While lay-investors can be forgiven for overlooking the problems of TDFs, professional advisors (as well as plan sponsors) who act as plan fiduciaries can't afford that luxury. This is like the difference between an out-of-towner and a local resident when it comes to driving from point A to point B. An out-of-towner might spend more time in the car by using well-marked main roads. This same path would frustrate the local resident, who can more quickly get to the destination by using shortcuts unfamiliar to the out-of-towner.

Similarly, a lay-investor might be more comfortable with using a TDF because it represents a reasonable approximation of that lay-investor's need. It's not perfect, but it's close enough. A lay-investor sees a TDF as a glass half full.

On the other hand, a professional advisor is more likely to see a TDF as a glass half empty. Its imperfection is glaring, downright cringe worthy – fingernails on the chalkboard cringe worthy. The professional is trained to be exacting, and the mere approximation offered by TDFs simply doesn't rise to the standard. The professional sees the unique profile of a TDF as a series of cascading TRFs over time. Its the dissonance between the fund's temporal risk profile and the investor's time-based risk profile that so agitates the financial professional. Investors don't look for this harmony. Professionals do.

This represents but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the professionals' issues regarding TDFs. When interviewed, an alarming number expressed concern about the lack of consistency with TDFs. This goes far beyond the ad nauseum "to" vs. "through" glide path debate. It, instead, focuses on the very making of the portfolios created within TDFs. The lack of consistency stretches from the underlying securities (are they individual stocks and bonds or are they mutual funds?) to the asset allocation of similarly dated TDFs. Lack of consistency makes it almost impossible to genuinely compare TDFs with the same target dates. How can one reasonably expect a professional to assess a TDF if no reliable peer group exists?

As one professional told me, with TRFs, "you know what you get." The same cannot be said TDFs. And, yet, investors are trusting professionals to "know what they are getting." To date, TDFs have put professional advisors in an uncomfortable and unfair position. When will the mutual fund industry recognize this? Better yet, when will they do something about it?