The study "Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4590406 challenges traditional beliefs in lifecycle investing strategies, offering compelling insights:
**Rejection of Traditional Lifecycle Strategies:** - Challenging the conventional wisdom of diversifying across stocks and bonds and reducing equity allocations as investors age, as commonly observed in target-date funds.
**Optimal Allocation:** - Research indicates that an all-equity portfolio with 33% domestic stocks and 67% international stocks outperforms traditional stock-bond strategies. This approach supports wealth accumulation, retirement consumption, capital preservation, and bequest generation.
**Superior Performance:** - The all-equity model demonstrates superior performance in retirement consumption and bequests, requiring less pre-retirement savings compared to age-based strategies in target-date funds.
**Diversification Preference:** - Advocating for diversification across international stocks over bonds, highlighting the benefits of global equity exposure for long-term wealth growth.
**Methodological Rigor:** - The study's robust methodology, considering time-series and cross-sectional dependencies in asset returns while addressing biases in U.S. data, ensures reliable results.
**Implications for Investors:** - Conventional target-date funds may not be optimal for long-horizon investors. Maintaining a high equity allocation, especially with international diversification, throughout the investment lifecycle could yield better outcomes.
The study recommends a strategic shift towards high equity allocations and international diversification for enhanced long-term performance. While agreeing with the authors' conclusion, I proposed a portfolio with 80% allocation to US domestic stocks (S&P 500) and 20% to international stocks instead of 33% domestic stocks and 67% international stocks for improved long-term results.
In my opinion, target-date funds are primarily marketing tools that offer little real benefit to clients. Asset management companies like Fidelity and Vanguard promote these products with appealing promises, but the projections they present to everyday investors often fail to deliver meaningful improvements to investment performance.
I've been receiving numerous messages regarding the paper, "Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice" https://lnkd.in/eBv8PQdj . Addressing the feedback, I believe that target-date funds primarily serve as marketing tools, often failing to provide substantial value to investors. Despite the appealing promises made by major asset managers such as Fidelity and Vanguard, the actual performance of these funds frequently disappoints everyday investors.
When examining the statistics, data from S&P Dow Jones Indices’ SPIVA reports reveal that only 20-25% of actively managed mutual funds outperform the S&P 500 within a 5-year timeframe, a figure that diminishes to 10-15% over a 10-year period. Given these statistics, I advocate for a more straightforward approach for the majority of investors: opting for an all-stock portfolio in the S&P 500. For those with a higher risk tolerance, a combination of 80% S&P 500 and 20% Nasdaq index presents an opportunity for growth.
Even for investors above the age of 60, maintaining an all-equity portfolio proves to be a manageable risk across short- and long-term scenarios, especially when contrasted with the underwhelming performance of numerous actively managed funds.
The study "Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice"
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4590406 challenges traditional beliefs in lifecycle investing strategies, offering compelling insights:
**Rejection of Traditional Lifecycle Strategies:**
- Challenging the conventional wisdom of diversifying across stocks and bonds and reducing equity allocations as investors age, as commonly observed in target-date funds.
**Optimal Allocation:**
- Research indicates that an all-equity portfolio with 33% domestic stocks and 67% international stocks outperforms traditional stock-bond strategies. This approach supports wealth accumulation, retirement consumption, capital preservation, and bequest generation.
**Superior Performance:**
- The all-equity model demonstrates superior performance in retirement consumption and bequests, requiring less pre-retirement savings compared to age-based strategies in target-date funds.
**Diversification Preference:**
- Advocating for diversification across international stocks over bonds, highlighting the benefits of global equity exposure for long-term wealth growth.
**Methodological Rigor:**
- The study's robust methodology, considering time-series and cross-sectional dependencies in asset returns while addressing biases in U.S. data, ensures reliable results.
**Implications for Investors:**
- Conventional target-date funds may not be optimal for long-horizon investors. Maintaining a high equity allocation, especially with international diversification, throughout the investment lifecycle could yield better outcomes.
The study recommends a strategic shift towards high equity allocations and international diversification for enhanced long-term performance. While agreeing with the authors' conclusion, I proposed a portfolio with 80% allocation to US domestic stocks (S&P 500) and 20% to international stocks instead of 33% domestic stocks and 67% international stocks for improved long-term results.
In my opinion, target-date funds are primarily marketing tools that offer little real benefit to clients. Asset management companies like Fidelity and Vanguard promote these products with appealing promises, but the projections they present to everyday investors often fail to deliver meaningful improvements to investment performance.
I've been receiving numerous messages regarding the paper, "Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice" https://lnkd.in/eBv8PQdj . Addressing the feedback, I believe that target-date funds primarily serve as marketing tools, often failing to provide substantial value to investors. Despite the appealing promises made by major asset managers such as Fidelity and Vanguard, the actual performance of these funds frequently disappoints everyday investors.
When examining the statistics, data from S&P Dow Jones Indices’ SPIVA reports reveal that only 20-25% of actively managed mutual funds outperform the S&P 500 within a 5-year timeframe, a figure that diminishes to 10-15% over a 10-year period. Given these statistics, I advocate for a more straightforward approach for the majority of investors: opting for an all-stock portfolio in the S&P 500. For those with a higher risk tolerance, a combination of 80% S&P 500 and 20% Nasdaq index presents an opportunity for growth.
Even for investors above the age of 60, maintaining an all-equity portfolio proves to be a manageable risk across short- and long-term scenarios, especially when contrasted with the underwhelming performance of numerous actively managed funds.
大部分人在理性分析这些的时候是处于人脑最管用的时候，e.g.30s-50s。但是，人从65以后脑力的衰老进程加快，我看我自己的父母的一个表现就是越来越胆小，因为自己已经觉得不能掌控局面，所以用到投资上，最后很多人选择annuity，retirement funds，甚至大部分现金的，其实也是基于自己认知范围的理性选择。
够退休的。他们是传统行业的普通工程师. 理财方面只会找 Edward Jones , fisher 之类的公司。
我那时正好帮他们儿子建立ROTH IRA，就顺便告诉他们不要放Target fund, 全转到 S&P 500，过去这十年的S&P00的增长让他们的退休生活非常的惬意。每次见面都谢个不停。
不得不说，Target funds的名字起得非常诱人，普通不懂财务的人一看就喜欢买。