@davidrmoran I've been a DSEEX owner for several years. Although it may not be a fair benchmark for comparison, I use VTI. I've noticed that, over the past year, DSEEX's performance is 3% or so below VTI.
Any thoughts as to why this underperformance has taken place and whether it might continue? Thanks!

@bee, I also find it very confusing on TRP's side. The funds named "Retirement" are essentially asset allocation funds. I don't believe they change much if at all in equity/bond allocation. They should be called more appropriately '60:40 fund', or '50:50 fund' or '70:30 fund', whatever the allotment.
My 401k was with TRP for many years. I can remember them sending information a couple years ago when they decided to go the 'target date' and the 'retirement' funds as different style offerings. I don't remember the rationale .

I will add this... for those invested in TDF and within 15 years of retirement:
Do some homework. Figure out your retirement income sources and your likely retirement budget.
Any shortfall will need to be made up by withdrawing from other investments. This should be considered "safe asset money".
Find some alternatives to even the most conservative TDF (TRRBX for example). Here are a few funds that I quickly compared to TRBBX (VWINX, PRSIX, and AONIX).
Looking at the 2007-2009 time frame is important in this comparison. Find other funds to compare and possibly decide on a few that would appropriate for your "safe asset money" Funds.
Remember volatility can be both negative and positive:

For melt up: great economic fundamentals, Fed that appears moderate to dovish, an administration eager to cut whatever taxes / regulations business wants it to
For "this is it": high valuations in nearly every market, several common signs of a peak (e.g. a clearly insane mania, now bitcoin, 20 years ago pets.com etc; or bigtime fraud, now Theranon, then Enron), possible trade war, an executive branch that appears (to me) utterly incapable of handling any kind of crisis, and the chance that Mueller will find a smoking gun and political instability will result.
Hard to say what it'll be, but I've been slowly selling equities, bringing my allocation down to 65% from 80%.

This is the most useless thing I have read in some time:
... ask yourself if your TDF's risk level is right for you. Here are three questions to ask your 401(k) ... fund company:
-- How much market risk are you taking within five years of your target or retirement age? If the stock mix is more than 70% in that timeframe, you could get nailed by a bear market.
-- How much bond-market risk are you taking? Shifting most of your money into bonds near retirement is risky as well. ....
Whatever you do, don't plug into these funds and forget about them.
Gawd.
@Bee's take above is thorough and thoughtful while Surz's is insanely conservative and seems to ignore recovery times of recent decades.

@JohnN, From your linked article was this quote:

Ron Surz, president of Target Date Solutions, a company that designs "smart" TDFs, has been sharply critical of conventional TDFs for years. “These funds with high concentrations in stocks are a time bomb,” Surz told Reuters

I found a paper that RS wrote that further explains his strategy.
targetdatesolutions.com/pdf-source/DeRisking-Target-Date-Funds.pdf
If I understand his strategy correctly he is recommending that investor's in TDF reallocate all accumulated contributions into safe assets 15 years prior to retirement date. So if your retirement date is age 70, then at age 55 one would separate out all accumulated contributions and place them into "safe assets". He doesn't explain what these "safe assets" are other than saying that they will not lose money. I assume the accumulated gains remain invested in the TDF.
My take:
With this strategy, does one assume contributions made during the 15 year window (age 55 - age 70) also no longer get directed to the TDF? I am assuming they are being directed into "safe assets". I would worry about inflation risk over this 15 year time frame. Shifting the contribution component of your TDF 15 years prior to retirement seems excessively conservative to me as well during this 15 year period. Depending on the size of that accumulated contribution and its importance in supplementing retirement income I would shoot for funding a 5 year supplemental income bucket (safe assets...maybe laddered CDs or Treasuries).
Setting aside five years of safe assets seems appropriate. Creating this 5 year bucket during these 15 years before retirement would allow the portfolio to re-allocate during years when the portfolio had positive returns or excessive returns or growth in a dollar amount equal to 1/5 of the safe asset bucket or whatever criteria would sustain growth without compromising market opportunities.
These 5 years of safe assets could be accessed (withdrawn from the retirement account) to supplement other retirement income (SSI, pension, work or rental income, income from LT capital gains, etc.). In addition, It should be adequately funded to help the retiree meet inflation increases that are not built into their retirement income sources.
Keeping in mind that the first five years of retirement will have different supplemental needs than year six or year 16 or year 26, this 5 years supplemental income bucket will likely have a rolling balance that reflects the future 5 year rolling withdrawal needs throughout retirement.
Preparing to add to the 5 year bucket could start 10 years prior to the need. Again, market opportunities (positive volatility) could be maximized to help determine the timing of the funding. This would allow this reallocation to be laddered to mature when needed or be place in some other safe investment strategy.
Your thoughts?

Cetusnews seems to have vanished, so my comments are limited to what bee described.
1. Roth income limits. Here are some concerns about Kitces backdoor solution, a couple pragmatic and one a matter of principle.
I don't know how many 401(k) plans allow transfers from IRAs. If you can't segregate pre-tax and post-tax IRA money via an IRA to 401(k) transfer, backdoor conversions are often impractical. Too much pre-tax money in the IRA.
Also, even if you can move your pre-tax IRA money to your 401(k), that money will be stuck there, whether the 401(k) is a good plan or not.
The matter of principle is that, as Kitces stated, what makes backdoor conversions illegal is intent. The fact that you won't get caught if you follow his prescription doesn't make it legal. Just in case that matters. Me, I jaywalk daily and twice on Sunday.
3. Time value of Roths. Locking in rates can be good or bad. Would you lock in a 5 year CD at 3% now when you can get 2.5% on an 18 month CD? There is potential value in flexibility - one can contribute to a traditional IRA and convert to a Roth some time in the future when taxes are lower (locking in that lower rate when it materializes).
Whether you want to wait depends on what your crystal ball shows for future tax rates from now until retirement, and perhaps beyond. Personally, I'm betting on higher taxes (and locking in via Roth conversions of past years' contributions), but that's just one individual's opinion.
Someone who has difficulty maxing out IRA contributions is more likely in retirement to draw steadily from an IRA for income. That will limit the growth of the IRA, so that RMDs (and taxes) don't grow out of control. On the other hand, if one can easily max out IRA contributions, the time value of the Roth becomes even more important.
Here's a numeric example showing that even if tax rates are somewhat lower in retirement, contributing to a Roth (if you max out) can be better than contributing to a traditional IRA. It comes out better because when you max out a Roth you're sheltering more dollars (in after tax value) than you would in a traditional IRA.
Say the person is in the 24% bracket, but will be in the 22% bracket at retirement.
Assume there's $5500 in earnings, and $1320 (24% of $5500) in a taxable account. Finally, also assume that the taxable account is 100% tax-efficient (no taxes along the way), and gets taxed 15% (cap gains) at the end.
The investor can either put the $5500 into the Roth, using the $1320 from the taxable account to pay the taxes up front, or can put $5500 into a traditional account, and invest the $1320 in the taxable account.
Even with the higher (24%) taxes up front, the Roth breaks even once the investments have grown 125% (i.e. 2.25 times the original value). From that point on, the Roth pulls ahead. I've shown below what happens at the 125% growth mark, and at the 250% (3.5 times original value) point. That's still a lot less than Bee's growth (600%, to 7 times the original value).

Roth     |    Traditional  +  Taxable
Start:   $5500     |     $5500       +   $1320
125%:   $12,375    |    $12,375      +   $2970
-taxes     $0      |   ($ 2,722.50)  +  ($ 247.50)    22% tax, 15% cap gains
Net     $12,375    |    $ 9652.50    +   $2722.50   = $12,375
250%:   $19,250    |    $19,250      +   $4620
-taxes     $0      |   ($ 4,235)     +  ($ 495)       22% tax, 15% cap gains
Net     $19,250    |    $15,015      +   $4125      = $19,140

A few weeks ago on Consuelo Mack's program, Bob Doll said that there were only 2 possibilities: either this is it (meaning the bull market is ending......or......we have a melt up that carries the market much higher over the next 1 to 3 years.
Which of these seems more likely at this point? Or is there a third possibility?
Personally, I feel very strongly both ways.

FYI: Nine years ago, the US economy sank into a recession, the housing market crashed, and credit markets seized, bringing the banking industry to its knees. Businesses were going down. Workers were losing jobs. Americans were losing hope. For many, the psychologically critical low moment was the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. But the memory of events before and after that day is slowly fading.
Business Insider outlined the 27 major moments, from 2007 to 2009, and added some context. From the initial reports of subprime defaults to AIG's second bailout, here are the scariest moments of the financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.businessinsider.com/financial-crisis-scariest-moments-2017-9#february-8-2007-hsbc-says-its-bad-debt-provisions-for-2006-will-be-20-higher-than-expected-because-of-a-slump-in-the-us-housing-market-nonfinance-people-start-paying-attention-to-what-subprime-is-1

@MikeM, I reduced my equity and bond allocation by 15% early in the year and have been holding double digit in cash. We had a good run last year but the geopolitic situation has worsen and the possibility of a trade war. I may increase my TRP Capital Appreciation and let the manager to make that decision. He has been right on in last several years.

I'm gonna disagree...mostly.
Problem 1- Roth IRAs have income limits: If your income is too high to contribute to a Roth IRA (a good problem) you have the financial ability to contribute to a taxable retirement account and then orchestrate a "back door" Roth strategy...problem solved.
Source:

Since the income limits on Roth conversions were removed in 2010, higher-income individuals who are not eligible to make a Roth IRA contribution have been able to make an indirect “backdoor Roth contribution” instead, by simply contributing to a non-deductible IRA (which can always be done regardless of income) and converting it shortly thereafter.

https://kitces.com/blog/how-to-do-a-backdoor-roth-ira-contribution-while-avoiding-the-ira-aggregation-rule-and-the-step-transaction-doctrine/
Problem 2 - Roth IRA benefits can be limited: Roth death benefits are tax free for the beneficiary. Tax deferred IRAs are taxable upon death to the beneficiary. If you die early...your dead... regardless. I would agree that if your beneficiaries are non - profit organizations, then, by all means, contribute to tax deductible IRAs and pass the entire tax deferred account on the the non-profit tax free.
Problem 3 - The time value of money can be hard to beat:
Time value is the very reason Roth IRAs are such a great long term retirement investment. You pay less "real dollars" in taxes. When you contribute to your Roth IRA you pay taxes in today's dollars. A $5500 contribution at the 15% tax rate would equate to $825 additional income tax...at 20% rate would equate to $1100...at 25% rate would equate to $1375. The 2018 lower brackets look like this:

If you will fall within these lower brackets it make tax sense to contribute to the Roth. It also makes sense to lower yourself into these brackets by deducting income on contributions to tax deferred IRAs. A combination of the two is also a good strategy.
Fast forward to age 60 (30 years of compounding growth @ 7%):
This one Roth contribution ($5500) would have a value of about $39K (tax free) and has no RMD requirements at age 70. At age 70, it will have grown to almost $77K. This money can help you strategically lower your taxable withdrawals from other taxable accounts to further minimize taxes. This can also help you avoid many income based costs (i.e.- income based medicaid premiums) or qualify for income based subsidies (too many to list).
Fidelity article on Strategic Income Withdrawals:
https://fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/tax-savvy-withdrawals
Had this contribution grown in a tax deferred IRA, the deferred tax liabilities at age 60 would be - $5850 (@15% rate), $7800 (@20% rate), and $9750 (@25% rate) and about twice that at age 70. Roth locks in the tax rate at the point of contribution...tax deferred is always the differential between what you saved on contributions (your tax deductions) verse what you paid on withdrawals (your tax liability on your withdrawals). RMDs force your income higher so you have less control over income levels.
If you can lock in a low tax rate on a contribution with either or both tax free (Roth) or tax deferred (401K, 403b, 457, etc.) this is a tax bird 'in the hand". The real problem is not knowing what your taxable income will be on your tax deferred withdrawals in retirement... that is the "tax bird in the bush." and not having a mechanism to help strategically live on some tax free income when it is to your advantage. Saving 15% on contributions to then, 30 years later, pay a higher tax rate on withdrawals is a real long term loss of capital (withdrawal tax rate - contribution tax rate) compared to the Roth IRA (contribution tax rate).
I like to think of the taxes paid on a Roth contribution that permanently locks in the cost of taxes. Obviously, there are many other advantages to a Roth IRA such as access to you contributions at any time tax free, no RMDs, and the ability to fine tune your retirement income with regard to tax liabilities by accessing tax free dollars.

I have held this fund for over 5 years (institutional version CMTFX) and have been very happy. Its a bit less volatile than my other tech fund PRGTX , and the fact that the Price fund was very concentrated, warranted having two tech funds.

This is not a suggestion or recommendation to @Junkster, but I'll just point out the obvious. As of Friday's close, a ladder of individually held to maturity Treasuries were yielding, not adjusting for state income tax exemptions, with little or no compounding of capital, and with zero worries of the "wiggles and squiggles of the markets"...
1 year... 2.03%
2 years... 2.27%
3 years... 2.45%
5 years... 2.65%
10 years... 2.90%

I was going to mention CDs and Treasuries. They are enticing. Just not sure I am ready to tie my money up to that extent quite yet. Maybe if rates continue their ascent or maybe a portion of my capital.

Late last week I sold parts of my holdings in SFGIX and DSENX as well as my remaining tiny chunk of FAAFX. With that, I brought equities down to 70% of my portfolio from 80%.
Some of that is for personal reasons. I've been pretty much all in the market for the 15 years, it's been a great ride, and I now want to raise cash to buy a house in a year or so. The money I'm taking out of the market is money I expect to need soon.
I also think that, despite the fabulous economic fundamentals, the US now faces political risk: there's a chance IMHO that Trump will do something phenomonally stupid, or that Mueller will find a smoking gun and that (in the latter case) Trump doesn't go quietly.
I hope I'm wrong on both counts, but I'm sleeping better now that I've got enough in cash and conservative bond funds to meet my near-term financial goals.

FYI: In 2018, the richest fundster in the U.S. continues to be Abby
Johnson.
This week Forbes unveiled the 2018 edition of its famous list of
the world's billionaires, now 2,208 people long and 32 years
running. Here are the billionaire fundsters (and fundsteradjacent
billionaires) who made the 2018 list.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=57743&wireid=2

Thanks for the article @Ted,
I'll ask the question in a different way to MFO members. How have your gold holdings impacted your portfolio over different time frames and different market conditions or events? If it serves as a hedge to certain risks what were those risks? Did gold get converted during those "golden day" and into what?
The article's 4% allocation make me think of the 4% rule. Another way to think of it is have one years income allocated to a hard asset. but maybe more importantly have that hard asset fungible. I recall @rono suggesting having some gold or silver in the form of currency so that it serves two purposes. It represent the value of the metal, but also as a coin it is portable as a medium of exchange...a silver dime or quarter...a gold eagle. Each has a face value and a metal weight value. Numismatic value seems less important during time where you might consider trading the coin for a loaf of bread or passage on the next train.
I was in Hawaii in January when we were told to take shelter. I was on vacation and had neglected to pack my dimes and quarters (sorry @rono) so in that moment I realized I had a whole in my emergency plan pocket.
A few years ago I experience 10 days without electricity in a house that depends on the grid like most homes. Again, a teachable moment. I made some changes at the house. I purchased a 500 gallon propane tank and switch my appliances (stove, dyer, fireplace insert, hot water tank) to use the propane for everyday appliances. The propane also now doubles as a fuel that seamlessly integrates an electric generator into my electrical panel.
When it comes to holding gold and silver as part of a portfolio or emergency plan, I obviously need some coaching, especially away from home. I'd like to hear from others on your "emergency plans" and whether a hard currency plays a part in it.

FYI: The asset class with the worst performance over the past 10 years is collateralized commodity futures (CCFs). For example, from 2008 through 2017, PIMCO’s Commodity Real Return Strategy Fund (PCRIX) not only underperformed the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFIAX) by 13.7 percentage points, it lost 5.2% a year.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-dont-count-out-commodities?nopaging=1

FYI: Gold should have performed a lot better over the past two years — and especially the past two months. That’s because both periods were characterized by the factors that, according to conventional wisdom, should cause gold to perform well: higher inflation and stock-market turmoil.
Because gold GCJ8, -0.26% did not do well suggests that we should take a critical look at what makes gold a good investment.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-ideal-amount-of-gold-to-keep-in-your-investment-portfolio-2018-03-12/print

The standout defect in Morningstar's methodology is that the yearly survey is based solely on one year's performance. It would be helpful if Morningstar provided 3/5/10 year ratings. This paragraph in the article is suggestive:
"Many of the laggards have consistently ranked low on our Best Fund Families survey. That isn't to say that they don't have some standout strategies, only that as a firm they don't outperform consistently. The list can also fluctuate from year to year, as different styles go in and out of favor."
Coincidentally, on Friday, I sold my Mutual Series Funds (Quest/Global Discovery/Europe). I've owned Mutual Series funds since the early 80s when they were managed by Michael Price. For the last several years, they just haven't performed well. I don't believe their poor returns can be excused solely by their style of investing being out of favor; Great managers adapt. Besides performance, I was further discouraged by the latest shareholders' report that announced the retirement of another one of their managers (Philippe Brugere-Trelat). A picture of one of the remaining managers leads me to suspect the man spends his weekends shopping for a retirement home. The Quest fund was a great owl fund, but I think it's time has passed. Quest suffered from heavy redemptions last year. Franklin Templeton, which owns the Mutual Series funds, came in the survey's last place.
I decided to invest the sales proceeds in my winners: (1) 25% to the four funds managed by Meridian Funds [I like the new young managers who have taken over the funds-I've owned Meridian funds for about 15 years, and bought its Small Cap fund on the day it opened-thanks, in part, to David Snowball's positive comments about the funds' new managers .], (2) 25% to Primecap funds, and (3) 50% to T Rowe Price [Would it be possible to invest too much of my money in PRWCX? I've owned it since the 80s.]

investing in DSEEX would give similar diversification to a vanilla hybrid fund that had a roughly 50/50 stock/bond mix. The difference is one of magnitude of performance (i.e. getting hammered harder).

You know @msf, when I made the statement that I look at DSENX as a kind of balanced fund a couple years ago, I was hammered pretty good here with "no it is not, you can't think of this fund that way". So I'm glad that you investigated enough to say yeah, maybe it is, albeit a more volital hybrid than what we think of as a typical balanced fund. You explained it very well.