<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - Lifecycle discussion needs context: Milliman</title>
	<description>The increased discussion of lifecycle products in a MySuper context needs to take into account lessons from overseas failures, including target date funds in the US, according to one consultant.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=22000298</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:39:53 +1000</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:39:53 +1000</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Ronald Surz (Target Date Solutions)</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>The benefits of target date funds are diversification and risk control. Both could be better, especially here in the US.
<p>Diversification in the US is inadequate because most TDFs are predominately US stocks and bonds. The current trend is toward lower fees but low fees equate to low diversification since diversifying assets command a high price, namely commodities, real estate, natural resources, foreign stocks and bonds, etc.</p>
<p>Similarly, TDFs are too risky. We learned this lesson in 2008 when the typical 2010 fund lost 25%. Nothing has changed since 2008 so the vulnerable remain exposed to large losses as they near retirement, which is shocking. It's a mistake just waiting to happen (again).</p>
<p>Australia can indeed learn from the mistakes of the US.</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Ronald Surz (Target Date Solutions)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:39:53 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>