After the Fall

I’ve just passed the fifth anniversary of a small fall that took a big chunk out of my life.

It was one of those little things – carrying that last box of Christmas ornaments to the basement for storage – when, just three steps from the bottom, I missed one. All I could think about in the 2 seconds it took me to tumble to the ground was trying not to fall on the ornaments (it was the last box, but who knew what precious memories were in that one?) – though that focus completely disappeared once I hit the floor.

The ornaments, as it turned out, were safe. My left ankle, not so much.

The next several weeks were discouragingly inconvenient when it came to navigating stairs, opening doors (even the ones that are ostensibly designed to accommodate such things), and – worst of all – showering. But perhaps the most frustrating was my rehab stint. I would not have thought it was possible in the space of just 8 weeks to forget how to walk – and yet, I found myself struggling (mind you, I was in a boot). To this day, I don’t descend a flight of stairs without a shudder running up my spine.

The fall, as falls often are, was fast and unexpected – the recovery long and painful.

At a time when the markets continue to stake out new highs on weekly, it is perhaps unseemly to recall that they can, and do, move in the opposite direction. While participants, generally speaking, appear to ride out such storms, those who sell low and buy high inevitably seem to outnumber those who view the downturns as buying opportunities. That said, in 2019 the S&P 500 rose more than 28% – and the average 401(k) balance – buttressed not only by the markets, but by contributions – ended the year 44.9% higher for those workers aged 25-34 with less than 4 years of tenure, while workers with more than 20 years of tenure, aged 55-64, registered a 24.6% increase, according to estimates by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

Indeed, just last week I read that a major target-date fund provider was boosting the equity allocation in its glide paths… explicitly to help deliver improved outcomes. Nor is it the only one to have done so (see Missing the Target). Those moves, ostensibly informed by economic insights and research, are perhaps tempted by the long-running bull market (and doubtless aware that, despite all the cautions to the contrary, that investors – and plan fiduciaries – are often drawn by past performance like moths to a flame).

Now, our industry has long cautioned savers that you can’t invest your way out of a savings shortfall, though surely improving outcomes is a shared goal. Not that it isn’t a tempting recourse – certainly for those who are awakening to financial realities late in their working years. These days the trend is to embrace glidepaths that sail “through” the stated age of retirement (“through” rather than “to”[i]), though one can’t help but wonder if those defaulted onto those paths are cognizant of the difference. Or if, as was the case a bit more than a decade ago, those on the brink of retirement will discover that there can be a significant gap between a glidepath that is “more” conservative, and one that truly lives up to that description.

Because, after all, falls are often unexpected. The recovery slow and painful.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Though the 62^nd Annual Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) Plans from the Plan Sponsor Council of America found a rough 50-50 split among respondents between those relying on target-date fund glidepaths that are “to” versus “through” retirement.

• 
  

5 Things the DOL Wants You to Know About TDFs – That You May Have Overlooked

Target-date funds continue to expand in usage and popularity – but there are some things the Labor Department wants you to know about TDFs that you may have overlooked.

When the Labor Department published its “Target Date Retirement Funds – Tips for ERISA Plan Fiduciaries” in 2013, I was pleased to see it, and to discover that it could be read ¹ (and understood) in about 15 minutes.

But in preparation for a recent webcast on the topic, I took a fresh look at that document, and found some nuggets that I hadn’t really picked up on the first time around.

It’s Not Just About Fees and Performance

As part of a reminder about the importance of establishing a process for comparing and selecting TDFs, the Labor Department specifically references considering prospectus information, such as information about performance (investment returns) as well as investment fees and expenses.
However, in that same topic point, the agency says that plan fiduciaries should consider how well the TDF’s characteristics align with eligible employees’ ages and likely retirement dates, “as well as the possible significance of other characteristics of the participant population, such as participation in a traditional defined benefit pension plan offered by the employer, salary levels, turnover rates, contribution rates and withdrawal patterns.”

‘To’ Versus ‘Through’ Matters

Considering what can be some pretty significant outcome differences in glidepaths between “to” (those that build to a specific target retirement date) and “through” (those that assume a glidepath to death), I’ve always found it curious that the Labor Department’s tips don’t make more of what seems a pretty big structural difference in these offerings.

While the “to” and “through” focus is covered in “Target Fund Basics” in the piece, under the bullet regarding “understand the fund’s investments,” the Labor Department’s information sheet notes that “some funds keep a sizeable investment in more volatile assets, like stocks, even as they pass their ‘target’ retirement dates,” going on to explain that “these funds” are generally for employees who don’t expect to withdraw all of their 401(k) account savings immediately upon retirement, but would rather make periodic withdrawals over the span of their retirement years. That approach is contrasted with the “to” version that the Labor Department says are “concentrated in more conservative and less volatile investments at the target date, assuming that employees will want to cash out of the plan on the day they retire.”

But what’s key here is the closing sentence: “If the employees don’t understand the fund’s glide path assumptions when they invest, they may be surprised later if it turns out not to be a good fit for them.”

Indeed.

Higher Costs Can Be Justifiable

It should come as no surprise that the Labor Department’s tips include an admonition about the need to be attentive to the impact of fees on retirement savings, and the structural layering typically associated with TDFs that can imbed layers of fees as well.

However, rather than merely condemning options that carry higher fees, here the Labor Department notes that, “If the expense ratios of the individual component funds are substantially less than the overall TDF, you should ask what services and expenses make up the difference,” going on to note that added expenses may be for asset allocation, rebalancing and access to special investments that can smooth returns in uncertain markets that “may be worth it.”

Custom TDFs Could Be Viable Alternatives

The Labor Department tips note that “a ‘custom’ TDF may offer advantages to your plan participants by giving you the ability to incorporate the plan’s existing core funds in the TDF,” and that “nonproprietary TDFs could also offer advantages by including component funds that are managed by fund managers other than the TDF provider itself, thus diversifying participants’ exposure to one investment provider.” It does acknowledge that there are some “costs and administrative tasks involved in creating a custom or nonproprietary TDF, and they may not be right for every plan.”

This “tip” was actually pretty plainly spelled out in one of the headlines – and yet, I remember thinking at the time that this wouldn’t be a very popular approach for most. But times are changing, technology continues to advance, and for advisors looking to differentiate themselves in the development of what is likely to become the largest plan investment, custom TDFs would seem to be a more viable solution than ever.

You Might Have to ‘Break Up the Set’

A TDF is, of course, a plan investment, and like any plan investment, if it fails to pass muster, a plan fiduciary would certainly want to remedy that situation, including removing the fund if necessary. That said, TDFs are frequently, if not always, pitched (and I suspect bought) as a package. While each fund in the family is reviewed separately, and certainly should be, breaking up the set certainly carries with it a series of complicated consequences, not the least of which are participant communication issues and glide path compatibility. Not that those can’t be overcome – and not that those complications would be deemed sufficient to retain an inappropriate investment on the plan menu – but it doesn’t take much imagination to think about the heartburn that might cause a plan sponsor.

However, as the Labor Department’s tips remind us, should a TDF’s “investment strategy or management team changes significantly, or if the fund’s manager is not effectively carrying out the fund’s stated investment strategy, then it may be necessary to consider replacing the fund.” That’s right – “the” fund. Similarly, the Labor Department cautions that “if your plan’s objectives in offering a TDF change, you should consider replacing the fund.” Again, note the use of the singular, not the plural.

Finally, one item not included in the piece – but arguably one that applies to every fiduciary situation – is that if you lack the requisite expertise to make the decisions as the prudent expert the law requires, you should engage the services of someone who has that expertise.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

See also:

• 5 Things You Should Know About Target-Date Funds
• Target-Date Fund Misperceptions Abound

Footnote

1. The key bullets outlined in the DOL tips are simple and straightforward – and to my eyes pretty much fiduciary common sense. They included suggestions/admonitions to: (1) establish a process for comparing and selecting TDFs; (2) establish a process for the periodic review of selected TDFs; (3) understand the fund’s investments – the allocation in different asset classes (stocks, bonds, cash), individual investments, and how these will change over time; (4) review the fund’s fees and investment expenses; (5) inquire about whether a custom or non-proprietary target date fund would be a better fit for your plan; (6) develop effective employee communications; (7) take advantage of available sources of information to evaluate the TDF and recommendations you received regarding the TDF selection; and (8) document the process. 

5 Things You Should Know About Target-Date Funds

In a remarkably short period of time, target-date funds have become an integral component of the typical 401(k) menu, and a growing share of 401(k) plan assets — particularly those of newly hired 401(k) plan participants — are being directed to TDFs.

Whether you are a plan fiduciary evaluating the TDF option(s) on your plan menu — or a 401(k) plan participant being defaulted into a TDF option — here are five questions to which you should know the answers about your TDF investment.

1. What is the ‘appropriate’ asset allocation?

This is the million-dollar question for target-date funds. At a high level, this is no more complicated than deciding what is the right mix of stocks and bonds, international and domestic, alternative investments and/or cash for investors at every stage of their investing life — or than picking the firm(s) that you trust to know what that right mix is.

2. How much of what is on your glide path?

The “glide path” sounds like a complicated concept, but it is actually nothing more than how the shifts in asset allocation take place over time. It is the path that these investments take your money on throughout your investing life. Still, for some funds — particularly newer, smaller funds — the asset-allocation strategies outlined in the fund prospectus or fact sheet may still be “aspirational,” may not yet incorporate all the specific strategies that the fund manager has in mind for that time in the future when the funds achieve a certain critical mass. You need to know what the targets are — and know if those targets are part of the current strategy.

3. Are the funds composed of proprietary offerings, or are they ‘open architecture’?

The “debate” over the relative advantages of open architecture versus proprietary offerings has long been part of retirement plan administration choices, and it is part of the target-date decision as well.

Those advocating the benefits of open architecture generally tout the ability to pick “best of breed” investment solutions (while readily being able to dump those that fall short), backed by the notion that no one firm can possibly be that best choice across every asset class. Those pushing proprietary choices take issue with that latter point, while pointing to the benefits of their intimate knowledge of their own product set — not to mention the relative cost efficiencies of a proprietary product. There is no one single right answer, but the determination should be part of your evaluation.

4. How much does it cost?

Target-date funds are often constructed as a fund comprised of other funds, and — particularly when a provider incorporates other funds in their offerings, they frequently charge some kind of fee for their expertise in putting together those other funds. This is a fee generally applied as some kind of basis-point charge in addition to the other, regular fees charged by the underlying funds. You will want to know what this charge is, if any, and consider it as part of the total cost of your selection. This fee is generally smaller (sometimes there is no extra charge) for proprietary-only offerings.

Beyond the aforementioned “wrapper” fee, TDFs — particularly mutual fund TDFs — will generally have all the same kinds of fees typically associated with retirement plan investments. Bear in mind that some of the fund allocations may include some relatively exotic asset classes — and those may carry higher expenses than you are accustomed to seeing. Additionally, you may find some retail share class funds included, even in institutional share class offerings. The bottom line: Keep an eye on the bottom line.

5. How should I measure ‘success’?

It wasn’t all that long ago that there were no benchmarks to speak of in this space (other than those constructed by the firms managing those funds). These days the passage of time, and the expansion of the market, have produced several credible benchmarks against which the performance of the funds can be evaluated.

But take note: The benchmarks can be as varied in their underlying philosophy and construction as are the funds themselves. That’s why it is important to first know what you believe about the approach, glide paths, and/or asset allocation before you pick the benchmark.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

You may also want to check out the Employee Benefits Security Administration’s (EBSA) “Target Date Retirement Funds — Tips for ERISA Plan Fiduciaries” at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsTDF.html.

"Left" Overs

On more than a few occasions in my youth, I would misplace some object of importance. Generally it was just something I set aside for just a moment in pursuit of some more interesting endeavor—and sometimes it was something I set down and forgot about until much later.

Regardless, being unsuccessful in locating the object, I was frequently inclined to suspect that the culprit responsible for the disappearance was my mother, who—as mothers do, spent more than a little of her existence picking up objects that had been left unattended in unsuitable places. There were, however, times when she had played no role in the “disappearance,” and she’d admonish me to look more diligently—that “it didn’t just get up and walk away on its own…”

Now, while there were times when I was certain that the object in question had done just that, once I was able to retrace my steps, to recall where I had been and when—and, inevitably, there it was.
That said, I wasn’t always happy to find things where I left them; comic books don’t hold up well in the rain, for instance, and fragile objects left in the reach of younger siblings (or pets) can have a frustratingly short shelf life.

Retirement plan sponsors, and those who support their efforts, have worked long and hard to engage participants with the management and oversight of their retirement plan balances, with mixed results. However, even the most engaged participants seem to struggle to find the time, inclination, or discipline to revisit those initial investment choices, much less to do so at the appropriate times. In fact, left to their own devices, it’s likely that many—perhaps most—retirement plan participants looking to see how their balances are invested would find them right where they “left” them at that initial enrollment meeting (though with proportions shifted by the markets in the interim).

Enter the target-date fund (TDF), a type of investment fund apportioned according to what investment professionals deem to be an appropriate age-based blend of stocks, bonds, and other asset classes for an individual within a particular target date of his or her retirement.

Though their mark was being made prior to the sanction of the design as a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, target-date fund availability and usage have soared along with the ensuing expanded adoption of automatic enrollment. Indeed, nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of 401(k) plans in the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database included target-date funds in their investment lineup at year-end 2012, and 41 percent of the roughly 24 million 401(k) participants in that database held target-date funds. Among participants who were offered target-date funds as a plan option, 60 percent held them at year-end 2012, and target-date fund assets represented 22 percent of the assets of plans offering such funds in their investment lineups.

Reflecting the growing popularity of automatic enrollment, at year-end 2012, nearly 54 percent of the account balances of recently hired participants in their 20s were in balanced funds (a significant subset of which is in target-date funds), compared with 7 percent in 1998. Moreover, at year-end 2012, 43 percent of the account balances of recently hired participants in their 20s were invested in target-date funds, compared with 40 percent at year-end 2011.

The impact of these shifts, chronicled in the extensive EBRI/ICI 401(k) database, is already manifested in the increasingly diversified portfolios of newer hires and younger participants. Beyond that initial allocation decision, the TDF design incorporates an ongoing rebalancing over time, one that shifts the underlying portfolios such that they are less focused on growth and more focused on income over time—a rebalancing that occurs automatically, and without requiring the input or involvement of the participant-investor.

That is likely to have a significant impact over time, because with retirement investments, as with life, we often plan to come back and revisit our choices more often than time (or life) allows.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

“401(k) Plan Asset Allocation, Account Balances, and Loan Activity in 2012” is available online here.
In 2011, an EBRI Issue Brief provided an informative examination of the use of target-date funds (TDFs) by a consistent group of 401(k) participants in plans that offered them in 2007 through 2009. See “Target-Date Fund Use in 401(k) Plans and the Persistence of Their Use, 2007–2009,” online here.

"Freedom" From Choice?

You may remember little else about the 1989 film “Field of Dreams,” but odds are you have invoked a version of what is likely its most famous quote, “If you build it, they will come.”

Unfortunately, for many, building retirement savings is more complicated than constructing a baseball diamond in the middle of an Iowa cornfield. Most experts will tell you that the most important decision in retirement saving is deciding how much to save, not how those savings will be invested―and yet, for years, much of the education and discussion about retirement saving has been focused on investing.

Enter the target-date fund (TDF), a type of investment fund apportioned according to what investment professionals deem to be an appropriate age-based blend of stocks, bonds, and other asset classes for an individual within a particular target-date of his or her retirement. Perhaps more importantly, that apportioning is automatically rebalanced over time, as the target date approaches, becoming less focused on growth and more focused on income over time. It’s an approach to which individuals and plan sponsors alike have come to embrace with little of the reluctance that often accompanies new retirement plan designs; one that runs counter to decades of expanding retirement plan menus and education designed to help participants make better use of those choices.

Consider that 72 percent of the more than 64,000 401(k) plans in the EBRI/401(k) database, included target-date funds in their investment lineup at year-end 2011,¹ and that nearly 4 in 10 of the nearly 24 million participants in that database held target-date funds.² That’s sharply higher than 2006, the year that the Pension Protection Act of 2006 included target-date funds in its definition of qualified default investment alternatives (QDIA), when about 57 percent of plans included those offerings on their menus, and fewer than 1 in 5 participants held them in their account(s). Perhaps more significantly, at year-end 2011, 51 percent of participants in their 20s held target-date funds, compared with 32 percent of participants in their 60s.

Recently hired participants―those more likely to be automatically enrolled in their employment-based 401(k), and to have their savings automatically invested in a QDIA (frequently a target-date fund), were, not surprisingly, more likely to hold target-date funds than those with more years on the job: At year-end 2011, 51 percent of participants with two or fewer years of tenure held target-date funds, compared with 37 percent of participants with more than five to 10 years.

In fact, an August 2011 EBRI Issue Brief noted that, among consistent participants in the EBRI/ICI database who were identified as auto-enrollees in 2007, 97.2 percent were still using TDFs in 2008, and 95.7 percent used them in 2008 and 2009. Even among those not identified as auto-enrollees, just over 90 percent continued to use them from 2007‒2009 (see “Target-Date Fund Use in 401(k) Plans and the Persistence of Their Use, 2007‒2009,” online here).

Now, one can find fault with the target-date design: There are different views on what is an “appropriate” asset allocation at a particular point in time; discrete perspectives as to what asset classes belong in the mix; notions that individuals aren’t well-served by a mix that disregards individual risk tolerances; arguments over the definition of a TDF “glide path” as the investments automatically rebalance over time; and even disagreement as to whether the fund’s target-date is an end-point, or simply a milepost along the investment cycle. That said, and as the EBRI/ICI data show, target-date funds, as well as their older counterparts, the lifecycle (risk-based) and balanced fund(s), have become fixtures on the defined contribution investment menu. For a large and growing number of individuals, these “all-in-one” target-date funds, monitored by plan fiduciaries and those that guide them, are likely to be an important aspect of building their retirement future.

Of course, the future they’ll build will likely be better if those investments are properly used, carefully monitored, better understood―and funded by the appropriate amount of savings.


Nevin E. Adams, JD

¹ See “401(k) Plan Asset Allocation, Account Balances, and Loan Activity in 2011,” online here.

² In addition, 20 percent of the participants in the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database held non–target-date balanced funds, and 3 percent held both target-date and non-target-date balanced funds at year-end 2011.

Underlying Assumptions

Last week the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued two reports focused on 401(k) plans: one on target-date funds, the other on potential conflicts of interest. As seems to be its custom in such reports, the GAO communicates its conclusion in the titles: “Key Information on Target Date Funds as Default Investments Should Be Provided to Plan Sponsors and Participants” and “Improved Regulation Could Better Protect Participants from Conflicts of Interest”—and, IMHO, there’s little controversy in those statements.

The reports themselves offer a great informational primer on target-date fund designs and issues (you’d be surprised how many plan sponsors still don’t quite grasp the concept of “glide path”) as well as the fee structures and revenue-sharing components that underlie the 401(k) retirement savings system. Both reports acknowledge that efforts are already under way to remedy the shortfalls the reports identified in both, while at the same time promoting solutions to those shortfalls that may not be cost/impact-justified.

As you peruse the target-date fund report (see “GAO Urges More Help with TDFs for Plan Sponsors”), you’re struck once again by the wide variety of answers to the question, “What is an appropriate asset allocation for participants at retirement age?” much less the assumptions that underpin it. One might well expect to find different assumptions regarding the markets, investment classes, and how the latter will respond to the former over the course of decades—and, in fact, these assumptions lie at the core of the target-date fund glide path and design. One might well expect (though many apparently didn’t) that those differences of opinion would translate into very real differences in asset allocation, even at retirement age.


There are, however, assumptions imbedded in these TDF approaches that, IMHO, are not nearly as well-communicated and/or understood by plan sponsors; assumptions that are predicated on certain participant behaviors that, in the words of the GAO report, “may not match what many participants actually do.” There is the assumption about what participants will do at the target date—either transfer those assets to another vehicle or retain their investment in the TDF.

This, of course, is the essence of the “to versus through” debate that has, since the 2008 financial crisis, drawn increasing scrutiny, if only because, IMHO, most plan sponsors (and plan participants) assumed that their target-date fund investment was designed to take them TO that date, not beyond it. Of course, that assumption bears within it another assumption: that the participant has managed to achieve a certain level of savings accumulation. Many haven’t, of course, and this knowledge underlies the assumption of those who employ the “through” approach to TDF designs, assuming that a longer equity exposure will serve to shore up that shortfall. Which, by the way, is another assumption imbedded in the “through” designs—that the participant will leave the money invested in that TDF (if not the plan itself) past their projected date of retirement.

Moreover, even the “to” TDF camp tends to assume that participants will buy an annuity at retirement, though they frequently don’t.

The GAO report noted that each of the eight TDF managers it contacted “considered contribution rates in establishing its asset allocation strategy,” noting that “some explicitly noted that these assumptions did not match the general pattern of contribution rates.” It will surprise few to learn that their assumptions were generally higher, but that they “hoped that rates will increase as workers adjust to DC plans serving as the sole employer-based retirement account,” according to the GAO report.

And, of course, since a growing number of participants were defaulted into TDFs to begin with, nobody has any real idea if they will behave the way participants have historically or not.

That said, the GAO has recommended that the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) (1) amend the QDIA regulations such that fiduciaries are required to document whether factors beyond age or retirement date are relevant, (2) provide guidance to plan fiduciaries on the limitations of benchmarks on those funds, and (3) expand participant TDF disclosures to provide information regarding the assumptions concerning participant contribution and withdrawal intentions. EBSA was at least open to the first two (though not commenting directly, since they are currently in the process of recrafting those regulations), though it resisted the last as being a “very complicated and subjective undertaking which could affect a plan sponsor’s decision to offer any target date fund option(s),” according to EBSA’s response to the GAO report.

But, IMHO, if that gives a plan sponsor pause in offering a particular option—well, perhaps it should.


—Nevin E, Adams, JD

See also “IMHO: When You Assume…”

The GAO target-date fund report is at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11118.pdf

Warning “Labels”

Litigation—or more accurately, the fear of litigation—frequently serves to put us on notice. It’s why we find labels on hair dryers cautioning against bathtub use, why hemorrhoid cream comes with an admonition that it is not to be taken internally, why that fast food coffee cup is emblazoned with a note that the contents are, in fact, “hot.” And yet, we know that as silly as these warnings seem, somewhere along the line either someone actually engaged in the activity in question, or some corporate attorney was afraid that they might.

There’s something of that concern still lingering around the target-date fund concept. Many participant-investors (and not a few plan sponsor fiduciaries) were caught unawares in 2008 when the hugely popular 401(k) investment option turned out to be as varied and unique in approach and assumptions as its marketing materials doubtless claimed it would be. Regardless, many plan sponsors—and probably most retirement plan participants—glossed over those differences, doubtless focusing instead on the message that this was an investment option managed by professionals who not only knew what they were doing, but could be trusted to keep an eye on things while we went about our daily lives.

Having learned the hard way that those structural differences exist, our industry—and those who regulate it—has spent the past two years trying to figure out how best to avoid a recurrence of the surprise, if not the result, from those designs. After a lot of discussion and several regulatory and legislative hearings, last November the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued a proposal to enhance the disclosure of these offerings (see “EBSA Unveils Target-Date Disclosure Proposal”), shortly after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued its own ideas. IMHO, the latter was a pretty modest effort; the former—well, let’s just say it struck me as a lot of information to share with a participant who, in all likelihood, probably didn’t actively make the investment choice in the first place.1


I’ve always found the issue of participant disclosure to be a tough one. Participants clearly need all the help they can get in terms of better understanding and preparing for their retirement. On the other hand, it seems that the more paper we present to them, the less inclined they are to pay any attention to it.

However extraordinary the events that culminated in the target-date “surprise,” and however complicit participants (and plan sponsors) may have been in ignoring the information they may have had access to, it would be unconscionable not to try and prevent a recurrence. That said, IMHO, the situation won’t be resolved by a lot of legalese, even if offset by colorful charts—and I’d advise caution in trying to squeeze too many complicated concepts into the disclosure, however well-intentioned or valid. I’ve no objection to providing that information (and more) to participants who request it, nor do I mind them being told such things are available as part of a general communication. But it seems to me that imposing such materials en masse will only serve to deter a better understanding—and doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

Asset allocation funds generally, and target-date funds in particular, have, IMHO, been a godsend for participants who know they ought to save but lack the knowledge, interest, or time to make sound investment decisions. That said, most of the investors who seem to have been blind-sided appear to have been caught off guard by one simple factor: How much of the fund was invested in stocks at the projected retirement date, a date that, in most cases was part of the name of the fund? What people tell you (at least with 20/20 hindsight) is that if they had only known that their 2010 fund had so much money invested in stocks, they would have made a different, and ostensibly better, choice.

Consequently, I wonder if we couldn’t just give the vast majority all the “heads up” they need by a simple notation as to the allocation to stocks, bonds, and cash at the projected retirement date. It’s a solution that surely lacks “nuance,” but I suspect that participants inclined to pay attention to such things would glean what they need to know to avoid being caught off guard again; and those who don’t will almost certainly not read the types of disclosures currently under contemplation. It’s a recommendation already encompassed in the proposals, but one that IMHO is quickly being obscured by the “kitchen sink” approach so often attendant with legal disclosures.

I’ve often thought (and said) that many of the disclosures in our lives are written “by the lawyers, for the lawyers.” This time, wouldn’t it be nice if we had one that was designed to be read and understood by the rest of us?

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 In fact, in a recent letter to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) commenting on the proposal, the SPARK Institute expressed concern that some of the proposed target-date fund disclosures would be over participants’ heads (see “SPARK Calls for Simplification of Target-Date Disclosure Rules”), and ERIC President Mark Ugoretz cautioned that “[i]nundating participants with excessive information has serious consequences; too often it results in participants simply ignoring critical information that is overcome by excessive data” (see “ERIC Calls for Balance in TDF Disclosures”).

In contrast, in its comments on proposed target-date fund disclosure regulations, the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA) and the National Association of Independent Retirement Plan Advisors (NAIRPA) suggested additional disclosures—including a focus on the impact of taking a lump-sum distribution, and a statement as to the potential impact of disparate ages between spouses (see “ASPPA Suggests Additional Target-Date Fund Disclosures”).

When You Assume…

Somewhere in the course of your professional life, you have no doubt heard (or used) the expression about what happens when you assume(1).

Well, over the past couple of weeks, I’ve heard a lot of discussion around target-date funds, most recently at the PLANADVISER National Conference (PANC). Without question, plan sponsors and participants—and perhaps not a few retirement plan advisers—were caught off-guard by the varied designs and resulting experiences of these popular investment offerings in recent months (2).

That many participants assumed these offerings were a no-maintenance solution to their retirement security is understandable, IMHO, certainly in view of how they were promoted by their manufacturers, sanctioned (from a design standpoint, anyway) by regulators, and positioned on retirement plan menus. But let’s face it, what happened in the markets last fall happened pretty much everywhere and to everyone (at least everyone who was invested in the markets).

And, while there’s no way to truly quantify this, my sense is that some of those 2010 participants who were, unfortunately, caught in that market maelstrom were nonetheless well-served in the months ahead of that downturn, and perhaps since, by having their savings invested in a truly diversified portfolio.

There remains, however, the “smoking gun” issue—what DID participant-investors “know,” and when did they know it? Or, perhaps more precisely, when SHOULD they have known it? That and, were they really given the information they needed to know it?

“To” Versus “Through”

The “to” versus “through” retirement debate—the notion of whether the target date is an end point for target-date investment or merely a point along the investing continuum—remains unresolved in target-date circles. Frankly, I have heard arguments (some better than others) on both sides, and, personally, I see no reason that informed and educated investors shouldn’t be able to make their own determination as to the approach that best suits their situation.

What troubles me—aside from the reality that offerings so different in composition, design, and intent have names that are disquietingly similar—is that the assumptions underlying the glide path are so often unarticulated.

I’m not talking about the relative mix of exotic asset classes, or the soundness of the balance of equities and fixed-income investments at the date of retirement (or decumulation), though both are impacted. No, I’m talking about the implicit assumptions these various strategies employ to develop those glide paths that purport to deliver on the promise (or premise) of adequate retirement income. Assumptions regarding the age at which investors will truly begin drawing down those savings and at what rate, and—most significantly—assumptions about the accumulation from which they will be working.

See, to me, if you’re promoting an approach that assumes that you will have a certain amount saved, you need to tell people what that amount is. Alternatively, if you are backing an approach that assumes a retirement saver won’t have what is “needed,” but hopes to shore up some of that shortfall, it seems to me that you should be upfront about that as well. IMHO, for all the focus on asset allocation as the be-all-and-end-all of the target-date debate, it’s the assumptions that underpin—or undermine—those decisions that are at the heart of the matter.

Ultimately, whether you are a plan fiduciary or a participant-investor, it seems to me that you can’t—and shouldn’t—make a target-date fund decision until you fully understand what is being assumed—and until you have matched those assumptions with the reality of your particular situation.

Because, as we all know, when you assume….

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) Hard as it is for me to imagine that you haven’t heard this, the expression is “When you assume, you make an a.ss out of u AND me”.

(2) It is certainly worth noting that PLANSPONSOR/PLANADVISER is hosting a conference devoted to the subject of asset-allocated fund solutions next month. See HERE

End "Points"

Several years back, after a day of meetings in Manhattan, I caught the train home. I wound up on one of those “milk run” trains that makes every stop along the way—and, trust me, there are a lot of stops between Manhattan and “home.” To make a long story short, I decided to take a short nap…and woke up just as the train was pulling away from my station.

It wasn’t a big “miss,” mind you. But that 15-minute nap cost me about two hours of time and a lot of aggravation…and, of course, it could have been a lot worse.

It seems that many things long taken for granted in our business are today being subjected to a whole new level of scrutiny, including the very efficacy of the 401(k). The most recent “target” is, of course, target-date funds—and the examiners no less than the U.S. Senate, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of Labor (see More Details Given on EBSA/SEC Hearing on Target-dates , Senate Committee Takes Aim at Target-Dates) .

That examination is not necessarily a bad thing, of course. The reality is that these offerings have quickly become a de facto investment solution for the nation’s prime retirement savings alternative, and in the past couple of years received nothing less than the official sanction of the DoL itself (at the instigation of Congress via the Pension Protection Act). That said, these solutions have benefited hugely from their simplicity. What is sold is the concept: professional money management, monitored and rebalanced over time. And to some extent, that is also what is bought.

What’s Being Bought

However, IMHO, there is something else that is being bought, if only implicitly—the ability to not have to worry about saving for retirement(1).

With target-date solutions, and more specifically with target-date solutions as part of an automatic-enrollment strategy, we’ve been able to set aside many of the messages we once viewed as essential to participant/investor education. We no longer have to teach participants about the importance of asset allocation, the wisdom of “not putting all your eggs in one basket” (quite the contrary, in fact), nor the need to keep an eye on your investments and to regularly rebalance. The message today is, tell us your birth date and “we’ll take care of all that.” And so we have.

There are two problems with that approach as I see it. The first is one of message—I think we may well have given a fair number of participants a message, if only subliminally, that they no longer need to worry about their retirement savings because we’ve attended to their retirement investing(2). That, of course, can be easily remedied—an effort that will doubtless be encouraged by the sustained market downturn and its impact on investors of all kinds. Still, for many, I’m sure the recent downturn has left them feeling the way I did as I watched the train pull away from my station.

The second problem is perhaps more insidious—and it is that “problem” that I suspect regulators will be trying to deal with next month. It is quite simply that, at the moment, we have lots of target-date funds on the market with nearly identical names—but very different philosophies. And, like it or not, in an age where we’re selling “don’t worry about it”— somebody has to.

Personally and professionally, I would hate to see us “fix” the problem by complicating the simplicity of a target-date choice. On the other hand, how can we continue to hold out a dozen different versions of the “right” asset allocation mix for a particular point in time without doing a better job of articulating that those differences exist, and explaining what those differences are?

What’s a Target-Date?

I’d start by explaining “target-date.” Once upon a time, the target-date was widely understood as being your retirement date, but more specifically, it was the date on which you would stop accumulating money for retirement and start drawing it down; and, yes, in most cases that was focused on the year in which the investor turned 65. Of course, these days, the definition of retirement is less precise; it’s not always 65, for one thing, and a growing number may leave a full-time career for a while and renter the workforce a couple of years later. Those kinds of changes, if not always in the control of the individual participant, are at least things that he or she is in a position to be aware of.

But for any number of target-date solution providers, the target-date in their fund family name is only a mile marker along the way, rather than the destination itself. They have developed strategies that ostensibly take the participant investor not only beyond that retirement date, but, in some cases, to the date upon which they leave this mortal coil.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with that as a strategy if the participant-investor understands that and appreciates what that means. On the other hand, if they think—as I am sure many do—that the target-date is the end, the point at which they are “done”— well, they could well wind up, as some surely have, being taken beyond their intended station—with no easy way to get back.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1)I realize as well as anyone that you don’t invest your way to retirement security. But we also know that most participants tend to concentrate on the things they can’t influence (picking investment funds, market trends, the availability of a company match) rather than their rate of saving—ironically, the one thing that they can, subject to certain economic realities, control.

(2) While automatic-enrollment programs are clearly an effective means of getting workers to save for retirement, I’ve worried in this column previously that it might also insulate them from these issues (see IMHO: “Expert” Opinions).

Poll Positions

There was an intriguing survey published last week, but one that, IMHO, generates as many questions as answers.

The online survey (accurately, if somewhat inelegantly, titled “Investors’ Beliefs about the Role of Target-Date Funds in Retirement Planning”—see Workers Might Have Wrong Idea about Target-Date Funds) captured the sense of 251 respondents, most (55%) of whom were earning less than $50,000/year, but many (75%) of whom were saving for retirement. A full third were age 55 or older, and none was younger than 25. Consequently, while we know nothing about how they are saving, or the size of the programs in which they participate, one might well expect that they have at least a passing familiarity with one of the most popular and powerful 401(k) investment tools—target-date funds.

Not so. Only 16% said they had even heard of target-date funds prior to reading the description in the survey, and apparently even among those, 63% weren’t able to explain the concept. From the response(s) shared (and there weren’t many), it seems that they “got” the date part, but tended to associate that with a maturation of that investment —worse, that on that date, a certain guarantee would be fulfilled.

The survey participants were shown a composite description of target-date funds, drawn from “the collateral of three leading providers,” and then were asked if target-dates promise anything. Presumably at least somewhat influenced by those provider descriptions(1), over half (61%) said yes. According to the survey’s authors, when asked what these offerings promised, 69% also got that wrong. Again, the response sampling provided was scant, but suggested that the individuals felt that the funds promised a certain level of financial security—despite market downturns.

That said, in other responses, most (62%) did NOT agree that the funds promised a guaranteed return, nor that those investments would grow faster than other investments (64.5%). A solid majority refused to believe that you would be able to save less in a target-date fund and still meet your retirement goals (70%), nor were they fooled into thinking that there was little or no chance that you would lose money before (76.9%) or after (76.1%) the target-date.

On the other hand, the flip side of those percentages—albeit a distinct minority of the total group—concurred (at least somewhat) with those errant propositions. And that, of course, is a cause for concern, if only because so many participants these days are choosing—or being defaulted into choosing—those target-date solutions(2).

Ultimately, however, as I looked over the survey results, I had to wonder: Were the respondents participants in a plan that offered a target-date option? Had they made, or been defaulted into, one of those options? Had they been ill-served by that decision? Do they think they have been ill-served?

Regardless, this survey, like all too many others, paints a picture of participant savers who doubtless need, and probably want, the kind of professional investment assistance that a target-date solution surely can provide. However, it also reveals a group of participant investors who are just ill-informed enough to fall prey to the bad counsel of unscrupulous advisers or to be disadvantaged by the indiscretions of inattentive plan fiduciaries.

We don’t need a survey to point that out to us, of course. But it doesn’t hurt to be reminded.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD


1 The excerpts, in case you were wondering, were:

“Take the guess work out of investing for retirement. Just decide when you want to retire, and we’ll pick the fund that’s the closest fit. A professional fund manager will keep that fund’s investments on target.”

“A target-date fund is a diversified portfolio of funds that offers all the benefits of asset allocation and active management. Just select your age, and we’ll do the rest.”

“You can get closer to achieving your retirement goals, with a little help from target-date funds.”

“We do the work. You do the retiring.”

2 Not that, IMHO, a lack of participant understanding or appreciation renders these investments inappropriate, certainly since most participants in the survey sampling seemed to understand the boundaries, even if they couldn’t (to the author’s satisfaction, anyway) articulate them.

Survival Instincts

Several years ago, I bought my Dad—one of the world’s most proficient worriers—a copy of the “Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook.” I did it tongue-in-cheek, of course. After all, how many of us really need to know how to escape from a mountain lion, how to take a punch, or how to land a plane? Not that there aren’t times when that knowledge might come in handy, but let’s face it—the “worst” case rarely happens. On the other hand, if you’re prepared for the worst case, you’re generally better prepared to deal with the inevitable bumps and potholes along life’s road (in my Dad’s case, I worried only that I would provide him with NEW things to worry about…).

Lacking a politician’s motivations, I am disinclined to describe the events of the past several months as “worst case,” though there is no disputing that we are all working our way through a rough period. As a nation we have been in—and come through—rough periods before. Despite that, human beings seem inclined to see travails of the present as something new and different, unique and unprecedented. Perhaps we simply want to believe that we live in extraordinary times, though IMHO some are simply enamored of using the crisis of the moment to sell newspapers (or “solutions”). Regardless, I have always found those characterizations to be simplistic at best, and frequently born of an ignorance of history and economic cycles. On the other hand, once the crisis passes—and it always passes—then the voices of reason return, and we learn once again that history’s lessons were there all along.

In normal times, the market’s tumultuous path, a shaky economic underpinning, and looming budget deficits would doubtless converge to forestall any significant change in the status quo of workplace benefit programs. Changes in workforce benefits have traditionally been slow to come on line, reflecting the sensitivity of workers and employers alike to the delicate balance between cost and value, not to mention “promise” and practicality.

But these are not normal times, and, if rhetoric becomes reality, change could well be the order of the day, with the potential for seismic shifts in the responsibility, costs, and characteristics of benefits long associated with today’s workplace. Here, IMHO, are some things to keep an eye on:

The Silver Tsunami

Just over a year ago, the “moment” a generation of plan sponsors had been bracing for arrived, as Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, the nation's first Baby Boomer, became the first of her generation to receive a Social Security retirement benefit. Casey-Kirschling, who filed for benefits at the age of 62, was hardly a “typical” retiree, since she enjoyed coverage both from a defined benefit and defined contribution plan. Over the next two decades, nearly 80 million Americans will become eligible for Social Security retirement benefits, more than 10,000 per day on average, according to the Social Security Administration.

What that means, of course, is that the “pig in the python” imagery long associated with the retirement of the Baby Boomers is finally coming to fruition, calling into question the adequacy of private- and public-sector retirement solutions, as well the financial viability of Social Security itself. Even more so, this “sandwich generation” is increasingly finding itself pinched between calls to support both its parents and its children. It remains to be seen how we as a nation will respond—but the last time things reached a crisis level (1983), withholding taxes were hiked, “normal” retirement ages were pushed back (albeit gradually), and more of these “benefits” were subjected to taxation.

Pension Penchants

While the private sector has largely abandoned the defined benefit pension model (certainly as an ongoing concern), the public sector has embraced its pensions with a renewed vigor. Of course, that “split”—between a private sector that does not have a pension plan and a public sector that does (at least partially financed by taxes on that private sector)—sets the stage for a potential conflict down the road, a conflict that will only be exacerbated by headlines about looming pension funding shortfalls that could impose a higher obligation on taxpayers.

Return of Inflation

Regardless how you feel about the massive amounts of government spending proposed in recent weeks, it is hard to imagine that there would not be serious long-term ramifications on the inflation front. Some are old enough to remember inflation’s bite, the toll it extracts on living expenses. If inflation were to return, and perhaps return with a vengeance, that could affect interest rates, cost-of-living adjustments, pension funding ratios, and how far those retirement dollars will go.

Target Practices

It now seems hard to believe that, just two years ago some target-date fund providers were being accused of being too “traditional” in the construction of their glide paths. Certainly retirement plan investors who had been too conservative in their rate of savings deferrals appreciated the boost in projected accumulations that those equity-laden 2010 funds purported to deliver. Now, of course, things are seen through a different prism, though the risk of running out of money looms large—perhaps larger—still.

Timing, too, has dealt a potentially cruel hand to participants just ushered into a new generation of QDIA-compliant default designs just when that diversification might seem to work against them (at least in the short run). While the current tumult seems unlikely to do much more than temporarily stem the tide in favor of these options, it will surely give plan sponsors pause—and perhaps lead to a renewed appreciation of the very real differences in philosophy that underlie these glide path designs.

Retirement Income

Much of the focus of the past generation of retirement savings has been about accumulating enough. Plan sponsors had little motivation to think beyond a participant’s employment tenure (indeed, historically, there were some fairly significant “motivations” not to do so), and providers and advisers seemed content either to count on the strength of their service/brand to retain those assets, or to accept that traditional retirement income offerings, notably annuities, already existed.

Things have changed, of course. Rates of asset retention have generally not kept pace with expectations, annuities are frequently disparaged by participants (for reasons they are not always able to articulate), and plan sponsors are increasingly concerned that voluntary savings patterns won’t provide “enough” for retirement. Enter a new generation of retirement income solutions, increasingly “in plan,” or at least attached to the plan, which not only make it easier for participants, but also for plan sponsors to play a productive role in their selection.

Production and portability issues remain, of course. Retirement income is a sensitive subject, and determining the best vehicle to efficiently and effectively deliver it can be a complicated undertaking, fraught with new risks (or at least the perception of new risks). Still, without the proper attention, decades of frugal attention can be for naught.

The Volunteer State

It’s hard (though not impossible) to find someone willing to criticize program designs such as automatic enrollment, contribution acceleration, or qualified default investment alternative-eligible funds. Not only have these designs begun to help thousands of workers do the “right” things when it comes to saving for retirement, plan sponsors have, since the Pension Protection Act (PPA), had structure and sanction to act. Even critics had to admit that all an unwilling (or financially unable) participant had to do was “opt out.”

Voluntary remains the order of the day, even for the new automatic IRA designs recently touted by the Obama Administration (well, at least for workers—employers won’t have a choice, other than to offer that program or some kind of qualified plan).

Still, there seems to be a growing interest in underpinning the financial integrity of that system with a core level of mandatory withholdings, both from worker and employer; and a sense that “leakage” from things like in-service withdrawals and loans need to be plugged—and a notion that lump-sum options are better replaced with annuity streams, at least as a default.

Ultimately, of course, that could mean that our voluntary system will be converted into a mandatory approach. One in which employees would have to contribute a fixed amount/percentage, in which employers might be required to match, and from which workers would not be able to withdraw prior to retirement—and then only in some kind of periodic annuity.

It could happen—in fact, it might need to happen.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

Editor’s Note: A somewhat modified version of the above appeared in the April issue of PLANSPONSOR magazine. You can check it out HERE