Target Date Funds: Blend Is the Trend

SUMMARY

  • Target date funds that blend active and passive investments have historically garnered limited attention, not due to lack of interest, but because of limited product offerings.
  • However, blend TDF assets have grown nearly five-fold since 2013 as the number of offerings has doubled.
  • We expect the trend to continue because blend TDFs typically carry lower fees than active offerings, without fully sacrificing alpha potential. Hence, our mantra, “Go active where it matters and passive where it saves.”

Over a third of defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors offer both active and passive funds on their core menus, representing 52% of total DC core menu assets. Yet, target date funds (TDFs) that blend the two have historically garnered limited attention, not due to lack of interest, but because of limited product offerings.

However, that’s changing.

Blend TDF assets have grown nearly five-fold since 2013 as the number of offerings has doubled, with many fully active or fully passive TDF asset managers introducing a blended (or hybrid) fund, each slightly different from the others. We expect the trend to continue because blend TDFs typically carry lower fees than fully active offerings, without fully sacrificing alpha potential.

TDFs have existed since the early 1990s, but gained popularity only after passage of the 2006 Pension Protection Act, which set the stage for sponsors to automatically enroll DC plan participants in Qualified Default Investment Alternatives (QDIAs). TDFs represent the vast majority of these QDIAs and have rapidly gathered hundreds of billions of assets under management (AUM), further supported by strong asset returns after the financial crisis (see Figure 1).

Although active TDFs dominated at the outset, capturing over 90% of the market in the early 2000s, passive TDFs have gained momentum and three years ago surpassed active TDFs in market share. This trend toward passive does not appear to have been driven by disappointment in active management (i.e., due to underperformance versus the benchmark) but rather by factors such as fees and litigation risk. In our view, the pendulum has swung too far from active to passive, and a compromise that incorporates investment considerations may be warranted.

As such, the blend segment has emerged as an attractive alternative and is quickly gaining broad adoption. According to Morningstar data, blend TDF AUM has grown by 485% since 2013, while the number of blend TDFs, including mutual funds and collective investment trusts (CITs), has doubled.

Figure 1: Target date fund AUM has risen sharply since 2006