Abstract
Target date funds provide a simple, automated approach to retirement savings in defined contribution plans. The passing of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 has seen an increase in the popularity of these funds in the United States, becoming the default option for many plans. However, recent research findings have challenged the easy bake or ‘set-and-forget’ nature of target date funds. This study explores some of the critical design features of target date funds (which shifts an individual’s asset allocation from growth to defensive assets following a pre-set glidepath) against a simple balanced (or target risk) fund design. Using both time-weighted and dollar-weighted returns, our results suggest that there is more to achieving successful retirement outcomes than the investor simply selecting a proposed year of retirement. Our findings can perhaps be summarized by Einstein’s famous epithet, that in the murky world of retirement product design, everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We note that there are a myriad of other approaches to TDF design (see, Scheuenstuhl et al, 2010).
For Monte Carlo and bootstrap approaches to the problem, see Basu and Drew (2009) and Basu et al (2011).
A TRF’s asset allocation strategy differs from a TDF as it is optimized on time-weighted risk to returns, whereas TDFs attempt to optimize dollar-weighted returns by employing only the target date into the model.
The selection of these specific paths is simply to spark the discussion and is by no means a complete picture; the authors implore the reader to observe Figure 3 and derive further comparisons, there are too many to discuss within this article.
References
Arnott, R. (2012) The glidepath illusion, Research Affiliates Fundamentals, http://www.researchaffiliates.com/Our%20Ideas/Insights/Fundamentals/Downloadable%20Newsletters/F_2012_Sep_The_Glidepath_Illusion.pdf, accessed 20 January 2013.
Basu, A. and Drew, M. (2009) Portfolio size effect in retirement accounts: What does it imply for lifecycle asset allocation funds? Journal of Portfolio Management 35 (3): 61–72.
Basu, A. and Drew, M. (2010) The appropriateness of default investment options in defined contribution plans: Australian evidence. Pacific Basin Financial Journal 18 (3): 290–305.
Basu, A., Byrne, A. and Drew, M. (2011) Dynamic lifecycle strategies for target date funds. Journal of Portfolio Management 37 (2): 83–96.
Bianchi, R., Drew, M. and Walk, A. (2013) The time diversification puzzle: Why trustees should care. JASSA Finsia’s Journal of Applied Finance 1 (1): 51–55.
Bodie, Z., Merton, R. and Samuelson, W. (1992) Labor supply flexibility and portfolio choice in a life-cycle model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 16 (3): 427–449.
Byrne, A., Blake, D., Cairns, A. and Dowd, K. (2006) There’s no time like the present: The cost of delaying retirement saving. Financial Services Review 15 (3): 213–231.
Dichev, I. (2007) What are stock investors’ actual historical returns? Evidence from dollar-weighted returns. American Economic Review 97 (1): 386–401.
Dichev, I. and Yu, G. (2011) Higher Risk, lower returns: What hedge fund investors really earn. Journal of Financial Economics 100 (2): 248–263.
Dimson, E., Marsh, P. and Staunton, M. (2002) Triumph and the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Doran, B., Drew, M. and Walk, A. (2012) The retirement risk zone: A baseline study. JASSA Finsia’s Journal of Applied Finance 1 (1): 6–11.
Drew, M. and Stanford, J. (2003) Returns from investing in Australian equity superannuation funds, 1991–1999. Service Industries Journal 23 (4): 12–24.
Estrada, J. (2013) The Glidepath Illusion: An International Perspective. Barcelona, Spain: IESE Business School. Working Paper, 14 February.
Frank, L. and Blanchett, D. (2009) A dynamic and adaptive approach to distribution planning and monitoring. Journal of Financial Planning 22 (4): 52–66.
Frank, L. and Blanchett, D. (2010) The dynamic implications of sequence risk on a distribution portfolio. Journal of Financial Planning 23 (6): 52–61.
Friday, S., Tiefenbach, M. and Goff, C. (2010) Lifecycle mutual funds: Risk and time-horizons. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics 10 (1): 123–130.
Jagannathan, R. and Kocherlakota, R. (1996) Why should older people invest less in stock than younger people? Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 20 (3): 11–23.
Johnston, K., Hatem, J. and Carnes, B. (2010) Investor education: How plan sponsors should report your returns. Managerial Finance 36 (4): 354–363.
Munnel, A. and Sunden, A. (2006) 401(k) Plans Are Still Coming Up Short, Issues in Brief No. 43 Boston, MA: Centre for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Okunev, J. (2013) Lifestyle or Life Cycle Funds: Are They the Answer to Retirement Wealth Creation? Sydney, Australia: Coda Asset Management. Working Paper, 29 January.
Samuelson, W. and Zeckhauser, R. (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Insurance 1 (1): 7–59.
Scheuenstuhl, G., Blome, S., Mader, W., Karim, D. and Friendrich, T. (2010) Assessing Investment Strategies for Defined Contribution Pension Plans under various Payout Options, OECD Paper. http://www.risklab.com/Dokumente/Aufsaetze/OECD_Scheuenstuhl_EtAl[10]-AssessingInvestmentStrategiesForDefinedContributionPensionPlansUnderVariousPayoutOptions.pdf, accessed 20 June 2012.
Steyer, R. (2012) Popularity of core funds is waning, Cerulli says. Pensions & Investments, 6 August, http://www.pionline.com/article/20120806/PRINTSUB/308069973, accessed August 10 2012.
West, J. (2012) Financial literacy education and behaviour unhinged: Combating bias and poor product design. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36 (5): 523–530.
Willis, L. (2008) Against financial literacy education. Iowa Law Review 94 (1): 197–285.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Replicating the methodology of Byrne et al (2006), we assume an age-real earnings profile our baseline. The additional real growth rate is set at 2 per cent per annum (see Byrne et al, 2006). Figure A1 incorporates both the 2 per cent per annum and the increase because of the differences in an employee’s ability to achieve a higher salary increase in the earlier-to-mid career life as opposed to mid-to-end of their career.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Basu, A., Doran, B. & Drew, M. Are target date funds the easy bake option?. J Financ Serv Mark 18, 199–206 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2013.13
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2013.13