Older TDF Investors Can Get Burned by High Equity Exposures

They tend to sell off during downturns, but, researchers say, if they remain invested even for a few years, they can recoup their losses due to the funds’ glide paths.

A problem with target-date funds (TDFs) that was exposed during the Great Recession is their high exposure to equities. This can cause serious problems for near-retirees and retirees during periods of high volatility and market drops. Any losses are very real to those closest to retirement, and the drops can be painful.

“TDFs with higher equity exposure for older investors subject participants to deeper losses,” a recent PGIM Investments report says. “Because older participants sell out of their TDFs during market declines, these are not just paper losses. The deeper the loss, the more difficult the recovery, and the more imperiled the retirement outcome.”

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

Nonetheless, two researchers say they are confident that the glide path of age-appropriate TDFs can successfully automatically navigate investors through volatility and downturns, such as the latest one that occurred in March 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those who pulled their money out as the market plummeted took on steep losses, and many of these investors were reluctant to go back into the market, even as it has climbed to new highs.

The PGIM report lays out two hypothetical scenarios: one for a participant invested in a high-equity fund and one invested in a low-equity fund. It assumes that they remain invested in their TDFs and that the high-equity fund has a higher annual return throughout retirement than the low-equity fund (4% vs. 3.75%). It also assumes that both participants were forced into retirement after the COVID-19 decline and began taking annual retirement distributions. If both participants had the same annual income in retirement, according to the analysis, the high-equity fund participant would run out of savings two years early, despite a higher rate of return in retirement.

Christine Benz, director of personal finance at Morningstar, says she believes that if a plan sponsor relies on the expertise of a retirement plan adviser to communicate to participants the importance of remaining invested in an appropriate equity allocation fund, those participants—including near-retirees with the largest balances and the most to lose—are more likely to remain invested in their TDFs and reap the benefits.

“Research that Morningstar did last year found that older adults in professionally managed funds, as well as in TDFs, sold out” as the COVID-19 pandemic broke out across the nation, Benz tells PLANSPONSOR. Older investors in such professionally managed accounts, much more so than younger investors, were the most inclined to sell their holdings, Benz said.

“The issue is a communications challenge,” Benz says. People need to understand most TDFs have a “through-retirement” glide path, she says, explaining that they are not intended to be perfectly safe when someone approaches retirement. Instead, a “through-retirement” glide path focuses on maintaining an adequate income stream throughout retirement and reducing shortfall risk.

The question of whether and how much retirees in TDFs with high equity exposures are impacted when there is sharp volatility and downturns is also somewhat moot, Benz continues.

“When a person retires, they tend to move their assets [out of the TDFs] to some other account and spend them down at some reasonable rate,” she says. “Sure, they have some failures. They are not foolproof.” There are, certainly, problematic areas, she adds, such as overexposure in various market sectors. However, they also offer many benefits, such as the ability for an investor to consolidate their assets in one fund.

Ashley Dimayorca, vice president of product management at PGIM Investments, also says it’s crucial to communicate the importance of remaining invested in a “through-retirement” TDF, but says that the communication needs to be customized.

“At Prudential and PGIM, we recognize the importance of understanding participant behavior,” Dimayorca says. “Because the behavior of older participants differs so starkly from those of younger participants, if you want the best retirement outcomes for participants, you cannot paint TDF investors with a single brush. A high level of equity exposure for younger investors is a good thing—the tradeoff of higher volatility for higher returns makes sense, as they have a longer time horizon. But for older investors, it is a different story. Higher equity exposure near retirement, when participants have larger balances, can mean steeper losses in market declines and less time to recoup those losses before needing to make distributions from their accounts. Lower equity exposure near retirement—and a lower volatility profile in general—is the key to optimizing retirement outcomes for older participants.”

Judge Moves Forward Lawsuit Challenging Use of Active TDF Suite

She found the allegations were sufficient to plausibly allege a fiduciary breach and said the determination for appropriate benchmarks for funds is not solved at the motion to dismiss stage.

A federal district court judge has denied dismissal of two claims in a lawsuit against Prime Healthcare Services.

Current and former participants of the Prime Healthcare Services Inc. 401(k) Plan filed a proposed class action lawsuit last year against the company and its 401(k) plan committee alleging they failed to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the plan’s investment options to participants; selected and retained high-cost, poorly performing investment options; and allowed unreasonable expenses for recordkeeping.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

A considerable amount of space in the complaint is dedicated to challenging the plan’s offering of the Fidelity Freedom Funds target-date fund (TDF) suite. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to compare the actively managed Fidelity Freedom Funds to the passively managed Freedom Index Funds TDF suite and consider their respective merits and features. The complaint says the actively managed TDF suite was riskier and more expensive than the index suite.

In her discussion regarding her reasoning for allowing the breach of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties claim to move forward, Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California noted that of the 29 Fidelity funds in the active TDF suite, 17 of them trailed their respective benchmarks over their respective lifetimes as of September 2020.

According to the court document, the active suite also had a significantly higher expense ratio than the index suite, despite consistently underperforming the index suite based on three- and five-year annualized returns. The active suite further underwent a “strategy overhaul” in 2013 and 2014 that gave its managers discretion to deviate from glide path allocations to time market shifts to locate underpriced securities. As a result of this “history of underperformance, frequent strategy changes and rising risk,” investors began to lose confidence in the active suite, as indicated by significant capital outflow; in 2018, the series experienced approximately $5.4 billion in net outflows, and the plaintiffs allege that nearly $16 billion has been withdrawn from the fund family over four years prior to 2018. The defendants continued to use the active suite as the plan’s qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) for as long as it was an option in the plan’s investment menu.

Staton found these allegations sufficient to plausibly allege that the defendants failed to act “‘with the care, skill, prudence and diligence’ that a prudent person ‘acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters’ would use.”

The defendants argued that the complaint does not include any allegations about the process plan fiduciaries used to select the Freedom Fund TDFs as opposed to the index TDFs or other types of investments. But Staton agreed with the plaintiffs that “to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty [under ERISA], a complaint does not need to contain factual allegations that refer directly to the fiduciary’s knowledge, methods or investigations at the relevant times.” She found the allegations sufficient to allow a reasonable inference of a flawed process.

The defendants also argued that the plan fiduciaries removed the active suite from the plan in 2019 and that the plaintiffs do not allege any facts showing the defendants acted imprudently with regard to the active suite during the period the plan actually held those funds. For example, the defendants point out that the three- and five-year performance analysis in the complaint is based on data as of September 20, 2020, which would include a period of time during which the plan did not offer the active suite. Staton said that at the pleading stage, this data is sufficient to support an inference that the active suite was consistently underperforming the index suite during the relevant time period. In addition, she found that the plaintiffs did allege additional facts supporting an inference of imprudence preceding the plan’s removal of the active suite.

Lastly, regarding the breach of fiduciary duties claim, the defendants argued that “courts routinely reject attempts to create an inference of an imprudent process through comparisons of the performance and fees of actively managed funds to those of passively managed funds.” Staton agreed that, where plaintiffs allege “‘a prudent fiduciary in like circumstances would have selected a different fund based on the cost or performance of the selected fund,’ they must provide a sound basis for comparison—a meaningful benchmark.” However, citing prior case law, she said, “Courts have specifically held that the determination of the appropriate benchmark for a fund is not a question properly resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.”

Regarding the plaintiffs’ failure to monitor co-fiduciaries claim, Staton noted that the defendants argued that this claim is derivative of the plaintiffs’ first claim and must be dismissed if they cannot adequately plead an underlying breach of fiduciary duty. However, because Staton found that the plaintiffs did adequately plead their first claim, she declined to dismiss the failure to monitor claim on this basis.

Staton did, however, grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ third claim which alleged that “in the alternative, to the extent that any of the defendants are not deemed a fiduciary or co-fiduciary under ERISA,” they are liable for participating “in a knowing breach of trust.”

Staton gave the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint to address the deficiencies she identified in her discussion.

«