I have zero tolerance for risk
That's why I went with a retirement fund that was targeted to 2020, not that far away.
If they can't keep it from losing vast amounts of money during any financial situation, then what use is fund management?
Very few mutual funds try to time the market. Somehow you have been misled about what the purpose of mutual funds are. They are essentially a collection of stocks from (almost always) at least 30 or more different companies, and are therefore far less volatile than a portfolio comprised of the stocks of a few companies, where one or two companies' especially bad performance can ruin the portfolio's overall performance. And a lot less work than trying to pick and manage a stable of individual stocks.
As for the Vanguard Target Retirement 2020 Fund, Investor Shares (VTWNX) I read that it is "holding approximately 55% of assets in stocks and 45% in bonds." and that this allocation shifts more towards bonds as time goes on. It doesn't try to "beat the market" let alone try to market time.
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/VTWNX
As for risk, the risk of running out of money in a long retirement is much greater in portfolios that are mostly in bonds or other fixed income than for portfolios that are mostly equities.
As for why we consider equities an investment and not "a casino", is the vast long-term performance superiority of equities over bonds or other fixed income investments.
For example, since its August 31, 1976 inception, the Vanguard S&P 500 index fund (VFINX) with dividends reinvested and after expenses, has returned 10.72%/year on average (through December 31, 2018). It has increased 74.511 fold during this 42.333 year period (1.1072^42.333 = 74.511). ON AVERAGE, it has doubled every 6.8 years. On average.
https://www.thestreet.com/quote/VFINX.html
This page dramatically shows the difference between the performance of the S&P 500 vs. 3 month T Bills and 10 year T Bonds.
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
As one example, $100 invested at the beginning of 1928 compounded to $382,850 when invested in S&P 500. This despite being pummeled by the 1929 crash, the Great Depression, the 1974-75 crash, the Reagan double-dip recession, the dot-com crash, and the housing bubble crash.
If instead it was invested in 3 month T bills it would have only compounded to $2,063. And if invested it 10 year T bonds, it would have compounded to only $7,308.
I have more on the subject of why equities here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2212402
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1121&pid=1306
In my early investing years in the mid-1980s thru the 1990s, I was mostly in bonds and CDs (which were in the double digit yields in the beginning of the period and in high single digit yields in most of the 1990s). Fortunately, I did have about 25% in equities and that did considerably better than the fixed income stuff.
During the 1980s and 1990s, I used to squawk and holler about national and world events and oh God, the market is going to crash and its rigged and blah blah blah. And whenever the market dipped, I was a "see I told you so" type of idiot. And whenever it went up, I was a "it's a bubble" type of idiot. Meanwhile I noticed that my parents were nonchalant about market dips and just plugged away with a wide range of equity investments (mostly).
I was also fortunate enough to be a member of AAII (the American Association of Individual Investors), and eventually began to read more and more articles from the AAII Journal, and that was my primary way that I learned to invest, and to spend less time gnashing my teeth and wringing my hands. Consequently, I fortunately held on to my equities through both the dot com crash and the housing bubble crashes.
I hope you will consider putting at least 25% into equities. Whatever you decide, I wish you the best.
= new reply since forum marked as read