Less Than 7 Percent of US Active Equity Funds Have Beat the Market Past Decade

Re:Less Than 7 Percent of US Active Equity Funds Have Beat t... by dehrmann on Saturday April 15, 2023 @06:41PM (#35585364)

If by "lifecycle funds" you mean target date funds, setting your allocation to 100% for your retirement year is the most reasonable strategy you can do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Less Than 7 Percent of US Active Equity Funds Have Beat t... by havermeyer on Saturday April 15, 2023 @06:49PM (#35585431)

FYI you may be better off using an index fund and then rebalancing into bonds or other fixed income options closer to retirement. See this article, for example. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/one-of-the-biggest-retiremen...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Less Than 7 Percent of US Active Equity Funds Have Beat t... by jrochkind1 on Saturday April 15, 2023 @09:16PM (#35586351)

But isn't that what the "lifecycle" target date funds do? The argument is that you will know the schedule you want to rebalance on for your custom personal needs, better than the generic target-date "lifecycle" fund will?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Less Than 7 Percent of US Active Equity Funds Have Beat t... by havermeyer on Monday April 24, 2023 @11:57AM (#35689264)

Sorry, I didn't check comments for a while. The target date funds tend to have higher management fees and yes, worse composition of stocks versus bonds compared to holding a mix yourself, IMO, based on your goals.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Less Than 7 Percent of US Active Equity Funds Have Beat t... by foobiekr on Saturday April 15, 2023 @10:34PM (#35586726)

But never, ever in a taxable account.

[ Parent | on HN ]