Most Target Date Fund Strategies Flawed

A recently released white paper from JPMorgan Asset Management Group suggests most industry assumptions for target-date funds are oversimplified.

“Target date programs represent a quantum leap in DC investments: in one package, the individual’s assets are allocated to the right markets, will be fully invested all the time, and managed by professionals,’ the paper says. However, it argues that traditional target-date funds are flawed and says that its own research focuses on two issues in designing target-date funds:

• How realistic is the fund industry’s modeling of participants’ career-long saving and spending patterns?
• What is the target date portfolio design that will best stand up to the stresses of real life saving and investing?

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

The white paper, “Ready! Fire! Aim?’ examines data found from JPMorgan’s database of 401(k) participants and says that it found participants contribute less to their accounts, and borrow and withdraw more than most target date providers have assumed in their research.

The paper says that JPMorgan believes a prudent goal for plan sponsors is to help as many participants as possible achieve retirement income security, and that success is defined by the proportion of responsible, real-world participants that arrive at retirement with 401(k) savings sufficient to purchase — whether they choose to or not — a lifetime annuity replacing roughly 40% of their working income.

Assumptions
The company’s research found that contribution patterns differ among plan participants; on average, participant deferral rates start and 6% and only increase slowly, reaching 8% by age 40 and not reaching 10% until age 55. However, standard industry assumptions say that rates start at 6% and increase each year, reaching 10% of salary by age 35.

In addition, the research indicated, on average, participants only receive pay increases every two out of three years, not annually, as many assume in their projections.

The white paper also says target-date fund strategies need to consider the fact that plan loans and early withdrawals are more common than assumed. After evaluating its participants, JPMorgan found 20% of them borrow, on average, 15% of their account balance. Additionally, 15% of participants over the age of 59 세 withdraw, on average, 25% of their retirement assets. It says that the industry assumptions embedded in the funds are that loans and pre-retirement distributions don’t happen.

The volatility in participant accounts that comes from loans, withdrawals and contribution holidays has a more significant effect on participant savings that is assumed, and means many participants can be partially out of the markets during crucial years for building capital, JPMorgan says. Typical target-date fund strategies do not protect against these greater cash inflows and outflows assumptions, the paper suggests.

According to JPMorgan, target-date funds that minimize risk by offering greater diversification among all types of equities can help ensure participants whose savings and investment behaviors mirror these greater assumptions meet the needed income replacement from defined contribution plans (40% of pre-retirement income). These portfolios should not be evaluated in terms of “equity glide paths,’ but, JPMorgan says, by broadly defined “asset allocation glide paths,’ conventional risk measures such as the Sharpe ratio, and through Monte Carlo simulations that account for the sequence of market returns and participant cash flows in projecting the range of 401(k) balances at retirement.

The paper also suggests that better income replacesment can be achieved by including nontraditional assets, such as direct and public real estate, emerging market debt and equity, and high yield bonds into the target-date portfolios, instead of just stocks and bonds.

The white paper can be found at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/jpmorgan/am/ia/research_and_publications/white_papers

Vanguard Leads Fund Companies in Client Loyalty

More than two-thirds of major mutual fund companies have negative customer loyalty scores, according to a recent study by Cogent Research.
Cogent Research’s Investor Brandscape: 2007 report shows that although recent investment performance is the leading driver of mutual fund satisfaction, consistency of performance is the most significant driver of loyalty.
Twenty-seven of the thirty-eight mutual fund companies analyzed received negative loyalty scores, meaning these firms have more detractors than supporters. Moreover, the overall average loyalty score for the 38 fund groups was -12. There was a 98-point range in customer loyalty scores from the highest positive-scoring firm (44) to the lowest negative-scoring firm (-54).

“The fact that the average mutual fund customer loyalty score is negative reflects a highly competitive industry in which only a handful of fund groups have been able to produce the kind of consistent long-term performance required to earn client loyalty,’ said Chris Brown, managing director of the Wealth Management Practice at Cogent Research LLC, in a press release.
To calculate customer loyalty for the mutual fund companies, Cogent surveyed customers about their intention to recommend the fund firms to friends and family. Intention was measured on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 indicating “definitely not recommend’ and 10 meaning “definitely recommend.’ Based on their answers, investors were grouped into three categories – supporters (scores of 9-10), detractors (scores of 1-5), and those that are ambivalent (scores of 6-8); the mutual fund company loyalty scores are a variance measurement of client supporters versus detractors.

Fund Families

The 38 mutual fund families were divided into four categories: stars, leaders, players, and drifters. The four firms in the Star category had customer loyalty scores of over 20, with Vanguard the clear leader with a customer loyalty score of 44.

Eighteen firms received Leader scores, though 11 of these generated negative customer loyalty scores. The rest of the firms were evenly split between the Player and Drifter groups.

Those in the Player category were a mix of traditionally advisor-sold and direct-marketed fund groups, such as Merrill Lynch/BlackRock, Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors, American Century, Calamos, PIMCO, and Janus. According to the report, “for mutual fund companies that distribute products mainly through advisers, there is a strong possibility that the firm’s loyalty among advisers is distinctly stronger. For these firms, generating high loyalty among advisors is far more important to future success than investor loyalty.’

Cogent said several of the fund companies that earned the Drifter level customer loyalty scores were caught up in recent mutual fund industry scandals, including Putnam, which with a customer loyalty score of -54, was the lowest rated firm.

Interestingly, Cogent said that they performed a similar analysis of 23 investment distributors, all of which earned positive customer loyalty scores. The analysis showed an average distributor customer loyalty score of 36 and only an 8-point range between the highest and lowest scoring firm.

Ongoing Satisfaction

In examining overall investor satisfaction with the mutual funds, Cogent found that the primary driver of overall investor satisfaction was recent investment performance but that loyalty and intent to recommend was mostly driven by consistent investment performance, followed by company investment philosophy and management style, and individual fund managers.

As perceptions of firms’ performance consistency rise, so too does client loyalty, leading to improved client retention and profitability, according to Cogent. The research report states that mutual fund companies that earned above average ratings for performance consistency, but have a negative customer loyalty score likely earned low marks for other important loyalty drivers, such as investment philosophy and management style, and individual fund managers.

The three firms that received the highest ratings for consistency of fund performance among affluent and high net worth investors are Dodge & Cox (78% of investors rated the firm 8 or higher on a 10-point scale), American Funds (66%), and Schwab/Laudus Funds (65%). Cogent reported that Dodge & Cox also ranked highest in recent investment performance, with 77% of investors rating the firm 8 or higher.

Cogent’s research is based on an online survey of 4,000 U.S. adults who hold mutual funds and have at least $100,000 in investable assets (excluding real estate), with significant participation of high net worth investors with more than $2 million in investable assets.

More information about the study is available at
www.cogentresearch.com. From the home page, you can click on “What’s New” in the upper right corner to access information about the study.

«