From a TRP early (October 1, 2004) prospectus:

Savings to the underlying funds are expected to result primarily from the elimination of numerous separate shareholder accounts which are or would have been invested directly in the underlying funds and the resulting reduction in shareholder servicing costs. Although such cost savings are not certain, the estimated savings to the underlying funds generated by the operation of the Retirement Funds are expected to be sufficient to offset most, if not all, of the expenses incurred by the Retirement Funds.

In other words, the savings in the underlying funds (best case) would bring the ER of the Retirement Funds down to zero (not below). The fee table in the prospectus shows each fund as having fees that are exactly offset by the savings, so that the net ER is exactly equal to the cost of owning the underlying funds. Not cheaper - these savings just explain how TRP offers funds of funds with no additional costs.
@Edmond: " Consequently, its my bull-headed belief that we investors should very much care how richly/cheaply priced the assets we are buying/holding are. ... So many investors are proudly 'cost-conscious', but then intentionally invest in a manner which is not 'price-conscious'. Tgt-funds seem to assiduously cling to that latter behavior. "
Perhaps this is just a matter of watch what I do, not what I say, but FWIW, what TRP says:

The allocations shown in the glide path are referred to as "neutral" allocations because they do not reflect any tactical decisions made by T. Rowe Price to overweight or underweight a particular asset class or sector based on its market outlook. The target allocations assigned to the broad asset classes (Stocks and Bonds), which reflect these tactical decisions resulting from market outlook, are not expected to vary from the neutral allocations set forth in the glide path by more than plus (+) or minus (-) five percentage (5%) points.

Generally speaking, this flexibility is the differentiating attribute between asset allocation funds and static balanced funds (whatever their selected balance is).

@hank - I'm always happy to admit I've overlooked something. (Well, not exactly happy, but willing :-)) So I went back and checked the holdings (1Q2016) of TRRIX.
None of the funds it holds are marked as institutional. In contrast, the holdings of TRPTX are all listed as
<fund name>-I, indicating institutional class.
As you mentioned, TRP's institutional class funds are open to retail investors; for TRPTX all you need is a million bucks. Though they are more welcoming if you buy the shares through a retirement plan at work.
TRRIX holdings: http://individual.troweprice.com/staticFiles/gcFiles/pdf/phrpeq1.pdf
TRPTX holdings: http://individual.troweprice.com/staticFiles/gcFiles/pdf/phrqiq1.pdf

@msf - You and I can't buy their institutional shares of some of the underlying funds - which do carry lower costs (unless you've got whole lot more money than I think). :) I'll rest my case there.
However, I read somewhere (over a decade ago) that Price does actually give back a small portion of the underlying ERs to their allocation funds - on the theory that they save money in the long run by not having as many separate accounts to manage. Put another way, they'd rather have you put all your money into RPSIX than have you own smaller amounts of 12 different income funds. It made sense to me at the time, but unfortunately, I've never been able to verify it. (And I've searched their Prospectus's trying to verify)
You are completely correct on the second point. While TRRIX is classified a retirement fund by Price, alongside their target date funds, it is actually an asset allocation fund. I guess you could say that I avoid the target date variety of retirement funds (as most everyone here is probably inclined to do).
Edmond: No intent on my part to in any way promote Price, its funds, actively managed funds, any particular investing style, or allocation and target date funds. To each his own. What caught my eye was the lower than expected "average" fund expenses stated in Ted's linked article. In trying to make sense of those numbers I strayed too far afield. But you make some excellent points.

I really don't give Tgt-funds a thought until I see a thread about them.
Besides the cost, don't like their allocations based on the age of the investor, rather than the cheapness/dearness of the sundry assets they invest in. -- The capital-markets don't know or care how far away from retirement we are. Consequently, its my bull-headed belief that we investors should very much care how richly/cheaply priced the assets we are buying/holding are.
Observation (not related to any posters here, but just generally): So many investors are proudly 'cost-conscious', but then intentionally invest in a manner which is not 'price-conscious'. Tgt-funds seem to assiduously cling to that latter behavior.
Lastly, I find it telling that the companies offering tgt-funds populate them with their OWN proprietary funds. No fund company, not Vanguard, Fidelity, TRowe, etc., own a monopoly of above average funds. Given that, if the tgt-fund provider had their investors' best interest front-and-center, they should arrange to populate tgt-funds with the best available funds, even if some are NOT in-house. That they don't do so, suggests to me, underlying basis for marketing tgt-funds is not to better serve investors, but to amass and keep-in-place as many AUM across their fund complex (yes, a shock, I know!!). -- And to do so by catering to many retail investors who prefer to not have to think too hard about investing.
So... still not interested in them.

"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.

What likely sounds more familiar to you are figures around 1.25%. That's what one gets by equal-weighting funds - giving as much weight to AMDEX (ER 3.38%, an index fund tracking the Israeli market) as to VFINX.
Here's a M* paper from 2014 giving weighted and unweighted (i.e. equal-weighted) averages of funds from 1990 through 2013 - overall averages and averages by fund type. The 2013 figures are very close to the current ones (e.g. 0.67% for weighted average of all US equity mutual funds). You're right that these figures include index funds, but they exclude ETFs, as those are not open end 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.

Theoretically, a fund can't be cheaper than buying the underlying funds. The TRP fund "will indirectly bear its pro-rata share of the expenses of the underlying T. Rowe Price funds in which it invests (acquired funds)." (from prospectus).
Most families may add fees on top of what it costs to own the underlying funds. But there's more going on here. Look at Fidelity - it tacks on a modest fee (about 8 basis points) to its Freedom Index target date funds. The underlying funds are cheap index funds with little profit margin to pay for the extra overhead of running target date funds. In contrast, Fidelity Freedom funds (that invest in actively managed funds) don't tack on an additional fee.
T. Rowe Price may be using index funds as some of the underlying funds, but they're known to be not particularly cheap. So TRP doesn't need to tack on additional fees.
Vanguard takes a different approach. Its target date funds invest in higher cost Investor class shares, rather than Admiral shares. That difference allows it to absorb the target funds' administrative costs without losing money.

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).

What it sounds like you want is an asset allocation fund, as opposed to a target date/retirement fund. TRP appears to call TRRIX a retirement fund (as opposed to a Personal Strategy, i.e. asset allocation fund), only because it is a fund of funds; not because it is a real retirement fund.
There are only a few parameters that differentiate various groups of hybrid funds:
1) Glide path yes/no (target date/asset allocation)
2) Fund of funds yes/no (minimal extra overhead for fund of funds, sometimes absorbed)
3) How aggressive (for target date funds, the glide path; for asset allocation the "neutral" mix)
4) Indexed (primarily for funds of funds - are the underlying funds index funds)
BTW, I applaud TRP for offering two different classes of funds with different glide paths, so that one can choose the level of aggressiveness.

"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).

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!

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.

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: 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

The 60d rollover rule changed in 2015: it's now one per year, period, no matter how many accounts you own.
For the OP, if you're beyond the 60 days or have already done a rollover within the last year, I'm not familiar with what you can do, but nothing beats getting to know the IRA rules directly from the source.
The relevant publication, Pub 590 on all things IRA, has been split into 590-A, Contributions, and 590-B, Distributions, which you can download from the IRS site or request as paper copies by mail.

Hi @MJG , @Junkster , @Old_Joe
MJG, you noted:
1. "Your suggestion that “This Time is Different” rests on shaky grounds. Anyone who plays that investment style better have deep pockets and some evil desire to commit investing hari-kari. Deep pockets because it doesn’t happen all that often, and in the long run it is a Loser’s Game." and
2. "Perhaps it is different this time and outstanding bond returns will continue to challenge equities as your post suggests that as a possibility. I consider those long odds, and I do not accept that likelihood. Taking that position is dangerous; it’s a very long shot. Anyone who does accept that shot will be either a hero or a clown."
Not sure readers here will find clarity with the two bolds above, eh? I suppose the risk is the clarity. MJG, not picking on you; only referencing what you stated.
As I write this, I consider a new thread might be appropriate just for "this time is different, eh?"
I've noted the "TTID" thought here several times since the market melt. I am not trained in any formal fashion to speak or write about this thought to be taken as serious or that I could fully prove what I sense.
NOTE: We subject our investing to include, among other criteria, a reliance on memory(s). My retained or at least surface memory seems elusive too many times. I'm not one who can name a book and a page within which contains a particular quote. My brain plainly doesn't work this way. As long as this house remains active investors, I/we have to have our brains "into" the market places and outside influences, at a minimum of weekly observations, to help define pricing trends of the short, mid and longer terms. When the passion for this ebbs, VWINX or a similar fund will likely have all of the monies.
Rolling through my thoughts at this time are several item areas relative to investing at this house.
---technology
---central bank policy(s)
---demographics (baby boomers and the young with low education and low paying jobs)
---jobs/wage growth (being jobs of consequence, monetary)
---ongoing affects upon personal budgets since the market melt
---societal unrest
---pension funds, life insurance companies (many underfunded and scratching for returns.....as in hedge funds, alt. investments, etc.)
I'll comment only about technology, as related to labor force in the U.S. Technology will continue to negatively pressure the labor force in the U.S. relative to higher wages on a broad scale. As the U.S. currently remains a consumer driven economy, this will likely have a continued affect on GDP and many of the other measures used by the economic folks. This in turn may cause central banks to maintain an easy money policy longer than they choose. This may continue to affect those who don't trust or are not invested in the markets otherwise (boomers and their CD's).
I suspect Ms. Yellen and associated folks just shake their heads on some days. Some of these folks are also relying on past charts, graphs and trends. This isn't necessary bad, but I hope they are also flexible and adaptable and not locked into past habits. 'Course there are a whole bunch of folks who haven't a clue to what may be taking place with their invested money. This same group will likely only be able to rely upon some of this money for their retirement future. If a "this time is different" lasts for 5 or 10 years or; investment returns will be affected. K. I'm too hot from outside work in a steamy Michigan environment right now. I'm going to quit this for now to cool the brain cells, as they may not be allowing me to express here properly. Not my best day for attempting to write concise thoughts.
Thank you to everyone for prior comments.
Our current investment mix: IG bonds = 52%, Equity = 48%
Bonds
---all investment grade U.S., corp. and gov't.
Equity sector breakdown
---direct healthcare related 44.6%
---U.S. centered 24.4% (blend)
---European 17.2%
---real estate 13.8%
Regards,
Catch

So says the the guru that proclaimed junk bonds were in extreme valuation back in February. A *lot* of upside since February and all time highs nearly everyday this month. Like all gurus and experts, Mr Fridson will be proven correct at some point and the market will react accordingly. But exactly when in the distant future will this occur?? As an aside, have been posting over at Bogleheads lately. It is a little more heavily policed over there. Makes you appreciate David's more tolerant handling of the postings here at MFO. But overall, I enjoy the Bogelhead forum, especially all the discussions on retirement.
http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2016/07/19/fridson-post-brexit-high-yield-overvaluation-is-staggering/?mod=BOL_hp_blog_ii
Veteran high yield analyst Marty Fridson, chief investment officer of Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors, used the word “staggering” in his analysis of high yield overvaluation Tuesday.
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/04/23/strategy-will-succeed-until-it-fails-junk-bond-guru-marty-fridson/
“The extreme overvaluation of the high-yield market, initially observed in February, persisted in March,” Martin Fridson, Chief Investment Officer of Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors, wrote in his column on S&P Capital IQ/LCD. Based on the firm’s econometric modeling methodology, junk bonds have been overvalued, though not at this extreme level, since mid-2012:

Hi Junkster,
Thank you reading my post and contributing to the discussion.
I was not immediately aware of the roughly 2 decade market timeframe starting in 1958 that you referenced in your reply. At that referenced date, I had only started investing a couple of years earlier. But my information shortfall was easily rectified.
I simply went to the Internet and linked to the New York University Stern school annual returns listing. Here is the Link to that nice data summary:
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
Given the source, I presume this data package is accurate. I am not overwhelmed by the 10-year T. Bond returns over stocks even for that excellent period for the bond issues. The 10-year bonds did outperform stocks in 8 years of those 20-year annual periods. Even in that carefully selected timeframe, I doubt that the bond cumulative returns exceeded stock performance (I did not do the cumulative calculation).
But the Stern school did do both the arithmetic and geometric averages for the respectable 1966 to 2015 timeframes. From my perspective, that's a very meaningful period. For that extended time period the S&P 500 delivered 11.01% and 9.60% annual arithmetic and geometric returns, respectively. During that same period, 10-year T. Bonds produced 7.12% and 4.82% arithmetic and geometric annual returns, respectively.
Stocks win because they are risky and they generate returns both from dividends and price appreciation. It is certainly true that stock dividends have been contributing less to that total return than they did in the past. But the total return is what is most meaningful to me, and I suspect to many other investors.
This is not to say that fixed income is not a major portion of my portfolio. It is. Even at an age in excess of 80, I still have a 60/40 portfolio mix. Portfolios benefit from the diversification with low correlation coefficients between these two asset classes.
That portfolio split might be a tiny bit misleading since my wife and I both have social security and company retirement annual incomes. I count those as part of my fixed income segment since they are pretty secure with small incremental annual pluses. So the active portion of my portfolio is very heavily weighted in Equity and Balanced mutual funds.
Many thanks once again, and many good hopes for your portfolio management style. There are many ways to win at this game. Unfortunately there are many more ways to lose.
Best Wishes.

FYI: California Public Employees' Retirement System posted a slightly higher-than-expected 0.61 percent net return on investment for the 12-month period that ended June 30, the pension fund's Chief Investment Officer Ted Eliopoulos said on Monday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-calpers-investment-idUSL1N1A40SW

Why not go the traditional pension route? Not only don't I trust state pension/investment boards (or their political masters)
[and]
More pathetic, the clowns running many of these funds/programs are suckered by the allure of hedge funds, private equity, and other costly black boxes that eat up their returns after expenses and fees ...

Let's be clear here. Public, private - doesn't matter. It's not a matter of devious politicians. Private companies use the same hedge funds, private equity, and other costly black boxes, albeit in different mixes. While they tend to allocate less to alts than public pensions, they still invest significantly, and they allocate more to hedge funds than do public pensions.

Deutsche Bank’s [December 2015] survey data [] showed that ... Public pension funds had a median 29% allocation to alternatives and 7% to hedge funds; private pension funds, 17% and 10%, respectively; and sovereign wealth funds, 13% and 5%.

http://www.pionline.com/article/20160223/ONLINE/160229965/pension-funds-globally-increased-hedge-fund-allocations-in-2015-8212-survey
All of that was nevertheless peanuts compared with endowments and foundations, which allocated 48% to alts and 23% to hedge funds (ibid.)
Performance? Here too, politics doesn't seem to be what matters. From Private Pension Plans, Even at Big Companies, May Be UnderFunded Floyd Norris, NYTimes (2012):

The companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 collectively reported that at the end of their most recent fiscal years, their pension plans had obligations of $1.68 trillion and assets of just $1.32 trillion. The difference of $355 billion was the largest ever, S.& P. said in a report.
Of the 500 companies, 338 have defined-benefit pension plans, and only 18 are fully funded. ...
The main cause of the underfunding at many companies does not appear to be a failure to make contributions to the plans. Instead, it reflects the fact that investment markets have not performed well for a sustained period.
...
Virtually all pension funds had assumed returns would be better, leaving them underfunded when their investments failed to perform as expected.

Finally, consider that companies often raided their private pension plans to inflate their profits.

in the 1990s corporations used a variety of accounting techniques, tax incentives, and other forms of manipulation to syphon money from pension plans and serve corporate purposes. [E.E. Shultz] provides an example called the “accounting effect,” where a company could reduce benefits by hundreds of millions of dollars and record the change as a profit. This practice benefited corporate executives, who were compensated by reaching certain profit targets, and shareholders, but in many cases workers and retirees, subjected to this deception and fraud, were cheated out of retirement income.

https://www.wmich.edu/hhs/newsletters_journals/jssw_institutional/individual_subscribers/39.4.Zurlo.pdf
As Norris stated, the problems now are due largely to many years of poor market performance - which affected your DC returns just as it affected DB plan (public or private) returns.
As a footnote, I gather that Vanguard would be counted among the so called "clowns". It created VASFX (alts) for pensions, endowments, foundations, and to use in its managed payout fund (VPGDX) - in some ways the closest thing Vanguard has as the retail level to a pension.

I do find it a bit unsettling that after so many companies have replaced their Defined Benefits Retirement Plans with Whatever Market Brings Plans, expected 10 year real returns on equities and fixed income assets are zero.

@davidrmoran Thanks again for drawing my attention to DSENX!

If you are thinking of buying in a retirement account, and at least $5000, consider DSEEX. You only need a minimum of $5000 to purchase institutional shares if it is in a retirement account, which will have a lower ER. However, it might have a transaction fee to consider (whereas DSENX might not, could depend on the brokerage).

FYI: Public workers are pumping more money into retirement funds. Public agencies are pumping more money into retirement funds.
Yet the market seems distinctly unimpressed.
The California Public Employees Retirement System – the nation’s largest – lost about 2 percent of its market value in the fiscal year that just ended, according to unofficial numbers published last week on the CalPERS website. This came despite doubled-down efforts to beef up its bottom line.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=722198

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
July 14, 2016
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
For inspiration and levity I occasionally turn to Lewis Carroll’s classic,
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. As I survey the still unfolding saga of Brexit, spreading negative interest rates around the world and the unsettling political scene in Europe and the U.S. two quotes seem particularly apt. As the Cheshire Cat told Alice about Wonderland: “We’re all mad here.” And as Alice opined: “it would be so nice if something made sense for a change.”
This week’s guests are trying to make sense of highly unusual and in some cases unprecedented developments. One of those is Brexit. After decades of opting into the European Union, albeit on some of its own terms such as keeping the pound sterling as its currency, the United Kingdom opted out. A pressing question is will Britain be the lone exception, or the first of many to do so?
A recent Pew Research poll found the EU was unpopular among substantial numbers of citizens in many countries. 71% of Greeks view the EU unfavorably, 61% of the French do, 49% of Spaniards and 48% of Germans agree.
Since the financial crisis there has been talk of Grexit, Greece’s possible exit from the Eurozone. The latest candidate is Italy with “Quitaly” envisioned as its struggling banking industry reels under pressure from EU regulators.
Then there is the impact of the unprecedented easing policies of central banks in major developed countries. On this week’s program, we’ll show you a chart from Evercore ISI that tells the story of the “Incredible Balance Sheet Expansion” of the big three. Since 2009, the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and Bank of Japan balance sheets have increased a cumulative +$8 trillion! Among other things, this helps explain why bond yields have plunged. The yield on the benchmark U.S. Treasury 10-year note has hit new lows in recent weeks, while yields on German and Japanese bonds are trading below zero in negative territory.
In the week after the Brexit vote, Evercore ISI counted 18 more easing moves by central banks. How do these developments affect global economies and markets?
On this week’s WEALTHTRACK, we will hear the views of two experienced global investors. Nicholas Sargen, Chief Economist and Investment Strategist at Fort Washington Investment Advisors, the asset management arm of Western & Southern Financial Group will join us for a rare television interview. Sargen holds a PhD in Economics, and has been international economist, global money manager and Chief Investment Officer for several major financial firms as well as an official at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
We’ll also be joined by William Wilby, in a WEALTHTRACK television exclusive. One of our Great Investors, now a private investor actively managing his own retirement account, Wilby was the Portfolio Manager of the award winning Oppenheimer Global Fund which was ranked number one in its category for the 12 years he ran it. A graduate of West Point, Wilby has a PhD in International Monetary Economics and has held various international finance and investment positions at several top financial institutions, including the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Both Sargen and Wilby believe the Brexit effect is far from over. I asked them why it is still so significant.
If you miss the show on Public Television this week, you can watch it at your convenience on our website. You’ll also find web exclusive EXTRA interviews with Sargen and Wilby about investing in the 21st century.
Thank you for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo
http://wealthtrack.com/
.

         

