What do you thing of Retitement Target Funds

[Tadpole]

Originally Posted by TuckerKatt

Why 70/75?

As I said, in my opinion, most target funds are too conservative. I advised this based on my opinion. It keeps the fund more aggressive longer to choose one that is for someone ten or fifteen years younger than oneself. If you like the way they adjust based on your actual age, then choose one that is matched to your age. I would not choose to do that, myself.

[Goonie]

Originally Posted by Tadpole

As I said, in my opinion, most target funds are too conservative. I advised this based on my opinion. It keeps the fund more aggressive longer to choose one that is for someone ten or fifteen years younger than oneself. If you like the way they adjust based on your actual age, then choose one that is matched to your age. I would not choose to do that, myself.

That's similar to what I did. I have one (Roth IRA is a target 2020) that's aimed at age 63, and another (Rollover IRA is a target 2030) that aims at age 73. The 2020 is about 77% stock, while the 2030 is about 87% stock. All things considered, I'm quite comfortable with those percentages.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by Tadpole

As I said, in my opinion, most target funds are too conservative. I advised this based on my opinion. It keeps the fund more aggressive longer to choose one that is for someone ten or fifteen years younger than oneself. If you like the way they adjust based on your actual age, then choose one that is matched to your age. I would not choose to do that, myself.

I agree with you 100%. However, think of HOW MANY folks would have been "financially saved" had they put their money in these (if available) before the bear market of 2000-2002........

[ats5g]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

I agree with you 100%. However, think of HOW MANY folks would have been "financially saved" had they put their money in these (if available) before the bear market of 2000-2002........

More than would have been "financially saved" by their broker.

btw - most of the TR funds weren't created until end of 02 beginning of '03 [except for a couple from Fidelity].

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by ats5g

More than would have been "financially saved" by their broker.

I guess you were always the "funny kid", right??

[ats5g]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

I guess you were always the "funny kid", right??

nah, I was the quiet sarcastic kid that always ruined the curve.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by ats5g

btw - most of the TR funds weren't created until end of 02 beginning of '03 [except for a couple from Fidelity].

Nice timing, hey??

[BigMoneyJim]

I don't want to increase my bond allocation as I approach and enter retirement, so I went with LifeStrategy instead. But I like the self-balancing funds.

Of course I have to complicate my LS Moderate Growth by adding REIT index, extra small cap and then some other funds to put the AA back where I want it. So it's sort of self-balancing now.

[Tadpole]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

I agree with you 100%. However, think of HOW MANY folks would have been "financially saved" had they put their money in these (if available) before the bear market of 2000-2002........

Well, yes, there are no easy answers and everything is relative to one's circumstance. I haven't checked it but I imagine that, had they been available, the most aggressive of the funds would be doing the best at this point. The biggest movers after 2002 were the higher risk investments.

I think almost all of us here manage most of our money ourselves. I just look at what I, at 58 and still working, consider to be the best mix for me and conclude that the target funds race to conservative allocation much too fast. Someone who is not my age and/or is ER might need that conservatism. There is never a guarantee that 2000-2002 won't happen again; the odds favor that it will. I just look at my time horizon with a husband that may follow the trend of his family and live to be in his late 90s. That is 30 years away and I can dip, dive, and peak many times in 30 years. As a child of the 70s, I fear inflation type disasters more than the markets. It colors my thinking.

[chinaco]

Originally Posted by Goonie

That's similar to what I did. I have one (Roth IRA is a target 2020) that's aimed at age 63, and another (Rollover IRA is a target 2030) that aims at age 73. The 2020 is about 77% stock, while the 2030 is about 87% stock. All things considered, I'm quite comfortable with those percentages.

This is similar to what I am considering... but perhaps for different purposes.

I want late life allocations on auto-pilot (since DW does not/has no interest in managing the portfolio).

Plus, I believe it is easier for me to manage the expense budget and income in 10 year intervals rather than in perpetuity... I can get my mind around it.

My general plan is to get appropriate growth for the future decades and preserve capital in the near decades. Of course, we are factoring in SS and pensions. I see it like this starting @ 55 in 2012:

55 - 65: Slice/Dice (Mutual funds) The allocation for this 10 years is (20/80 - S/B). (with about 10 years of income in fixed assets 80%... this amount + pension would give us a good retirement income) The fixed assets will not be rebalanced to the stock portion (20% in stocks with no new money added to stocks). All stock dividends go to the cash account (same with bond dividends and any forced cap gain payout form the mutual fund). The goal on the stock allocation is to drain it into fixed assets on an opportunistic basis based on growth with a target to taper down to 0%. The total amount in this decade is generous and could have about 10% left over for the next decade (depending on actual spending and stock growth). This is about 40% of the entire beginning portfolio (not including House)

65 - 75: A target fund (year 2025) with a projection of having 10 years of income needs provided. This is about 35% of the beginning portfolio

75 - 85: A target fund (year 2035) with a projection of having 10 years of income needs provided. This is about 18% of the beginning portfolio.

85 - 95: A target fund (year 2045) with a projection of having 10 years of income needs provided. This is about 7% of the beginning portfolio. Statistically at least one of us is likely to be gone. The house is likely to be sold and proceeds used for living expenses, medical needs, etc.

95 - 105: Any spillover for the previous decades... If one of us lives this long...

I am still playing with the % of the portfolio allocated for the later 3 decades. Plus, we would make common sense adjustments in spending if adverse conditions arise. We cannot predict the future... if one of us dies early or experiences very serious health problems... we will adjust.

Anyway... That is how I see the TR funds helping us. Auto-rebalancing for future decades of funding.

[martyb]

I work for the Fed, and although I will retire Jan 2013 at age 55, my TSP(401) money is in a Lifecycle 2040 fund. The 2010, 2020, & 2030 funds are just too conservative considering the goal I'm shooting for and the relatively short time I have left to reach it. After seeing some of you folks recent gains on another thread, I'm thinking I'm still missing the boat and maybe I need to stick my neck out even a little further..........

[Spanky]

The Vanguard Target retirement 2040 fund returns 9.13% which is almost the same as their 2045 and 2050 funds. One way to boost the return is to increase exposure of emerging markets and international stocks. Obviously, this is performance chasing.