Morningstar to Launch Target-Date Ratings, Research

Morningstar, Inc., said it will offer ratings and in-depth research reports for target-date fund series.

A press release said that based on the aggregate scores of five components (with 100 points being the maximum), each target-date fund series earns one of five ratings: Top, Above Average, Average, Below Average, or Bottom. Morningstar will review and update the ratings annually.

The five components, according to the release, are:

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

1. people

  • examines the fund series’ management team and how well Morningstar thinks they’ll serve shareholders over the long term, and incorporates factors including management tenure, past performance, and research support;
  • considers the criteria used to determine fund managers’ compensation and whether or not the incentive is to deliver strong long-term returns to shareholders; also assesses the manager’s financial commitment to the fund through direct ownership of shares;
  • assesses the fund board overseeing the target-date series by determining if the fund board is sufficiently independent of the fund adviser and whether or not the board has consistently acted in shareholders’ best interest.

2. parent

  • evaluates whether fund companies consistently put shareholders’ interests first;
  • examines how well fund companies explain how their target-date funds operate to current or potential shareholders in their publicly available materials;
  • notes any regulatory issues at the fund company within recent years.

 

3. performance—assesses how well a series of target-date funds has performed historically relative to its peers on a risk-adjusted basis, taking into account the relatively short performance histories of many series, and assigns a score to each target-date fund series based on a comparison to the universe average.

 

4. portfolio—calculates a weighted average Morningstar Rating for Funds (the “star rating”) for the underlying holdings in the series to determine the investment quality of the funds.

 

5. price

  • assesses the actual costs investors pay by selecting the lowest-cost share class that has at least 10% of the overall assets in the target-date fund series. The net prospectus expense ratios for that share class are then averaged across all of the funds in the series;
  • assigns score to each target-date fund series based on a comparison to the universe average.

Each research report will contain detailed commentary by a Morningstar fund analyst on all aspects of the scoring, as well as additional analysis of non-scored aspects of target-date funds’ structure and components, Morningstar said.

Reports about participant misconceptions of target-date funds (see “Workers Might Have Wrong Idea about Target-Date Funds) as well as the wide range of equity allocations for different funds (see “Target-Date Funds Display Wide Range in Equity Allocations“) has led the U.S. Senate (see “Senate Committee Takes Aim at Target-Date Funds) and the SEC and DoL (see “More Details Released about Target-Date Hearing) to take a more intense look at them.

Milberg Announces Puerto Rican Bank ERISA Probe

The Milberg law firm announced an investigation into possible violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by Popular Inc. U.S.A., a San Juan, Puerto Rico-based financial services firm.

The investigation could potentially lead to filing a stock- drop lawsuit. A Milberg news release said the firm is investigating possible violations in the handling of the Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(K) Savings & Investment Plan by keeping company stock as a 401(k) plan investment option when it was no longer prudent to do so, and by not fully disclosing its true financial condition to participants.

Specifically, the news announcement said, the firm is looking into whether the company disclosed:

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

  • that its deferred tax assets related to its U.S. operations were materially overstated;
  • that the company was experiencing increasing loan losses in Puerto Rico and the U.S. construction sectors;
  • that the quality of the company’s remaining mortgage-related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and other assets were deteriorating and were materially overstated;
  • that the company was experiencing a higher percentage of non-performing loans;
  • that the company’s new loan originations were declining and as a result the company would soon be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to cut or eliminate its dividend to shareholders.

«