FYI: It is easy to confuse day-to-day noise with actual and significant signals. If you are merely reacting to the latest market action, then what you have is not a plan — you have an instinctual, fear-driven reaction, and it’s the makings of a disaster.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/get-there/given-the-brexit-brouhaha-how-did-your-investments-hold-up/2016/07/22/a7bc1198-4d03-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html

"The average charge for a target-date fund is 0.73% ... The average stock fund charges 0.68%, while the average bond fund charges 0.54%."
I'm surprised the averages are that low. Perhaps if index funds and ETFs are included that's true. But for actively managed funds those .68% and .54% averages look low to me. A good actively managed international stock fund often exceeds 1% in expenses.
The debate over target date funds (which vary widely) has been going on now for at least a decade. My thinking is that people who don't read MFO or otherwise take much interest in investing are probably well served by them. Think of them as a default option. For the more financially inclined/literate there's better approaches.
The only retirement fund I own is TRRIX, a conservative 40/60 fund with a .56% ER. Price keeps cost down in part by investing 20% in their S&P index fund. You also get 14-15% exposure to some of their international equity funds. Contrary to industry practice, you'll find Price's asset allocation and target date funds generally a bit cheaper to own than if you bought the underlying funds yourself.
The reason I prefer TRRIX to their other retirement funds is that this one doesn't follow any glide slope. (A bit of a control freak).

In response an the original question: do multi-asset income funds further diversify a portfolio or are they a "fad", my thinking is no and no.
Until the 1990s, funds tended to be classified and analyzed according to their objective, e.g. aggressive growth, growth, G&I, equity income. Along came style boxes followed by an emphasis on style purity. Different questions (what vs. how).
A fund managed for objective (very fuzzy, which is why M* rates on style) will likely cut across many styles. But that doesn't make your portfolio more diversified than one where you hit the same holdings by creating your own mix of funds with different styles.
IMHO there's been a gradual shift back toward funds focused on objectives (like income) rather than style - with target date funds for example. Income-oriented funds seem like another natural. Just as the old growth, G&I, etc. categories represented a dialing up or down of risk (and income vs. appreciation) in the equity arena, income investing seems ripe for a similar sort of grouping by objective.
In part, that's because there are more vehicles than ever for generating income - well beyond the investment grade/junk/muni triumvirate of a generation ago. In part, that's because interest rates have been so low for so long that there's demand for other ways of generating income without going off the risk charts. In part because boomers are retiring and interested in generating income. That's what they need regardless of which of their funds hold what types of bonds.
So, no these funds don't add diversification; though they may facilitate portfolio construction. And no, they're not a fad, if for no other reason than there are lots of more esoteric vehicles that are better employed as parts of other funds than as standalone products.

FYI: One of the biggest challenges for gold as an investment is that, like cash, it doesn't really generate income.
When there are bonds and stocks out there that offer interest and dividend yields to offset the risk of any fall in capital values, why choose a shiny metal that's a pure punt on price movements?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-07-22/gold-s-9-2-trillion-tailwind

It is a regional hospital group, so yes, they pay their staff quite well! They took this action after analyzing their employees 401k accounts and wanting to insure they had good retirement savings. This may be a shock to some on this board, but some employers care about their employees!

@Willmatt72: My own multi-asset bond fund is a global one: PRSNX. Very un-volatile, but extremely pleasing to me re: performance. I bought in Feb. of 2015. Over 17 months, it's given me +4.55%. It's in a Trad. IRA.

Gas here now obtainable at $2.04--- a reflection of the cost of oil. I have an infinitesimally small position in COP. Doing nothing for me. I continue to hold it, noting how ratings of the stock's estimated high put it at anywhere between $44 (JPM) to $71 (BofA-ML). The stock is just above $40 right now. It won't kill me to be patient... Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ("it's a song about Alice, remember!") I hold no dedicated HY bond fund. My all-bond funds are: DLFNX (core-plus), PRSNX (Global multi-asset), and PREMX (EM bonds.) Let the fund Managers do their job, eh? That listing is in order, smallest to highest proportion right now in the portfolio: 2.48%, 10.87% and 14.51%. Very pleased with the solidity and low volatility of DLFNX. PRSNX became a holding on a very tardy basis, recalling a recommendation from someone on this discussion board back in 2009 or so. I've held PREMX since 2010, and it grew to be a riskier than I thought size. I've since reallocated a great deal of it. Gotta be pleased with it THIS year!

My wifes company is requiring their employees to up their contribution rate to 7%(from 6) this year, 8% next year, 9% the following year, then freezing at 10% the next! I think this is a good thing.

I believe the 7 day yield is neither APR nor APY, but a hybrid - the compounded yield over a seven day period, extrapolated as simple interest over a year. Not that it makes any difference at these low rates (as you'll see below), but here's the complete calculation:
0.53% 7 day SEC yield equates to 7/366 * 0.53% ~= 0.010137%
Remember that this is an election year (how could one forget?), so 366 days.
That 0.10137% is a the total return over a week, i.e. a compounded daily return.
So the daily rate is (1 + 0.010137%) ^ (1/7) - 1 ~= 0.001448%.
On $1M, that yields $14.48 per day.
The deviation from Ted's figure is virtually all due to the leap year. Redoing the calculation above with a 365 day year produces $14.519, vs. Ted's $14.521. A daily difference of just two mill.
All this is academic, not because I don't seem to have $1M in pocket change, nor because the minimum investment is $100M, but because BGIXX (Black Rock Cash Funds Institutional, Institutional Class) is closed. See summary prospectus for this share class or its SAI.

@MFO Members: The patient died caused by small AUM, high ER, and the following performance percentile of YTD 96, 1Yr. 96, 3Yr. 95, 5yr. 98 !
Regards,
Ted

@MFO Members: Using BlackRock Cash Funds Institutional 7-Day yield 0.53
One has $1,000,000 invested for 30 days at a 7-day SEC yield of 0.53 then:
(0.53 × $1,000,000 ) / 365 ~= $14.52 per day.

The thirst for yield continues unabated. Today is something like the 11th day this month junk bonds have hit all time highs. About 2 weeks ago for the first time in 18 months junk bonds began ignoring oil. Curious if that will continue if oil breaks below 40. In the meantime all you can do is go with the flow.

Currently, Fidelity's retail MMF FZDXX ($10K min in IRA) is yielding 0.45%, while the Fidelity institutional MMF listed by iMoneyNet, FIDXX, is yielding 0.44%.
These figures are as of June 30th, 2016 according to the linked pages. Price stability (no floating NAV) and higher yield. Sometimes the retail investor comes out better.
(Note that this is happening because Fidelity is waiving more of the retail fund's fees than the institutional fund's fees. Without waivers, the institutional fund would be ahead, 0.41% vs. 0.37%.)

Sort of. You can find the SEC formulas as instructions to Item 26 in this form:
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf
The 7 day yield is the actual income (excluding cap gains) earned on an investment in a MMF over a period of seven days (i.e. after expenses are subtracted), multiplied by 365/7. So it is more or less a simple interest rate calculated over a year - what a bank would call APR.
Not quite a true annualized figure, because an actual investment would have compounded yield - what a bank would call APY. The second equation in the form gives this value; it defines effective yield.

Direct payments from employer-sponsored plans (401(k), etc.) are subject to the 20% withholding. Direct payments from IRAs are not.
See IRS: Rollovers of Retirement Plan and IRA Distributions.
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/rollovers-of-retirement-plan-and-ira-distributions#anch_49
Since the question was about Roths, this raises an interesting question. Is there a 20% withholding on Roth employer distributions? The answer (per IRS) appears to be no. 20% withholding applies only to the untaxed portion of the rollover.

" As the name implies, institutional fund shares are available only to businesses, defined benefit plans, endowments and other corporate investors, not individuals."
The article has it backward. Institutional fund shares are available to businesses, etc. as well as individuals. It is retail funds that limit availabity - to natural persons (not institutions).
This seems to make the advice wrong: "If by chance a current MMF option is converted to an institutional MMF, it will no longer be available to participants or their beneficiaries and must be replaced."
There reasons to replace an institutional MMF as an investment option, but lack of access is not one of them. A floating NAV makes institutional prime MMFs somewhat undesirable as transaction funds (but not necessarily undesirable as investment funds, which are like ultra-ultra-short bond funds).
Fidelity appears to welcome your investment in FDPXX. However, since the fund requires a $1M investment, I was not able to get past the "insufficient funds" message on a test buy. I'm working on it :-)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026977/000139834416015459/fp0020382_497.htm
497 1 fp0020382_497.htm
City National Rochdale Funds
Multi-Asset Fund
Servicing Class (CNIIX)
Class N (CNIAX)
Supplement dated July 22, 2016, to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information dated January 31, 2016, as supplemented
The Board of Trustees of City National Rochdale Funds (the “Trust”) has decided to liquidate the Multi-Asset Fund (the “Fund”) on or about September 29, 2016 (the “Liquidation Date”). In connection with the closing of the Fund, the Board of Trustees has directed City National Rochdale, LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser, to liquidate the Fund’s portfolio holdings in an orderly manner and to invest the proceeds in money market and other short term instruments. Accordingly, the Fund has ceased to invest its assets in accordance with its stated investment policies.
Effective immediately, the Fund will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders (except through reinvested dividends), including through exchanges into the Fund from other funds of the Trust. Investors may continue to redeem shares of the Fund.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares at any time before the Fund closes. Existing shareholders of the Fund may continue to exchange their Fund shares for shares of the same Class of other series of City National Rochdale Funds pursuant to procedures set forth in the Prospectus. On the Liquidation Date, any remaining assets of the Fund will be paid to shareholders who have not redeemed their Fund shares by that date. Shareholders should consult their tax advisers regarding the tax treatment of the liquidation.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
CNR-SK-023-0100

AndyJ is essentially correct; the Zack's information is outdated.
I'm a strong advocate of going to the source. However, the "rule" was no rule at all, but a proposed IRS regulation - having no force of law, just providing clues as to how the IRS would treat your rollovers. Here's one of the clearest discussions of proposed regs vs. final regs vs tax code (statutues) I've seen. It's from CCH and was written for accountants, not lawyers, so it does a good job at clarifying the law.
Tax Research: Understanding Sources of Tax Law
Subtitled: Why my IRC [statutes] beat your Rev Proc [IRS regs]!
In this case, the underlying statute (IRC 408(d)(3)(B)) was clear: if you have done a 60 day rollover within a year, you can't do another tax-free 60 day rollover of money from any IRA. The court ruling picked up on this wording. The IRS has put its own erroneous spin on the statue for years. It's been writing this into Pub 590 and letting people get away with it.
I'm wondering if there is still a loophole. The new IRS regs (and existing statutes) allow any number of rollover conversions, i.e. taking money from traditional IRAs, holding the money for up to 60 days, and then depositing it into Roth IRAs as conversions. All these serial Roth conversion could be recharacterized to traditional IRAs (and thus avoid taxes) so long as they were recharacterized prior to the tax filing deadline (including extensions).
So it seems you can do multiple 60 day rollover conversions, and ultimately get the money back where it came from. This isn't quite as flexible as the old 60 day bucket brigade (rolling over the same money from IRA to IRA), but it still have the effect of getting you access to some amount of money for an indefinite period of time (rather than 60 days per year).
As to extensions of the 60 day restriction, here's the IRS FAQ page on waivers (doesn't seem to help Gary):
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-relating-to-waivers-of-the-60-day-rollover-requirement

FYI: They welcomed automatic enrollment and contribution increases a decade ago. Not any more.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/why-doesn-t-your-company-want-you-to-put-more-in-your-401-k

FYI: Once-plain-vanilla funds due for a serious makeover, meaning now is the time to carefully assess cash options.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160721/BLOG09/160729983?template=printart