MONEY working in retirement

This Is the Toughest Threat to Boomers’ Retirement Plans

Most employers say they support older workers. But boomers don't see it, and age discrimination cases are on the rise.

As the oldest boomers begin to turn 70 in just over a year, an important workplace battleground already has been well defined: how to accommodate aging but productive workers who show few signs of calling it quits.

Millions of older workers want to stay on the job well past 65 or 68. Some are woefully under saved or need to keep their health insurance and must work; others cling to the identity their job gives them or see work as a way to remain vibrant and engaged. At some level, almost all of them worry about being pushed out.

Those worries are rooted in anecdotal evidence of workers past 50 being downsized out of jobs, but also in hard statistics. Age discrimination claims have been on the rise since 1997, when 15,785 reports were filed. Last year, 21,396 claims were recorded. Not every lawsuit is valid. But official claims represent only a fraction of incidents where older workers get pushed out, lawyers say.

One in five workers between 45 and 74 say they have been turned down for a job because of age, AARP reports. About one in 10 say they were passed up for a promotion, laid off or denied access to career development because of their age. Even those not held back professionally because of age may experience something called microaggressions, which are brief and frequent indignities launched their direction. Terms like “geezer” and “gramps” in the context of a work function “affect older workers” and erode self-esteem, write researchers at the Sloan Center.

These are serious issues in the context of a workforce where many don’t ever plan to retire. Some 65% of boomers plan to work past age 65, according new research from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. Some 52% plan to keep working at least part-time after they retire. In a positive sign, 88% of employers say they support those who want to stay on the job past 65.

But talk is cheap, many boomers might say. In the Transamerica survey, just 73% of boomers said their employer supports working past 65. One way this skepticism seems justified: only 48% of employers say they have practices in place to enable older workers to shift from full-time to part-time work, and just 37% say they enable shifting to a new position that may be less stressful. Boomers say the numbers are even more dismal. Only 21% say their employer will enable them to shift to part-time work, and just 12% say their employer will facilitate a move to a position that is less stressful.

These findings seem at odds with employers’ general perceptions about how effective older workers are. According to the survey:

  • 87% believe their older workers are a valuable resource for training and mentoring
  • 86% believe their older workers are an important source of institutional knowledge
  • 82% believe their older workers bring more knowledge, wisdom, and life experience
  • Just 4% believe their older workers are less productive than their younger counterparts

The reality is that most of us will work longer. The Society of Actuaries recently updated its mortality tables and concluded that, for the first time, a newborn is expected to live past 90 and a 65-year-old today should make it to 86 (men) or 88 (women). The longevity revolution is changing everything about the way we approach retirement.

Employers need to embrace an older workforce by creating programs that let them phase into retirement while keeping some income and their healthcare, by offering better financial education and planning services, and by declaring an age-friendly atmosphere as part of their commitment to diversity.

For their part, employees must take steps to remain employable. Most are staying healthy (65%); many are focused on performing well (54%), and a good number are keeping job skills up to date (41%), Transamerica found. But painfully few are keeping up their professional network (16%), staying current on the job market (14%) or going back to school for retraining (5%). Both sides, it seems, could do better.

Read next: How Your Earnings Record Affects Your Social Security

MONEY retirement income

Junk Bond Selloff Is a Warning for Retirees Who Reached for Yield

Risky assets have paid off well the past few years. But tremors in the junk bond market signal time for a gut check.

In July, Federal Reserve Chief Janet Yellen warned of the “stretched” values of junk bonds. Few seemed to care, and among the unconcerned were millions of retirees who had reached for these bonds’ higher yields in order to maintain their lifestyle. Now, a reckoning may be at hand.

Yellen’s mid-summer warning on asset prices was reminiscent of the former Fed chief Alan Greenspan’s “irrational exuberance” comment regarding stock prices in 1996. Few listened then, either. It turns out that the Greenspan warning was way early. But the dotcom collapse hit later with devastating results.

Yellen’s remarks may be timelier. High-risk, high-yield corporate bond prices have been falling amid the strongest selling in 18 months. Since June, investors have pulled $22 billion out of the market and prices have dropped 8%. The pace of the decline has quickened since October.

The junk bond selloff began in the energy sector, where oil prices recently hitting a five-year low set off alarms about the future profits—and ability to make bond payments—of some energy companies. In the past month, the selling has spread throughout the junk-bond universe, as mutual fund managers have had to sell to meet redemptions and as worries about further losses in a possibly stalling global economy have gathered steam.

The broad decline means that junk bond investors have little or no gain to show for the risks they have been taking this year. Investors may have collected generous interest payments, and so not really felt the sting of the selloff. But the value of their bonds has fallen from, say, $1,000 to $920. The risk is that prices fall further and, in a period of global economic weakness, that issuers default on their interest payments.

Retirees have been reaching for yield in junk bonds and other relatively risky assets since the financial crisis, which presumably is partly what prompted Yellen’s warning last summer. It’s hard to place blame with retirees. The 10-year Treasury bond yield fell below 2% for a while and remains deeply depressed by historical standards. By stepping up to the higher risks of junk bonds, retirees could get 5% or more and live like it was 10 years ago. Many also flocked to dividend-paying stocks.

So far, taking these risks has generally worked out. Junk bonds returned 7.44% last year and 15.8% in 2012, according to Barclays, as reported in The Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, stocks have been on a tear. But the backup in junk bond prices this fall should serve as a warning: Companies that pay a high yield on their bonds—and many that pay a fat stock dividend—do so because they are at greater risk of defaulting or going bust. That’s the downside of reaching for yield, and it doesn’t go away even in a diversified mutual fund.

 

MONEY retirement income

Why Workers Undervalue Traditional Pension Plans

Gold egg in nest in dark
Simon Katzer—Getty Images

Lifetime income is the hottest button in the retirement industry. So why do workers prefer a 401(k) to a traditional pension?

Despite many drawbacks, the 401(k) plan is our most prized employee benefit other than health care, new research shows. More than half of workers value this savings plan even above a traditional pension that guarantees income for life.

Some 61% of workers with at least $10,000 in investments say that, after health care, an employer-sponsored savings plan is their most important benefit, according to a Wells Fargo/Gallup Investor poll. This is followed by 23% of workers naming paid time off, 5% naming life insurance, and 4% naming stock options. Some 52% say they prefer a 401(k) plan to a traditional pension.

These findings come as new flaws in our 401(k)-based retirement system surface on a regular basis. Plans are still riddled with expenses and hidden fees, though in general expenses have been going down. Too many workers don’t contribute enough and lose out by borrowing from their plans or taking early distributions. Most people don’t know how to make a lump sum last through 20 or 30 years of retirement. And the common rule of withdrawing 4% a year is an imperfect strategy.

The biggest flaw of all may be that most 401(k) plans do not provide a guaranteed lifetime income stream. This issue has gotten loads of attention since the financial crisis, which laid waste to the dreams of millions of folks that had planned to retire at just the wrong moment. Many were forced to sell shares when the market was hitting bottom and suffered permanent, devastating losses.

Policymakers are now feverishly looking for seamless and cost-effective ways for retirees to convert part of their 401(k) plan to an insurance product like an immediate annuity, which would provide guaranteed lifetime income in addition to Social Security and give retirees a stable base to meet monthly expenses for as long as they live. Such a conversion feature would fill the income hole left by employers that have been all but eliminating traditional pensions since the 1980s.

With growing acknowledgement that lifetime income is critical, and largely missing from most workers’ plans, it seems odd that so many workers would value a 401(k) over a traditional pension. This may be because guaranteed income doesn’t seem so important while you are still at work or, as has lately been the case, the stock market is rising at a rapid pace. It may also be that the 401(k) is the only savings plan many young workers have ever known, and they value having control over their assets.

Seven in 10 workers have access to a 401(k) plan and 96% of those contribute regularly, the poll found. Some 86% enjoy an employer match and 81% say the match is very important in helping to save for retirement. The 401(k) is now so ingrained that 77% in the poll favor automatic enrollment and 66% favor automatic escalation of contributions. Four in 10 even want their employer to make age-appropriate investments for them, which speaks to the soaring popularity of automatically adjusting target-date mutual funds.

Read next: How Your Earnings Record Affects Your Social Security

MONEY Debt

Why Paying Off Those Holiday Gifts May Be Harder Than You Think

man with ball & chain attached to leg
Ingram Publishing—Alamy

More than a third of Americans have already gone into debt for the holidays, and many will find it more difficult to repay than they imagine.

As the holidays fast approach, 38% of Americans have already gone into debt for gifts, new research shows. Many will be shocked at how long it takes for them to pay all they owe.

In general, consumers do not expect their seasonal spending to set them back for long. More than half say they will pay for the spending spree by the end of January, and three quarters expect to be free from holiday debt by the end of March, according to a survey from CreditCards.com.

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans with debt say they will never be debt free.Just 5% worry that they will still be paying for this year’s holidays a year from now. That seems optimistic. Some 7% of consumers entered this season with unpaid debts from last year, according to a blog from the Center for Retirement for Retirement Research. (The figures were even higher in previous years.)

The survey further reveals how misplaced this optimism may be. Nearly one in five Americans with debt say they will never be debt free. That is double the rate of those who felt the same way in a survey last May. So as the economy has turned up in recent months, it seems debt spending has followed suit—accompanied by escalating angst over the debt hole consumers may be digging.

The typical consumer expects to be completely debt free, including a fully paid mortgage, by age 53, the survey found. Yet nearly half worry they will still owe at age 61, and 18% believe they will have debts when they die.

On cue, millennials are the most optimistic generation: Just 16% of those aged 18 to 29 with debt say they will never get out of debt, compared with 31% of those aged 65 and older and 22% of those between the ages of 50 and 64. Meanwhile, high-income households (those earning more than $75,000 a year) are only slightly more optimistic about paying off holiday debt than low-income households, suggesting that everyone is letting go a bit and testing the limits of their earning power.

America’s debt culture is a big contributor to the retirement savings crisis. Other studies show an increasing debt burden on seniors. Those past the age of 60 saw their average debt jump between 2005 and 2014, TransUnion reported. More seniors are carrying student debt all the way into retirement, a government report found.

Today’s spending may have far reaching consequences. To keep spending under control this season, create a holiday budget and stick to it. Track everything you spend. Pay off your highest interest rate cards first and consider transferring balances to a lower rate card. You might be able to negotiate a lower rate if you call your credit card company.

Read more on managing credit and debt in Money 101:
How Do I Get Rid of My Credit Card Debt?
Which Debts Should I Pay Off First?
How Can I Improve My Credit Score?

MONEY 401(k)s

401(k)s Are Still a Problem, But They’re Getting Better

Employers are providing more and better choices and driving down fees as they come to grips with their place in the retirement equation.

As 401(k) plans have emerged as most people’s primary retirement savings account, the employers who sponsor these plans generally have beefed up investment choices and driven down fees, new research shows. Small plans remain the most inefficient by a wide margin.

The typical 401(k) plan has 25 investment options, up from 20 in 2006, and the average worker in a plan has annual plan costs equal to 0.53% of assets, down from 0.65% of assets in 2009, according to a study from BrightScope and the Investment Company Institute.

These findings suggest that after years of dumping traditional pensions and trying to avoid the role of retirement planner for workers, companies have on some level accepted their critical place in the retirement security equation. Change has come slowly. But the BrightScope/ICI study shows positive momentum in key areas.

Expense ratios are down by every measure: total plan cost, average participant cost, and average cost of invested dollars. Volumes of research show that costs are a key variable in long-term rates of return. That is why low-cost index funds, most often championed by Vanguard’s John Bogle, have become investor favorites and 401(k) plan staples. These funds account for a quarter of all 401(k) plan assets, the study shows.

Meanwhile, investment options have increased in a way that makes sense. The broadened choice is largely the result of adding target-date mutual funds, possibly the most innovative financial product for individuals in the past 20 years. These are one-stop investments that provide diversification and automatically shift to a more conservative asset allocation as you near retirement. Nearly 70% of plans now offer them, up from less than 30% in 2006, and in many plans they are the default option.

For those in small plans, though, the news isn’t so good. Expenses remain high: In plans with fewer than $1 million in assets, the average expense ratio for domestic equity mutual funds is 0.95%, versus 0.48% for plans with more than $1 billion in assets. Small plans are also far less likely to include an employer matching contribution: Just 75% of plans with fewer than $10 million in assets provide a match, vs. 97% of plans with more than $100 million in assets. Small plans are also less likely to automatically enroll new employees.

The most common match is 50 cents on the dollar up to 6% of annual pay, followed closely by a dollar-for-dollar match on up to 6% of pay.

One area with clear room for improvement is the default contribution rate in plans that automatically enroll new hires. Nearly 60% of these plans set the rate at just 3% of pay and 14% set it at 2% of pay. Only 12% had a default contribution rate of at least 5% of pay. Most advisers say you should contribute at least enough to get the full company match, which is often 6% of pay, and contribute even more if possible. Your savings goal, including the company match, should be 10% to 15% of pay.

The venerable 401(k) still has many problems as a primary retirement savings vehicle. Too many people don’t contribute enough, don’t diversify, and don’t repay loans from the plans; too many take early distributions and try to time the market. 401(k) plans don’t readily provide guaranteed retirement income, though that is changing, and because you don’t know how long you’ll live you have to err on the conservative side and save like crazy.

But we are headed the right direction, which is good, because for better or worse the 401(k) is how America saves.

Get answers to your 401(k) questions in the Ultimate Retirement Guide:
How Should I Invest My 401(k)?
Which Is Better for Me, Roth or Regular?
What If I Need My 401(k) Money Before I Retire?

 

MONEY Savings

Why a New Year’s Resolution to Save More May Actually Work

piggy bank in confetti
Benne Ochs—Getty Images

The economy is up, and New Year's Resolutions are on the decline. Too bad, because making a financial commitment can really help you reach your goals.

Most New Year’s resolutions are pointless. Only one in 10 people stick with them for a year, and many folks don’t last much more than a month. But as 2015 approaches, you might consider a financial New Year’s resolution anyway. Those who resolve to improve their money behavior at the start of the year get ahead at a faster rate than those who do not, new research shows.

Among those who made a financial resolution last year, 51% report feeling better about their money now, according to a new survey from Fidelity Investments. By contrast, only 38% of those who did not make a money resolution said they felt better.

Meanwhile, New Year’s financial resolutions seem to be easier to stay with: 42% find it easier to pay down debt and save more for retirement than, say, lose weight or give up smoking. Among those who made a financial resolution last year, 29% reached their goal and 73% got at least half way there, Fidelity found. Only 12% of resolutions having to do with things like fitness and health do not end in failure, other research shows.

So it is discouraging to note that the rate of people considering a New Year’s financial resolution is on the decline: just 31% plan to make one this year, down from 43% last year. A fall financial pulse survey from Charles Schwab is slightly more encouraging: 36% say they want to get their finances in order and that working with a financial planner would most improve their life. But a bigger share say they are most concerned with losing weight (37%) and would like to work with a trainer (38%). Topping the financial resolutions list in the Fidelity survey, as is the case nearly every year, are saving more (55%), paying off debt (20%) and spending less (17%)—all of which are closely connected. The median savings goal is an additional $200 a month.

Why are financial resolutions on the decline? The stock market has been hitting record highs, unemployment has dipped below 6% and the economy is growing at its fastest pace in years. So the urgency to tighten our belts felt during the Great Recession and immediate aftermath may be lifting.

But no matter how much the economic climate has improved, Americans remain woefully under saved for retirement and paying off debt is almost always a smart strategy. In the Schwab survey, 53% said if they were given an unexpected gift this year their top choice would be cash to pay down credit cards. One key to sticking to your New Year’s pledge: track progress and check in often. Two-thirds of those who set a goal find progress to be motivating, Fidelity found. That’s true whether you are trying to lose 20 pounds or save $20 a week.

More on saving and budgeting from Money 101:

How can I make it easier to save?

How do I set a budget I can stick to?

Should I save or pay off debt?

MONEY 401(k)s

This New Retirement Income Solution May Be Headed for Your 401(k)

Target-date mutual funds in 401(k)s can now add an annuity feature, which will provide lifetime income in retirement.

The stunningly popular target-date mutual fund is getting a facelift that promises to cement it as the premier one-stop retirement plan. By adding an automatic lifetime income component, these funds may now take you from cradle to grave.

Last month the federal government blessed new guidelines, on the heels of initial guidance last summer, which together allow savers to seamlessly convert 401(k) assets into guaranteed lifetime income. Specifically, the IRS and the Treasury Department will allow target-date mutual funds in 401(k) plans to invest in immediate or deferred fixed annuities. Plan sponsors can choose to make these target-date funds the default option, meaning workers would have to opt out if they preferred other investments.

Target-date funds are widely considered one of the most innovative investment products of the past 20 years. They automatically shift to a more conservative asset allocation as you age, starting with around 90% stocks when you are young and moving to around 50% stocks at age 65. By simplifying diversification and asset allocation, target-date funds have become 401(k) stalwarts.

They have broad appeal and are a big factor in the rising participation rate of workers, and of younger workers in particular. Nearly half of all 401(k) contributions go into target-date funds, a figure that will hit 63% by 2018, Cerulli Associates projects. By then, Vanguard estimates that 58% of its plan participants and 80% of new plan entrants will be entirely in target-date funds. In all, these funds hold about $1 trillion.

The annuity feature stands to make them even more popular by closing an important loop in the retirement equation. Now, at age 65 or so, a worker may retire with a portion of their 401(k) automatically positioned to kick off monthly income with no threat of running out of money. In simple terms, a target-date fund that has moved from stocks to bonds as you near retirement may now move from bonds to fixed annuities at retirement, easing concerns about outliving your money and being able to meet fixed expenses.

Policymakers have been working towards this kind of solution for the past several years, but have hit a variety of stumbling blocks, including tax and eligibility issues and others having to do with a plan sponsor’s liability for any guarantees or promises it makes through its 401(k) investment options. There are still implementation problems to be worked out, so few plans are likely to add annuities right away. But the new federal guidelines clarify the rules for employers and pave the way for broader acceptance of both immediate and deferred fixed annuities in 401(k) plans. And a guaranteed lifetime income stream is something that workers are clearly looking for in retirement.

More on 401(k)s from Money’s Ultimate Retirement Guide:

Why is a 401(k) such a good deal?

How should I invest in my 401(k)?

What if I need my 401(k) money before I retire?

Read next: Flunking Retirement Readiness, and What to Do About It

MONEY retirement income

The Powerful (and Expensive) Allure of Guaranteed Retirement Income

141203_RET_Guaranteed
D. Hurst—Alamy

Workers may never regain their appetite for measured risk in the wake of the Great Recession, new research shows.

People have always loved a sure thing. But certainty has commanded a higher premium since the Great Recession. Five years into a recovery—and with stocks having tripled from the bottom—workers overwhelmingly say they prefer investments with a guarantee to those with higher growth potential and the possibility of losing value, new research shows.

Such is the lasting impact of a dramatic market downdraft. The S&P 500 plunged 53% in 2007-2009, among the sharpest declines in history. Housing collapsed as well. Yet the S&P 500 long ago regained all the ground it had lost. Housing has been recovering as well.

Still, in an Allianz poll of workers aged 18 to 55, 78% said they preferred lower certain returns than higher returns with risk. Specifically, they chose a hypothetical product with a 4% annual return and no risk of losing money over a product with an 8% annual return and the risk of losing money in a down market. Guarantees make retirees happy.

This reluctance to embrace risk, or at least the urge to dial it way back, may be appropriate for those on the cusp of retirement. But for the vast majority of workers, reaching retirement security without the superior long-term return of stocks would prove a tall order. Asked what would prevent them from putting new cash into a retirement savings account, 40% cited fear of market uncertainty and another 22% cited today’s low interest rates, suggesting that fixed income is the preferred investment of most workers. Here’s what workers would do with new cash, according to Allianz:

  • 39% would invest in a product that caps gains at 10% and limits losses to 10%.
  • 19% would invest in a product with 3% growth potential and no risk of loss.
  • 19% would invest in a savings account earning little or no interest.
  • 12% would hold their extra cash and wait for the market to correct before investing.
  • 11% would invest in a product with high growth potential and no protection from loss.

These results jibe with other findings in the poll, including the top two concerns of pre-retirees: fear of not being able to cover day-to-day expenses and outliving their money. These fears drive them to favor low-risk investments. One product line gaining favor is annuities. Some 41% in the poll said purchasing such an insurance product, locking in guaranteed lifetime income, was one of the smartest things they could do when they are five to 10 years away from retiring.

Lifetime income has become a hot topic. With the erosion of traditional pensions, Social Security is the only sure thing that most of today’s workers have in terms of a reliable income stream that will never run out. Against this backdrop, individuals have been more open to annuities and policymakers, asset managers and financial planners have been searching for ways to build annuities into employer-sponsored defined-contribution plans.

Doing so would address what may be our biggest need in the post defined-benefits world and one that workers want badly enough to forgo the stock market’s better long-run track record.

More from Money’s Ultimate Retirement Guide:

How do I know if buying an annuity is right for me?

What annuity payout options do I have?

How can I get rid of an annuity I no longer want?

MONEY Kids and Money

Trouble Talking to Kids About Money? Try This Book Instead

parents trying to talk to teenage daughter
Getty Images/Altrendo

A new book hopes to impart important money lessons in just a few words and pictures

Talking to your kids about money is never easy. We have so many financial taboos and insecurities that many parents would rather skip it—just like their parents likely did with them. If that sounds like you, maybe a new easy-to-digest money guide written for teens can be part of your answer.

As a parent, you have to do something. Kids today will come of age and ultimately retire in a vastly less secure financial world. Their keys to long-term success will have little to do with the traditional pensions and Social Security benefits that may be a big part of your own retirement calculus. For them, saving early and building their own safety net is the only sure solution.

Most parents get that. After all, adults have seen first-hand the long-running switch from defined benefit to defined contribution plans that took flight in the 1980s. Yet only in the last 15 years have we really begun to grasp how much this change has undermined retirement security. Now, more parents are having the money talk with their kids. Still, many say they find it easier to talk about sex or drugs than finances.

The big challenge of our day, as it relates to the financial security of young people, is getting them thinking about their financial future now while they have 40 or 50 years to let their savings compound. But saving is only one piece of the puzzle. Young people need to protect their identity and their credit score—two relatively recent considerations. Many of them are also committed to making a difference through giving, which is an uplifting trait of younger generations. Yet they are prone to scams and don’t know how to vet a charity.

In OMG: The Official Money Guide for Teenagers, authors Susan and Michael Beacham tackle these and other basics in a breezy, colorful, cleverly illustrated booklet meant to hold a teen’s attention. The whole thing can be read in an hour. I’m not convinced the YouTube generation will latch on to any written material on this subject. And while the authors do a nice job of keeping things simple, they just can’t avoid eye-glazing terms like “liquidity” and “principal.”

But they make a solid effort to hold a teen’s interest through a handful of “awkward money moments,” which illustrate how poor money management can lead to embarrassing outcomes like their debit card being declined in front of friends or having to wear last year’s team uniform because they spent all their money at the mall. “Kids are very social and money is a big part of that social experience,” says Susan Beacham. “No teen wants to feel awkward, which is why we chose this word. If they read nothing else but these segments they will be ahead of the game.”

The Beachams are co-founders of Money Savvy Generation, a youth financial education website. They have a long history in personal finance and created the Money Savvy Pig, a bank with separate compartments for saving, spending, donating, and investing. In OMG, they tackle budgets, saving, investing, plastic, identity theft, giving, and insurance.

A new money guide for young people seems to pop up every few years. So it’s not like this hasn’t been tried before. Earlier titles include Money Sense for Kids from Barron’s and The Everything Kids Money Book by Brette McWhorter Sember. But most often this subject is geared at parents, offering ways to teach their kids about money. Dave Ramsey’s Smart Money Smart Kids came out last spring and due out early next year is The Opposite of Spoiled: Raising Kids Who are Grounded, Generous and Smart About Money from New York Times personal finance columnist Ron Lieber.

In a nod to how tough it can be to get teens to read a book about money, Beacham suggests a parent or grandparent ask them to read OMG, and offer them an incentive like a gift card after completing the chapter on “ways to pay” or a cash bonus after reading the chapter on budgets and setting one up. “Make reading the book a bit like a treasure hunt,” she says. That just might make having the money talk easier too.

 

 

 

MONEY IRAs

Closing the Loophole Behind $10 Million Tax-Free Retirement Accounts

Fewer than 1,100 of 43 million IRA owners have what may be called outsized balances, and the IRS wants to rein them in.

The former presidential hopeful Mitt Romney lit a fuse three years ago when he disclosed his IRA was valued at as much as $102 million. Now the federal government wants to keep the issue from exploding, and is weighing actions that would prevent rich people from accumulating so much in a tax-advantaged account.

Last week, the General Accounting Office recommended that the IRS either restrict the types of investments held in IRAs or set a ceiling for IRA account balances. The idea is to give all taxpayers equal ability to save while making certain the amounts put away tax-advantaged do not go beyond what is generally regarded as sufficient savings to secure a comfortable retirement.

Romney’s campaign disclosure caught almost everyone by surprise. How could one person build such a large IRA balance when yearly allowable contributions — up to $5,500 a year in 2014 and $6,500 if you’re age 50 or older — have always been comparatively low? The answer lies in the types of investments he and privileged others were able to put in their IRA: extremely low-priced and often non-public securities that later soared in value.

One such security might be the shares of a privately owned business. These can reasonably be expected to take flight if the business does well and later goes public. That produces a wealth of tax-advantaged savings to company founders, investment bankers and venture capitalists. But these gains are not generally available to any other investor. Once an asset is inside an IRA there is no limit to how valuable it may become and still remain in the tax-advantaged account.

Restricting eligible IRA holdings to publicly available securities is one way to level the field and rein in the accumulation of tax-advantaged wealth. Another way is to cap IRA balances at, say, $5 million and require IRA holders to take an immediate taxable distribution anytime their combined IRA holdings exceed that threshold.

The GAO found that the federal government stands to forego $17 billion of 2014 tax revenue through the IRA contributions of individuals. That’s not a high price to pay for added retirement security for the masses. The problem is that under current rules only a select few will ever be able to put together multi-million-dollar IRAs. There are 43 million IRA owners in the U.S. with total assets of $5.2 trillion. Fewer than 10,000 have more than $5 million, and the GAO seems to have little quarrel with even this group. They tend to be above-average earners past age 65 who had been contributing to their IRA for many years—pretty much exactly as designed.

But just over 1,100 have account values greater than $10 million and only 300 have account values greater than $25 million, the GAO found. “The accumulation of these large IRA balances by a small number of investors stands in contrast to Congress’s aim to prevent the tax-favored accumulation of balances exceeding what is needed for retirement,” the report states.

Officials are now gathering data on the types of assets held in IRAs, including the so-called “carried interest” stake that private equity managers have in the investment funds they run. These stakes, which give them a percentage of a fund’s gain, are another way that a select few manage to sock away multiple millions of dollars in IRAs. No one doubts the data will illustrate that only a privileged few have access to outsized IRA savings. The Romney campaign showed us that three years ago.

Read next: 3 Ways to Have a Happier, Healthier Retirement

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser