Readers react: Safety should be priority for target date funds

Plus: Fee debate ignores upside in value from advisers

Mar 23, 2014 @ 12:01 am

fiduciary, target date funds, fees, advisers, sec, securities and exchange commission
+ Zoom

Hats off for addressing tough issues on an important topic in the article "Fiduciaries tackle target date funds” (InvestmentNews, March 3).

One of those important areas is demographics. The article quotes Marcia Wagner, an Employee Retirement Income Act of 1974 attorney at The Wagner Law Group, as follows: “Initial TDF selection criteria must take plan demographics into account.”

Those include age distribution, risk tolerance, income levels and anticipated investment decisions upon reaching the retirement date, according to the article.

This is a pretty tall fiduciary order, especially for a company with a diverse group of employees.

A one-size-fits-all demographic for a diverse group is, I guess, an average: average age, average risk tolerance (very tough), average income, average anticipated retirement decision (even tougher than risk tolerance). And then, of course, there is the matter of tying a glide path to this demographic.

Albert Einstein's advice should be taken in this situation: “Everything should be as simple as possible and no simpler.”

The simple fact is that the only demographic that matters to target date funds is the financial sophistication of those who are defaulted into them.

A reasonable assumption is that participants in target date funds are unsophisticated because sophisticated employees don't default their investment decisions to their employers.

Most assets in target date funds are there by default. They are chosen by employers on behalf of financially unsophisticated employees.

The appropriate glide path for the unsophisticated is safety first, especially at the target date. If 2008 taught us anything, it is that participants think that their savings are being protected even when they are in default.

The fact is that they aren't being protected, so 2008 will repeat, unfortunately.

Ms. Wagner is in good company in citing demographics.

The Department of Labor cites it too, as well as “to” versus “through.”

There are many such distinctions without a difference in target date funds. It would help a lot if regulators understood better.

Ronald Surz



San Clemente, Calif.

Fee debate ignores upside in value from advisers

I read the editorial "Let the sunlight shine on fee disclosure" (InvestmentNews, March 3).

It is bewildering to me that the Securities and Exchange Commission and so many others are interested in highlighting the impact that a 1% fee would have on an investor's portfolio, without also recognizing the upside value that should come from the advice of a skilled financial adviser.

What if, for that 1% fee, the client's net upside was 1% greater than what they could do on their own? And what about the fact that the investor is less likely to buy high and sell low, have an investment policy statement, know how to choose low-cost investments, be able to sift through myriad data to find good managers with proven track records or be inclined to chase returns?  

As an adviser, it is frustrating to hear about the impact that fees have, when the real impact is far greater, and often far better, by paying a fee to work with a professional adviser.

Nathaniel J. Tilton

Principal and private wealth adviser

Tilton Wealth Management

Waltham, Mass.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video


Proposal to delay the DOL fiduciary rule is a turning point

Senior reporter Mark Schoeff Jr. and managing editor Christina Nelson discuss the Labor Department's latest move and what it means for the future of the regulation and the firms preparing for it.

Video Spotlight

A Teacher’s Lesson Plan

Sponsored by Prudential

Latest news & opinion

Advisers get more breathing room to make Form ADV changes

RIAs can enter '0' in some new parts of the document before their annual filing next year.

Since banking scandal, Wells Fargo advisers with more than $19.2 billion leave firm

Despite a trying year, the firm has said it will sweeten signing bonuses for veteran advisers.

Is LPL's deal sweet enough for NPH's 3,200 reps and advisers?

They will have to decide if the signing package they are being offered by LPL makes sense. A lot is hanging in the balance.

Eduardo Repetto to leave Dimensional Fund Advisors

Gerald O'Reilly, currently co-CIO, will take over as co-CEO with David Butler.

Alternative strategies boomed after crisis, but haven't been tested

Because the S&P 500 has outperformed, convincing clients they need protection is a hard sell.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print