"What a number of firms found was that their allocations to stocks were a little too high and led to losses in a market like 2008 that were greater than they or investors had anticipated," Morningstar analyst Josh Charlson says. "That has led to some shifts in the glide paths, lowering the stock weighting around retirement and actually raising it in the years farthest out from retirement to up the ante and try to get more gains earlier."
Understand 'to' vs. 'through'
All target-date funds have an associated retirement target year, but some manage to a fund's target date and others manage through the target date. When a fund is managed to the target date, it reaches its final asset allocation at the target year, while funds managed through the target date will continue to evolve after reaching the target year.
"To" funds generally assume investors will cash out and move money elsewhere, either rolling over funds to a 401k or purchasing an annuity, while "through" funds continue to evolve to generate income for investors in retirement.
These two approaches have differing impacts on the resulting glide path, most apparent nearest to the target date. "What you see with different glide paths between competitors is that the widest dispersion in equity allocation happens at the retirement date due to the difference between "to" and "through" managers," Viston says.
According to a March 2011 Morningstar survey of 41 target-date funds, "to" and "through" funds have nearly identical stock allocations 40 or more years from retirement -- about 90% -- but as the retirement date approaches, differences start to crop up.
"To" target-date funds generally move more rapidly to the lower final equity allocation, while "through" funds have a more gradual arc in equity reduction. At the target date, "through" funds averaged around 49% in stocks, while "to" funds had only 33%. (The report does note that some "through" funds eventually end up at a lower equity allocation than "to" funds, but it takes longer to arrive at that point.)
Currently, more funds use the "through" paradigm, but Charlson says one approach is not always better than the other. It depends on an investor's particular situation and financial goals.
Because "through" funds have higher equity allocations for a longer period of time, they tend to court more market risk and might expose investors to short-term losses if market upsets like 2008 occur close to the target date. "To" funds, on the other hand, might not have enough equity exposure to generate the level of income that retirees need.
"One may fit a particular risk profile or investor profile better than the other, depending on your views or intentions during retirement," Charlson adds.
Look under the hood
Despite being considered by many as one-size-fits-all investments, not all target-date funds are created equal.
"(Target-date funds) are a different vehicle -- they're not your average stock mutual fund or bond mutual fund," Endress says. "They're much more complex, even though they are simple from a turnkey standpoint. When you actually look at the components across the different fund families out there, there are a lot of differences."
After the devastation wreaked by the financial crisis on U.S. stocks and bonds, some firms have tweaked target-date fund holdings to include more non-traditional asset classes, such as real estate, foreign debt and bank loans. Not only does this provide broader diversification, many of these asset classes have less correlation to U.S. equity and bond markets.
"We've definitely seen some shifts," says Charlson. "It's not an overwhelming or universal trend, but it's definitely there. There's a movement towards greater risk control."
While changes have been incremental thus far, Endress notes that recent pressure from regulators and investors might signal more significant changes ahead for target-date funds.
"I think we'll see more things come out in terms of regulations moving forward," he says. "(Fund companies) are still trying to find a standardized way to communicate these products and make it simple for investors to understand the differences a little bit more than they do today."
This article was reported by Meg Handley for U.S. News & World Report.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Yet this article doesn't mention fees at all when asking how risky your 401k is! The fact that workers are gouged tremendously, and campaign-contributed Congress won't do anything about it, is the riskiest and worst part of it.
"It was kind of a perfect storm,"
Perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps it was harvesting, which seems to occur every time a lot of small people put a whole bunch of their assets into a big pile. Trillions in 401k's is a pretty big pile, and that is the risky part.
If you haven't noticed your 401k's are heading back to 2008 levels. Wall Street is in the process of raiding them to pay bonus's. They let them build up close to where they were and now it going backwards again. I see a manupilatipn pattern going on here?? I dumped mine at 12500. i remmmber 2008. You can always get back in if your wrong.
Duh, what am I missing? If people had just done the "set and forget" strategy, they'd be doing fine. The losers were those who bought at the top and sold at the bottom. Doesn't sound like "set and forget" to me.
I don't recall hearing of any funds whose stated strategy was "Buy now, wait for it to go down, and then sell. Then complain because you were stupid.".
Everyone had better put at least 10% into physical gold and silver....50% might be more prudent.
How much more proof do people need in the light of all the political, social and economic upheavals world-wide, eh???????
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] Equity indices extended this week's losses with a broad-based retreat. The S&P 500 fell 0.6% to end the week lower by 1.1%, while the Russell 2000 (-1.1%) finished with a 0.9% decline since last Friday.
Staying true to the theme observed throughout the week, the energy sector (-1.5%) tumbled out of the gate, thus dragging the broader market down with it. Once again, dollar strength and crude oil weakness contributed to sector's underperformance, but the ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'