I regard them as substantially the same as robo advisors.

But you probably won’t find very many here who have used the funds to any degree. The apparent contradiction is largely explained by the fact that those who actively read / post on a mutual fund investing board probably are the type of investors who prefer to manage their investments directly. In addition, they possess a higher degree of investment knowledge and a higher investment comfort level than the average American.

“Half of all 401(k) accounts now hold 100 percent of savings in a target date fund. Just over 30 percent of overall 401(k) assets are in target date funds ...” (2018).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2018/11/12/what-it-takes-to-be-a-401k-millionaire/
@Starchild - It certainly appears a good many Americans are using target date funds. But you probably won’t find very many here who have used the funds to any degree. The apparent contradiction is largely explained by the fact that those who actively read / post on a mutual fund investing board probably are the type of investors who prefer to manage their investments directly. In addition, they possess a higher degree of investment knowledge and a higher investment comfort level than the average American.
That 50% participation rate cited in the Forbes article is due in some measure to many plan sponsors using target date funds as the default option in their plans. I’d say that for many who have very busy lives working and raising families these funds are certainly superior to not investing at all or letting their investments sit in a money market fund. That, I think, is the primary rationale behind their existence (along with an additional way for fund companies to garner assets).
Eager to hear to what extent MFO participants use / have used these vehicles. More likely, I think, MFO members may know family members, neighbors, etc. who use them). On a few rare occasions I’ve put money into one or more of Price’s target date funds for shorter periods because the particular holdings were useful at that time and the ER looked attractive. That’s not what they were designed for, of course.
@Ted’s link to Bogle is interesting. I’d certainly agree that bonds no longer offer the degree of protection (against equity sell-offs) they did a couple decades ago when many of these these funds were devised - because of still historically low rates. The recent late 2018 market carnage tended to bear that out. For one, I’m not prepared to write bonds off entirely, thinking there are a lot of hybrid or diversified offerings in bondland which are still worth holding for diversification purposes. (Possibly fodder for another thread?)
-
Re: @Starchild’s holding: A glance shows VTTHX (Vanguard Target 2035) invested exclusively in Vanguard’s index funds, with roughly 75% in equities (domestic & international) and 25% in fixed income. It has a remarkably low 0.14% ER. No doubt, the glide slope will soften its (somewhat high) risk profile over the years.

my stylized outlook is to accept the experts' view of 1% in average inflation-adjusted annualized gains over the next 10 years, then 6% annualized for the succeeding 20 years. If so, that would make the annualized average for the full, 30-year period 4.3%. Per this prediction, U.S. equities from 2019 to 2048 will have annual real returns that are about 1 percentage point less than my parents' generation, and about 2 percentage points behind what I have enjoyed.
It's good to be me. That said, while the initial few years may be rough, this column's back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that stocks should remain the purchase of choice for the patient, long-term investor, particularly if that investor suffers losses calmly. Some might be forthcoming.