on an aggregation of the relevant company scores. As defined by MSCI, this fund level ESG Quality score reflects “the ability of the underlying holdings to manage key medium- to long-term risks and opportunities arising from environmental, social, and governance factors”. These fund scores can be better understood given the MSCI ESG Quality Score scale shown below. See MSCI's ESG Fund Ratings for more detail. Table 2. The MSCI ESG Quality Score Scale The ESG Quality Score measures the ability of underlying holdings to manage key medium- to long-term risks and opportunities arising from environmental, social, and governance factors. Fund ESG Letter Rating Leader/ Laggard Fund ESG Quality Score (0-10 score) AAA Leader - Funds that invest in companies leading its industry in managing the most significant ESG risks and opportunities 8.6-10.0 AA 7.1-8.6 A Average- Funds that invest in companies with a mixed or unexceptional track record of managing the most significant ESG risks and opportunities relative to industry peers 5.7-7.1 BBB 4.3-5.7 BB 2.9-4.3 B Laggard- Funds that invest in companies lagging its industry based on its high exposure and failure to manage significant ESG risks 1.4-2.9 CCC 0.0-1.4 Source: MSCI *Appearance of overlap in the score ranges is due to rounding imprecisions. The 0-to-10 scale is divided into seven equal parts, each corresponding to a letter rating. Based on data from MSCI, which the organization has made publicly available for funds to drive greater ESG transparency, and sourced by fund courtesy of etf.com, Betterment’s 100% stock Broad Impact portfolio has a weighted MSCI ESG Quality score that is approximately 19% greater than Betterment’s 100% stock Core portfolio. MSCI ESG Quality Scores U.S. Stocks Betterment Core Portfolio: 8.2 Betterment Broad Impact Portfolio: 9.3 Emerging Markets Stocks Betterment Core Portfolio: 5.2 Betterment Broad Impact Portfolio: 8.6 Developed Markets Stocks Betterment Core Portfolio: 8.7 Betterment Broad Impact Portfolio: 9.7 US High Quality Bonds Betterment Core Portfolio: 6.6 Betterment Broad Impact Portfolio: 9.5 Sources: MSCI ESG Quality Scores courtesy of etf.com, values accurate as of September 30, 2022 and are subject to change. In order to present the most broadly applicable comparison, scores are with respect to each portfolio’s primary tickers exposure, and exclude any secondary or tertiary tickers that may be purchased in connection with tax loss harvesting. Another way we can measure how socially responsible a fund is by monitoring their shareholder engagement with companies on environmental, social and governance issues. Engagement-based socially responsible ETFs use shareholder proposals and proxy voting strategies to advocate for ESG change. We can review the votes of particular shareholder campaigns and evaluate whether those campaigns are successful. That review however does not capture the impact that the presence of engagement-based socially responsible ETFs may have on corporate behavior simply by existing in the market. Engagement-based socially responsible ETFs have expressive value in that they allow investors to signal their interest in ESG issues to companies and the market more broadly. These aspects of sustainable investing are more challenging to measure in a catch-all metric, however that does not diminish their importance. A Note On ESG Risks And Opportunities An ESG risk captures the negative externalities that a company in a given industry generates that may become unanticipated costs for that company in the medium- to long-term. An ESG opportunity for a given industry is considered to be material if companies will capitalize over a medium- to long-term time horizon. See MSCI ESG Ratings Methodology (June 2022 ) for more detail. For a company to score well on a key ESG issue (see Table 1 above), both the exposure to and management of ESG risks are taken into account. The extent to which an ESG risk exposure is managed needs to be commensurate with the level of the exposure. If a company has high exposure to an ESG risk, it must also have strong ESG risk management in order to score well on the relevant ESG key issue. A company that has limited exposure to the same ESG risk, only needs to have moderate risk management practices in order to score as highly. The converse is true as well. If a company that is highly exposed to an ESG risk also has poor risk management, it will score more poorly in terms of ESG quality than a company with the same risk management practices, but lower risk exposure. For example, water stress is a key ESG issue. Electric utility companies are highly dependent on water with each company more or less exposed depending on the location of its plants. Plants located in the desert are highly exposed to water stress risk while those located in areas with more plentiful water supplies present lower risk. If a company is operating in a location where water is scarce, it needs to take much more extensive measures to manage this risk than a company that has access to abundant water supply. Should we expect any difference in an SRI portfolio’s performance? One might expect that a socially responsible portfolio could lead to lower returns in the long term compared to another, similar portfolio. The notion behind this reasoning is that somehow there is a premium to be paid for investing based on your social ideals and values. A white paper written in partnership between Rockefeller Asset Management and NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, studied 1000+ research papers published from 2015-2020 which analyzed the relationship between ESG investing and performance. The primary takeaway from this research was that they found “positive correlations between ESG performance and operational efficiencies, stock performance, and lower cost of capital.” When ESG factors are considered, there seems to be improved performance potential over longer time periods and potential to also provide downside protection during periods of crisis. Dividend Yields Could Be Lower Dividend yields calculated over the past year (ending September 30, 2022) indicate that income returns coming from Broad Impact portfolios have been lower than those of Core portfolios. Oil and gas companies like BP, Chevron, and Exxon, for example, currently have relatively high dividend yields and excluding them from a given portfolio can cause its income return to be lower. Of course, future dividend yields are random variables and past data may not provide accurate forecasts. Nevertheless, lower dividend yields can be a factor in driving total returns for SRI portfolios to be lower than those of Core portfolios. Comparison of Dividend Yields Source: Bloomberg, Calculations by Betterment for one year period ending September 30, 2022. Dividend yields for each portfolio are calculated using the dividend yields of the primary ETFs used for taxable allocations of Betterment’s portfolios as of September 2022. How is Betterment’s Climate Impact portfolio constructed? Betterment offers a Climate Impact portfolio for investors that want to invest in an SRI strategy more focused on being climate-conscious rather than focusing on all ESG dimensions equally. The Climate Impact portfolio was designed to give investors exposure to climate-conscious investments, without sacrificing proper diversification and balanced cost. Fund selection for this portfolio follows the same guidelines established for the Broad Impact portfolio, as we seek to incorporate broad based climate-focused ETFs with sufficient liquidity relative to their size in the portfolio. How does the Climate Impact portfolio more positively affect climate change? The Climate Impact portfolio is allocated to iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF (CRBN), an ETF which seeks to track the global stock market, but with a bias towards companies with a lower carbon footprint. By investing in CRBN, investors are actively supporting companies with a lower carbon footprint, because CRBN overweights these stocks relative to their high-carbon emitting peers. One way we can measure the carbon impact a fund has is by looking at its weighted average carbon intensity, which measures the weighted average of tons of CO2 emissions per million dollars in sales, based on the fund's underlying holdings. Based on weighted average carbon intensity data from MSCI (courtesy of etf.com), Betterment’s 100% stock Climate Impact portfolio has carbon emissions per unit sales more than 50% lower than Betterment’s 100% stock Core portfolio as of September 30, 2022. International Developed and Emerging Markets stocks in the Climate Impact portfolio are also allocated to fossil fuel reserve free funds, EFAX and EEMX. U.S. stocks in the Climate Impact portfolio are allocated to a fossil fuel reserve free fund, SPYX, and an engagement-based ESG fund, VOTE. Rather than ranking and weighting funds based on a certain climate metric like CRBN, fossil fuel reserve free funds instead exclude companies that own fossil fuel reserves, defined as crude oil, natural gas, and thermal coal. By investing in fossil fuel reserve free funds investors are actively divesting from companies with some of the most negative impact on climate change, including oil producers, refineries, and coal miners such as Chevron, ExxonMobile, BP, and Peabody Energy. Another way that the Climate Impact portfolio promotes a positive environmental impact is by investing in bonds that fund green projects. The Climate Impact portfolio invests in iShares Global Green Bond ETF (BGRN), which tracks the global market of investment-grade bonds linked to environmentally beneficial projects, as determined by MSCI. These bonds are called “green bonds”. The green bonds held by BGRN fund projects in a number of environmental categories defined by MSCI including alternative energy, energy efficiency, pollution prevention and control, sustainable water, green building, and climate adaptation. How does the Climate Impact portfolio compare to Betterment’s Core portfolio? When compared to the Betterment Core portfolio allocation, there are three main changes. First, in both taxable and tax-deferred portfolios,our Core portfolio’s Total Stock exposure is replaced with an allocation to a broad global low-carbon stock ETF (CRBN) in the Climate Impact portfolio. Currently, there are not any viable alternative tickers for the global low-carbon stock asset class so this component of the portfolio cannot be tax-loss harvested. Second, we allocate Core portfolio’s International Stock exposure, and a portion of our Core portfolio’s US Total Stock Market exposure to three broad region-specific stock ETFs that screen out companies that hold fossil-fuel reserves in the Climate Impact portfolio. US Total Stock Market exposure is replaced with an allocation to SPYX, International Developed Stock Market exposure is replaced by EFAX, and Emerging Markets Stock Market exposure is replaced by EEMX. In the Climate Impact portfolio, SPYX, EFAX, and EEMX will use ESG secondary tickers ESGU, ESGD, and ESGE respectively for tax loss harvesting. Third, we also allocate a portion of our Core portfolio’s US Total Stock Market exposure to a fund focused on engaging with companies to improve their corporate decision-making on sustainability and social issues, VOTE. Currently, there are not any comparable alternative tickers for VOTE so this component of the portfolio will not be tax-loss harvested. Lastly, for both taxable and tax-deferred portfolios we replace both our Core portfolio’s US High Quality Bond and International Developed Market Bond exposure with an allocation to a global green bond ETF (BGRN) in the Climate Impact portfolio. Some of our allocations to bonds continue to be expressed using non-climate focused ETFs since either the corresponding alternatives do not exist or may lack sufficient liquidity. These non-climate-conscious funds continue to be part of the portfolios for diversification purposes. As of September 2022, the Climate Impact portfolio’s asset weighted expense ratio, while relatively low-cost, has a range of 0.13-0.20%. This is dependent on the risk level (% allocation to stocks vs bonds) that you are invested in. The Climate Impact portfolio’s asset weighted expense ratio is higher than the Betterment Core portfolio strategy which has a range of 0.05-0.13%. How do performance expectations compare to the Core portfolio? When some first consider ESG investing, they assume that they must pay a heavy premium in order to have their investments aligned with their values. However, as previously noted above, the data suggests that the performance between sustainable funds versus traditional funds is not significantly different, although there can be differences over shorter periods. How is Betterment’s Social Impact portfolio constructed? Betterment offers a Social Impact portfolio for investors that want to invest in a strategy more focused on the social pillar of ESG investing (the S in ESG). The Social Impact portfolio was designed to give investors exposure to investments which promote social equity, without sacrificing proper diversification and balanced cost. Fund selection for this portfolio follows the same guidelines established for the Broad Impact portfolio discussed above, as we seek to incorporate broad based ETFs that focus on social equity with sufficient liquidity relative to their size in the portfolio. How does the Social Impact portfolio promote social equity? The Social Impact portfolio shares many of the same holdings as Betterment’s Broad Impact portfolio, which means the portfolio holds funds which rank strongly with respect to broad ESG factors. The Social Impact portfolio looks to further promote the social pillar of ESG investing, by also allocating to two ETFs that specifically focus on diversity and inclusion -- Impact Shares NAACP Minority Empowerment ETF (NACP) and SPDR SSGA Gender Diversity Index ETF (SHE). NACP is a US stock ETF offered by Impact Shares that tracks the Morningstar Minority Empowerment Index. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has developed a methodology for scoring companies based on a number of minority empowerment criteria. These scores are used to create the Morningstar Minority Empowerment Index, an index which seeks to maximize the minority empowerment score while maintaining market-like risk and strong diversification. The end result is an index which provides greater exposure to US companies with strong diversity policies that empower employees irrespective of race or nationality. By investing in NACP, investors are allocating more of their money to companies with a track record of social equity as defined by the NAACP. SHE is a US Stock ETF that allows investors to invest in more female-led companies compared to the broader market. In order to achieve this objective, companies are ranked within each sector according to their ratio of women in senior leadership positions. Only companies that rank highly within each sector are eligible for inclusion in the fund. By investing in SHE, investors are allocating more of their money to companies that have demonstrated greater gender diversity within senior leadership than other firms in their sector. For more information about these social impact ETFs, including any associated risks, please see our disclosures. How does the Social Impact portfolio compare to Betterment’s Core portfolio? The Social Impact portfolio builds off of the ESG exposure from funds used in the Broad Impact portfolio and makes the following additional changes. First, we replace a portion of our US Total Stock Market exposure with an allocation to a US Stock ETF, NACP, which provides exposure to US companies with strong racial and ethnic diversity policies in place. Second, another portion of our US Total Stock Market exposure is allocated to a US Stock ETF, SHE, which provides exposure to companies with a relatively high proportion of women in high-level positions. As with the Broad Impact and Climate Impact portfolios, we allocate the remainder of our Core portfolio’s US Total Stock Market exposure to a fund focused on engaging with companies to improve their corporate decision-making on sustainability and social issues, VOTE. Currently, there are not any viable alternative tickers for NACP, SHE, or VOTE, so these components of the portfolio will not be tax-loss harvested. As of September 2022, the Social Impact portfolio’s asset weighted expense ratio, while relatively low-cost, has a range of 0.13-0.20%. This is dependent on the risk level (% allocation to stocks vs bonds) that you are invested in. The Social Impact portfolio’s asset weighted expense ratio is higher than the Betterment Core portfolio strategy which has a range of 0.05-0.13%. How do performance expectations compare to the Core portfolio? When some first consider ESG investing, they assume that they must pay a heavy premium in order to have their investments aligned with their values. However, as previously noted above, the data suggests that the performance between sustainable funds versus traditional funds is not significantly different, although there can be differences over shorter periods. Conclusion Despite the various limitations that all SRI implementations face today, Betterment will continue to support its customers in further aligning their values to their investments. Betterment may add additional socially responsible funds to the SRI portfolios and replace other ETFs as more socially responsible products become available. How does the legacy SRI portfolio compare to the current SRI portfolios? There are certain differences between the legacy SRI portfolio and the current SRI portfolios. If you invested in the legacy SRI portfolio prior to October 2020 and chose not to update to one of the SRI portfolios, your legacy SRI portfolio does not include the above described enhancements to the Broad Impact portfolio. The legacy SRI portfolio may have different portfolio weights, meaning as we introduce new asset classes and adjust the percentage any one particular asset class contributes to a current SRI portfolio, the percentage an asset class contributes to the legacy SRI portfolio will deviate from the makeup of the current SRI portfolios and Betterment Core portfolio. The legacy SRI portfolio may also have different funds, ETFs, as compared to both the current versions of the SRI portfolios and the Betterment Core portfolio. Lastly, the legacy SRI portfolio may also have higher exposure to broad market ETFs that do not currently use social responsibility screens or engagement based tools and retain exposure to companies and industries based on previous socially responsible benchmark measures that have since been changed. Future updates to the Broad, Climate, and Social Impact portfolios will not be reflected in the legacy SRI portfolio.

Goldman Sachs Smart Beta Portfolio Methodology Oct 26, 2022 12:00:00 AM The Goldman Sachs Smart Beta portfolio is meant for investors who seek to outperform a market-cap portfolio strategy in the long term, despite periods of underperformance. Our Smart Beta portfolio sourced from Goldman Sachs Asset Management helps meet the preference of our customers who are willing to take on additional risks to potentially outperform a market capitalization strategy. The Goldman Sachs Smart Beta portfolio strategy reflects the same underlying principles that have always guided the core Betterment portfolio strategy—investing in a globally diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds. The difference is that the Goldman Sachs Smart Beta portfolio strategy seeks higher returns by moving away from market capitalization weightings in and across equity asset classes. What is a smart beta portfolio strategy? Portfolio strategies are often described as either passive or active. Most index funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are categorized as “passive” because they track the returns of the underlying market based on asset class. By contrast, many mutual funds or hedge fund strategies are considered “active” because an advisor or fund manager is actively buying and selling specific securities to attempt to beat their benchmark index. The result is a dichotomy in which a portfolio gets labeled as passive or active, and investors infer possible performance and risk based on that label. In reality, portfolio strategies reside within a plane where passive and active are just two cardinal directions. Smart beta funds, like the ones we’ve selected for this portfolio, seek to achieve their performance by falling somewhere in between extreme passive and active, using a set of characteristics, called “factors,” with an objective of outperformance while managing risk. The portfolio strategy also incorporates other passive funds to achieve appropriate diversification. This alternative approach is also the reason for the name “smart beta.” An analyst comparing conventional portfolio strategies usually operates by assessing beta, which measures the sensitivity of the security to the overall market. In developing a smart beta approach, the performance of the overall market is seen as just one of many factors that affects returns. By identifying a range of factors that may drive return potential, we seek the potential to outperform the market in the long term while managing reasonable risk. When we develop and select new portfolio strategies at Betterment, we operate using five core principles of investing: Personalized planning A balance of cost and value Diversification Tax optimization Behavioral discipline The Goldman Sachs Smart Beta portfolio strategy aligns with all five of these principles, but the strategy configures cost, value, and diversification in a different way than Betterment’s Core portfolio. In order to pursue higher overall return potential, the smart beta strategy adds additional systematic risk factors that are summarized in the next section. Additionally, the strategy seeks to achieve global diversification across stocks and bonds while overweighting specific exposures to securities which may not be included in Betterment’s Core portfolio, such as real estate investment trusts (REITs). Meanwhile, with the smart beta portfolio, we’re able to continue delivering all of Betterment’s tax-efficiency features, such as tax loss harvesting and Tax Coordination. Investing in smart beta strategies has traditionally been more expensive than a pure market cap-weighted portfolio. While the Goldman Sachs Smart Beta portfolio strategy has a far lower cost than the industry average, it is slightly more expensive than the core Betterment portfolio strategy. Because a smart beta portfolio incorporates the use of additional systematic risk factors, we typically only recommend this portfolio for investors who have a high risk tolerance and plan to save for the long term. Which “factors” drive the Goldman Sachs Smart Beta portfolio strategy? Factors are the variables that drive performance and risk in a smart beta portfolio strategy. If you think of risk as the currency you spend to achieve potential returns, factors are what determine the underlying value of that currency. We can dissect a portfolio’s return into a linear combination of factors. In academic literature and practitioner research (Research Affiliates, AQR), factors have been shown to drive historical returns. These analyses form the backbone of our advice for using the smart beta portfolio strategy. Factors reflect economically intuitive reasons and behavioral biases of investors in aggregate, all of which have been well studied in academic literature. Most of the equity ETFs used in this portfolio are Goldman Sachs ActiveBetaTM, which are Goldman Sach’s factor-based smart beta equity funds. The factors used in these funds are equal weighted and include the following: Good Value When a company has solid earnings (after-tax net income), but has a relatively low price (i.e., there’s a relatively low demand by the universe of investors), its stock is considered to have good value. Allocating to stocks based on this factor gives investors exposure to companies that have high growth potential but have been overlooked by other investors. High Quality High-quality companies demonstrate sustainable profitability over time. By investing based on this factor, the portfolio includes exposure to companies with strong fundamentals (e.g., strong and stable revenue and earnings) and potential for consistent returns. Low Volatility Stocks with low volatility tend to avoid extreme swings up or down in price. What may seem counterintuitive is that these stocks also tend to have higher returns than high volatility stocks. This is recognized as a persistent anomaly among academic researchers because the higher the volatility of the asset, the higher its return should be (according to standard financial theory). Low-volatility stocks are often overlooked by investors, as they usually don’t increase in value substantially when the overall market is trending higher. In contrast, investors seem to have a systematic preference for high-volatility stocks based on the data and, as a result, the demand increases these stocks’ prices and therefore reduces their future returns. Strong Momentum Stocks with strong momentum have recently been trending strongly upward in price. It is well documented that stocks tend to trend for some time, and investing in these types of stocks allows you to take advantage of these trends. It’s important to define the momentum factor with precision since securities can also exhibit reversion to the mean—meaning that “what goes up must come down.” How can these factors lead to future outperformance? In specific terms, the factors that drive the smart beta portfolio strategy—while having varying performance year-to-year relative to their market cap benchmark—have potential to outperform their respective benchmarks when combined. You can see an example of this in the chart of yearly factor returns for US large cap stocks below. You’ll see that the ranking of the four factor indexes varies over time, rotating outperformance over the S&P 500 Index in nearly all of the years. Performance Ranking of Smart Beta Indices vs. S&P 500 Why invest in a smart beta portfolio? As we’ve explained above, we generally only advise using Betterment’s choice smart beta strategy if you’re looking for a more tactical strategy that seeks to outperform a market-cap portfolio strategy in the long term despite potential periods of underperformance. For investors who fall into such a scenario, our analysis, supported by academic and practitioner literature, shows that the four factors above may provide higher return potential than a portfolio that uses market weighting as its only factor. While each factor weighted in the smart beta portfolio strategy has specific associated risks, some of these risks have low or negative correlation, which allow for the portfolio design to offset constituent risks and control the overall portfolio risk. Of course, these risks and correlations are based on historical analysis, and no advisor could guarantee their outlook for the future. An investor who elects the Goldman Sachs Smart Beta portfolio strategy should understand that the potential losses of this strategy can be greater than those of market benchmarks. In the year of the dot-com collapse of 2000, for example, when the S&P 500 dropped by 10%, the S&P 500 Momentum Index lost 21%. Given the systematic risks involved, we believe the evidence that shows that smart beta factors may lead to higher expected return potential relative to market cap benchmarks, and thus, we are proud to offer the portfolio for customers with long investing horizons.

Betterment's Recommended Allocation Methodology Oct 25, 2022 10:00:00 AM Betterment helps you meet your goals by providing allocation advice. Our allocation methodology and the assumptions behind it are worth exploring. When you sign up with Betterment, you can set up investment goals you wish to save towards. You can set up countless investment goals. While creating a new investment goal, we will ask you for the anticipated time horizon of that goal, and to select one of the following goal types. Major Purchase Education Retirement Retirement Income General Investing Safety Net Betterment also allows users to create cash goals through the Cash Reserve offering, and crypto goals through the Betterment Crypto Investing offering. These goal types are outside the scope of this allocation advice methodology. For all investing goals (except for Safety Nets) the anticipated time horizon and the goal type you select inform Betterment when you plan to use the money, and how you plan to withdraw the funds (i.e. full immediate liquidation for a major purchase, or partial periodic liquidations for retirement). Safety Nets, by definition, do not have an anticipated time horizon (when you set up your goal, Betterment will assume a time horizon for Safety Nets to help inform saving and deposit advice, but you can edit this, and it does not impact our recommended investment allocation). This is because we cannot predict when an unexpected emergency expense will arise, or how much it will cost. For all goals (except for Safety Nets) Betterment will recommend an investment allocation based on the time horizon and goal type you select. Betterment develops the recommended investment allocation by projecting a range of market outcomes and averaging the best-performing risk level across the 5th-50th percentiles. For Safety Nets, Betterment’s recommended investment allocation is formed by determining the safest allocation that seeks to match or just beat inflation. Below are the ranges of recommended investment allocations for each goal type. Goal Type Most Aggressive Recommended Allocation Most Conservative Recommended Allocation Major Purchase 90% stocks (33+ years) 0% stocks (time horizon reached) Education 90% stocks (33+ years) 0% stocks (time horizon reached) Retirement 90% stocks (20+ years until retirement age) 56% stocks (retirement age reached) Retirement Income 56% stocks (24+ years remaining life expectancy) 30% stocks (9 years or less remaining life expectancy) General Investing 90% stocks (20+ years) 56% stocks (time horizon reached) Safety Net Safest allocation that seeks to match or just beat inflation Safest allocation that seeks to match or just beat inflation As you can see from the table above, in general, the longer a goal’s time horizon, the more aggressive Betterment’s recommended allocation. And the shorter a goal’s time horizon, the more conservative Betterment’s recommended allocation. This results in what we call a “glidepath” which is how our recommended allocation for a given goal type adjusts over time.  Below are the full glidepaths when applicable to the goal types Betterment offers. Major Purchase/Education Goals Retirement/Retirement Income Goals Figure above shows a hypothetical example of a client who lives until they’re 90 years old. It does not represent actual client performance and is not indicative of future results. Actual results may vary based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to client changes inside the account and market fluctuation. General Investing Goals Betterment offers an “auto-adjust” feature that will automatically adjust your goal’s allocation to control risk for applicable goal types, becoming more conservative as you near the end of your goals’ investing timeline. We make incremental changes to your risk level, creating a smooth  glidepath. Since Betterment adjusts the recommended allocation and portfolio weights of the glidepath based on your specific goals and time horizons, you’ll notice that “Major Purchase” goals take a more conservative path compared to a Retirement or General Investing glidepath. It takes a near zero risk for very short time horizons because we expect you to fully liquidate your investment at the intended date. With Retirement goals, we expect you to take distributions over time so we will recommend remaining at a higher risk allocation even as you reach the target date.  Auto-adjust is available in investing goals with an associated time horizon (excluding Safety Net goals and the BlackRock Target Income portfolio) for the Betterment Core portfolio, SRI portfolios, Innovation Technology portfolio, and Goldman Sachs Smart Beta portfolio. If you would like Betterment to automatically adjust your investments according to these glidepaths, you have the option to enable Betterment’s auto-adjust feature when you accept Betterment’s recommended allocation. This feature uses cash flow rebalancing and sell/buy rebalancing to help keep your goal’s allocation inline with our recommended allocation. Adjusting for Risk Tolerance The above investment allocation recommendations and glidepaths are based on what we call “risk capacity” or the extent to which a client’s goal can sustain a financial setback based on its anticipated time horizon and liquidation strategy. Clients have the option to agree with this recommendation or to deviate from it. Betterment uses an interactive slider that allows clients to toggle between different investment allocations (how much is allocated to stocks versus bonds) until they find the allocation that has the expected range of growth outcomes they are willing to experience for that goal given their tolerance for risk. Betterment’s slider contains 5 categories of risk tolerance: Very Conservative: This risk setting is associated with an allocation that is more than 7 percentage points below our recommended allocation to stocks. That’s ok, as long as you’re aware that you may sacrifice potential returns in order to limit your possibility of experiencing losses. You may need to save more in order to reach your goals. This setting is appropriate for those who have a lower tolerance for risk. Conservative: This risk setting is associated with an allocation that is between 4-7 percentage points below our recommended allocation to stocks. That’s ok, as long as you’re aware that you may sacrifice potential returns in order to limit your possibility of experiencing losses. You may need to save more inorder to reach your goals. This setting is appropriate for those who have a lower tolerance for risk. Moderate: This risk setting is associated with an allocation that is within 3 percentage points of our recommended allocation to stocks. Aggressive: This risk setting is associated with an allocation that is between 4-7 percentage points above our recommended allocation to stocks. This gives the benefit of potentially higher returns in the long-term but exposes you to higher potential losses in the short-term. This setting is appropriate for those who have a higher tolerance for risk. Very Aggressive: This risk setting is associated with an allocation that is more than 7 percentage points above our recommended allocation to stocks. This gives the benefit of potentially higher returns in the long-term but exposes you to higher potential losses in the short-term. This setting is appropriate for those who have a higher tolerance for risk.