Enhancing on Defaults: Assisting Pension Participants in Target Date Funds to Manage Financial Market Risk

Ava Hughes^*
*Correspondence: Ava Hughes, Department of Finance-Banking, Penza State University, Penza 440026, Russia, Email:

Introduction

In recent decades, the landscape of retirement planning has undergone significant transformation, driven by demographic shifts, regulatory changes, and evolving financial markets. Central to this evolution is the growing prominence of Defined Contribution (DC) plans, such as 401(k)s, which have increasingly replaced traditional Defined Benefit (DB) plans. This shift places the onus of retirement security squarely on individual participants, demanding a higher level of financial literacy and active management than many are prepared for. Among the tools designed to aid participants in navigating this complex terrain are Target Date Funds (TDFs) [1].

Target Date Funds are designed to simplify retirement investing by automatically adjusting the asset allocation mix based on the participant’s age or expected retirement date. These funds typically follow a "glide path," becoming more conservative as the target date approaches. While TDFs offer a convenient and generally effective solution for many investors, they are not without risks and limitations, particularly in managing financial market volatility. As such, there is a growing need to enhance these default options to better assist participants in managing financial market risk throughout their investment journey. This article delves into the role of TDFs in DC plans, examines the inherent financial market risks, and explores strategies to enhance the efficacy of these funds in managing such risks. By focusing on improving the default options, we can better equip participants to achieve a secure retirement [2].

Description

Target Date Funds have become a cornerstone of retirement planning, particularly within the realm of defined contribution plans. Introduced in the early 1990s, these funds have seen explosive growth, largely driven by their adoption as a default investment option in many employer-sponsored retirement plans. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 further bolstered their popularity by endorsing TDFs as a Qualified Default Investment Alternative (QDIA), which allowed plan sponsors to automatically enroll participants into these funds without the need for explicit consent. This is the risk of losses due to fluctuations in the financial markets. TDFs, especially those far from the target date, typically have a substantial allocation to equities, making them vulnerable to market downturns. The financial crisis of 2008-2009 and the COVID-19 pandemic-induced market volatility are stark reminders of this risk [3].

As TDFs near their target date, they increasingly allocate assets to fixed-income securities. While this reduces exposure to market risk, it introduces interest rate risk. Changes in interest rates can affect the value of these securities, impacting the fund’s performance. This risk is particularly pertinent for individuals close to or in retirement. It refers to the danger that the order of investment returns (i.e., having negative returns early in retirement) can significantly impact the sustainability of withdrawals. Poor returns in the initial years of retirement can deplete the portfolio more quickly than expected, even if average returns over the retirement period are reasonable. Traditional TDFs follow a predetermined glide path that becomes more conservative as the target date approaches. However, this one-size-fits-all approach may not suit all participants, particularly those with different risk tolerances or retirement goals. Dynamic glide paths, which adjust the asset allocation based on market conditions and participant behavior, can provide a more tailored investment strategy. These adaptive approaches can potentially improve outcomes by reducing exposure during volatile periods and increasing it when markets are favourable [4].

TDFs can integrate various risk management techniques to mitigate market risk. For example, using derivatives to hedge against market downturns, or employing tactical asset allocation to adjust the portfolio in response to market signals, can help protect participants’ assets. Additionally, incorporating assets with low correlation to traditional equities and bonds, such as real estate or commodities, can enhance diversification and reduce overall portfolio risk. Enhancing TDFs also involves improving participant understanding and engagement. Many participants remain passive, relying solely on the default options provided by their plan. By offering education programs that explain the risks and benefits of different investment strategies, and encouraging regular reviews of their retirement plan, participants can make more informed decisions. Tools that provide personalized retirement projections and scenario analyses can also help participants better understand the potential impact of different market conditions on their retirement savings [5].

Conclusion

Target Date Funds have undoubtedly simplified retirement planning for many participants in defined contribution plans, offering a convenient and generally effective means of managing investment risk over time. However, as the financial landscape continues to evolve, so too must the strategies employed to safeguard retirement savings. Enhancing TDFs through dynamic glide paths, advanced risk management techniques, participant education, fee transparency, and customized solutions can significantly improve their ability to manage financial market risks.

Plan sponsors and regulators have a pivotal role to play in this enhancement process. By fostering an environment that prioritizes participant needs and promotes innovation, we can better equip individuals to achieve a secure retirement. The journey to retirement is long and fraught with uncertainties, but with the right tools and strategies, we can help ensure that participants are well-prepared to navigate the complexities of the financial markets and achieve their retirement goals.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Harrison, Glenn W., Morten I. Lau and E. Elisabet Rutström. "Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment." scandinavian J Econ 109 (2007): 341-368.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Turner, John A. and Shelley Giordano. "AUM-Based compensation and financial advice." J Retire 8 (2020): 84-99.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Cox, Samuel H., Yijia Lin and Tianxiang Shi. "Pension risk management with funding and buyout options." Insurance: Math Econ 78 (2018): 183-200.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Tang, Ning and Yen-Ting Lin. "The efficiency of target-date funds." J Asset Manag 16 (2015): 131-148.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Dopierała, Łukasz and Magdalena Mosionek-Schweda. "Pension fund management, investment performance, and herding in the context of regulatory changes: New evidence from the Polish pension system." Risks 9 (2020): 6.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at