Dodgers
Dodgers clinch fifth consecutive NL West title with 4-2 victory over Giants

What to consider when investing in target date retirement funds

Dear Liz: I have 100% of my 401(k) in a fund called “Target Retirement 2030.” This fund is made of several other funds, so does that qualify as “diversified”?

Answer: It does. Target date funds have become increasingly popular in 401(k) plans because they do the heavy lifting for investors. The funds select asset allocations and grow more conservative in their mix as the retirement date approaches.

Target date funds aren’t perfect, of course. Some are too expensive. The typical target date fund charges about 1%, but Vanguard and Fidelity charge as little as 0.15%.

Another issue is the “glide path” — how quickly the funds get more conservative. There’s no consensus about what the right glide path should be, and investment companies offer a lot of different mixes. Any given glide path may be too steep for some people and too shallow for others, depending on their circumstances. As an investor, you can compensate for that by choosing funds dated later or earlier than your targeted retirement date. If the 2030 fund gets too conservative too fast for your taste, for example, you could choose the 2040 fund instead.

Despite the downsides, you’re likely to be much better off in a target date fund than you are in some of the other options. Too often novice investors take too much or too little risk without realizing it. They may have all of their money in “safe” low-return options, which means they’re losing ground to inflation. Or they may have all their money in stocks, including their own company’s stock, and would be unprepared for a downturn wiping out a good chunk of their portfolio’s value.

Even those who know they should diversify often do it wrong by randomly distributing their contributions across their investment options. If you don’t know what you’re doing, or you simply prefer investing professionals to take charge, target date funds are a good way to go.

Life insurance for people over 65

Dear Liz: Can you give us some direction on how to get good term life insurance when you’re over 65? We had 25-year term policies and the premiums skyrocketed, so we are looking. Will getting a group plan (such as the one offered by AARP) help me? I've had two heart valve surgeries and knee and hip surgeries but don't drink or smoke. We are concerned that we may not have enough saved. My wife is still working, but I have not been able to find employment since I lost my job due to a downsizing. 

Answer: The options available to you are likely to be limited or expensive or both.

The life insurance program offered through AARP provides up to $100,000 in term coverage that ends at age 80 or $50,000 in permanent life insurance that can extend through your life. There’s no medical exam but you do have to provide health information.

Life insurance with higher limits may be available but you’re not going to like the price, said Delia Fernandez, a fee-only Certified Financial Planner in Los Alamitos. Life insurance after 65 is usually expensive in any case, but those heart valve surgeries could make it much more so, depending on how long ago you had them, how successful they were and what medications you’re on.

Fernandez recommends consulting with an independent life insurance agent so you can get a better idea of what’s available and what it will cost. Once you have an idea of the premiums, you’ll have to weigh whether you’d be better off investing that money instead. 

As a general rule, you don’t want to be worth more dead than alive — and not just because you don’t want your spouse contemplating ways to collect. More importantly, insurance coverage that exceeds your income-generating capacity signals that you may be spending too much for insurance and need to consider alternatives.

30-year versus 15-year mortgage 

Dear Liz: Regarding the 57-year-old woman who wanted to refinance to a 15-year mortgage, why didn’t you present the benefits of keeping the low interest and low payments available on a 30-year loan and investing the difference? In 30 years the house would be paid off, but there would also be a pot of cash available if the difference were invested in a diverse portfolio. Too many people make the emotional decision that a paid-off house is necessary in retirement, then they end up having no cash when they might need it.

Answer: You’re right that when cash is tight, keeping a mortgage can make sense. Given her teacher’s pension, other savings and desire to pay off the home faster, the 15-year loan is a reasonable option. The faster payoff schedule also means that she can turn around and tap more of the equity in the unlikely event she needs a reverse mortgage later in life.

Liz Weston, certified financial planner, is a personal finance columnist for NerdWallet. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the "Contact" form at asklizweston.com. Distributed by No More Red Inc.

Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World
68°