Recent Life-Cycle Fund Performance
April 2013Life-cycle fund performance from 2006 through 2012 was similar to overall stock market performance
From January 2006 until November 2012, a representative life-cycle fund 1 for a worker targeting retirement in 2020 had an average annual return of 4.6 percent, compared with 4.2 percent for the S&P 500.
During the period the stock market experienced the largest losses, bond returns boosted life-cycle fund performance
The U.S. Bond market returned an average annual return of 6 percent since January 2006; high by recent historical standards. For life-cycle funds, high bond returns mitigated some of the losses that stocks suffered in 2008.
A recovering stock market over the past two years has also contributed to positive life-cycle fund returns, but not at the same rate as the S&P 500
The S&P 500 averaged an annual return of 16.1 percent from January 2009 to November 2011 compared with 11.7 percent for a representative life-cycle fund over the same period.
Life-cycle fund performance since 2006 is substantially better than simulations using historical returns, primarily because of high bond returns. 2 However, if stock returns continue to surpass bond returns, the advantage of the life-cycle fund relative to the S&P 500 may change.
While the life-cycle fund moderated both extreme negative and positive market performance over the selected time period, as always, there is no guarantee that an investor will experience similar results.
Month | Life-cycle fund | S&P 500 |
---|---|---|
January 2006 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
February 2006 | 1.00 | 1.03 |
March 2006 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
April 2006 | 1.03 | 1.04 |
May 2006 | 1.00 | 1.06 |
June 2006 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
July 2006 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
August 2006 | 1.04 | 1.03 |
September 2006 | 1.05 | 1.06 |
October 2006 | 1.08 | 1.08 |
November 2006 | 1.10 | 1.12 |
December 2006 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
January 2007 | 1.13 | 1.16 |
February 2007 | 1.12 | 1.18 |
March 2007 | 1.13 | 1.15 |
April 2007 | 1.17 | 1.17 |
May 2007 | 1.19 | 1.22 |
June 2007 | 1.18 | 1.26 |
July 2007 | 1.16 | 1.24 |
August 2007 | 1.17 | 1.20 |
September 2007 | 1.21 | 1.22 |
October 2007 | 1.23 | 1.26 |
November 2007 | 1.21 | 1.28 |
December 2007 | 1.20 | 1.23 |
January 2008 | 1.15 | 1.22 |
February 2008 | 1.13 | 1.15 |
March 2008 | 1.13 | 1.11 |
April 2008 | 1.17 | 1.11 |
May 2008 | 1.18 | 1.16 |
June 2008 | 1.11 | 1.18 |
July 2008 | 1.10 | 1.08 |
August 2008 | 1.10 | 1.07 |
September 2008 | 1.02 | 1.08 |
October 2008 | 0.90 | 0.99 |
November 2008 | 0.87 | 0.82 |
December 2008 | 0.90 | 0.76 |
January 2009 | 0.84 | 0.77 |
February 2009 | 0.78 | 0.71 |
March 2009 | 0.83 | 0.63 |
April 2009 | 0.89 | 0.69 |
May 2009 | 0.94 | 0.75 |
June 2009 | 0.94 | 0.79 |
July 2009 | 1.00 | 0.80 |
August 2009 | 1.03 | 0.86 |
September 2009 | 1.06 | 0.89 |
October 2009 | 1.05 | 0.92 |
November 2009 | 1.09 | 0.90 |
December 2009 | 1.09 | 0.96 |
January 2010 | 1.07 | 0.98 |
February 2010 | 1.09 | 0.94 |
March 2010 | 1.13 | 0.97 |
April 2010 | 1.14 | 1.03 |
May 2010 | 1.08 | 1.04 |
June 2010 | 1.05 | 0.96 |
July 2010 | 1.11 | 0.91 |
August 2010 | 1.08 | 0.97 |
September 2010 | 1.15 | 0.93 |
October 2010 | 1.18 | 1.01 |
November 2010 | 1.17 | 1.05 |
December 2010 | 1.22 | 1.05 |
January 2011 | 1.24 | 1.12 |
February 2011 | 1.26 | 1.15 |
March 2011 | 1.26 | 1.19 |
April 2011 | 1.30 | 1.19 |
May 2011 | 1.29 | 1.22 |
June 2011 | 1.27 | 1.21 |
July 2011 | 1.27 | 1.19 |
August 2011 | 1.22 | 1.17 |
September 2011 | 1.16 | 1.10 |
October 2011 | 1.24 | 1.02 |
November 2011 | 1.23 | 1.14 |
December 2011 | 1.24 | 1.13 |
January 2012 | 1.28 | 1.15 |
February 2012 | 1.32 | 1.20 |
March 2012 | 1.34 | 1.25 |
April 2012 | 1.33 | 1.29 |
May 2012 | 1.28 | 1.28 |
June 2012 | 1.31 | 1.21 |
July 2012 | 1.33 | 1.26 |
August 2012 | 1.35 | 1.27 |
September 2012 | 1.38 | 1.30 |
October 2012 | 1.37 | 1.34 |
NOTES: All content is simplified for presentation. Please see source material for full details and caveats.
The findings and conclusions presented in this summary are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the agency.
Background
- Life-cycle funds are a popular option for defined contribution pension allocations. 3
- Life-cycle funds are marketed as a one-stop, total diversification option for long-term investors that can reduce the risk of large, negative returns at older ages.
- The extent to which life-cycle funds achieve this goal can have important implications for retirement security. 4
Key Terms
- Life-cycle fund refers to a single fund that invests in several different funds, with the typical asset allocation heavily invested in stocks early in the fund's life and adjusting toward bonds as the fund's target retirement date approaches.
- The S&P 500 represents the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the United States, held in proportion to their size
1 A representative life-cycle fund for a 50-year-old starts out with 50 percent invested in the C fund of the Thrift Savings Plan, 30 percent in the F fund and 20 percent in the I fund with decreasing allocations to the stock funds each month and offsetting increases in the F fund.
2 Shiller, Robert J. 2005. "The Life-Cycle Personal Accounts Proposal for Social Security: A Review." NBER Working Paper No. 11300.
3 Investment Company Institute. 2011. "401(k) Plan Asset Allocation, Account Balances, and Loan Activity in 2010." ICI Research Perspective, Vol. 17, No. 10.
4 Kintzel, Dale. "Portfolio Theory, Life-Cycle Investing, and Retirement Income." Social Security Administration Policy Brief No. 2007-02, October 2007.