Bogle: Target Date Funds a Bit Too Clever
The Vanguard founder and former chairman is growing increasingly concerned that target date funds won't provide investors with the right asset allocation for their unique circumstances.
The Vanguard founder and former chairman is growing increasingly concerned that target date funds won't provide investors with the right asset allocation for their unique circumstances.
Don Phillips: What do you think about target date portfolios?
John Bogle: I'm increasingly nervous about target date portfolios with each passing day for a whole bunch of, I think, rational reasons.
Number one, the fact that you're going to retire in 2015 means something to investor A in terms of asset allocation, and something very different to investor B--[yet] they're both going to retire in 2015.
Take one example. One does not have Social Security, and if he has, say for the purpose of argument, $300,000 and he's 65. Using what I modestly call the Bogle Rule, he's 65% in bonds and 35% in stocks.
Investor B, also retiring in 2015, has a capitalized value in his Social Security an incredibly valuable and wonderful investment of, in round numbers, $300,000. So his $300,000 in his personal account, same as the other guy, if he puts, just for the purpose of argument here, $150,000 of that in bonds and $150,000 in stocks, he's 75% in fixed income and 25 percent in stocks. So it's a very different allocation, just whether you have a pension plan or a retirement plan, or, for example, other sources of income.
It's a little bit too clever a solution, I think, when it's perfectly easy for an investor to manage his own target date fund to take that into new account and just automatically rebalance.
<TRANSCRIPT>
I'm not a believer, as it happens, in rebalancing every month or anything. I'm a believer--I don't do it myself, by the way--but rebalancing maybe once a year, if you want to do it, and only when the proportions get distinctly different. I wouldn't rebalance to change 55/45--I don't think I would, anyway--to 50/50. It's just too uncertain. So number one is different circumstances for investors but the same strategy.
Number two is how is that strategy implemented? I find myself really not amused by this kind of, originally, race for the top in terms of equity allocation. Of course, these target date funds by and large have the allocation percentages set based on Monte Carlo simulations, which you've just heard quite as much as you want to hear about today, I'm sure. So I don't trust those allocations.
But then there is this pressure when markets are going up for firms to raise the target allocations. I don't like that. It's a marketing thing. Nobody's buying our fund at 60% stock allocation. They're buying somebody else's with 70, so let's change ours to 70. I mean, that seems to me to be totally irresponsible.
Finally, obviously I'm going to like the idea of using index funds as basis for the target funds, but they should have much lower costs across the board than they do. So it's going to be a difficult thing--a very difficult thing--to fix. But it seems like a good idea that for those various reasons just went wrong.
By the way, I want to be clear here. I don't think it's going to devastate the returns of investors, but it certainly wasn't helpful last year to have that higher equity ratio, higher than was reasonable, in a year like that.
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.