FORTUNE -- There were cheers last week on news that the average balance of Americans' 401(k) accounts had grown to $89,300. That's not enough to retire on. But it's nearly double the average $45,519 that was in those accounts five years ago.
The problem is more and more of that money is in funds that do a poor job of insuring those retirement funds will continue to grow, namely so-called target-date funds. About half a trillion dollars are invested in these funds, up from just over $70 billion in the mid-2000s. And much of that money pours in via 401(k) accounts.
The funds are supposed to give you a pre-calibrated portfolio, usually spread between stocks and bonds, based on when you are likely to retire. The funds recalibrate that portfolio as you get closer to retirement. The closer you are to retirement, the less risky the portfolio is supposed to be. But it doesn't always work that way. And there seems to be no uniformity in how portfolios are put together. A 2015 target-date retirement fund from T. Rowe Price and Fidelity might have very different holdings of stocks and bonds, though the average investor wouldn't know that.
A few years ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission began to look into whether target-date funds mislead investors into a false sense of security. The regulator has proposed a rule to address this issue. It's up for comment and appears to be stuck there.
So, it seemed like welcome news recently when the Wall Street Journal reported that target date funds had proved at least some naysayers wrong. Last year, the article said, was a "year of redemption" for the funds. Target-date funds, even those that were close to their target retirement year, did pretty well in 2013. That was a surprise to some, who worried that the funds might suffer huge losses if bonds had a bad year, which they did in 2013 -- their worst since 1994.
Good news? Not really. The funds performed well in 2013 because they didn't hold enough bonds, relative to what they should. Last year was a down year for bonds. But that is relatively rare. And the average bond fell only 2%. The stock market falls by 10 times as much in its worst years. So the funds' good performance in 2013 was not because they are safer than they seem. It's because they are riskier, putting more money in stocks than they should. That bet paid off in 2013, when the market was up 30%, but it won't always.
Mutual fund companies have loaded up target-date funds with stocks because, over time, stocks tend to do better than bonds. And with more stocks, the funds on average should show higher returns over long periods. The fund companies can then tout those returns and how they are better than a competitor with the same date target fund. What you aren't told is that greater performance comes with the risk that a good portion of money you put in the fund could go poof if you happen to retire in a year, like 2008, when the market drops.
In January, for instance, when the stock market dropped, T. Rowe Price's Retirement 2015 fund (TRRGX) fell 1.7% in one month, which, if it had continued to go that way, would have been down just over 18% for the year. That would be pretty bad for anyone retiring next year. But the market recovered in February, and so did T. Rowe's retirement fund, up 1.9% in the first two weeks of February. Problem solved! Not really.
Over the past 10 years or so, trading has become dizzyingly complex and frenetic. So how have investors fared? Surprisingly well.
By Lauren Silva Laughlin; graphics Nicolas Rapp
FORTUNE -- Once upon a time, an ordinary investor -- call him Joe -- would take some of his retirement savings and put it into a giant brand-name mutual fund that advertised in the Sunday paper. The fund would take that money and MOREDec 5, 2013 6:52 AM ET
Wall Street is rolling out low-minimum mutual funds that will let you lose money like a high roller.
FORTUNE -- Usually Wall Street waits for a bubble before it pushes an investment on average Joes.
So it's certainly a change that the returns on the investment Wall Street is currently trying to sell to individual investors have stunk lately. Is that any better? Probably not.
Goldman Sachs (GS) recently announced it was launching MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - May 22, 2013 5:00 AM ET
No one says the President doesn't deserve his benefits. But it's hard to get past his plan to limit savers to half the value of what he'll walk away with.
FORTUNE -- President Obama's proposal to limit the value of 401(k)s, pensions, and other tax-favored retirement accounts to about $3.4 million certainly sounds reasonable. After all, at a time of big budget deficits, we shouldn't subsidize "the rich" with tax breaks, MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - May 1, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Private equity for ordinary investors may be on the horizon.
FORTUNE -- Last year I wrote that private equity firms eventually would find a way to let non-millionaires into their funds, as traditional capital sources like public employee pensions and corporate defined benefit plans continued to fade. It seems to be happening faster than I imagined.
Fortune has learned that at least one veteran private equity adviser is working on a new product MOREDan Primack - Mar 15, 2013 12:21 PM ET
Dell made employees dump shares in the midst of buyout discussions.
FORTUNE -- Last October, certain Dell employees were forced to sell some of their company stock at just $9.55 per share. Now the company is being sold to founder Michael Dell for $13.65 per share. Suffice to say, there's some serious grumbling going on.
Here's what happened: More than three years ago, Dell (DELL) decided to limit the amount of company MOREDan Primack - Feb 7, 2013 11:31 AM ET
With interest rates in the basement, why keep squirreling all that money away? Let's take out some loans and rack up some debt!
By Sheila Bair, contributor
FORTUNE -- It's well into the new year. Have you made your resolutions yet? No? Well, I have a suggestion. This just could be the year the economy comes roaring back. The housing market is up; unemployment is down. But we all need to MOREJan 25, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Retirement plan providers have been overcharging investors for decades - creating a huge drag on returns. But new rules on fee disclosure should help drive down costs.
FORTUNE – If you're a typical 401(k) investor, perhaps you check your account now and then to see how your investments are doing. Or maybe you just let them ride. One thing is almost certain: You don't know how much you're paying in management MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Jun 25, 2012 5:00 AM ET
|GM raising Corvette prices|
|Albertsons to merge with Safeway|
|Everything must go: There's a flood of store closings|
|Boeing reports wing cracks on Dreamliners|
|Bitcoin matters. Ignore the media circus.|