Skip to main content
MENU
Subscribe
  • Subscribe
  • Account
  • LOGIN
  • Topics
    • Alternatives
    • Consultants
    • Coronavirus
    • Courts
    • Defined Contribution
    • ESG
    • ETFs
    • Hedge Funds
    • Industry Voices
    • Investing
    • Money Management
    • Opinion
    • Partner Content
    • Pension Funds
    • Private Equity
    • Real Estate
    • Russia-Ukraine War
    • SECURE Act 2.0
    • Special Reports
    • White Papers
  • Rankings & Awards
    • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
    • Top-Performing Managers
    • Largest Money Managers
    • DC Money Managers
    • DC Record Keepers
    • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
    • World's Largest Retirement Funds
    • Best Places to Work in Money Management
    • Excellence & Innovation Awards
    • Eddy Awards
  • ETFs
    • Latest ETF News
    • Fund Screener
    • Education Center
    • Equities
    • Fixed Income
    • Commodities
    • Actively Managed
    • Alternatives
    • ESG Rated
  • ESG
    • Latest ESG News
    • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
    • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
    • Impact Investing
    • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
    • ESG Rated ETFs
  • Defined Contribution
    • Latest DC News
    • DC Money Manager Rankings
    • DC Record Keeper Rankings
    • Innovations in DC
    • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
    • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
    • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
  • Searches & Hires
    • Latest Searches & Hires News
    • Searches & Hires Database
    • RFPs
  • Performance Data
    • P&I Research Center
    • Earnings Tracker
    • Endowment Returns Tracker
    • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
    • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
    • Pension Risk Transfer Database
    • Future of Investments Research Series
    • Charts & Infographics
    • Polls
  • Careers
  • Events
    • View All Conferences
    • View All Webinars
    • 2022 Innovation Investing Conference
    • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
    • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
    • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
    • 2022 Alternatives Investing Conference
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
November 10, 2014 12:00 AM

Target-date fund outcomes expose fiduciaries to risk

Richard D. Glass
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    Do your target-date funds offer real or only illusions of value?

    It is a question few fiduciaries have seriously considered. After all, Congress endorsed target-date funds in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 by making them a qualified default investment alternative.

    TDFs are often black boxes, so many fiduciaries don't realize they do not have a rigorous conceptual basis — as demonstrated by the dramatic variation in the returns and asset allocations of funds with the same target date.

    For example, in reporting the total returns (as of Dec. 31, 2012) of funds with a target year of 2015 from the 32 largest TDF families, Morningstar Inc. found the one-year returns ranged from a low of 1.8% to a high of 13.81%. The funds' three-year annualized returns ranged from 4.19% to 8.98%. During this period, the average equity allocation for these funds ranged from a low of about 10% to a high of about 65%.

    In 2013, believing that all too many fiduciaries were ignoring the significance of the variations, the Department of Labor published guidelines for fiduciaries to consider in “Target Date Retirement Funds — Tips for ERISA Plan Fiduciaries.”

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Richmond, Va., in its decision this year on Aug. 4 in Richard G. Tatum vs. RJR Pension Investment Committee et al., reminded fiduciaries of the need to document carefully all their decision-making processes, including how their decisions affect participants' retirement security.

    To help fiduciaries assess the thoroughness and the adequacy of their documentation of their processes for selecting, monitoring and communicating TDFs, fiduciaries should ask themselves how quickly and in what detail they could respond to the following letter from a participant.


    Four years ago, I was auto-enrolled into the 401(k) plan and defaulted into the 2040 TDF. Rather than accepting the default contribution rate of 3%, I increased my contribution rate to 6% so I could receive the full matching contribution.

    I tried using the retirement planning calculator on the plan's website to determine whether I should increase my contribution rate. The calculator required entering assumptions that were neither in the participant communications nor available from our 401(k) manager, plan call center or TDF's investment manager.

    Out of desperation, I called my cousin, a Ph.D. in finance. He said he could provide assumptions, but he felt strongly that we should compare his assumptions and the contribution rate generated from them with the contribution rate generated from assumptions derived from the TDF's glidepath.

    In arriving at a glidepath, my cousin pointed out, the investment manager uses a hypothetical participant. The manager assumes a starting age, a starting salary, an annual salary growth rate, a retirement age, a contribution rate (either a constant one or an escalating one), a life expectancy, a post-retirement inflation rate, and a targeted replacement ratio. Without this information, I can't tell how close a match I am to the investment manager's hypothetical participant.

    Once the overall glidepath is created, the investment manager can calculate both the pre- and post-retirement annualized compound returns he expects the glidepath to generate for each TDF in the series. Participants need these rates and the assumptions used in creating the glidepath (or ones that more accurately reflect their circumstances) in order to calculate an appropriate contribution rate.

    My cousin believes the 401(k) committee must have all the assumptions. He suggested I learn how the 401(k) committee approached the following issues, believing an understanding of the fiduciaries' reasoning would assist me in determining whether I felt the default option would likely fulfill my needs:



    • Attempting to compare TDFs with the same target date seems more like trying to compare apples and oranges rather than comparing funds that profess to have the same goal — helping participants (assuming they make adequate contributions) achieve a comfortable retirement income by providing them with a diversified and appropriate asset allocation scheme throughout their working and retirement years.

    • Fiduciaries and the quants who create TDFs routinely confuse the elegance of the mathematics and the statistical techniques (including Monte Carlo simulations) on which their models are based with the models' abilities to predict future events. Fiduciaries and quants often ignore the reality that as financial markets change, the usefulness of their assumptions goes by the wayside.

    • The glidepath is supposedly designed to minimize the likelihood of large losses close to retirement by systematically reducing the portfolio's allocation to stocks. This approach, however, can lock in large losses or inadequate assets due to the failure of the fund to achieve its anticipated pre-retirement growth rate that occurs close to or in the years preceding a participant's anticipated retirement date. Returns below expectations occurred in the first 10 years of this century, when equities grew in the low single digits. In other words, if the stock market rebounds after a bear market, doesn't it make sense for the glidepath to be restructured so as to enable participants to attempt to get back on track?

    • Our TDFs' design does not appear to address tail risks or the need for risk allocation. Since both of these issues are hot topics among fiduciaries of large defined benefit pension plans and endowments, should they have been incorporated into our TDFs?

    • Lastly, how does the 401(k) committee evaluate whether their choice of TDFs appear to be helping participants achieve a financially secure retirement? If the funds don't appear to be living up to expectations, how do the fiduciaries assess whether the problem is due to inadequate contributions, unfavorable capital markets and poor participant communications, or some combination of them?
    • Mr. Committee Chairman, I look forward to your reply.


      What are fiduciaries to do? The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not require fiduciaries to have perfect crystal balls. Rather, ERISA and the regulations mandate fiduciaries make decisions as if they are prudent experts who thoroughly evaluated the issue at hand. Using a highly regarded investment manager or consultant is no justification for fiduciaries being lax in both their assessments and documentation.

      In regard to whether a 401(k) plan's target-date funds offer real or only illusions of value, that is an issue fiduciaries must now take seriously.


      Richard D. Glass is president of Investment Horizons Inc., Pittsburgh.

    Related Articles
    A call to action for improved target-date due diligence
    Outcomes the key metric for target-date funds
    Cerulli: Target-date funds snagging larger share of 401(k) assets
    Supreme Court could take on case involving fiduciary burden of proof, damages
    Northern Trust: Target-date funds surge in DC plan allocation
    Recommended for You
    Retirement Plans_i.jpg
    Top priority for smaller DC plans: improving financial wellness programs
    Rene Martel
    Managed accounts are coming up short, some say
    Progressive_1550_i.jpg
    Progressive removes Fidelity midcap option from 401(k) plan
    OCIO, Anchor in Rough Seas
    Sponsored Content: OCIO, Anchor in Rough Seas

    Reader Poll

    May 23, 2022
    SEE MORE POLLS >
    Sponsored
    White Papers
    Crossroads: Politics, Inflation, & Bonds
    Credit Indices: Closing the Fixed Income Evolutionary Gap
    Forever in Style: Benchmarking with the Morningstar® Broad Style Indexes℠
    Q2 2022 Credit Outlook: Carry On
    Leverage does not equal risk
    Is there a mid-cap gap in your DC plan?
    View More
    Sponsored Content
    Partner Content
    The Industrialization of ESG Investment
    For institutional investors, ETFs can make meeting liquidity needs easier
    Gold: the most effective commodity investment
    2021 Investment Outlook | Investing Beyond the Pandemic: A Reset for Portfolios
    Ten ways retirement plan professionals add value to plan sponsors
    Gold: an efficient hedge
    View More
    E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS

    Sign up and get the best of News delivered straight to your email inbox, free of charge. Choose your news – we will deliver.

    Subscribe Today
    May 23, 2022 page one

    Get access to the news, research and analysis of events affecting the retirement and institutional money management businesses from a worldwide network of reporters and editors.

    Subscribe
    Connect With Us
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn

    Our Mission

    To consistently deliver news, research and analysis to the executives who manage the flow of funds in the institutional investment market.

    About Us

    Main Office
    685 Third Avenue
    Tenth Floor
    New York, NY 10017-4036

    Chicago Office
    130 E. Randolph St.
    Suite 3200
    Chicago, IL 60601

    Contact Us

    Careers at Crain

    About Pensions & Investments

     

    Advertising
    • Media Kit
    • P&I Content Solutions
    • P&I Careers | Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    Resources
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletters
    • FAQ
    • P&I Research Center
    • Site map
    • Staff Directory
    Legal
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Request
    Pensions & Investments
    Copyright © 1996-2022. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • Topics
      • Alternatives
      • Consultants
      • Coronavirus
      • Courts
      • Defined Contribution
      • ESG
      • ETFs
      • Hedge Funds
      • Industry Voices
      • Investing
      • Money Management
      • Opinion
      • Partner Content
      • Pension Funds
      • Private Equity
      • Real Estate
      • Russia-Ukraine War
      • SECURE Act 2.0
      • Special Reports
      • White Papers
    • Rankings & Awards
      • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
      • Top-Performing Managers
      • Largest Money Managers
      • DC Money Managers
      • DC Record Keepers
      • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
      • World's Largest Retirement Funds
      • Best Places to Work in Money Management
      • Excellence & Innovation Awards
      • Eddy Awards
    • ETFs
      • Latest ETF News
      • Fund Screener
      • Education Center
      • Equities
      • Fixed Income
      • Commodities
      • Actively Managed
      • Alternatives
      • ESG Rated
    • ESG
      • Latest ESG News
      • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
      • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
      • Impact Investing
      • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
      • ESG Rated ETFs
    • Defined Contribution
      • Latest DC News
      • DC Money Manager Rankings
      • DC Record Keeper Rankings
      • Innovations in DC
      • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
      • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
      • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
    • Searches & Hires
      • Latest Searches & Hires News
      • Searches & Hires Database
      • RFPs
    • Performance Data
      • P&I Research Center
      • Earnings Tracker
      • Endowment Returns Tracker
      • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
      • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
      • Pension Risk Transfer Database
      • Future of Investments Research Series
      • Charts & Infographics
      • Polls
    • Careers
    • Events
      • View All Conferences
      • View All Webinars
      • 2022 Innovation Investing Conference
      • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
      • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
      • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
      • 2022 Alternatives Investing Conference