Buoyed (if not fueled) by their prominence as a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) and the expanding availability of automatic enrollment, target-date funds are dominating new contribution flows – but which type of TDF is more prevalent these days?
We all know there are real differences between target-date funds; glide paths, fee, fund composition, to name a few.
The more than 500 advisor respondents to the 2019 NAPA Summit Insider were asked about their assessment – and recommendations on target-date funds. Specifically, if they were inclined to recommend funds with a glide path designed to go “to” the specific target date, “through” a specific target date – or both, depending on the plan/customer.
Just over one in five (21%) opted for funds with a “through” focus, while about half that many (12%) went with those with a glidepath focused on a “to” target-date strategy. What that means, of course, is that most – two-thirds – recommended either a “to” or “through” approach depending on the needs of the plan/customer.
For more Summit Insider Insights, see:
