ShareThis Page

Target-date funds are no sure fix for retirement

Gail MarksJarvis
| Monday, March 22, 2010

Target-date funds were supposed to be the solution to the nation's looming retirement crisis, not money-destroyers.

With Americans not saving enough for retirement, and too many making poor investment choices, the funds were established to be no-brainer 401(k) choices.

Congress gave companies the go-ahead in 2007 to automatically put a little money from their employees' paychecks into the funds in 401(k) plans, and let the funds get the individuals ready for the day they would retire.

Investors added money of their own, embracing the simple concept of giving a professional their retirement date and then having the pros choose stocks and bonds. But then came the stock market crash of 2008, and people about to retire in 2010 lost an average of 23 percent of their savings. It was a shock to people who thought target-date funds made their money safe as they approached retirement.

Congress held hearings, and critics said the target-date funds were fundamentally flawed.

Now, a year after the target-date funds went from darlings to villains, many individuals have regained a good portion of what they lost, and the cry for government intervention has eased.

But as the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission work on disclosure guidelines and other rules for employers and fund companies that offer target-date funds in 401(k) retirement savings plans, new research from Morningstar Inc. suggests Congress probably was too quick to give the volatile funds the government's blessing.

Morningstar researchers said target-date funds are far from the simple funds many envisioned. The complexity is apparent in the differences among funds carrying the same target retirement date. With the variety, risks are more extreme in some funds than others.

Stock exposure differs dramatically, from more than 65 percent to roughly 25 percent stocks in 2009 for funds aimed at people who intend to retire this year. And other risks vary as well. Morningstar notes that certain funds performed poorly, in part, because of investments in toxic mortgage bonds.

Chris Tobe, a pension consultant and critic, has testified in congressional hearings that fund companies loaded too much stock into funds intended for near-retirees because the companies make more money on stocks than bonds.

Morningstar analysts aren't convinced that has been the issue. Rather, they note that during the rising stock market between 2003 and 2007, fund companies competed to win lucrative 401(k) business. Adding more stocks boosted returns in the funds and attracted employers. According to the SEC, the fast-growing target-date fund business totaled about $240 billion last summer, compared with $10 billion a decade earlier.

In addition, Morningstar noted that the industry was fixated prior to the market downturn on the concern that many Americans will live for decades in retirement and could run out of money unless they bolstered their savings by investing in stocks.

Morningstar concluded that target-date funds have worked well for young savers who stuck with their investments despite sharp losses, but failed people on the verge of retiring. Flows out of the funds indicate many nervous pre-retirees never imagined such sharp losses and fled, missing the upturn that followed.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me