In a typical 401k plan that was the subject of the article, there is no sales person or rep to hang. It's pretty much up to the participant to choose. But imo, the author (Chana Schoenberger) is mistaken about TD fund performance. According to M*, the fund she mentioned (VTENX TD 2010) only declined 20.67% in 2008 instead of the 30% that she reported. And she failed to mention that the same fund gained 19.32% in 2009. The category (according to M*) declined 22.46% in 2008 and gained 22.42% in 2009. I suspect that many retirement plan participants did much worse in non-diversified accounts.
Just as mail carriers say that the only dog that won't bite is one without a jaw, every security carries some risk. However, Target date funds provide diversification and provide automatic rebalancing. In the long run, Buffett's right that the S&P 500 will outperform managed portfolios (e.g., Target date funds), but how many investors are blessed with the intestinal fortitude to sleep well in year when stocks drop 50% or more?
And to John, I agree that balanced funds can be an alternative even though they don't typically have international stocks, international bonds or inflation hedges.

It was a day when balanced portfolios became unbalanced.
Normally tranquil T. Rowe Spectrum Income (RPSIX) lost 0.63%.
My benchmark, T. Rowe Balanced Retirement (TRRIX), lost 0.80%.
I lagged the benchmark, losing 0.86% due to being overweight commodity and NR.
Also achieved dubious first-time distinction of being 100% in the red, excluding money market funds. Even ultra-short TRBUX fell a penny.
Crazy day. Maybe should be renamed: "Get used to rising interest rates"?
Nice show Charles!

I was going to switch my retirement buckets 0 and 1, or part of them, from cash to FLRN, FLOT, BSCF, and BOND, commissionfree, but the extra money difference does not look that all that compelling even for significant sums.

Thanks and good luck in retirement. Again, wasn't trying to be combative. It seems lately I've seen too many people in my Mayberry type town pass away and with way too much money in the seven figures. Another lady I know well is 82 and her 1.8 million nest egg is now being spent on round the clock nursing care as she hardly knows who she is and no longer has control over her financial affairs. Like me, this lady took frugality to another level and looked where it got her. Balancing wealth accumulation to infinity vs spending in old age to reap/enjoy the fruits of our labor is a topic I would like to see addressed here more.

>>>>it really makes no difference how much money you've accumulated to fund retirement, the key is how much annual income this accumulated money can generate.<<<<
Cant' you get to the point where it makes all the difference in the world and where you don't need any more income from what you have accumulated? Is it a mortal sin to simply draw down your principal (accumulated money) to fund your living expenses in old age? I don't mean that facetiously. I am always curious what motivates older investors, especially those that have most/all their living expenses covered by SS and pensions. I know a lot of elderly people in my local community who have no investments whatsoever and are happy as larks because they have no income worries.
Maybe I am getting too philosophical here late on a Friday.

I also use "sleeves", and attribute this to a series of comments by Skeet some time ago. The only portion of my portfolio to leverage this mental accounting technique is indeed for income.
The reason for this is fairly straightforward....it really makes no difference how much money you've accumulated to fund retirement, the key is how much annual income this accumulated money can generate. The sleeve approach to income helps to account for the various and sometimes disconnected sources for this income outside of re-balancing from pure equity fund holdings.
This accounting, plus re-balancing of more pure equity-based funds leads to a bucket 1 allocation for general expenses. I differ a bit from Skeet in that I don't, as an example, have a small cap value "sleeve". I just have small cap value allocations by virtue of one or two funds. It is merely semantics.

I've been so caught up in junk bond funds I missed bank loan funds. Some bank loan funds haven't had a down day since 1/27 - either up or unchanged. A nice area for those of us in trading/investing retirement. EVFAX seems to be the stellar one in this sector. 2014 was an uncharacteristically weak year for bank loans and the worst since the 2008 debacle. The surprise move down in Treasuries was the culprit. There had also been massive inflows into these funds expecting higher rates in 2014 and that eventually led to massive outflows as higher rates didn't pan out. Depending on how things shake out with tomorrow's employment report may begin scaling into EVFAX.
http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2015/03/05/bond-funds-that-benefit-from-rising-rates/?mod=BOL_hp_blog_ii
Edit: On further review these funds are massively overbought. I am generally not into technical indicators but after extended runs will look at the 14 day RSI. Anything over 90 is worrisome.

My "sleeve" system has 5 "Pots". Most holdings are in a taxable account. Core holdings include those in the Cash, Ballast, Moderate Volatility, and Stock Pots. The fifth Pot is the Special Situations Pot. Active trading is permitted in that ~10% of the portfolio. But, even there my primary tendency inclines to holding most investments for a year or more. There are 11 categories as the investments in some of the Pots get subdivided. The basic portfolio focus is on total return with low turnover of core holdings. The portfolio gets an annual review of its 35 holdings with changes in core holdings happening during that time period. Enough cash is kept on hand to handle annually predefined quarterly withdrawals without disturbing the core holdings. The final quarterly withdrawal of the year is increased if conditions are favorable. The system can comfortably be ignored for extended periods if traveling or other activities dictate. The organization of the holdings has evolved somewhat during my 10 years of retirement but is fairly stable now. This "Pot" system works well for me.

My 2 cents. A lot of successful investing comes from having confidence in your approach. Believing in it so much that temporary setbacks don't cause you to sell everything at the worst possible time and run for high ground and locking in losses.
A second benefit of the "slice em & dice em" approach is that it leads to rebalancing.
I like to slice and dice as much as anyone. Some of the slices are downright irrational. PRWCX is in the "equity" folder. OAKBX is in the "hybrid" folder along with the likes of PRPFX. While DODBX is placed in the "balanced" folder. Since all three funds are very similar, it's very likely the slicing and dicing here has meaning to no one else but myself.

Thanks for your views on these types of funds...especially to the point that these funds are found in different (or seemingly different) M* categories...balanced, hybrid, conservative, retirement income, world allocation and moderate. This often requires investors to look not only under the hood, but in different 'hoods.

A simple but good explanation on a sample of a sleeve portfolio.
It would be interesting to know if anyone here besides Old_Skeet uses a sleeve system for their retirement? How do you like or dislike it. Are there other systems you prefer. Enjoy the article.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/how-to-maximize-your-income-portfolio-using-a-foursleeve-approach-cm328646

FYI: Americans have $4.4 trillion invested in 401(k)s, according to the Investment Company Institute, making these tax-deferred savings accounts a vital part of retirement planning for many. BrightScope, a financial-information company that rates retirement savings plans, compiled this list for Kiplinger of the most popular mutual funds based on funds' 401(k) assets under management. Here is a list of the top 100 funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=13310

Delayed gratification (or saving for the future) is a foreign concept for many people. To many it is more important to have new cars and big houses, i.e. higher debts, and yet they have little to show for in their saving/retirement accounts. Catch hits the nail on the head on the power of compounding in investing - it is a long and discipline process in order to save enough.

FYI: Your 401k and your IRA are your best bets for retirement because all your gains compound upon themselves, tax-deferred, until you start taking money out down the road.
That’s why I like to put growth investments in my retirement accounts rather than the standard advice to shelter income from bond funds here instead — that’s what municipal bonds are for. Buying a bond fund in a retirement account might shelter that income from taxes, but overall growth is bound to disappoint
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/02/5-best-vanguard-funds-401k/print

Obama's Fiduciary Plan:
"There are a lot of very fine financial advisors out there, but there [are] also financial advisors who receive back-door payments or hidden fees for steering people into bad retirement investments that have high fees and low returns," he added. "So what happens is these payments, these inducements, incentivize the broker to make recommendations that generate the best returns for them, but not necessarily the best returns for you."
obama-fiduciary-plan-targets-advisors-back-door-payments-hidden-fees

Buy healthcare investments to pay for your retirement, forget drug costs...share in the profits

FYI: With all the investment options that advisers are pushing these days, you can easily get the impression that you are a slacker doomed to subpar performance unless your retirement portfolio is brimming with every asset imaginable.
But do you really need to load up with every new product that comes along? Or can a straightforward mix of stocks and bonds get you to—and through—retirement just fine?
Regards,
Ted
(Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;site=&amp;source=hp&amp;q=Is+Your+Portfolio+Too+Diversified?+-+WSJ&amp;oq=Is+Your+Portfolio+Too+Diversified?+-+WSJ&amp;gs_l=hp.3...8674.8674.0.10919.1.1.0.0.0.0.230.230.2-1.1.0.msedr...0...1c..62.hp..1.0.0.cTY-0BCNuSI

Hi @scott,
PIMIX dropped 3% between Nov 27 and Dec 17 last year, bumped up about 1.5% and remains sideways. And yes, this has been an exceptional bond fund for the past several years of our holding. The fund is 1, 1 and 7 ranking over the past five years and has almost doubled the average return of all M* rated, multisector bond funds.
Something has changed their previous pattern.
We also sold all of LSBDX the first week of January, our 2nd largest bond holding at the time.
This comes from a house that has "overstayed" the bond rally way past what most would have considered to be prudent investing in this sector. Every year for the past 5 years we have been issued warnings about the death of bonds. We also sold our HY bonds, early last fall.
We're 50% equity right now. Keeping in mind that our investments are all post-retirement directed.
The major consideration, as with all sells, is where the money will travel next.
Thank you, scott.
Regards,
Catch

Wonderful time to be in the stock market.....last few years before needing our money for retirement, timing was perfect, 2008 a distant (forgotten) dream(nightmare)

@Old_Skeet
Just a little experiment I'm trying.
The differential to me is the risk premium, so peeling off the the risk premium is an actionable strategy that hopefully acts to lower my overall portfolio risk as well as capture gains.
Much like an equity position provides a higher risk/reward profile than most bonds, certain bonds have a higher risk/reward profile than other bonds. I think of it as an additional quarterly "dividend" for holding a riskier asset. In this case, the "additional dividend" is the performance differential between two bond funds with different risk/reward profiles.
PSHDX has a lower risk/reward profile than PONDX, but occasionally PONDX will under perform PSHDX. This has usually been a brief single quarter occurrence. When this changes and PONDX shows continual under performance I will notice it (since I monitor it) and I will act by possibly reducing or eliminating PONDX.
I'm looking for persistent out performance as a reason to hold riskier assets. I use less risky assets as a guage and as the place where gains are gathered. The less risky asset can then serve as a place to distribute income (in retirement) or a place to turn for dry powder.
To take this one step farther, image a three fund risk sleeve: PCKDX, PONDX and PSHDX. I first identify these funds as part of my PIMCO risk/reward sleeve. I choose funds that move farther out on the risk/reward spectrum and also are top performers in their respective sectors. So long as the higher risk fund out performs the lower risk fund(s) I maintain a position in the higher risk asset. Quarterly I compare the relative performance of PCKDX to PONDX and PSHDX. If the differential are positive I gather the gains by selling into the less risky asset on the sleeve ladder. Last quarter I had to skip a rung (moved gains from PCKDX to PSHDX) as illustrated in the chart below for Q4 2014: