MONEY 401(k)s

How to Fix the 401(k) and Income Inequality in One Fell Swoop

A top economic adviser wants to cut the tax break for 401(k) savings for high earners and launch a new government plan with a generous match and low fees.

Two hot-button economic issues appear to be colliding: the failed 401(k) plan and growing income inequality. Both have been garnering headlines, and now a noted expert is tying them together through proposed reform.

Gene B. Sperling, a former White House economic adviser in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, wants to cut the tax advantage of 401(k) contributions to top earners. He also wants to create a government-funded universal 401(k) plan that would incorporate all the best parts of these plans—low fees, safety, a generous match, and automatic enrollment.

Presumably, a government-backed 401(k) plan also would offer an option like deferred annuities, which the industry has been resisting, and an easy way to convert some or all of your 401(k) balance to guaranteed lifetime income upon retirement. Both those provisions have had strong backing from the White House.

In a New York Times op-ed, Sperling blamed an “upside-down tax incentive system” for contributing to income inequality in America, adding “it makes higher-income Americans triple winners and people earning less money triple losers” as they save for retirement.

Currently top earners pay a federal tax rate of 39.6%, which makes their tax deduction for 401(k) contributions more valuable than the deduction for contributions of those in lower tax brackets. Top earners also have more tax-advantaged savings opportunities, and they benefit more from employer matches. The upshot, Sperling asserts, is that the top 5% of earners get more tax relief for saving than the bottom 80%. He proposes a flat 28% tax credit for saving, regardless of income.

His universal 401(k) plan also would skew toward lower income households with a dollar-for-dollar match up to $4,000 a year below certain income thresholds. Higher income households would be capped at 60 cents on the dollar—still about double the average match today.

Sperling isn’t the first to champion a universal 401(k) or fret publicly about income inequality. President Clinton floated universal accounts in 1999. Versions of this government-funded plan exist in parts of Europe, and Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School and author of When I’m Sixty-Four, has been arguing for years for private sector workers to be able to enroll in cost-efficient and professionally managed state-operated retirement programs.

So far the idea hasn’t gotten much traction. The debate in Washington has centered on Social Security and tax reform. Maybe this op-ed from a beltway insider is a sign that 401(k) reform—and income inequality—will heat up as an issue in the coming election cycle.

If so, paying for it all will surely be part of the debate. But not to worry, writes Sperling. Among other possibilities, we could cut the federal estate tax exemption. Currently a married couple can leave $10.7 million to heirs tax-free. Cutting the exemption to $7 million would free up billions to bolster the retirement accounts of lower earners and shore up some of what’s wrong with 401(k) plans today—and take a further whack at income inequality in the process.

Related:

Half of Workers Are on Track to Retire Well—Here’s How to Join Them

Why Your 401(k) Won’t Offer This Promising Retirement Income Option

This Nobel Economist Nails What’s Really Wrong with Your 401(k)

MONEY Financial Planning

The One Time Raiding Your Kid’s College Savings Makes Sense

Broken money jar
Normally, breaking into your college savings accounts is a no-no. Jeffrey Coolidge—Getty Images

It's never a great idea, but in an emergency tapping funds earmarked for education beats sabotaging your retirement plans.

Lauren Greutman felt sick.

She and her husband Mark were about $40,000 in debt, and were having trouble paying their monthly bills. As recent homebuyers, the Syracuse, N.Y. couple were already underwater on their mortgage and getting by on one income as Lauren focused on being a stay-at-home mom.

“We were in a really bad financial position, and just didn’t have the money to make ends meet,” remembers Greutman, now 33 and a mom of four.

There was one pot of money just sitting there: their son’s college savings, about $6,500 at the time. That is when they had to make a tough decision.

“We had to pull money out of the account,” she says. “We thought long and hard about it and felt almost dishonest. But it was either leave it in there, or pay the mortgage and be able to eat.”

It is a quandary faced by parents in dire financial straits: Should you treat your kids’ college savings—often housed in so-called 529 plans—as a sacred lockbox, or as a ready source of funds that may be tapped when necessary.

Precise figures are not available, since those making 529-plan withdrawals do not have to tell administrators whether or not the funds are being used for qualified higher education expenses, according to the College Savings Plans Network. That is a matter between the account owner and the Internal Revenue Service.

TIAA-CREF, which administrates many 529 plans for states, estimates that between 10% to 20% of plan withdrawals are non-qualified and not being used for their intended purpose of covering educational expenses.

It is never a first option to draw college money down early, of course. Private four-year colleges cost an average of $30,094 in tuition and fees for 2013/14, according to the College Board. Since that number will presumably rise much more by the time your toddler graduates from high school, parents need to be stocking those financial cupboards rather than emptying them out.

Joe Hurley, founder of Savingforcollege.com, has a message for stressed-out parents: Don’t beat yourselves up about it.

“The plans were designed to give account owners flexible access to their funds,” Hurley says. “I imagine parents would feel some guilt. But I don’t think they should. After all, it is their money.”

Why the Alternative Might Be Worse

Keep in mind that there are often significant financial penalties involved. With non-qualified distributions from a 529 plan, in most cases you are looking at a 10% penalty on the earnings. Withdrawn earnings will also be treated as income on your tax return, and if you took a state tax deduction on the original investment, withdrawn contributions often count as income as well.

Not ideal, of course. But if your other option for emergency funds is to raid your own retirement accounts, tapping college savings is a last-ditch avenue to consider. That’s not only because you do not want to blow up your own nest egg, but because it could make relative sense tax-wise. And as the saying goes, you can borrow money for college, but not for retirement.

“If you think about it, a parent who has a choice between tapping the 529 and tapping a retirement account might be better off tapping the 529,” says James Kinney, a planner with Financial Pathway Advisors in Bridgewater, N.J.

If the account is comprised of 30% earnings, then only 30% would be subject to tax and penalty, Kinney explains. And that compares favorably to a premature distribution from a 401(k) or IRA, where 100% of the distribution will be subject to taxes plus a penalty.

Lauren Greutman’s story has a happy ending. She and her husband made a pledge to restock their son’s college savings as soon as they were financially able. It is a pledge they kept: Now eight-years-old, their son has a healthy $12,000 growing in his account.

She even runs a site about budgeting and frugal living at iamthatlady.com. Still, the wrenching decision to tap college savings certainly was not easy—especially since other family members had contributed to that account.

“We tried to take emotion out of it, even though we felt so bad,” Greutman says. “Since we didn’t have money for groceries at that point, we knew our family would understand.”

Related: 4 Reasons You Shouldn’t Be Saving for College Just Yet

MONEY 401(k)s

Why Your 401(k) Won’t Offer This Promising Retirement Income Option

More investors are flocking to deferred annuities, which kick in guaranteed income when you're old. But 401(k) plans aren't buying.

Longevity risk—that is, the risk of outliving your retirement savings—is among retirees’ biggest worries these days. The Obama administration is trying to nudge employers to add a special type of annuity to their investment menus that addresses that risk. But here’s the response they’re likely to get: “Meh.”

The U.S. Treasury released rules earlier this month aimed at encouraging 401(k) plans to offer “longevity annuities”—a form of income annuity in which payouts start only after you reach an advanced age, typically 85.

Longevity annuities are a variation of a broader annuity category called deferred income annuities. DIAs let buyers pay an initial premium—or make a series of scheduled payments—and set a date to start receiving income.

Some forms of DIAs have taken off in the retail market, but longevity policies are a hard sell because of the uncertainty of ever seeing payments. And interest in annuities of any sort from 401(k) plan sponsors has been weak.

The Treasury rules aim to change that by addressing one problem with offering a DIA within tax-advantaged plans: namely, the required minimum distribution rules (RMDs). Participants in workplace plans—and individual retirement account owners—must start taking RMDs at age 70 1/2. That directly conflicts with the design of longevity annuities.

The new rules state that so long as a longevity annuity meets certain requirements, it will be deemed a “qualified longevity annuity contract” (QLAC), effectively waiving the RMD requirements, so long as the contract value doesn’t exceed 25% of the buyer’s account balance or $125,000, whichever is less. (The dollar limit will be adjusted for inflation over time.) The rules apply only to annuities that provide fixed payouts—no variable or equity-indexed annuities allowed.

But 401(k) plans just aren’t all that hot to add annuities—of any type. A survey of plans this year by Aon Hewitt, the employee benefits consulting firm, found that just 8% offer annuity options. Among those that don’t, 81% are unlikely to add them this year.

Employers cited worry about the fiduciary responsibility of picking annuity options from the hundreds offered by insurance companies. Another key reason is administrative complication should the plan decide to change record keepers, or if employees change jobs.

“Say your company adds an annuity and you decide to invest in it—but then you shift jobs to an employer without an annuity option,” says Rob Austin, Aon Hewitt’s director of retirement research. “How does the employer deal with that? Do you need to stay in your former employer’s plan until you start drawing on the annuity?”

Employees are showing interest in the topic: A survey this year by the LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute found 80% would like their plans to offer retirement income options. The big trend has been adding financial advice and managed account options, some of which allow workers to shift their portfolios to income-oriented investments at retirement, such as bonds and high-dividend stocks. Some 52% of workplace plans offered managed accounts last year, up from 29% in 2011, Aon Hewitt reports.

“The big difference is the guarantee,” says Austin. “With the annuity, you know for sure what you are going to get paid. With a managed account, the idea is, ‘Let’s plan for you to live to the 80th percentile of mortality, but there’s no guarantee you’ll get there.’”

Outside 401(k)s, the story is different. Some forms of DIAs have seen sharp growth lately as more baby boomers retire. DIA sales hit $2.2 billion in 2013, more than double the $1 billion pace set in 2012, according to LIMRA, an insurance industry research and consulting organization. Sales in the first quarter this year hit $620 billion, 55% ahead of the same period of 2013.

Three-quarters of those sales are inside IRAs, LIMRA says, since taking a distribution to buy an annuity triggers a large, unwanted income tax liability. But the action—so far—has been limited to DIAs that start payment by the time RMDs begin. The new Treasury rules could accelerate growth as retirees roll over funds from 401(k)s to IRAs.

“For some financial advisers, this will be an appealing way to do retirement income planning with a product that lets them go out past age 70 1/2 using qualified dollars,” says Joe Montminy, assistant vice president of the LIMRA Security Retirement Institute. “For wealthier investors, [shifting dollars to an annuity] is also a way to reduce overall RMD exposure.”

Could the trend spill over into workplace plans? Austin doubts it. “I just don’t hear a major thirst from plan sponsors saying this is something we should have in our plan.”

Related:

How You Can Get “Peace of Mind” Income in Retirement

The New 401(k) Income Option That Kicks In When You’re Old

Need Retirement Income? Here’s the Hottest Thing Out There

MONEY Get On The Right Path

Half of Workers Are on Track to Retire Well—Here’s How to Join Them

140618_money_gen_13
iStock

Save 15% of pay for 30 years and you will be fine, a new study shows. Save for longer, and it gets much easier.

The shift from traditional pensions to 401(k) plans hasn’t gone well for most workers. One in two U.S. households are destined for a lifestyle downgrade in retirement, data show, as guaranteed lifetime income from old-style pensions disappears. But new research finds that most families can stay on track to a comfortable retirement by regularly saving 15% of pay over 30 years. Start earlier, and you only need to put away 10%.

The news isn’t all bad if you’re starting late. Even folks past age 50 have time to adjust. But clearly those with the shortest windows to retirement have the steepest hill to climb—and probably need to start factoring in a longer working life and more austere retirement lifestyle right away.

The typical middle-income household headed by someone 50-plus, and with a projected retirement shortfall, would need to boost its savings rate by 29 percentage points to retire comfortably at age 65, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. That would mean saving, say, 39% of every paycheck instead of 10%.

Calling this savings rate “unrealistic,” researchers Alicia H. Munnell, Anthony Webb, and Wenliang Hou conclude in their paper, “A better strategy for these households would be to work longer and cut current and future consumption in order to reduce the required saving rate to a more feasible level.” One thing the paper does not mention is that one in 10 U.S. workers is limited or unable to work due to poor health—and those past age 65 are three times more likely to have this issue, according to the National Health Interview Survey.

On a cheerier note, younger middle-income workers currently on track to fall short of retirement income still have time to realize their dreams by boosting savings just 7 to 13 percentage points (the younger you are, the lower the savings rate needed), research shows. The impact of starting early and letting your savings compound over more years cannot be overstated.

The typical wage earner planning to retire at age 65 in 2040 would need to build a nest egg of $538,000, the paper states. By purchasing an immediate annuity, you would replace 34% of pre-retirement income. Social Security would replace 36% of pre-retirement income—in all giving the household 70% of pre-retirement income, which is considered an acceptable minimum level. To reach this savings goal this household would have to save 15% of every paycheck starting at age 35. But if the household planned to work to age 70—or started saving five years earlier—it would need to save just 6% of every paycheck.

In general, the typical middle-income household must save enough to produce a third of its retirement income. Low-income households need only get a quarter of retirement income from savings. High-income households (with a more expensive lifestyle) need to save enough to produce half their retirement income, the paper found.

Related links:

Why It’s Never Too Late to Fix Your Finances

The Amazing Result of Actually Trying to Save Money

 

MONEY 401(k)s

Why This Popular Retirement Investment May Leave You Poorer

140718_REA_TARGETFUNDS
slobo—Getty Images

Target-date funds are supposed to be simple all-in-one investments, but there's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

Considering my indecision about how to invest my retirement portfolio (see “Do I Really Need Foreign Stocks in My 401(k)?”) you would think there’s an easy solution staring me in the face: target-date funds, which shift their asset mix from riskier to more conservative investments on a fixed schedule based on a specific retirement date.

These funds often come with attractive, trademarked names like “SmartRetirement” and are marketed as “all-in-one” solutions. But while they certainly make intuitive sense, they are not remotely as simple as they sound.

First introduced about two decades ago, the growth of target-date funds was spurred by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which blessed them as the default investment option for employees being automatically enrolled by defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s. And indeed, investing in a target-date fund is certainly better than nothing. But the financial crisis of 2008 raised the first important question about target-date funds when some of them with a 2010 target turned out to be overexposed to equities and lost up to 40% of their value: Are these funds supposed to merely take you up to retirement, or do they take you through it for the next 20 to 30 years?

The answer greatly determines a fund’s “glide path,” or schedule for those allocation shifts. The funds that take you “to” retirement tend to be more conservative, while the “through” funds hold more in stocks well into retirement. Still, even target-date funds bearing the same date and following the same “to” or “through” strategy may have a very different asset allocations. For a solution that’s supposed to be easy, that’s an awful lot of fine print for the average investor to read, much less understand.

Then there is the question of timing for those shifts in asset allocation. Some target-date funds opt for a slow and gradual reduction of stocks (and increase in bonds), which can reduce risk but also reduce returns, since you receive less growth from equities. Others may sharply reduce the stock allocation just a few years before the target date—the longer run in equities gives investors a shot at better returns, but it’s also riskier. Which is right for you depends on how much risk you can tolerate and whether you’d be willing to postpone retirement based on market conditions, as many were forced to do after 2008.

In short, no one particular portfolio is going to meet everyone’s needs, so there’s a lot more to consider about target-date funds than first meets the eye. If I were to go for a target-date fund, I would probably pick one that doesn’t follow a set glide path but is instead “tactically managed” by a portfolio manager in the same manner as a traditional mutual fund. A recent Morningstar report found that “contrary to the academic and industry research that suggests it’s difficult to consistently execute tactical management well, target-date series with that flexibility have generally outperformed those not making market-timing calls.”

Maybe it’s the control freak in me, but I prefer selecting my own assortment of funds instead of using a target-date option where the choices are made for you. Granted, managing my own retirement portfolio was a lot simpler when I was young and had a seemingly limitless appetite for risk. But even as I get older and diversification becomes more important, I still want to be in the driver’s seat. Anyone can pick a target, but there is no one, single, easy way to get there.

Konigsberg is the author of The Truth About Grief, a contributor to the anthology Money Changes Everything, and a director at Arden Asset Management.

Related links:

 

MONEY Savings

Millennials Are Hoarding Cash Because They’re Smarter Than Their Parents

Cash under mattress
Zachary Scott—Getty Images

Sure, young adults could get higher returns by investing in stocks, but many have good reasons to stay safe in cash right now.

Another day another study about the short-comings of Millennials as investors. This time around, Bankrate.com weighs in—data from their latest Financial Security Index show that 39% of 18-29 year-olds choose cash as their preferred way to invest money they won’t touch for least 10 years. That’s three times the percentage that would choose stocks.

“These findings are troubling because Millennials need the returns of stocks to meet their retirement goals,” says Bankrate.com chief financial analyst Greg McBride. “They need to rethink the level of risk they need to take.”

Bankrate.com is not the only group trying to push Millennials out of cash and into stocks. Previous surveys have scolded young adults for “stashing cash under the mattress,” being as “financially conservative as the generation born during the Great Depression,” and more being “less trustful of others”—in particular financial institutions and Wall Street. (You can find these surveys here, here and here.)

These criticisms are way overblown. It’s simply not true that Millennials are uniquely averse to equities—many are investing in stocks, despite their responses to polls. As for cash holdings, keeping a portion of your portfolio liquid is simply common sense, though you can overdo it.

Here’s what’s really going on:

  1. Millennials are not much more risk averse than older generations. In the wake of the financial crisis, investors of all ages have been keeping more of their portfolios in cash—some 40% of assets on average, according to State Street’s research. Baby Boomers held the highest cash levels (43%), followed by Millennials (40%) and Gen X-ers (38%). That’s not a wide spread.
  2. Many Millennials do keep significant stakes in equities. This is especially true of those who hold jobs and have access to 401(k) plans. That’s because they save some 10% of pay on average in their 401(k)s, which is typically funneled into a target-date retirement fund. For someone in their 20s, the average target-date fund invests the bulk of its assets in stocks. Thanks to their early head start in investing, these young adults are an “emerging generation of super savers,” according to Catherine Collinson, president of the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies.
  3. Young adults who lack jobs or 401(k)s need to keep more in cash. Most young people don’t have much in the way of financial cushion. The latest Survey of Consumer Finances found that the average household headed by someone age 35 or younger held only $5,500 in financial assets. That’s less than two months pay for someone earning $40,000 annually, barely enough for a rainy day fund, let alone a long-term investing portfolio. Besides, that cash may be earmarked for other short-term needs, such as student loan repayments (a top priority for many), rent, or more education to qualify for a better-paying job.

There’s no question that young adults will eventually have to funnel more money into stocks to meet their long-term right goals, so in that sense the surveys are right. But many are doing better than their parents did at their age—the typical Millennial starts saving at age 22 vs 35 for boomers. And if many young adults hold more in cash right now because they’re unsure about their job security or ability to pay the bills, there are worse moves to make. After all, it was overconfidence in the markets that led older generations into the financial crisis in the first place.

MONEY 401(k)s

Stock Gains (and Saving) Push 401(k)s to Record Highs

Staying the course has rarely paid off so well as average retirement account balances soar.

The financial crisis is so yesterday. Retirement savings accounts have never been plumper, according to a new survey of 401(k) plans and IRAs at Fidelity Investments.

At mid-year, the average 401(k) balance stood at a record $91,000, up nearly 13% from a year ago. The average IRA balance stood at $92,600, also a record, and up nearly 15% from the previous year.

These figures include all employees in a plan, even those in their first year of saving. Looking just at long-time savers the picture brightens further. Workers who had been active in a workplace retirement plan for at least 10 years had a record average balance of $246,200—a figure that has grown at an average annual rate of 15% for a decade.

Over the past year, the resurgent stock market accounted for 77% of the higher average balance in 401(k) plans, Fidelity said. Ongoing employer and employee contributions accounted for 23% of the gain. The typical worker socks away $9,590 a year—$6,050 from her own contributions and $3,540 from an employer match.

Of course, the financial crisis still weighs on many Americans. Employment has been an ongoing weak spot and wage growth has been all but non-existent. Meanwhile, those in or nearing retirement may have fallen short of their goals after losing a decade of market growth at just the wrong point in their savings cycle. Many had to sell while prices were down.

But the Fidelity data reinforces the value of steady savings over a long period. By contributing through thick and thin, savers were able to offset much of the portfolio damage from the crisis. They not only held firm and enjoyed the market’s robust recovery but also were buying shares when prices were low. They earned a spectacular return on new money put into stocks the last five years. In calendar year 2013 alone, the S&P 500 plus dividends rose 32%.

Despite continuing contributions, savings balances did not rise as fast as the S&P 500 due to plan fees, cash-outs and broad plan exposure to lower-return investments like bonds and cash. Roughly a third of job switchers do not roll over their plan savings; they take the money, often incurring taxes and penalties. The average 401(k) investor has 33% in fixed-income securities.

Related:

 

MONEY Ask the Expert

How to Invest Your First 401(k)

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: I just started my first job after college, and I want to sign up for my company’s 401(k). How should I invest it?

A: By saving in a 401(k) plan while you’re still in your 20s, you give yourself a huge advantage—you’ll actually need to save less money for retirement than someone who gets a later start, thanks to the power of compounding.

But figuring out how to invest that money can be daunting. According to a survey by Charles Schwab, half of people find explanations of their 401(k) investments more confusing than their health care benefits. Another 46% say they don’t know what their best investment choices are, while 34% say they feel a lot of stress about how to allocate their 401(k) dollars. The sheer number of fund choices can also be overwhelming: the typical 401(k) plan offers 19 investment options, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America.

The good news is that when you’re starting out, you can keep it simple, says Jane Young, a fee-only financial planner at It’s Not Just Money in Colorado Springs. If your company offers a target-date fund (nearly 70% do), that can be a smart choice. With a target-date fund, you get an instant all-in-one asset mix that gradually shifts to become more conservative as you approach retirement. A 25-year-old worker who plans to retire at 65 might choose a 2055 target-date fund. It would keep the bulk of its assets in stocks, which provide growth but are more risky than bonds or cash. When you’re young, you can afford to keep more in stocks, since you have decades to recover from bear markets. (If you want to minimize risk, you could opt for a more conservative target-date fund—you don’t have to choose one with your retirement date.)

If your plan doesn’t offer a target-date option, build a portfolio yourself using core funds, such as an S&P 500 stock index fund and an intermediate-term bond fund, says Young. Look for the lowest-fee funds, which will allow more of your money go to work for you. (For more on selecting good, low-cost options, see how we choose our Money 50 list of recommended funds.) A reasonable mix for someone in their twenties: 20% of assets in a bond fund and 80% in stocks. In the equity portion of your portfolio, invest 50% in large company stocks, 25% in international stocks, and 25% in small and mid-size companies.

Ultimately how much you save for retirement is more important than how you invest it. So be sure to put away enough to get your employer’s full matching contribution. Keep increasing your savings rate until you are contributing 10% or more—some investing experts suggest that Millennials save at least 15% of income (including your company match) to ensure a secure retirement. And by diversifying and opting for low-cost funds, you will make the most of your 401(k) plan.

MONEY 401(k)s

Millennials (With Jobs) Are Super Saving Their Way to Retirement

Laptop with cord in shape of piggy bank
Atomic Imagery—Getty Images

Young adults are outpacing Baby Boomers and Gen X when it comes to getting a head start on their 401(k)s.

You may have heard that Millennials are taking saving more seriously than Gen X-ers and Baby Boomers did at their age. But their financial prospects look much worse, given student loan debts, high unemployment, and shaky entitlement programs.

No question, Millennials face steep challenges. But it turns out, twenty-something savers who managed to land jobs (some 74% of this age group) are doing even better than you might have thought—and they’ve built a huge head start toward retirement security.

Those are the findings of a just-released study by Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, which surveyed more than 1,000 Millennials in the work force. “Millennials have seen what happened to their parents, many of whom lost their jobs and savings in the financial crisis—and they are taking steps to avoid a similar outcome,” says Catherine Collinson, president of the Transamerica center. “We’re seeing an emerging generation of retirement super savers.”

Millennials have also benefitted from the widespread adoption of 401(k) auto enrollment, automatic contribution hikes, and target date funds, Collinson says. Some 71% of Millennials who are offered a 401(k) end up joining their plan. By being enrolled into 401(k)s as soon as they start their jobs (unless they opt out), many Millennials are being nudged onto the retirement savings path sooner than previous generations.

How much sooner? Some 70% of Millennials started saving for retirement at an unprecedented young age, just 22, the survey found. By contrast, the average Boomer began saving at age 35, while Gen Xers got started at 27.

Transamerica’s findings show that Millennials are contributing an average 8% of salary to their 401(k) plans; adding an employee match, they’re stashing a solid 10% of income into their accounts. Those findings echo earlier surveys of young adults, which have found that Millennials are saving more.

Those contribution rates are especially impressive, given that Gen X savers are putting in just 7% of pay before the match on average. Boomers are saving at a higher rate, 10% before the match, but they also have higher pay on average and are facing a looming retirement date. Some 27% of Millennials also said they raised the amount they contributed in the past 12 months vs. just 7% who decreased it.

Thanks to this early savings start, Millennials have amassed an average $32,000 in their 401(k) accounts, according to Transamerica. And unlike older generations they are relying heavily on professional advice to invest their money—some 62% use a managed account or target date fund, vs just 47% of Boomers and 56% of Gen X-ers.

Of course, most young adults have plenty of shorter-term financial worries. Some 27% say their top priority is covering basic living experiences, and 27% say they want to pay off debt. Only 16% listed saving for retirement as a top concern. Complicating matters, three in 10 expect to provide support for their aging parents or other family members.

Even so, Millennials are optimistic about their retirement prospects. A whopping 60% expect to retire at age 65 or sooner. That’s a stark contrast to the majority of Baby Boomers (65%) and Gen X (54%), who plan to work past retirement or never retire. But Millennials share the expectations of older generations in other ways—half plan to work the job in retirement, either full time or part time. When it comes to staying busy in retirement, there’s not much of a generation gap.

MONEY target date funds

Target-Date Funds Try Timing the Market

Managers of target-date retirement funds seek to boost returns with tactical moves. Will their bets blow up?

Mutual fund companies are trying to juice returns of target-date funds by giving their managers more leeway to make tactical bets on stock and bond markets, even though this could increase the volatility and risk of the widely held retirement funds.

It’s an important shift for the $651 billion sector known for its set-it-and-forget-it approach to investing. Target-date funds typically adjust their mix of holdings to become more conservative over time, according to fixed schedules known as “glide paths.”

The funds take their names from the year in which participating investors plan to retire, and they are often used as a default investment choice by employees who are automatically enrolled in their company 401(k) plans. Their assets have grown exponentially.

The funds’ goal is to reduce the risk investors take when they keep too much of their money in more volatile investments as they approach retirement, or when they follow their worst buy-high, sell-low instincts and trade too often in retirement accounts.

So a move by firms like BlackRock Inc., Fidelity Investments and others to let fund managers add their own judgment to pre-set glide paths is significant. The risk is that their bets could blow up and work against the long-term strategy—hurting workers who think their retirement accounts are locked into safe and automatic plans.

Fund sponsors say they aren’t putting core strategies in danger—many only allow a shift in the asset allocation of 5% in one direction or another—and say they actually can reduce risk by freeing managers to make obvious calls.

“Having a little leeway to adjust gives you more tools,” said Daniel Oldroyd, portfolio manager for JPMorgan Chase & Co’s SmartRetirement funds, which have had tactical management since they were introduced in 2006.

GROWING TACTICAL APPROACH

BlackRock last month introduced new target-date options, called Lifepath Dynamic, that allow managers to tinker with the glide path-led portfolios every six months based on market conditions.

Last summer, market leader Fidelity gave managers of its Pyramis Lifecycle strategies—used in the largest 401(k) plans—a similar ability to tweak the mix of assets they hold.

Now it is mulling making the same move in its more broadly held Fidelity target-fund series, said Bruce Herring, chief investment officer of Fidelity’s Global Asset Allocation division.

Legg Mason Inc says it will start selling target-date portfolios for 401(k) accounts within a few months whose allocations can be shifted by roughly a percentage point in a typical month.

EARLY BETS PAYING OFF

So far, some of the early tactical target-date plays have paid off. Those funds that gave their managers latitude on average beat 61% of their peers over five years, according to a recent study by Morningstar analyst Janet Yang. Over the same five years, funds that held their managers to strict glide paths underperformed.

But the newness of the funds means they have not been tested fully by a market downturn.

“So far it’s worked, but we don’t have a full market cycle,” Yang cautioned.

The idea of putting human judgment into target-date funds raises issues similar to the long-running debate over whether active fund managers can consistently outperform passive index products, said Brooks Herman, head of research at BrightScope, based in San Diego, which tracks retirement assets.

“It’s great if you get it right, it stings when you don’t. And, it’s really hard to get it right year after year after year,” he said.

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