Defined Contribution

Index Selection Within TDF Benchmarks Can Make a Big Difference

Index Selection Within TDF Benchmarks Can Make a Big Difference
3 min 37 sec

Selecting benchmarks for target date funds (TDFs) has long been a challenge. Most TDF providers build a custom benchmark for performance comparisons. While this approach is useful in measuring two key variables in TDF performance—manager selection and tactical positioning—it does not capture differences in glidepath design and asset allocation that are the major drivers of relative performance across the TDF peer universe.

To address this issue, Callan pioneered the creation of TDF benchmarks that seek to identify a “consensus” glidepath design for the entire TDF universe so that the asset allocation effect can be captured in manager returns relative to this consensus benchmark. S&P institutionalized this concept with the creation in 2008 of the S&P Target Date Index series, which provides the TDF industry an objective third-party benchmark and which has been adopted by a number of major TDF providers.

However, when reviewing the index construction methodology used by S&P Dow Jones Indices, an interesting fact emerges: S&P (understandably) uses S&P indices for all underlying asset class exposures even when a different “industry standard” index exists, as illustrated in the table below. In looking at performance over the past 12 months, this use of S&P indices has had an outsized impact on results.

Comparing Asset Class Benchmarks

For example, measuring the major asset classes of U.S. equities and fixed income over the past 12 months, the S&P 500 has outperformed the Russell 1000 by 175 basis points, and the S&P U.S. Aggregate Bond Index topped the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index by 106 bps. Even more starkly, the S&P BME Emerging Markets Index crushed the MSCI Emerging Markets Index by 315 bps. The table below shows the performance of the S&P TD Index asset class constituent indices compared to the industry standard indices.

TDF benchmarks

Over the past 12 months, these nuances in index selection within the S&P TD Index series have led to significant performance dispersion relative to the universe of TDF products. Over that time period, the consensus-based S&P TD Index series ranks in the top quartile of the universe of TDFs across most vintages. The magnitude of performance difference from the median observation in the Morningstar TDF peer universe ranges from 102 basis points (retirement income vintage) to 235 basis points (2065 vintage).

A Different Approach to Evaluating TDF Benchmarks

In order to isolate the impact of this “index selection bias” on the overall S&P TD Index series, we recast the S&P TD Indices using the industry-standard asset class indices with the same asset allocation exposures and rebalancing periodicity. On average across 12 vintages (2015-2065 plus Retirement Income) the impact of index selection was 117 basis points over the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2022. This index selection impact represented as much as 25 percentile points in the 2055 vintage (16th percentile for the actual S&P TD 2055 index vs. 41st percentile for the recast version). Complete details on the impact of index selection on returns and peer rankings can be found in the chart below.

TDF benchmarks

Performance of the target date fund universe over the past 12 months has not been very attractive when compared to the S&P TD Index series. Some of that underperformance can be explained by the asset class index selection methodology within the index series. When comparing TDF series’ performance to the S&P glidepath expressed in industry standard indices, a meaningful amount of the universe underperformance is explained by index selection effect. However, there are clearly other elements at play. Active manager underperformance in developed ex-U.S. equity and core/core plus fixed income are likely factors. Tactical asset allocation is also a probable headwind for the universe.

Callan continues to believe that a weighted index series using a universe consensus glidepath is a good yardstick against which to measure TDF performance. Combined with custom glidepath weighted benchmarks and peer group comparisons, plan sponsors can assess the various factors that impact TDF performance on both an absolute and relative basis.


The Callan Institute (the “Institute”) is, and will be, the sole owner and copyright holder of all material prepared or developed by the Institute. No party has the right to reproduce, revise, resell, disseminate externally, disseminate to any affiliate firms, or post on internal websites any part of any material prepared or developed by the Institute, without the Institute’s permission. Institute clients only have the right to utilize such material internally in their business.

Posted by

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Related Posts

How SECURE 2.0 Affects DC Plans

Greg Ungerman
Jana Steele, Patrick Wisdom, and Greg Ungerman explain the changes to DC plans stemming from SECURE 2.0.

DOL Issues Final ESG and Proxy Voting Rule

Kristin Bradbury
Kristin Bradbury and Tom Shingler analyze the DOL's Final Rule on ESG and proxy voting.

Callan Survey Sees First Decline in ESG Incorporation Since 2019

Thomas Shingler
Tom Shingler and Hannah Vieira describe the findings of our 2022 ESG Survey.

IRS Announces Updated DC Plan Limits for 2023

Jamie McAllister
Jamie McAllister provides the details on the new IRS retirement plan limits for 2023.

What DC Plan Sponsors Should Know About Recent Litigation Trends: Part 2

Jana Steele
Jana Steele reviews key themes to emerge from our analysis of DC plan litigation from 2019-2022.

What DC Plan Sponsors Should Know About Recent Litigation Trends: Part 1

Jana Steele
In the first of two blog posts, Jana Steele provides an overview of DC plan litigation from 2019-2022.

IRS Announces Updated Retirement Plan Limits for 2022

Jamie McAllister
Jamie McAllister details the new retirement plan limits for 2022.
Public Markets

Equity Risk Looms Large for Fund Sponsors

Stephen Trousdale
The median fund sponsor in Callan’s database gained 2.7% in the third quarter. Taft-Hartley plans (+3.0%) were the best-performing sponsor by type, ...

Managing Risk While Hunting for Returns

Stephen Trousdale

Callan Family Office

You are now leaving Callan LLC’s website and going to Callan Family Office’s website. Callan Family Office is not affiliated with Callan LLC.  Callan LLC has licensed the Callan® trademark to Callan Family Office for use in providing investment advisory services to ultra-high net worth clients, family foundations, and endowments. Callan Family Office and Callan LLC are independent, unaffiliated investment advisory firms separately registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Callan LLC is not responsible for the services and content on Callan Family Office’s website. Inclusion of this link does not constitute or imply an endorsement, sponsorship, or recommendation by Callan LLC of their website, or its contents, and Callan LLC is not responsible or liable for your use of it. When visiting their website, you are subject to Callan Family Office’s terms of use and privacy policies.