{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022748815165876776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reexamining “To vs. Through”: What New Research Tells Us about an Old Debate

“To vs. through” has become shorthand for whether a target-date fund glide path evolves only until the target date or continues to reduce the risk level beyond the target date. This article presents a persuasive common sense case for the to approach, based on an understanding of human capital, which is depleted at retirement, and retirement risk, which is at its highest level the day retirement begins. New research adds empirical force to the argument that a flat post-retirement glide path is superior to a glide path that continues to de-risk beyond the retirement date. The article’s research attempts to create a unified framework for exploring a wide range of lifecycle investing questions and is ultimately able to produce recommendations regarding equity levels, savings rates, and retirement withdrawal strategies. It builds on a substantial body of academic work and seeks to incorporate investor preferences, validated against real-world income and spending data.