Advanced Recordkeeping Technology Allows for More Personalization in TDFs

By collecting more personal data beyond just age, recordkeepers have an opportunity to offer personalized target-date funds.

While target-date funds have become commercially successful and are often the default investment vehicle in retirement plans, they have also received flack for not being sufficiently well diversified and that a glidepath with declining equity allocations over time is not optimal for all participants.

However, according to a recent paper by T. Rowe Price in The Journal of Portfolio Management, as recordkeeping technology continues to evolve, there is increasingly more opportunity for target-date funds to become more personalized, down to the participant level.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Kobby Aboagye, an investment quantitative analyst in the multi-asset division at T. Rowe Price, and one of the authors of the paper, explains that TDFs are designed based on a participant’s perceived retirement age and the assets typically begin with a high allocation to equities early in their career and then gradually shifts toward a higher allocation to bonds as the participant approaches retirement.

TDFs are typically constructed and designed using data and assumptions based on the broad U.S. population, which assumes a retirement age of 65.

“But you could have a plan for, say, first responders of police and fire service, who typically [do] not work to age 65 and who typically retire at age 55 or earlier,” Aboagye says. “So, we have to design target-date funds that cater to that plan’s unique demographics.”

The authors of the paper argue that the next stage of TDFs will be to introduce further personalization, beyond age, to include dynamic asset allocation and spending capabilities. T. Rowe developed a model that uses the same theoretical foundations used to develop popular TDFs but also included other participant data like salary, account balance, contribution and match rates, Social Security, risk tolerance and more.

For this personalization to take place, Aboagye explains that recordkeeping systems need to be able to have the ability to gather a lot more information about individual participants. In addition, once the system is built to collect this data, Aboagye says the recordkeeping system must be able to deliver personalized advice and implement it on the participant’s account.

Some of the more specific information, such as salary, savings and match rates and current account balance, can be found on most recordkeeping platforms by default, and the recordkeeper can come up with a personalized TDF for the participant based on that data. However, Aboagye says an even more tailored solution can be offered if a participant decides to engage and provide more information.

“For example, we may assume a retirement age for a participant, typically age 65, and also assume [an] age when the [participant] is going to start collecting Social Security,” Aboagye says. “But the participant can go in there and tell us, ‘No, I actually plan to retire at age 70,’ … or [that they] want to collect Social Security as late as possible.”

Aboagye adds that a participant can also specify how much risk they want to take on, which would enable more personalization. He emphasizes that recordkeeping platforms need to allow participants to interact with the engine itself so that it can collect more than just default information.

“From my point of view, the most important advancement [that recordkeepers can offer] is the ability … to integrate different platforms and [work with] different internal departments and external vendors,” Aboagye says.

In terms of how the technology works, the recordkeeping system must work with an advice engine to provide personalized advice to participants. Under that hood is the asset allocations, Aboagye explains, as well as the portfolio construction where investment managers have to execute the trades.

“All these systems must be able to communicate with each other at scale, and also pretty fast,” Aboagye says.

One of the critiques of TDFs, mentioned in the paper, is the idea that TDFs are not well-diversified and deliver too much equity risk. However, based on publicly available information from various TDF managers, T. Rowe argued that these portfolios are well-diversified across domestic and international markets, style, size and asset classes (such as core bonds, high yield and international bonds). The only asset classes that are not typically included are illiquid alternatives, such as private equity, due to liquidity constraints on the defined contribution plan platforms.

Aboagye says an asset class that is getting a lot of buzz right now is cryptocurrency, and T. Rowe Price is still doing research into it as a potential asset class. However, he says it is hard to know whether crypto is just a fad right now or if it’s here to stay. He also says interest in it tends to skew toward the younger generation than those in older generations.

According to the paper, the next step in the evolution of TDFs will be to introduce retirement income solutions, including guarantees as needed. BlackRock’s LifePath Paycheck is an example of a solution that functions like a TDF and also provides a guaranteed income stream.

Amended Lawsuit Targets Hess Corp.

The amended complaint against the Hess Corp. alleges Hess plan fiduciaries provided target-date mutual funds instead of collective investment trusts in the investment lineup.

Former Hess Corp. employee Joshua Wagner filed an amended complaint last week in Texas federal court against the global energy company.

The amended complaint alleges fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan failed to adequately monitor and control the plan’s investment fees, expenses, and costs, letting service providers charge excessive fees.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

“The fiduciaries of the plan failed to replace the T. Rowe Price target-date mutual funds with substantially identical, but much less expensive, collective trust versions of these same funds,” attorneys wrote in the April 18 amended complaint.

Throughout the class period nearly “60% of the plan’s T. Rowe Price TDFs were significantly,” more expensive than available “substantially identical,” collective investment trusts, says the complaint.

The amended and initial complaints allege violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The amended complaint requests that the court certify the case as a class action lawsuit, defining the class period as the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this case through the date of judgment. 

In February, the initial complaint claimed Hess’ retirement plan operators failed to use their bargaining power as one of the largest 401(k) plans in the U.S. regarding the fees, expenses and costs charged against participants’ investments. 

In a court filing earlier this month, the parties agreed to certain lawsuit conditions: Wagner intended to file an amended complaint, and the defendants would have 60 days following the filing of the amended complaint to respond.

In the provision between Wagner, his counsel, Hess Corp. and counsel for the defendants—stipulation agreement of counsel and representatives—parties agreed Hess Corp. provided plaintiffs with the Hess Corporation Employees Savings Plan as amended and restated as of January 1, 2017, and four amendments to the plan.

Additionally, it specified “plaintiffs agree they will not name the individual Investment Committee members or any Hess Corporation officer by name as defendants at this time. Defendants agree they will not assert as a defense to the allegations in the Amended Complaint (and any subsequent amended complaints or pleadings) that Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are deficient based on a failure to name the proper committee or to name any individual defendants.”

Unnamed defendants are no longer named, in the amended complaint, the case docket shows.  

Between the amended and initial complaints, Hess Corp. filed court papers, admitting defense counsel to appear in and argue before the Texas federal court to represent defendants; and the court issued summonses to defendants.

The Hess Corporation Employees’ Savings Plan held $903,664,847 in retirement assets for 3,017 participants, as of the June 2023 filing to the Department of Labor, covering the 2022 plan year. 

Wagner was employed by Hess from August 2018 to November 2021 and participated in the plan.

Attorneys with law firm Figari & Davenport LLP and Foulston Siefkin LLP represent the plaintiff. The complaint did not include attorneys for the defendants. In the agreement, Hess Corp. was represented by attorneys with law firm Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC and Groom Law Group.

The lawsuit is Joshua Wagner v. Hess Corporation and Hess Corporation Investment Committee.

The case is heard in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas San Angelo.

Representatives of the attorneys for the plaintiff did not respond to a request for comment nor did representatives of the Hess Corp.

«