Taking Aim at Target-Date Funds
A fast-growing fund niche gets three new categories of its own.
A fast-growing fund niche gets three new categories of its own.
Morningstar has introduced three new categories to handle the phenomenon of target-retirement funds. Fidelity rolled out one of the first series of these funds in 1996, but its Freedom funds faced little competition until T. Rowe Price entered the fray in late 2002; since then, many of the fund industry's bigger players have joined the party.
These funds, which previously tended to reside in the moderate-allocation, conservative-allocation, and large-blend categories, have very different mandates than their former peers. They're designed to serve as one-stop-shopping options for investors with a specific time horizon in mind. If an investor expects to retire in 29 years, for example, she might choose a fund with a target date of 2035. The funds, which typically hold other offerings from within their fund family, become more conservative over time; in order to provide more stability as retirement approaches, the advisor reduces a fund's equity weighting in favor of bonds as the target date draws near. Although most of these funds are designed for investors' retirement assets, we think they can also be a good place to stash college savings, too.
In order to provide better comparisons, we've split the funds into three groups: target-date 2000-2014, target-date 2015-2029, and target-date 2030+.
What to Look ForFinally, because target-date funds are meant to be held for very long periods, costs play a crucial role. Expense ratios for funds of funds often have two components--the price tags of the underlying holdings as well as any fees that the fund company charges for overseeing the aggregate portfolio. Some charge additional management fees for the minimal effort required to occasionally adjust their asset allocations, but the better ones don't. Many target-date funds from load shops hold their underlying funds' cheap institutional shares, then add in the requisite 12b-1 fee--which is often used to compensate brokers who sell the fund--at the upper level. That doesn't strike us as an objectionable practice, as long as the 12b-1 fee is reasonable. But given the often-hefty fixed-income weightings of target-date funds, investors should expect to pay less than they would for most pure-equity funds.
The lowest-cost offerings are (no surprise) from Vanguard, which uses only its ultracheap index funds in its Target Retirement series--thus, the funds' total costs are less than 0.25% per year, which make them very attractive choices. However, we're also impressed with T. Rowe Price's target-date funds, given the quality of their underlying holdings and their modest costs.
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals
and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through
license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates
asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management.
We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences
and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.